Sustainable and FAIR Data Sharing in the Humanities: Recommendations of the ALLEA Working Group E-Humanities

Harrower, Natalie; Immenhauser, Beat; Lauer, G. S.; Maryl, Maciej; Orlandi, Tito; Rentier, Bernard; Wandl-Vogt, Eveline

doi:10.7486/dri.tq582c863

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These points echo those made several times across the literature (T oth-Czifra, 2019;Edmond, 2019;Harrower et al, 2020): that is necessary to work on current evaluation practices to make data curation worthwhile, and that institutions need to provide support to humanities researchers in order to realise the FAIRification of research data (GO FAIR, 2022).…”

Section: Finally One Researcher Made An Important Pointmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…While publications are often not considered data (e.g. Harrower et al, 2020;Avanço et al, 2021b;Prost et al, 2015), arts and humanities scholars we interviewed clearly consider them as the most important type of data they work with. In addition, when we asked study participants to define data, six of them explicitly included methodologies in their definition.…”

Section: Data Types In Arts and Humanitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What do we mean by “data”? A proposed classification of data types in the arts and humanities

Gualandi

Pareschi

Peroni

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis article describes the interviews the authors conducted in late 2021 with 19 researchers at the Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies at the University of Bologna. The main purpose was to shed light on the definition of the word “data” in the humanities domain, as far as FAIR data management practices are concerned, and on what researchers think of the term.Design/methodology/approachThe authors invited one researcher for each of the official disciplinary areas represented within the department and all 19 accepted to participate in the study. Participants were then divided into five main research areas: philology and literary criticism, language and linguistics, history of art, computer science and archival studies. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using a grounded theory approach.FindingsA list of 13 research data types has been compiled thanks to the information collected from participants. The term “data” does not emerge as especially problematic, although a good deal of confusion remains. Looking at current research management practices, methodologies and teamwork appear more central than previously reported.Originality/valueOur findings confirm that “data” within the FAIR framework should include all types of inputs and outputs humanities research work with, including publications. Also, the participants of this study appear ready for a discussion around making their research data FAIR: they do not find the terminology particularly problematic, while they rely on precise and recognised methodologies, as well as on sharing and collaboration with colleagues.

show abstract

Section: Finally One Researcher Made An Important Pointmentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Data Types In Arts and Humanitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

What do we mean by “data”? A proposed classification of data types in the arts and humanities

Gualandi

Pareschi

Peroni

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, there have been efforts to create datasets for structures closer to the size of an architectural construction (e.g., monuments), and often whole excavated archaeological sites (Prasomphan and Jung, 2017), with the support of the appropriate computational tools as well as resources for online visualisation. Beyond the management, accessibility, and the "FAIRification" (Harrower et al, 2020) of these unstructured 3D datasets, a major challenge emerges for researchers with regards to their analysis and interpretation in the context of humanities-driven enquiries. The sheer number of digitised cultural heritage assets, their complexity and the sophisticated computational interfaces that are required to be used by humanities scholars for their study, require new tools and techniques that would aid and accelerate research, as well as cross-disciplinary enquiries (Charalambous and Artopoulos, 2018).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A 3D digitisation workflow for architecture-specific annotation of built heritage

Deligiorgi

Maslioukova

Averkiou

et al. 2021

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…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%

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

Sustainable and FAIR Data Sharing in the Humanities: Recommendations of the ALLEA Working Group E-Humanities

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

What do we mean by “data”? A proposed classification of data types in the arts and humanities

What do we mean by “data”? A proposed classification of data types in the arts and humanities

A 3D digitisation workflow for architecture-specific annotation of built heritage

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About