Whose digital Middle Ages? Accessibility in digital medieval manuscript culture

The relevance of this research topic lies in the evolving nature of digital humanism, a multifaceted and complex process aimed at achieving an optimal balance between the advancement of digital technologies and the preservation of human values and dignity. The study seeks to identify the conditions necessary for the conceptualisation of digital humanism in the era of artificial intelligence, and to analyse the challenges and opportunities associated with its development. The following research objectives are proposed: firstly, to clarify the essence, characteristics, and developmental trajectories of the concept of digital humanism; secondly, to examine the transformation of digital humanism in the context of the internet and artificial intelligence; thirdly, to establish the concept of digital humanism as a framework for harmonising technological advancement with the preservation of human potential; and finally, to explore cultural diversity as an embodiment of digital humanism and human values. Methodology. The study uses systemic, cross-cultural, axiological, anthropological and interdisciplinary approaches to provide a comprehensive analysis of digital humanism, facilitating an understanding of the interaction between digital technologies and humanity. A review of the literature shows that in the age of the Internet and artificial intelligence, digital humanism needs to be integrated into practical domains. This interdisciplinary research brings together philosophical, sociological, ethical and computer science perspectives to examine digital humanism in this transformative era. Artificial intelligence has opened up groundbreaking possibilities in fields such as medicine, education, transport and commerce. The study also highlights the European Digital Humanism Initiative and the methodology of informationalism, which illuminate the challenges and opportunities of digital humanism. Anthropological and socio-axiological approaches are used to analyse the value dimensions of the digital society, focusing on its impact on education, knowledge diffusion and innovation. Findings and implications. The results obtained provide a more profound comprehension of the genesis and pertinence of digital humanism in the context of societal transformation. This research underscores its capacity to address contemporary challenges while ensuring a harmonious coexistence of technological progress and human-centric values.

In addition to drawing upon content experts, librarians, archivists, developers, programmers, managers, and others, many emerging digital projects also pull in disciplinary expertise from areas that do not typically work in team environments. To be effective, these teams must find processes-some of which are counter to natural individually oriented work habits-which support the larger goals and group-oriented work of these digital projects. This article will explore the similarities and differences in approaches within and between members of the Digital Libraries (DL) and Digital Humanities (DH) communities by formally documenting the nature of collaboration in these teams. While there are many similarities in approaches between DL and DH project teams, some interesting differences exist and may influence the effectiveness of a digital project team with membership that draws from these two communities. Conclusions are focused on supporting strong team processes with recommendations for documentation, communication, training, and the development of team skills and perspectives.

As digital humanities (DH) continues to embrace its global dimensions, community members struggle to ascertain frames of reference for understanding and interpreting local contexts for scholarship. This article intervenes in that effort by distinguishing between the local and global contours of DH. It analyzes two projects that map the geographies of DH and identifies the challenge of recognizing DH work. Drawing on postcolonial and linguistic theories of language, this article then proposes that the concept of a 'DH accent' provides a lens for mediating between local and global definitions of DH and resolving the ethical challenge of misrecognition. In seeking a global vision, the article suggests, the DH community must begin with the question, 'What is your DH accent?'

This special issue of LLC: The Journal of Digital Scholarship in the Humanities presents selected papers from the Digital Humanities 2011 conference at Stanford University and reflects the conference theme of ‘Big Tent Digital Humanities’. The DH 2011 conference of the Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations (ADHO) had more papers and a wider range of topics than conferences in the past. By selecting the Big Tent Digital Humanities theme, the conference organizers and the international programme committee answered the debate about ‘what constitutes Digital Humanities’ by being as inclusive as possible. The conference, which is growing quickly, may have been the last one to offer four concurrent sessions. It was certainly the first to introduce a new, short paper category with five papers per session. The keynote addresses were by David Rumsey, creator of the well-known Eponymous Map Collection and president of Cartography Associates; and Jean-Baptiste Michel and Erez Lieberman-Aiden of Harvard University, speaking about their large-scale Culturonomics research conducted in association with the Google Books project. Chad Gaffield, Professor of History at the University of Ottawa and President of the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, presented the Zampolli Prize Lecture ‘Reimaging Scholarship in the Digital Age’. Finally, at DH 2011, we recognized the death of our great friend, Charles ‘Chuck’ Bush (1948–2011).

Rather than reporting on original research, this paper seeks to define the complex and rather diffuse domain of digital humanities by examining the historical and technological origins of the discipline.The distinction between the practice of the computer-mediated storage and retrieval of data relevant to human artefacts and the creative building of 'digital culture' draws a rough dividing line across the objectives of digital humanists.A historical outline of the distant origins of digital humanities suggests that the discipline is foundationally and intrinsically linked to computational linguistics and the development of linguistic resources.The boundaries of the discipline have been shifting concomitantly with the broadening of the scientific horizon and the evolution of dedicated technologies.Text mark-up (stemming from text annotation) and the multimodal facilities offered by ordinary browsers are the two basic techniques which have promoted the progressive development and expansion of digital humanities.These two techniques are closely interconnected as the language operated by the http protocol (HyperText Transfer Protocol) derives from the same source as that used for text mark-up.Hypertext and multimodality allow extending the uses of the computer to store and access humanities data of various kinds, including images, videos and sound recordings.Finally, the declaration of entities, as a further development of mark-up, makes it possible to apply semantic web techniques to carry out advanced research studies.The field of creative digital culture is very large, and there are abundant software applications that support such creative pursuits.Consequently, several forms of art have largely profited from technological advancement.Given this, the paper also addresses technological obsolescence as a serious problem in digital humanities.

The digital humanities (DH) represent a transformative and interdisciplinary domain that integrates computational tools and methodologies with traditional humanistic inquiry. This paper examines the evolving landscape of DH, tracing its historical emergence, conceptual foundations, technological tools, and the challenges it poses to conventional academic paradigms. It interrogates the theoretical and practical implications of digitizing cultural knowledge, examining intersections with archival studies, data visualization, and ethical considerations in digital scholarship. Through a review of case studies, this study highlights how DH enables novel forms of inquiry into literature, history, media, and culture, while also revealing tensions surrounding collaboration, representation, and disciplinary fragmentation. Ultimately, the paper argues that digital humanities is not merely a methodological innovation but a conceptual rethinking of how knowledge is produced, curated, and disseminated in the digital age. Keywords: Digital Humanities, Cultural Studies, Computational Humanities, Digital Archives, Data Visualization, Interdisciplinary Research, Digital Ethics, Technocultural Literacy.

Digital Humanities, Social Science and Cultural Preservation, list of open access journals, open access, open access journals, open access publication, open access publisher, open access publishing, open access journal articles, International Prime Publications

QUANTITATIVE LITERARY STUDIES AND INTERPRETATION The analysis of the author’s own past research has shown that digital tools do not have a significant role in contributing to new interpretations of the Slovene literary canon. However, when shifting the subject of interpretation from a single work to authorial opera, genre corpora, literary period or the entire national literature, it becomes clear how quantitative methods, stimulated by digitalisation of the cul-tural past, literary databases and digital tools play a vital role. Interpretations that consider the richness of data, generated by digital culture, are more trustworthy than the former ones.The price we pay for that is the refusal of clear encyclopaedic definitions and de-scriptions. Literary past, observed through the digital humanities’ perspective has a fuzzy development because the central phaenomena gradually fade in the multitude of rival or peripheral phenomena. Slovene literature is not represented by prominent authors and their famous works any more, it does not comply with dictation of the great national myth, i.e., the construction of the nation from the spirit of literature. Rather, it is considered as a random fact, a matter of serendipity. It is represented as the entire literary production on the Slovene territory, in Slovene as well as other languages. Due to special circumstances, it is different from the neighbouring literatures and it triggers new, nation-specific definitions of literary phenomena.New interpretations of Slovene literature are not only indebted to the use of digital tools, but also to the consequence of changes within the literary system itself. In its beginnings, Slovene literature was dedicated to the constitution and emancipation of the nation, while now it also legitimately fulfils other human needs and functions: cultural recreation, women and social minorities’ emancipation and mobilisation, escapism, self-reflection, self-therapy, testing of the alternative models of social behaviour, etc.

Irish History Online and in Real Time:Century Ireland and the Decade of Centenaries Mike Cronin (bio) In 2013 the American Academy of Arts and Sciences Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences offered the following view on the potential for academic engagement with the digital realm: "Online resources offer unprecedented opportunities for scholars to frame topics of public interest, to participate in a wider community of public intellectuals, and to reach general audiences. The digital world offers vast new possibilities, not only for delivering instruction but also for facilitating research and for making the past and future possibilities come alive to students of all ages."1 While there is little to challenge in the view that access to online audiences offers scholars significant openings for presenting their work, one might question how far academia has actually embraced that potential. There is also the issue of what type of scholarship has gone digital, what the audience has been for that scholarship, and how successful and innovative the project of digital research has been to date. The answers to those questions need not concern us, and there has been a significant amount of research that has teased out the history of digital scholarship, particularly in the areas of digital humanities and (in the context of this essay) digital history.2 The contention here is that the digital humanities have largely been the preserve of a network of self-motivated scholars in various countries. These scholars responded [End Page 269] in their respective fields to the potential of digital scholarship, and over the years professional societies, research centers, and specialist journals emerged in reaction to these developments. As the discipline (or perhaps rather the methodology) became a norm within scholarship, so national research-funding bodies began to support the work of those in the digital humanities. However, by and large the digital humanities have been centered within the confines of university-based researchers, state-funded grant-giving bodies, and various archives and libraries that hold the materials that are to be digitized and analyzed. While such digital scholarship has been important, and there have been obvious gains in terms of the use of digital content in the lecture hall and in the initiation of public outreach on many projects, the whole endeavor has been driven by the needs of the scholarly community over other concerns. Writing in the early days of digital history in 2005, Daniel Cohen and Roy Rosenzweig offered the opinion that "all of us have a responsibility to ensure that the new digital history is a democratic history, one that reflects many different voices of the past and the present, that encourages everyone to participate in writing their own histories, and that reaches diverse and multiple audiences in the present and future."3 This is a key point in the context of this article, as it highlights some central concerns and questions about digital history. Is it democratic? Is digital history open to all? And how does digital history encourage a dialogue between the multiple voices of the past and those of the present? Effectively, how can digital history move beyond the scholarly environment and into the public sphere? For all the many excellent digital-history projects that exist, I would argue that too many are still the products of students working with their faculty advisors and archivists working with subject-specific experts. Digital history has not often, as Bill Adair asked of the museum community in the digital age, "let go." According to Adair, "What the museum 'lets go' of is not expertise but the assumption that the museum has the last word on historical interpretation. … This scenario involves letting go of the notion that one can or should [End Page 270] control all outcomes in the museum."4 It is arguable that a specific opportunity in Ireland—the centenary commemoration of the 1912–23 period—allowed historians and others to "let go." In an age of digital opportunities that coincided with a peak in the public's engagement with the past, digital history moved outside of the classroom and the research environment and stepped into the genuinely public sphere where curated web projects did not control...

The course of reprocessing knowledge and information about social sciences and humanities using digital technology is taking root as a new field of academia called the ‘digital humanities’ (DH). While the social sciences and humanities in South Korea have shown a marked reluctance toward the integration of digital technology, the perception of its necessity as a new methodology for developing these fields in the digital age is growing. Until recently, analytical studies on the status and contents of DH were conducted on data from the western world. Despite their late start, however, Asian countries have begun conducting research on DH with enthusiasm. In order for DH to be properly established in each country, it is essential to set the direction by investigating the pre-requisites for DH studies in that country, as well as the current and future demands. As such, this study discusses the current status and issues regarding DH in South Korea by analyzing the trends of DH research published in South Korea, as well as by examining the status and perception of DH among actual scholars. Based on this study’s findings, we present strategies for improving education programs on DH in South Korea and promulgate the necessity of using DH methodologies in the study of social sciences and humanities to develop global networks and academic communication.

This book looks at the intersection between medieval studies and digital humanities, confronting how medievalists negotiate the 'virtual divide' between the cultural artefacts that they study and the digital means by which they address those artefacts. The essays come from medievalists who have created digital resources or applied digital tools and methodologies in their scholarship. Text encoding and analysis, data modeling and provenance, and 3D design are all discussed as they apply to western European medieval literature, history, art history, and architecture.

Classicists have long been at the forefront of the Digital Humanities. As is also true in mediaeval studies, this engagement with technology is due primarily to the complexity of the primary sources under consideration and patchy and often fragmentary state of these same artefacts.The papers in this collaborative issue of Digital Medievalist continue this tradition of cutting edge technological and disciplinary work. Drawing from papers presented at the inaugural Digital Classicist Work-in-Progress seminar series in London in the Summer of 2006 and adding other specially commissioned papers, this issue provides an in-depth view of current research in many of the most important areas in the Digital Classics: text markup and electronic publication; geotagging and network analysis; semantic web/social networking technologies; visualization and relational database tools. While the papers are all written with a disciplinary focus on the Classics, the research they discuss is of obvious interest to mediaevalists, and those working in the Digital Humanities more generally.

Medieval English Manuscripts:

[1] Throughout its history, Music Theory Online has leveraged new digital technologies to increase access to high-level scholarship and facilitate discussions of published materials inside the journal itself. (See, for example, the commentaries in Volumes 0.2, 1.1, 13.3, and 16.4.) New technologies and publishing practices have developed in the past few years that can carry these practices even further, in great service to the academic community. One such publishing practice is open peer review, exemplified by publications like the Journal of Digital Humanities, Digital Humanities Now, Digital Humanities This, American History Now, and the book Web Writing: Why and How for Liberal Arts Teaching and Learning (Dougherty et al. 2014). While multiple practices exist that can be considered manifestations of open peer review, open peer review in its fullest sense takes the scholarly discussion that traditionally follows publication-such as the discussion threads contained in the early issues of MTO-and moves it pre-publication, rendering them part of the review process. Open peer review ensures high visibility for the best work, extensive vetting by the scholarly community pre-publication, and a timely publication process, all the while maintaining high standards for peer-reviewed publication.[2] Music theorists would benefit from having an open peer-review journal, and MTO is best situated to be that journal. MTO is also well situated to experiment with open peer review without committing its entire future to such a model. In this article, I will explain open peer review in more detail by following an example article through the process of review and publication, commenting on the potential benefits of this process along the way. I conclude with a proposal for how MTO might experiment with the open peer-review model in order to gauge its potential for our field more precisely.Following the Process[3] One of the first articles to appear in the Journal of Digital Humanities is Trevor Owens's "Defining Data for Humanists: Text, Artifact, Information or Evidence?" This article began as a chapter for the book, Writing History in the Digital Age, itself an open peer-review project (Nawrotski and Dougherty, 2013). Writing History in the Digital Age was undertaken by co-editors Jack Dougherty (Trinity College, Connecticut) and Kristen Nawrotzki (Padagogische Hochschule Heidelberg), in collaboration with the University of Michigan Press. This project is available from UMP as a print book, a downloadable ebook, and an open-access web book as part of their series of digitalculturebooks that explore novel publication models like open peer review and simultaneous print and open-access publication. For that project, Owens co-authored a chapter with Frederick W. Gibbs called "The Hermeneutics of Data and Historical Writing." The first version of this chapter was posted to the project website in the fall of 2011. On this website, readers can comment on the chapter as a whole, or on specific paragraphs in the chapter. The chapter received 35 total comments-12 on the chapter as a whole, and 23 on specific passages. Some of these comments we would recognize as typical peer-review summaries (accept/reject/revise with comments on how best to revise); others were directed at improving specific elements in the chapter.[4] Owens and Gibbs replied to some comments directly, and ultimately composed a revision of this chapter, which appeared on the project website in the spring of 2012. At this stage in the publication process, the chapter moved from review mode to copyediting mode. The chapter on the website includes a link to a document in Google Drive where any reader can comment (though comments ended up limited to the two authors and two editors), but only the document owners can change the text in response to those comments. The final version of this document was submitted to the publisher for inclusion in the print and electronic book editions (Gibbs and Owens 2013). …

The Toy Brick as a Communicative Device for Amplifying Children’s Voices in Research