Digital Humanities as Innovation: ‘constant revolution’ or ‘moving to the suburbs’?
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•434 views
Andrea Scharnhorst & Sally Wyatt Paper given at the "New Trends in eHumanities" Research Meeting of the eHumanities group, 4 June 2015 Digital Humanities as Innovation: ‘constant revolution’ or ‘moving to the suburbs’?
![…., by the rapid improvement of all instruments of
[knowledge] production, by the immensely
facilitated means of communication, draws all, even
the most [hermeneutic] into civilization. The cheap
prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery
with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with
which it forces the [humanists’] intensely obstinate
hatred of [numbers/positivism] to capitulate. It
compels all [humanists] on pain of extinction, to
adopt the [computational] mode of [knowledge]
production; it compels them to introduce what it
calls civilization into their midst, that is, to become
[computational] themselves. In one word, it creates
a world after its own image . . .]()
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (13)
Similar to Digital Humanities as Innovation: ‘constant revolution’ or ‘moving to the suburbs’?
Similar to Digital Humanities as Innovation: ‘constant revolution’ or ‘moving to the suburbs’? (20)
More from Andrea Scharnhorst
More from Andrea Scharnhorst (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Digital Humanities as Innovation: ‘constant revolution’ or ‘moving to the suburbs’?
- 1. Andrea Scharnhorst & Sally Wyatt 4 June 2015 Digital Humanities as Innovation: ‘constant revolution’ or ‘moving to the suburbs’?
- 2. …., by the rapid improvement of all instruments of [knowledge] production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most [hermeneutic] into civilization. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the [humanists’] intensely obstinate hatred of [numbers/positivism] to capitulate. It compels all [humanists] on pain of extinction, to adopt the [computational] mode of [knowledge] production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, that is, to become [computational] themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image . . .
- 3. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. [Disciplinary] one- sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
- 5. Why is the emergence of new fields so attractive a topic? PRICE, D. J. (1965). NETWORKS OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS. Science (New York, N.Y.), 149, 510–515. doi:10.1126/science.149.3683.510 - Identity and self-perception of science/academia: your field, both your battlefield and your castle - Education and training – what is the core body of literature in a field? - New ideas, new fields, scientific progress and economic wealth - Optimization of public spending of (fundamental) research
- 6. Analytic frames for a new scientific field Funding, university faculties, projects, start-upsFunding, university faculties, projects, start-ups Methods, textbooks, courses, chairsMethods, textbooks, courses, chairs Self-organized, autonomous academia Norms, values, behavior, institutions What are legitimate questions and answers? Who is recognized for valuable contributions? What are the appropriate places to talk and publish? What are the most visible institutions? Self-organized, autonomous academia Norms, values, behavior, institutions What are legitimate questions and answers? Who is recognized for valuable contributions? What are the appropriate places to talk and publish? What are the most visible institutions? Potential traces: researchers, publications, journals, books, courses, conferences, funding, chairs, …..
- 7. The ideal-typical model of the emergence of a new field "Diffusionofideas" by Tungsten - self-made based on Rogers, E. (1962) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, London, NY, USA.. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diffusionofideas.PNG#/media/File:Diffusionofideas.PNG Bruckner, E., Ebeling, W., & Scharnhorst, A. (1989). Stochastic dynamics of instabilities in evolutionary systems. System Dynamics Review, 5(2), 176–191. doi:10.1002/sdr.4260050206
- 8. The ideal-typical case study of the emergence of a new field – Burger/Budjoso’s study of the field of Chemical Oscillations Maria Burger, Ernö Bujdosó “Oscillating chemical reactions as an example of the development of a subfield of science” In: OSCILLATIONS AND TRAVELLING WAVES IN CHEMICAL SYSTEMS, Ed. By R.J. Field; M. Burger, Wiley, 1984, pp. 565-604
- 9. The rise of Digital Humanities – where are we? "Diffusionofideas" by Tungsten - self-made based on Rogers, E. (1962) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, London, NY, USA.. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diffusionofideas.PNG#/media/File:Diffusionofideas.PNG - Reference system: global/national/local - How are Digital Humanities defined? – Boundaries of the field - Data? ?
- 11. The rise of Digital Humanities Melissa Terras – Quantifying Digital Humanities Melissa Terras started a data collection 2011, see her blog http://melissaterras.blogspot.nl/2011/11/stats-and-digital-humanities.html Part of the Infographic
- 12. EINS 1st PLENARY DH in WorldCat (ArticleFirst) Digital libraries Science, Computer Science, ontologies Many different humanities fields Prominently language & Literary studies The rise of Digital Humanities Akdag, et al., EINS Conf
- 13. The rise of Digital Humanities Growth of publications on topic DH OR Humanities computing including articles citing them – Web of Science
- 14. The rise of Digital Humanities – own studies Growth of DH courses according to the DARIAH course registry
- 15. The rise of Digital Humanities – own studies Growth of projects belonging to DH in the Netherlands - NARCIS 320 projects
- 16. The rise of Digital Humanities – own studies Growth of projects belonging to DH in the Netherlands - Crowdsourced 95 projects
- 17. The rise of Digital Humanities – own studies Growth of projects belonging to DH in the Netherlands – a sample of 152 152 projects
- 18. The rise of Digital Humanities – growth curves - lessons • Different sources indicate growth – this is not that surprising. • To be able to use growth curves to discuss in which stage are DH we would need many more data points. • Still, what we measure crucially depends on how we define the boundaries of the field: • Bibliometric measures do not even give definite answers for journal-based fields. There are many perspectives on what constitutes a field! • We don’t have one bibliography, or one database. We also see that by creating a database we actually define the field - this is evidence for the power of classifications! • DH is a field which has fully embraced digital scholarship: blogs, mailing lists play an important role, digital corpora and infrastructures alike. We can monitor some activities, but need to be aware that we never can really ‘measure’ the field.
- 19. A growth model for Digital Humanities as thought experiment
- 20. Conclusion and discussion (I) - “Digital Humanities” is an established term, and conferences, journals, centers, courses etc. seem to indicate that there is a new field. - What constitutes a field? - What kind of data sources could you imagine to trace the field? - Where do you think we are on the S-curve? - What do you think: will DH remain one field different from other humanities, or will it be absorbed into humanities, when all humanities become digital?
- 21. "Diffusionofideas" by Tungsten - self-made based on Rogers, E. (1962) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, London, NY, USA.. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diffusionofideas.PNG#/media/File:Diffusionofideas.PNG XX Where are we?
- 22. Conclusion and discussion (II) - Depending on which phase we perceive the field to be in, what are the implications for science policy? - Do we still need protected niches ? - We seem to have larger networks now. What do we need to make full use of them? - Do we need domain-specific information services and if so which? - What topics/areas which have not been funded (or underfunded) should be funded? - What kind of projects should be funded, and what kind of positions? - Do we need another round of digitization, tooling, education, …?
- 23. References and acknowledgements We would like to thank Almila Akdag, Linda Reijnhoudt, Stef Scagliola, Hendrik Smeer, Barbara Safradin for their contributions to this presentation. - Wyatt, S., Millen, D., eds.: Meaning and Perspectives in the Digital Humanities. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (2014) https://pure.knaw.nl/portal/files/894428/white_paper_web_1_.pdf - Koopman, R., Wang, S., Scharnhorst, A., Englebienne, G.: Ariadne's thread: Interactive navigation in a world of networked information. In: CHI'15 Extended Abstracts. (2015) http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.04358 - Akdag Salah, A.A., Scharnhorst, A., Leydesdorff, L.: Mapping the growth of digital humanities. In: Digital Humanities Conference (DH2010), Kings College, London, UK (June 2010) - Leydesdorff, L., Akdag Salah, A.A.: Maps on the basis of the arts & humanities citation index: The journals Leonardo and Art journal versus digital humanities as a topic. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology 61(4) (2010) - Wyatt, S., Leydesdorf, L.: e-humanities or digital humanities: Is that the question? In: Digital Humanities Workshop. (2013) - Lucio-Arias, D., & Scharnhorst, A. (2012). Mathematical Approaches to Modeling Science from an Algorithmic- Historiography Perspective. In A. Scharnhorst, K. Börner, & P. van den Besselaar (Eds.), Models of Science Dynamics (pp. 23–66). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23068-4_2 - Bruckner, E., Ebeling, W., & Scharnhorst, A. (1990). The application of evolution models in scientometrics. Scientometrics, 18(1-2), 21–41. doi:10.1007/BF02019160
Editor's Notes
- The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, that is, to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image . . . And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
- From Marx & Engels, Communist Manifesto – substituting bourgeosie,
- Melvin Pollner (1991) Left of Ethnomethodology: The Rise and Decline of Radical Reflexivity American Sociological Review Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 370-380 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2096110
- Science history books have been written about the emergence of new ideas. Science and technology studies have developed specific techniques: participatory observation/laboratory studies to unravel the mechanisms behind new ideas on a micro-level. Since the ability to count publications and citations more systematically due to innovations as the Science Citation Index countless studies in bibliometrics have been published about the emergence of new fields, the prediction of breakthrough research, hot areas, etc. 2010 Diana Lucio Arias (a PhD student of Loet Leydesdorff) and Andrea followed the ‘destiny’ of different classical papers in scientometrics, one of them being Derek de Solla Price Science paper on “Networks of Scientific Papers” from 1965. A citation classics if it comes to ‘measure’ new fields, with an unbroken attention. The HIteCitegraph shows a dense network of highly cited papers connecting back to Price – until 2005. In total, up to May 24, we find about 1000 papers citing Price and they all together get cited from about 25k papers. This is just one example! Why is this so? First of all, a new field this has to do with you, your daily life, your identity as a researcher, also gaining your bread eventually; new ideas emerge in your brain but they manifest (and further get shaped) themselves as research by communication (informally and formally). In short: to which field you belongs, and if you belongs to something new has to do with Identity and self-perception of science/academia: your field is both your battle field and your castle. Inner academic processes of setting norms and values do not only matter in and for the present. Decisions are made about what belongs to the core body of knowledge, which chairs are established, which courses are taught, which profile of an academic education is defined. So, will you get a PhD in history, or in digital history? That might be important for your further career. This influences your career chances but it also influences the field/group/community as a whole Education and training – what is the core body of literature in a field? Science/Academia does not happen in isolation it is part of society, and it bases economically on public funding, so there is a permanent discourse about New ideas, new fields, scientific progress and economic wealth Optimization of public spending of (fundamental) research One could say: the one has more to do with the inner life of science, the other with its boundary conditions. Summary of it -> next slide By the way the paper of Derek de Solla Price is as much about bibliographic means to trace research fronts, as it is about the research fronts itself. He writes “I believe it is the existence of a research front, in this sense, that distinguishes the sciences from the rest of scholarship, and, because of it, I propose that one of the major tasks of statistical analysis is to determine the mechanism that enables science to cumulate so much faster than nonscience that it produces a literature crisis.” I think in the meantime this problem holds for all scholarship!
- The manifestation of a new field, the frames to analyze it, gives us also pointers to potential traces to measure it quantitatively and qualitatively
- One model which is very popular to describe the emergence of a new scientific field is the diffusion model. Everett Rogers developed a model for the diffusion of innovation which bases on the so-called logistic equation. But the same model has been also applied to the growth of a new idea in academia – Goffman need to be named here, the adopters in science are researchers ‘infected’ by new ideas. Rogers model: The basic growth mechanisms is a growth rate proportional to the number of adopters, because the number of adopters is limited, the growth is saturated. Interestingly, Rogers also discussed the importance for communication (networks) to make this growth happening. The blue curve represents the yearly increase of adopters, the yellow curve is the cumulative number of adopters. Mathematically, the blue curve is the first derivative of the yellow one. There are specific points, like the one between the phase of early majority and late majority, the turning point when the growth becomes saturated. A related interpretation is that the growth of one group of adopters is coupled with the decline of another group of adopters. That a new technology/innovation compete against an existing one in a system of finite size, and so the growth of the one is mirrored by the decline of the other, or at least their shares are mirrors of each other. – own model So far the theory? Do we observe those kind of growth curves in science? Yes we do!
- They did everything a bibliometrical analysis should do: growth of papers, growth of authors, relationship between theory/experiment, different collaborative groups, citation flows and relations to other fields, geographic distribution – their primary source a bibliography! There is no bibliography about digital humanities , but could we reconstruct a similar kind of growth curve (or curves), and look into their characteristics to determine, where DH is?
- To use the growth curve model as a point of reference we need to determine about which system we talk: The KNAW? The Netherlands, Benelux, Europe, the world. What is the topical area into which DH diffuses? The Humanities or Humanities/Social Sciences/Information Sciences – the latter because we see both Computer scientists and Librarians at DH conferences. Depending on the choice of this geographic and topical boundaries we can than make an estimate of the whole size of the system in terms of researchers, publications, number of journals, number of courses and students, numbers of chairs and so on “Digital Humanities (DH) are often dened as research and teaching activities which combine computing and information technologies with scholarly practices in humanities elds. But, current aspirations of DH go far beyond methodolog- ical innovation. A White Paper written to support the foundation of a new center lists as challenges: \1) transformational progress in humanities research and understanding to address societal challenges, 2) signicant improvements in algorithms and computational instruments that deal with heterogeneous, com- plex, and social data, and 3) societal benets through novel understandings of language, culture, and history." (p.8) [12]. With such aspirations the group of possible members of the community is large: scholars in humanities elds and in computer sciences, those involved in education, science and education policy makers, and basically every citizen.” Second, the definition of a scientific field is a moving target. There is not one method which can without ambiguity determine what a scientific field is. Looking at formal communication, citation networks, co-word maps, collaboration networks, they all produce different perspective of the social and cognitive organisation of the sciences. We also know from bibliometric studies that ‘labels’ change over time. What is currently named as DH, was called Humanities computing once, or carried even more different names. With digitization of source material (digital collections), the internet, and digital technologies becoming mundane, there is almost now research which is not eResearch, digital scholarship, and this holds also for the humanities. So, parallel to the emergence of new methods and techniques, new identity and communities which label themselves as digital humanities, the rest of the humanities does not stands still. Will eventually all humanities become digital, will than new labels/names be chosen as identifiers for special groups/fields/specialties?
- Credo, we miss proper data sources, read her blog, the data collection behind this famous Infographics reads like a detective story. There are not so many quantitative studies yet, more studies to define DH, by interviews, by participatory observation, from the perspective of development of computer based methods and tools, from perspective of librarians as data provider
- Candidate to be skipped Ariadne search into ArticleFirst a database from OCLC gives us an indication which journals are involved and based on this which fields are involved, not so surprising Indication to where to look for data
- We see some growth, candidate to be skipped
- Candidate to be skipped
- The growth curves of publication behind the overlay maps. Growth of publications with the topic “Digital Humanities OR Humanities computing” (360) and all papers citing them (in total 567 in all databases of the Web of Science) May 24 retrieved. Still exponential growth Global, and scientific formal literature
- Something is growing here also, but the sharp rise could also be an artifact of the establishment of the registry. The creation of the database started in June 2014!
- I propose to present three curves. The one I already have shows for 320 projects when they started. We retrieved those projects by asking which projects are run by staff with expertise in Humanities AND Computer. sciences.
- This graph counts the projects starting in year x from Barbara’s list (96) projects, which came over a google form. Crowdsourced = messy data
- For 37 projects we have a start date but no end date, and those are counted as running for a year. Projects can be of different size!
- We know from science history which anecdotal evidence belongs to which phase. There seems to be an indication that we are at some turning point.
- I propose to have some bullet points here. Maybe split it into two slides.
- My bet is that we are somewhere where the stars are ;-) “we are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars” Oscar Wilde
- I propose to have some bullet points here. Maybe split it into two slides.