Advertisement

Design Science Research for the Humanities – The Case of Prosopography

  • Jacky Akoka
  • Isabelle Comyn-WattiauEmail author
  • Cédric du Mouza
  • Nicolas Prat
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11491)

Abstract

The humanities focus on understanding human beings and cultures. They include such disciplines as history, literature, and the arts. Digital humanities, defined as the application of IT to research and teaching in the humanities, is well established as a field in its own right. More particularly, research in the humanities is in demand of innovative and useful IT artifacts. This makes it a relevant application area for design science research (DSR). This also raises specific challenges to DSR researchers, due to the specific stakeholders and knowledge domains that come into play in the digital humanities. This paper focuses on prosopography, a branch of digital humanities that represents and interprets historical data, sourced from texts describing historical person’s life. Starting from typical issues addressed by prosopographical researchers, we identify relevant IT artifacts to address these issues, making DSR relevant for prosopographical research. We adapt and instantiate Hevner’s DSR framework to the specific case of prosopography, as a first step towards defining a DSR framework for the humanities more generally. Based on this adapted and instantiated DSR framework, we propose two artifacts: requirements and a methodology for prosopography. We demonstrate the methodology on a prosopography scenario.

Keywords

Prosopography Design science research Requirements Methodology Digital humanities 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been partly funded by a national French grant (ANR Daphne 17-CE28-0013-01).

References

  1. 1.
    Humanities Council of Washington, DC. Defining the humanities – A work in progress (2001). http://www.wdchumanities.org/docs/defininghumanities.pdf
  2. 2.
    Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations. Digital Humanities 2009 – Call for papers (2009). https://mith.umd.edu/dh09/index.html%3Fpage_id=54.html
  3. 3.
    Berry, D.M.: Introduction: understanding the digital humanities. In: Berry, D.M. (ed.) Understanding Digital Humanities, pp. 1–20. Palgrave Macmillan, London (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230371934_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stone, L.: Prosopography. Daedalus 100(1), 46–79 (1970)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hevner, A.R.: A three cycle view of design science research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 19(2), 4 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    March, S.T., Smith, G.F.: Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis. Support Syst. 15(4), 251–266 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Winter, R.: Design science research in Europe. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 17(5), 470–475 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Samuel-Ojo, O., et al.: Meta-analysis of design science research within the IS community: trends, patterns, and outcomes. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) DESRIST 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6105, pp. 124–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13335-0_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Offermann, P., Blom, S., Schönherr, M., Bub, U.: Artifact types in information systems design science – a literature review. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) DESRIST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 77–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13335-0_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sangupamba Mwilu, O., Comyn-Wattiau, I., Prat, N.: Design science research contribution to business intelligence in the cloud – a systematic literature review. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 63, 108–122 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pasin, M., Bradley, J.: Factoid-based prosopography and computer ontologies: towards an integrated approach. Digit. Sch. Humanit. 30(1), 86–97 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bradley, J., Short, H.: Texts into databases: the evolving field of new-style prosopography. Lit. Linguist. Comput. 20(Suppl.), 3–24 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Figueira, L., Vieira, M.: Modelling a Prosopography for the Roman Republic (2017). https://dh2017.adho.org/abstracts/091/091.pdf
  15. 15.
    Bradley, J., Pasin, M.: Annotation and ontology in most humanities research: accommodating a more informal interpretation context. In: NeDiMaH Ontology Workshop (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Westermann, U., Jain, R.: Toward a common event model for multimedia applications. IEEE Multimedia 14(1), 19–29 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Allen, J.F.: Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Commun. ACM 26(11), 832–843 (1983)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moisuc, B., Miron, A., Villanova-Olivier, M., Gensel, J.: Spatiotemporal knowledge representation in AROM-ST. In: Innovative Software Development in GIS, pp. 91–119 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    National Research Council (US): Risk Analysis and Uncertainty in Flood Reduction Studies. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Costa, P.C.G., Laskey, K.B., Blasch, E., Jousselme, A.L.: Towards unbiased evaluation of uncertainty reasoning: the URREF ontology. In: International Conference on Information Fusion (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Akoka, J., Comyn-Wattiau, I., Lamassé, S., Du Mouza, C.: Modeling historical social networks databases. In: Proceedings of the 52nd HICCS Conference (2019)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jarke, M., Pohl, K.: Establishing visions in context: toward a model of requirements processes. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), AIS (1993)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Genet, J.P., Idabal, H., Kouamé, T., Lamassé, S., Priol, C., Tournieroux, A.: General introduction to the stadium project. Mediev. Prosopogr. 31, 156–172 (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Baskerville, R., Pries-Heje, J., Venable, J.: Soft design science methodology. In: Proceedings of the 4th DESRIST Conference. ACM, p. 9 (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Patas, J., Milicevic, D., Goeken, M.: Enhancing design science through empirical knowledge: framework and application. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 32–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20633-7_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baekgaard, L.: Conceptual model of artifacts for design science research. In: Twenty-First Americas Conference on Information Systems, Puerto Rico (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Braun, R., Benedict, M., Wendler, H., Esswein, W.: Proposal for Requirements Driven Design Science Research. In: Donnellan, B., Helfert, M., Kenneally, J., VanderMeer, D., Rothenberger, M., Winter, R. (eds.) DESRIST 2015. LNCS, vol. 9073, pp. 135–151. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18714-3_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering. International Computer Science Series. Addison Wesley, Boston (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Verboven, K., Carlier, M., Dumolyn, J.: A short manual to the art of prosopography. In: Keats-Rohan, K.S.B. (ed.) Prosopography Approaches and Applications. A Handbook, pp. 35–69. Unit for Prosopographical Research (Linacre College), Oxford (2007)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    De Ridder-Symoens, H.: Prosopografie en middeleeuwse geschiedenis: een onmogelijke mogelijkheid?. Handelingen der Maatschappij voor Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde te Gent, 45(1) (1991)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Barbero, B.R., Ureta, E.S.: Comparative study of different digitization techniques and their accuracy. Comput.-Aided Des. 43(2), 188–206 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sugumaran, V., Storey, V.C.: The role of domain ontologies in database design: an ontology management and conceptual modeling environment. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 31(3), 1064–1094 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Niehaves, B.: Design science research genres: introduction to the special issue on exemplars and criteria for applicable design science research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 27(2), 129–139 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Prat, N., Comyn-Wattiau, I., Akoka, J.: A taxonomy of evaluation methods for information systems artifacts. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 32(3), 229–267 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacky Akoka
    • 1
    • 2
  • Isabelle Comyn-Wattiau
    • 3
    Email author
  • Cédric du Mouza
    • 1
  • Nicolas Prat
    • 3
  1. 1.CEDRIC-CNAMParisFrance
  2. 2.TEM-Business SchoolParisFrance
  3. 3.ESSEC Business SchoolCergyFrance

Personalised recommendations