Advertisement

Evaluation of Digital Humanities: An Interdisciplinary Approach

  • Anna Maria Tammaro
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 385)

Abstract

This research, now in its first phase of development, focuses upon evaluation of Digital Humanities, here indicated as the disciplines, included within the Italian Disciplinary Areas 10 and 11, innovating their research outputs through the application of technological methods. These research outputs are relevant both quantitatively and qualitatively, but do not seem to be considered of value by the current procedures of quality evaluation. The research methodology is including a comparison of the evaluation policies and quality assurance procedures in Europe regarding the different typologies of digital publications. The final product will be a KOS (Knowledge Organization System) based on the Web standards, such as RDF and Linked Open data, to represent and organize the digital products and publications as well as the related agents (persons, institutions, etc.). The KOS will include the results derived by user studies including: 1) a toolkit that will provide rich and meaningful information about the research activity and publications in Digital Humanities. The toolkit will consist of decision tools, able to analyze the content of the proposed knowledge organization system; 2) a platform for the diffusion of Project results, including digital publications, OER for training and other communication tools.

Keywords

Digital Humanities Bibliometrics Peer review Digital publishing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baccini, A.: Valutare la ricerca scientifica: uso e abuso degli indicatori bibliometrici. Il mulino, Bologna (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barbieri, E.: La ricerca universitaria e la sua valutazione. Guaraldi, Rimini (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rodriguez, M.A., Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H.: Mapping the bid behavior of conference referees. Journal of Informetrics 1(1), 68–82 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buzzetti, D.: Archiviazione digitale dei dati e adeguatezza della rappresentazione del testo. Schede Umanistiche 13(2), 209–218 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buzzetti, D.: Biblioteche digitali e oggetti digitali complessi: Esaustività e funzionalità nella conservazione. In: Archivi informatici per il patrimonio culturale, Atti del Convegno internazionale (Roma, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Novembre 17-19), Roma, Bardi Editore (Contributi del Centro Linceo Interdisciplinare «Beniamino Segre», N. 114), pp. 41–75 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    CRUI, Raccomandazioni. Open Access ed i prodotti della ricerca (2009), http://www.crui.it/Homepage.aspx?ref=1782
  7. 7.
    CUN (2010) Quattro anni di CUN per l’Università: 2007-2010, Roma, CUN (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deegan, M., Tanner, S.: Digital futures: strategies for the Information Age. Facet, London (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fister, B.: Getting Serious About Digital Humanities | Peer to Peer Review. LIbrary Journalcom (2010), http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6729325.html (retrieved)
  10. 10.
    Guerrini, M., Ventura, R.: Problemi dell’editoria universitaria oggi: il ruolo delle university press e il movimento a favore dell’open access. In: Dalla pecia all’e-book: libri per l’università: stampa, editoria, circolazione e lettura: atti del convegno internazionale di studi: Bologna, Ottobre 21-25, a cura di Gian Paolo Brizzi, Maria Gioia Tavoni. CLUEB, Bologna (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hellqvist, B.: Referencing in the humanities and its implications for citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2(61), 310–318 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chang, C.H., Ooi, G.L.: Role of Fieldwork in Humanities and Social Studies Education. In: Tan, O.S., McInerney, D.M., Liem, A.D., Tan, A.G. (eds.) Research in Multicultural Education and International Perspectives Series. What the West can learn from the East. Asian Perspectives on the Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol. 7, pp. 295–312. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Mordenti, R.: Su alcuni problemi di metodologia della ricerca. In: Materiali di lavoro. Rivista di studi storici. nuova serie, vol. (1-2), pp. 151–156 (1987)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mordenti, R.: Informatica e critica dei testi. Bulzoni, Roma (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mordenti, R.: Pubblicazione delle ricerche umanistiche in ambiente digitale. In: Archivi informatici per il patrimonio culturale, Novembre, 17-19, 2003. Convegno Internazionale organizzato in collaborazione con ERPANET e la Fondazione ‘Ezio Franceschini’, pp. 95–117. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei-Bardi, Roma (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    OECD, Reccommendation of the Council for Enhanced Access and more effective use of Public Sector information (2008), http://www.oecd.org/internet/interneteconomy/40826024.pdf
  18. 18.
    O’Rieger, O.: Framing digital humanities: The role of new media in humanities scholarship. First Monday 15(10), 4 (2010), http://www.firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3198 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Orlandi, T.: Informatica testuale. Laterza, Teoria e prassi, Bari (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Perrault, A.: Digital Dilemmas: The Transformation of Scholarly Discourse in the Humanities. International Journal of the Humanities 2(2), 1755–1761 (2006), http://works.bepress.com/anna_perrault/22 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reale, E.: La valutazione della ricerca pubblica: una analisi della valutazione triennale della ricerca. Franco Angeli, Milano (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Robinson, P.: Current issues in making digital editions of medieval text – or, do electronic scholarly editions have a future? Digital Medievalist (2005), http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/1.1/robinson/
  23. 23.
    Roncaglia, G.: Scritture digitali. Lettera Internazionale (98), 48–51 (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tammaro, A.M.: Qualità della comunicazione scientifica. Parte 1 e 2. Biblioteche Oggi (7), 104; (8), 74 (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tammaro, A.M.: Scholarly Communication and Academic Presses. FUP, Firenze (2002), http://epress.unifi.it Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Torres-Salinas, D., Moed, H.F.: Library Catalog Analysis as a tool in studies of social sciences and humanities: An exploratory study of published book titles in Economics. Journal of Informetrics 3(1), 9–26 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vanhoutte, E.: Three barriers to the development of digital tools in and for the humanities (2006), http://www.edwardvanhoutte.org/pub/2006/pptools160606.htm (retrieved March 11, 2012)
  28. 28.
    White, H.D., Boell, S.K., Yu, H., Davis, M., Wilson, C.S., Cole, F.T.H.: Libcitations: A Measure for Comparative Assessment of Book Publications in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60(6), 1083–1096 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Maria Tammaro
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information EngineeringUniversity of ParmaItaly

Personalised recommendations