• DARIAH EU
• Open Access close
• Publications close
• Research data close
• Article close
• EU close
• English close
• DARIAH EU close

Storytelling tools aim to leverage the technological restraints of creating and sharing digital narratives, allowing non-expert users to deploy projects and populate them with custom-made content. In other words, storytelling tools aim at giving space for diverse narratives to emerge and spread in the digital sphere. As facilitators of imagining and communicating ideas, they may also be considered incubators of rethinking societal challenges. The three storytelling tools developed in the framework of the HORIZON2020 SO-CLOSE project allow users to create and publish multimedia, multilingual and accessible digital cultural heritage projects. In this demonstration, we present the three tools: the interactive story map, the immersive web doc and the participatory virtual exhibition. We showcase the publishing interfaces (front-end), the authoring and content management system (back-end) and a use-case application (project). The present prototypes will be publicly released by the end of the project (December 2022). SO-CLOSE is a three-year project that aims at enhancing social cohesion through sharing the cultural heritage of forced migrations. Based on theories of cultural heritage-making, the project works towards exposing the commonalities of past and present experiences with the mediation of innovative digital tools and collaborative approaches. The act of storytelling becomes a premise for the potential of a better understanding between local communities and newcomers. In this context, the three tools are conceived and developed to empower cultural institutions and communities in building and publishing their digital stories. To achieve this, end-users were intensively involved in the design process, through participatory methodologies. Starting from a state-of-the-art tools analysis, the project collaborated with cultural institutions, NGOs, refugees and asylum seekers, local communities, researchers and policy makers in the requirements elicitation process (interviews and focus groups), co-design workshops and validation surveys. Overall, the users of the storytelling tools can create projects based on journeys, chapters or exhibitions, use modules that can be selected, shuffled and repeated, populate them with their own content – including 360 videos and images and 3D models – and carry out crowdsourcing calls. The projects are published online, with integrated features for accessibility, interactivity and data interoperability with other repositories. The use-case that will illustrate the tools application will be a pilot project of Greek Forum of Refugees, co-created together with three different refugee communities living in Greece and the Contemporary Social History Archives. posters & demos: 142

While remote collaboration is not new in DH, it has had a profound impact on the DH research, education and community in the past couple of years due to the health, security and financial crises. If absorbed appropriately, it can also prove beneficial in overcoming the various environmental, geographical, mobility and other barriers in the future, making DH more resilient, inclusive and diverse. This is why the main objective of the proposed workshop is to develop a better understanding of the dynamics on the Digital Humanities work floor when researchers, teachers and/or professionals with different areas of competence engage in remote collaboration to solve humanities research questions, and to explore how education and training of humanities scholars, cultural heritage professionals and technical experts can help making remote collaboration across disciplines more efficient and effective, more creative and innovative, and more inclusive and rewarding for all participants. To this end, we invite submissions reporting on all aspects and stages of engaging in remote collaborative research and teaching in DH, including the obstacles encountered and solutions found. We are also welcoming position papers on the role of research infrastructures to better facilitate remote collaboration in DH.

John Unsworth (2000) proposed a tentative list of scholarly primitives, and although he made a reservation that it was not meant to be exhaustive, one omission is striking, namely the exclusion of communicating. It is even more visible once one realises that all the examples he provides in the paper of comparison IBabble), linking (Blake Archive), or sampling (VRML visualisation of Dante’s Inferno) have the indispensable communication component attached to them. The aim of this presentation is two-fold. First of all, we will reclaim the role of communication as one of the fundamental functional primitives, crucial in all stages of the research workflow. To use Unsworth’s nomenclature, communication takes advantage of the additive characteristics of scholarly primitives and enters into combinations with all other scholarly primitives. Secondly, right after reestablishing the communication as a scholarly primitive we will swiftly proceed to problematise the notion of its universality for all disciplines through exploration of the specificity of scholarly communication in the humanities. We will achieve that using New Panorama of Polish Literature (NPLP.pl) as a case-study, outlining the relevant digital infrastructure for the humanities. It has long been suggested that communication should be seen as a fundamental element of the research workflow, rather than an activity running somewhat separate to the research practice (Latour and Woolgar 1986; Garvey 1979; Galison and Galison 1997; Nielsen 2011). Recently this idea wass reinforced by Hillyer et al. (2017) who describe open science as “opening of the entire research cycle” and include communication as one of its key elements. It means that dissemination is no longer perceived as the final stage of a research process but becomes an integral part of all scholarly activities. New digital methods and tools (Dallas et al. 2017), including electronic communication and social media (Kjellberg 2010), facilitate this process. allowing scholars to communicate and collaborate with each other and the wider audience quickly and efficiently at all stages of their work. This also includes intermediary results of the work, including raw and secondary data (Castelli, Manghi, and Thanos 2013). The incorporation of communication into all stages of the research workflow also means that choosing a certain communication strategy is obviously influenced by the perceived goal, but also the goal influences other phases of the research process. This feedback loop more precisely on the example of NPLP, a research infrastructure for literary scholars enabling the creation of extended, multimedia monographs and presenting scholarly arguments through linking text with image, visualisation, map and video content. Yet, Creating a new digital collection forces researchers to rethink how their work is presented, categorised and displayed . For instance in "Postmodern Sienkiewicz" collection (http://nplp.pl/en/kolekcja/postmodern-sienkiewicz/) authors divided their articles into shorter fragments with additional iconography allowing for non-linear reading and access through image-interface. These activities required additional work on the stage of data collection, analysis and interpretation. In conclusion we will tackle upon the question remains to what extent such communication practices are universal for all sciences and what could be treated as reserved for the humanities in the spirit of Diltheyan disctinction between explaining (in sciences) and understanding (in the humanities). {"references": ["Castelli, D., P. Manghi, and C. Thanos. 2013. 'A Vision towards Scientific Communication Infrastructures: On Bridging the Realms of Research Digital Libraries and Scientific Data Centers'. International Journal on Digital Libraries 13 (3\u20134): 155\u201369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-013-0106-7.", "Dallas, Costis, Nephelie Chatzidiakou, Agiatis Benardou, Michael Bender, Aur\u00e9lien Berra, Claire Clivaz, John Cunningham, et al. 2017. 'European Survey on Scholarly Practices and Digital Needs in the Arts and Humanities - Highlights Report'. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.260101.", "Galison, Peter, and Joseph Pellegrino University Professor Peter Galison. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. University of Chicago Press.", "Garvey, WILLIAM D. 1979. 'CHAPTER 1 - The Role of Scientific Communication in the Conduct of Research and the Creation of Scientific Knowledge'. In Communication: The Essence of Science, edited by WILLIAM D. Garvey, 1\u201339. Pergamon. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-023344-4.50006-4.", "Hillyer, Rebecca, Alejandro Posada, Denisse Albornoz, Leslie Chan, and Angela Okune. 2017. 'Framing a Situated and Inclusive Open Science: Emerging Lessons from the Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network'. 2017.", "Kjellberg, Sara. 2010. 'I Am a Blogging Researcher: Motivations for Blogging in a Scholarly Context'. First Monday 15 (8). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i8.2962.", "Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press.", "Nielsen, Michael A. 2011. Reinventing Discovery\u202f: The New Era of Networked Science. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9517.html.", "Unsworth, John. 2000. 'Scholarly Primitives: What Methods Do Humanities Researchers Have in Common, and How Might Our Tools Reflect This?' In . King's College London. http://people.brandeis.edu/~unsworth/Kings.5-00/primitives.html."]}

OPERAS Innovation Lab provides targeted guidance for scholars seeking to disseminate their outputs in an innovative way. This poster presents three case studies of workflows for innovative scholarly communication: 1) toolkit/anthology; 2) interdisciplinary online journal; 3) software services. The workflows will serve as blueprints for SSH scholars.

The Skills Gap Analysis, a recent survey among scholars describes the current distribution of (self-attested) practical text-processing skills and scholars' despair from the necessary skillset, as well as a perceived absence of "an entry point in(to) CLS education". We argue that corpus analysis is the entry point and why.

The European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI) portal website aims to aggregate digitally available archival descriptions concerning the Holocaust. This portal is actually a meta-catalogue, or an information aggregator, whose biggest goal is to have up-to-date information by means of building sustainable data pipelines between EHRI and its content providers. Just like in similar archival information aggregators (e.g. Archives Portal Europe or Monasterium), the XML-based metadata standard Encoded Archival Description (EAD) plays a key role. The article presents how EADs are imported into the portal, mainly thanks to the Open Archive Initiative protocols.

The findings reported here have been obtained in the framework of CLS INFRA’s Work Package 3 concerned with “Methodological Considerations of Computational Literary Studies” (WP3). The overarching objective of WP3 is to identify, document and show-case current shared practices in CLS research. This objective supports several purposes, among them guiding infrastructure development, defining training opportunities, and consolidating the CLS community. Specifically, one can deduct infrastructure requirements from such findings and feed them to other work packages within the project, in order to ensure that decisions taken when designing a research infrastructure for the CLS community are informed by these requirements.1 Also, such a documentation of current shared practices can help design a useful training programme both for scholars who are newly entering the field and for more experienced researchers. In addition, it can help consolidate the CLS community by making shared research practices visible. Within WP3, the first step to identify, document and show-case best practices in CLS research is to capture the current state of the art in terms of widespread research practices in CLS. Task 3.1 on the “Baseline Methodological User Needs Analysis” is devoted to this aim.

While the calls for reproduction studies in Computational Literary Studies (CLS) have become louder, practical aspects, especially the interplay of the components involved in the research process (code, data, environments, infrastructures, etc.) proves to be a hurdle for reproducing research. We present a way to fully reproducible research using a Docker-based approach: We exemplarily implemented it for a network-analytic study on a corpus of about 3,000 theater plays derived from the DraCor project. We demonstrate that the use of highly portable, self-contained digital artifacts (Docker images) containing runnable research environments not only allow for a full reproduction of the study, but also offer ways to implement different scenarios of repeating research (e.g. same code, different data).