Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries

TPDL 2021: Linking Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries pp 215–226Cite as

Humanities Scholars and Digital Humanities Projects: Practice Barriers in Tools Usage

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 12866))

Abstract

Humanities scholars face many problems when trying to design, build, present, and maintain digital humanities projects. To mitigate these problems and to improve the user experience of digital humanities collections, it is essential to understand the problems in detail. However, we currently have a fragmented and incomplete picture of what these problems actually are. This study presents a wide systematic literature review (SLR) on the problems encountered by humanities scholars when adopting particular software tools in digital humanities projects. As a result of this review, this paper finds problems in different categories of tools used in digital humanities. The practice barriers can be divided into four types: content, technique, interface, and storage. These results draw a full picture of problems in tools usage, suggest digital humanities discipline further improve tools application and offer developers of software designed for humanities scholars some feedback to make them optimize these tools.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Whitelaw, M.: Generous interfaces for digital cultural collections. Digit. Humanit. Q. 9, 16 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Borgman, C.L.: The Digital Future is Now: A Call to Action for the Humanities. eScholarship, University of California (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Borgman, C.L.: Why are online catalogs still hard to use? J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 47, 493–503 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nyhan, J., Flinn, A.: Computation and the Humanities: Towards an Oral History of Digital Humanities. vol. 285 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Given, L.M., Willson, R.: Information technology and the humanities scholar: documenting digital research practices. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 69, 807–819 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hoe-Lian Goh, D., Chua, A., Anqi Khoo, D., Boon-Hui Khoo, E., Bok-Tong Mak, E., Wen-Min Ng, M.: A checklist for evaluating open source digital library software. Online Inf. Rev. 30, 360–379 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ying, Z.: Developing a holistic model for digital library evaluation. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 61, 88–110 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P.: A systematic review of systematic review process research in software engineering. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55, 2049–2075 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Martin-Rodilla, P., Sánchez, M.: Software support for discourse-based textual information analysis: a systematic literature review and software guidelines in practice. Information 11, 256 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Buddenbohm, S., Matoni, M., Schmunk, S., Thiel, C.: Quality assessment for the sustainable provision of software components and digital research infrastructures for the arts and humanities. Bibliothek Forschung und Praxis 41(2), 231–241 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bulatovic, N., Gnadt, T., Romanello, M., Stiller, J., Thoden, K.: Usability in digital humanities - evaluating user interfaces, infrastructural components and the use of mobile devices during research process. In: Fuhr, N., Kovács, L., Risse, T., Nejdl, W. (eds.) TPDL 2016. LNCS, vol. 9819, pp. 335–346. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43997-6_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Rath, L.L.: Low-barrier-to-entry data tools: creating and sharing humanities data. Libr. Hi Tech 34, 268–285 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Terras, M., et al.: Enabling complex analysis of large-scale digital collections: humanities research, high-performance computing, and transforming access to British library digital collections. Digital Sch. Humanit. 33(2), 456–466 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Frosini, L., Bardi, A., Manghi, P., Pagano, P.: An Aggregation framework for digital humanities infrusturatures: the parthenos experience. Sci. Res. Inf. Technol. 8, 17 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hyvönen, E.: Using the semantic web in digital humanities: shift from data publishing to data-analysis and serendipitous knowledge discovery. Semant. Web 11, 187–193 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Martin-Rodilla, P., Gonzalez-Perez, C.: Metainformation scenarios in digital humanities: characterization and conceptual modelling strategies. Inf. Syst. 84, 29–48 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaltenbrunner, W.: Digital infrastructure for the humanities in Europe and the US: governing scholarship through coordinated tool development. Comp. Support. Coop. Work 26(3), 275–308 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shanmugapriya, T., Menon, N.: Infrastructure and social interaction: situated research practices in digital humanities in India. Digit. Humanit. Q. 14, 16 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Juola, P.: Killer applications in digital humanities. Literary Linguist. Comput. 23, 73–83 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tracy, D.G.: Assessing digital humanities tools: use of scalar at a research university. Portal-Libr. Acad. 16, 163–189 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nichols, D.M., et al.: Experiences in deploying metadata analysis tools for institutional repositories. Cataloging Classif. Q. 47, 229–248 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Marsh, E.: Chickens, aprons, markets, and cans: how the national agricultural library uses omeka as its content management system for digital exhibits. Digit. Libr. Perspect. 33, 361–377 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Manguinhas, H., et al.: Exploring comparative evaluation of semantic enrichment tools for cultural heritage metadata. In: Fuhr, N., Kovács, L., Risse, T., Nejdl, W. (eds.) TPDL 2016. LNCS, vol. 9819, pp. 266–278. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43997-6_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Rath, L.: Omeka.net as a librarian-led digital humanities meeting place. New Lib. World 117, 158–172 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Garcia, J., Garcia-Penalvo, F.J., Theron, R., de Pablos, P.O.: Usability evaluation of a visual modelling tool for OWL ontologies. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 17, 1299–1313 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Van Es, K., Wieringa, M., Schäfer, M.T.: Tool criticism. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Web Studies. ACM Press, Paris, France (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Miller, A.: Text mining digital humanities projects: assessing content analysis capabilities of voyant tools. J. Web Librariansh. 12, 169–197 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Amjad, A., Qamar, U.: UAMSA: unified approach for multilingual sentiment analysis using GATE. In: Proceedings of the 6th Conference on the Engineering of Computer Based Systems, Association for Computing Machinery, Bucharest, Romania (2019). pp. Article 25

    Google Scholar 

  29. Green, H.E.: Under the workbench: an analysis of the use and preservation of monk text mining research software. Literary Linguist. Comput. 29, 23–40 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Spinakis, A., Peristera, P.: Text Mining Tools: Evaluation Methods and Criteria. pp. 131–149. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Poole, A.: The conceptual ecology of digital humanities. J. Doc. 73, 91–122 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhang, Y., Liu, S., Mathews, E.: Convergence of digital humanities and digital libraries. Libr. Manage. 36, 362–377 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gkoumas, G., Lazarinis, F.: Evaluation and usage scenarios of open source digital library and collection management tools. Program-Electron. Libr. Inf. Syst. 49, 226–241 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rosenthaler, L., Fornaro, P., Clivaz, C.: DASCH: Data and Service Center for the Humanities. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities fqv051 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Condori-Fernandez, N., Panach, J.I., Baars, A.I., Vos, T., Pastor, O.: An empirical approach for evaluating the usability of model-driven tools. Sci. Comput. Program. 78, 2245–2258 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lee, Y., Kozar, K.A., Larsen, K.R.T.: The technology acceptance model: past, present, and future. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 12, 752–780 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia

    Rui Liu, Dana McKay & George Buchanan

Authors
  1. Rui Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dana McKay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. George Buchanan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rui Liu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway

    Gerd Berget

  2. The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

    Mark Michael Hall

  3. Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany

    Daniel Brenn

  4. Tampere University, Tampere, Finland

    Sanna Kumpulainen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Liu, R., McKay, D., Buchanan, G. (2021). Humanities Scholars and Digital Humanities Projects: Practice Barriers in Tools Usage. In: Berget, G., Hall, M.M., Brenn, D., Kumpulainen, S. (eds) Linking Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries. TPDL 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12866. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86324-1_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86324-1_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-86323-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-86324-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation