"Here be dragons": Open Access to Research Data in the Humanities

Wuttke, Ulrike

doi:10.5281/zenodo.2630155

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Idle resources such as researchers' image collections locked away on personal computers or offices, which have until now been difficult to commodify, will no longer be wasted (Open Research Data Task Force, 2018). This "open research" paradigm is expressed in different ways in research strategies, recommendations, and data management plans (Harrower et al, 2020;Poole & Garwood, 2020;Wuttke, 2019). Everyone seems to agree that:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The days of keeping our research results to ourselves are over. ( Carlos Moedas, Commissioner for Research, European Commission, 2016, p. 35) Also, scholars in the humanities, whose areas of investigation are not usually categorized in terms of "data," are now expected to share their research material in ways that make it reusable and scalable (Earley-Spadoni, 2017;Given & Willson, 2018;Trace & Karadkar, 2017;Wuttke, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Open research data repositories: Practices, norms, and metadata for sharing images

Hansson

Dahlgren

2021

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open research data repositories are promoted as one of the cornerstones in the open research paradigm, promoting collaboration, interoperability, and largescale sharing and reuse. There is, however, a lack of research investigating what these sharing platforms actually share and a more critical interface analysis of the norms and practices embedded in this datafication of academic practice is needed. This article takes image data sharing in the humanities as a case study for investigating the possibilities and constraints in 5 open research data repositories. By analyzing the visual and textual content of the interface along with the technical means for metadata, the study shows how the platforms are differentiated in terms of signifiers of research paradigms, but that beneath the rhetoric of the interface, they are designed in a similar way, which does not correspond well with the image researchers' need for detailed metadata. Combined with the problem of copyright limitations, these data-sharing tools are simply not sophisticated enough when it comes to sharing and reusing images. The result also corresponds with previous research showing that these tools are used not so much for sharing research data, but more for promoting researcher personas.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%