You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.
You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
Europäische Erhebung zum Umgang mit digitalen Methoden in den Geisteswissenschaften - Ergebnisse der Erhebung
Europäische Erhebung zum Umgang mit digitalen Methoden in den Geisteswissenschaften - Ergebnisse der Erhebung
Die europäische Umfrage zu wissenschaftlichen Praktiken und digitalen Bedürfnissen in den Geisteswissenschaften ist das Produkt eines kollaborativen Unterfangens europäischer Forschender, die mit der DiMPOArbeitsgruppe zusammenarbeiten. Sie wurde als überregionale Längsschnittstudie konzipiert, die in einem europäischen Rahmen nach einigen Jahren jeweils wiederholt werden soll. Ziel der Studie ist es, einen evidenzbasierten Ausblick über wissenschaftliche Praktiken sowie die Bedürfnisse und Einstellungen europäischer DH-Forschender zu digitalen Ressourcen, Methoden und Werkzeuge zu geben. Die Ergebnisse der ersten Studie (März 2015 abgeschlossen) werden in einem von mehreren Autoren und Autorinnen verfassten Bericht zusammengetragen, der vergleichende und konsolidierte Analysen sowie sechs Länderprofile enthält. Eine neue Erhebung ist für 2017/18 geplant. Weitere Informationen: bit.ly/scholarlypractices Deutsche Übersetzung: Beat Immenhauser (Schweizerische Akademie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften) ---------------- The highlights of the European survey on scholarly practices and digital needs in the arts and humanities carried out by DARIAH Digital Methods and Practices Observatory WG (DiMPO). This research is the outcome of collaborative work of European researchers from different countries, working within the DiMPO Working Group. It has been designed as a multiregional longitudinal survey, to be conducted online across European countries and to be repeated every few years. Its aim is to provide an evidence-based outlook of scholarly practices, needs and attitudes of European humanities researchers towards digital resources, methods and tools across space and time. Results of the first run of the survey (completed in March 2015) are presented in a multi-authored report, which includes comparative and consolidated analyses, as well as five country profiles. A new run is planned for 2017-18. For more information, see bit.ly/scholarlypractices. German translation: Beat Immenhauser (Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences)
- Aix-Marseille University France
- Université Paris Diderot France
- Czech Academy of Sciences Czech Republic
- Institute of Contemporary History Slovenia
- Institute of Contemporary History Czech Republic
Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences, DiMPO, [SHS.INFO]Humanities and Social Sciences/Library and information sciences, arts, methodology, research practices, methods, humanities, Digital Humanities, Practices & Representations, tools, survey, Switzerland, DARIAH
Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences, DiMPO, [SHS.INFO]Humanities and Social Sciences/Library and information sciences, arts, methodology, research practices, methods, humanities, Digital Humanities, Practices & Representations, tools, survey, Switzerland, DARIAH
Dritte Wahl Zweite Wahl Erste Wahl 1. Einführung N. Chatzidiakou & C. Dallas 2. Methodik und Analyse C. Dallas & N. Chatzidiakou 3. Konsolidierte Resultate N. Chatzidiakou & C. Dallas 4. Länderprofil: Österreich G. Schneider & W. Scholger 5. Länderprofil: Griechenland N. Chatzidiakou & C. Dallas 6. Länderprofil: Litauen I. Kelpšienė 7. Länderprofil: Polen M. Maryl 8. Länderprofil: Serbien T. Tasovac & N. Chatzidiakou 9. Länderprofil: Schweiz B. Immenhauser 10. Komparative Resultate Alle Autorinnen und Autoren 11. Schlussfolgerungen C. Dallas
2 Research products, page 1 of 1
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).0 popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.Average influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).Average impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.Average visibility views 202 download downloads 59 citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).0 popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.Average influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).Average impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.Average Powered byBIP!- 202views59downloads