Sander Münster
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Digital heritage comprises a broad variety of approaches and topics and involves researchers from multiple disciplines. Against this background, this article presents a four-stage investigation on standards, publications, disciplinary cultures, as well as scholars in the field of digital heritage and particularly tangible objects as monuments and sites, carried out in 2016 and 2017. It includes results of (1) the inquiry of nearly 4,000 publications from major conferences, (2) a workshop-based survey involving 44 researchers, (3) 15 qualitative interviews, as well as (4) two online surveys with 1,000 and 700 participants, respectively. As an overall finding, the community is driven by researchers from European countries, especially Italy, with a background in humanities. Cross-national co-authorships are promoted by cultural and spatial closeness and—probably due to funding policy—EU membership. A discourse is primarily driven by technologies, and the most common keywords refer to the technologies used. Most prominent research areas are data acquisition and management, visualization, and analysis. Recent topics are, for instance, unmanned airborne vehicle (UAV)-based 3D surveying technologies, augmented and virtual reality visualization, metadata and paradata standards for documentation, and virtual museums. Since a lack of money is named as the biggest obstacle nowadays, competency and human resources are most frequently named as demand. An epistemic culture in the scholarly field of digital heritage is closer to engineering than to humanities. Moreover, conference series are most relevant for a scientific discourse, and especially EU projects set pace as most important research endeavors.
- UNESCO. 2003. Charter on the Preservation of Digital Heritage. UNESCO, Paris.Google Scholar
- S. Schreibman, R. Siemens, and J. Unsworth. 2013. A Companion to Digital Humanities. Blackwell, Oxford. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. J. Waters. 2013. An overview of the digital humanities. Res. Library Iss. 284 (2013), 3--22.Google ScholarCross Ref
- F. W. Gibbs. 2011. Digital Humanities Definitions by Type. Taylor 8 Francis, Milton Park.Google Scholar
- S. Münster, F. Rinaudo, R. Tamborrino, F. Apollonio, and M. Ioannides. 2018. Digital Humanities meets Digital Cultural Heritage. In Proceedings of the ADHO DH Conference 2018, Mexico City.Google Scholar
- J. Nyhan and A. Flinn. 2016. Computation and the Humanities. Towards an Oral History of Digital Humanities. SpringerOpen, Heidelberg. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M.-C. Tang, Y. J. Cheng, and K. H. Chen. 2017. A longitudinal study of intellectual cohesion in digital humanities using bibliometric analyses. Scientometrics 113, 2 (Nov. 01 2017), 985--1008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Münster and M. Terras. 2019. The visual side of digital humanities. A survey on topics, researchers and epistemic cultures in visual digital humanities. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities (2019).Google Scholar
- S. Münster, W. Hegel, and C. Kröber. 2016. A Classification Model for Digital Reconstruction in Context of Humanities Research. Springer LNCS, Cham, 2016.Google Scholar
- A. Georgopoulos. 2018. CIPA's Perspectives on Cultural Heritage. Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
- K. Knorr-Cetina. 1999. Epistemic Cultures. How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1999.Google Scholar
- K. K. Cetina and W. Reichmann. 2015. Epistemic Cultures. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- A. Krishnan. 2009. What are Academic Disciplines. Some Observations on the Disciplinarity vs. Interdisciplinarity Debate? University of Southampton. National Centre for Research Methods, Southhampton.Google Scholar
- J. Lave and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Wenger. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- S. Münster and M. Ioannides. 2015. The Scientific Community of Digital Heritage in Time and Space. IEEE, Granada.Google Scholar
- J. A. Nederhof. 2006. Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review. Scientometrics 66, 1 (2006), 81--100.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Hicks. 2006. The Four Literatures of Social Science. Springer Science and Business Media, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
- S. Scagliola, B. Safradin, A. Akdag, and S. Wyatt. Mapping Digital Humanities projects, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
- L. Börjesson. 2015. Grey literature—Grey sources? Nuancing the view on professional documentation. J. Document. 71, 6 (2015), 1158--1182.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Gumpenberger, J. Sorz, M. Wieland, and J. Gorraiz. 2016. Humanities and social sciences in the bibliometric spotlight -- research output analysis at the university of vienna and considerations for increasing visibility. Res. Eval. July 11, 2016.Google Scholar
- T. C. E. Engels, T. L. B. Ossenblok, and E. H. J. Spruyt. 2012. Changing publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities, 2000--2009. Scientometrics 93, 2 (2012), 373--390.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. Leydesdorff, B. Hammarfelt, and A. Salah. 2011. The structure of the arts and humanities citation index: A mapping on the basis of aggregated citations among 1,157 journals. J. Amer. Soc. Info. Sci. Technol. 62, 12 (2011), 2414--2426. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Ž. Fuchs. 2014. Bibliometrics: Use and Abuse in the Humanities. Portland Press Limited, Portland.Google Scholar
- M. Terras. 2006. Disciplined: Using curriculum studies to define 'humanities computing. Lit. Linguist. Comput. 21, 2 (2006), 229--246.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Weingart. 2016. Submissions to DH2017. 2016.Google Scholar
- I. Scollar. 1997. 25 Years of Computer Applications in Archaeology. CAA.Google Scholar
- European Commission. 2011. Survey and Outcomes of Cultural Heritage Research Projects Supported in the Context of EU Environmental Research Programmes. From 5th to 7th Framework Programme. European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
- P. Koutsabasis. 2017. Empirical evaluations of interactive systems in cultural heritage: A review. Int. J. Comput. Methods Heritage Sci. 1 (2017), 100--122. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Ciolfi, A. Damala, E. Hornecker, M. Lechner, and L. Maye. 2017. Cultural Heritage Communities: Technologies and Challenges. Routledge.Google Scholar
- A. Benardou, E. Champion, C. Dallas, and L. Hughes. 2018. Cultural Heritage Infrastructures in Digital Humanities. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
- D. Arnold and G. Geser. 2008. EPOCH Research Agenda—Final Report, Brighton.Google Scholar
- J. Drucker. 2013. Is there a “digital” art history? Visual Resour. 29, 1--2 (2013), 5--13.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. Heusinger. 1989. Applications of Computers in the History of Art. Mansell Pub., London and New York.Google Scholar
- H. Kohle. 2013. Digitale Bildwissenschaft. Glückstadt.Google Scholar
- T. L. Evans and P. T. Daly. 2006. Digital Archaeology. Bridging Method and Theory. Routledge, London. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. C. Kansa, S. W. Kansa, and E. Watrall. 2011. ARCHAEOLOGY 2.0. New Approaches to Communication 8 Collaboration. Cotsen Digital Archaeology, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
- B. Frischer and A. Dakouri-Hild. 2008. Beyond Illustration. 2D and 3D Digital Technologies as Tools for Discovery in Archaeology. Archaeopress, Oxford.Google Scholar
- R. Beacham, H. Denard, and F. Niccolucci. 2006. An Introduction to the London Charter.Google Scholar
- V. M. L.-M. Bendicho. 2011. The Principles of the Seville Charter.Google Scholar
- A. Sürül, H. Özen, and M. Tutkun. 2003. ICOMOS digital database of the cultural heritage of Trabzon. In Proceedings of the 29th CIPA Symposium, Antalya, Turkey. https://goobi.tib.eu/viewer/image/856489115/611/.Google Scholar
- A. Kiouss, M. Karoglou, K. Labropoulos, A. Moropoulou, and R. Zarnic. 2011. Recommendations and Strategies for the Establishment of a Guideline for Monument Documentation Harmonized with the existing European Standards and Codes.Google Scholar
- M. Pfarr. 2009. Dokumentationssystem für Digitale Rekonstruktionen am Beispiel der Grabanlage Zhaoling, Provinz Shaanxi, China (PhD Thesis). Darmstadt.Google Scholar
- I. Huvila. 2015. Archives, Libraries and Museums in the Contemporary Society: Perspectives of the Professionals. Berlin.Google Scholar
- H. Chu. 2015. Research methods in library and information science: A content analysis. Library Info. Sci. Res. 37, 1 (2015), 36--41.Google Scholar
- W. Stock and M. Stock. 2015. Handbook of Information Science. De Gruyter Saur, Berlin/Boston.Google Scholar
- S. Münster. 2017. Employing Bibliometric Methods to Identify a Community, Topics and Protagonists of Digital 3D Reconstruction in the Humanities. Wuhan.Google Scholar
- F. Havemann. 2013. Methoden der Informetrie. De Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
- L. Egghe and R. Rousseau. 1990. Introduction to Informetrics. Quantitative Methods in Library, Documentation and Information Science. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Thomson Reuter. 2015. Source Publication List for Web of Science Arts and Humanities Citation Index. http://mjl.clarivate.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=H.Google Scholar
- P. Mayring. 2000. Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 1, 2 (2000), Art. 20.Google Scholar
- S. Münster. 2017. A survey on topics, researchers and cultures in the field of digital heritage. ISPRS Ann. Photogram. Remote Sens. Spatial Info. Sci. IV-2/W2 (2017), 157--162.Google Scholar
- H. A. Mieg and M. Näf. 2005. Experteninterviews, Zürich.Google Scholar
- J. Gläser and G. Laudel. 2009. Experteninterviews und Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente Rekonstruierender Untersuchungen. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
- P. Mayring. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken, Weinheim.Google Scholar
- U. Reja, K. L. Manfreda, V. Hlebec, and V. Vehovar. 2003. Open-ended vs. close-ended questions in web questionnaires. Dev. Appl. Statist. 19 (2003), 159--177.Google Scholar
- S. Münster, M. Ioannides, and R. Davies. 2017.International Stakeholder Survey on Demands in the Field of Digital Cultural Heritage. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321698674_International_stakeholder_survey_on_demands_in_the_field_of_digital_cultural_heritage.Google Scholar
- M. Porter. 1980. An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program 3, 14 (1980), 130--137.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Provalis Research. 2010. WordStat 6. Content Analysis Module for QDA Miner and SimStat. User's Guide. Provalis Research, Montreal.Google Scholar
- S. Münster, T. Köhler, and S. Hoppe. 2015. 3D Modeling Technologies as Tools for the Reconstruction and Visualization of Historic Items in Humanities. A Literature-based Survey. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- S. Münster, P. Kuroczyński, M. Pfarr-Harfst, M. Grellert, and D. Lengyel. 2015. Future research challenges for a computer-based interpretative 3D reconstruction of cultural heritage -- A german community's view. Proceedings of the 25th International CIPA Symposium on Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing, and Spatial Information Sciences (ISPRS’15), II-5-W3. 207--213.Google Scholar
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2007. Revised Field of Science and Technology (FOS) Classification in the Frascati Manual. Paris.Google Scholar
- CERIF (Common European Research Project Information Format). 1991. Offic. J. Eur. Commun. L189 (1991).Google Scholar
- NCES IPEDS. 2010. Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP). https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cipcode/default.aspx?y=55.Google Scholar
- S. Münster. 2016. Interdisziplinäre Kooperation bei der Erstellung Geschichtswissenschaftlicher 3D-Rekonstruktionen. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, 2016.Google Scholar
- M. S. Granovetter. 2013. Strength of the weak ties. Amer. J. Sociol. 78, 6 (1973), 1360--1380.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Stützer. 2013. Knowledge Transfer in Web‐based Collaborative Learning Systems (Ph.D. Thesis), Dresden.Google Scholar
- S. Wasserman and K. Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- T. Velden and C. Lagoze. Patterns of collaboration in co-authorship networks in chemistry - mesoscopic analysis and interpretation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI’09). http://www.issi-society.org/publications/issi-conference-proceedings/proceedings-of-issi-2009/.Google Scholar
- T. Velden, A. Haque, and C. Lagoze. 2010. A new approach to analyzing patterns of collaboration in co-authorship networks—Mesoscopic analysis and interpretation. Scientometrics 85, 1 (2010), 219--242.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Schubert and W. Glänzel. 2006. Cross-national preference in co-authorship. Scientometrics 69, 2 (2006), 409--428.Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. Glänzel. 2001. National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics 51, 1 (2001), 69115.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. D. Beaver. 2001. Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics 52, 3 (2001), 365--377.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. J. Lotka. 1926. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J. Washington Acad. Sci. 16, 12 (1926), 317--323.Google Scholar
- L. Egghe. 2000. A heuristic study of the first-citation distribution. Scientometrics 48, 3 (2000), 345--359.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. J. Murphy. 1973. “Lotka's law in the humanities?” J. Amer. Soc. Info. Sci. 24, 6 (1973), 461--462.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Pulgarín. 2012. Dependence of lotka's law parameters on the scientific area. Malaysian J. Library Info. Sci. 17, 1 (2012), 41--50.Google Scholar
- M. P. Long and R. C. Schonfeld. 2014. Supporting the Changing Research Practices of Art Historians. Ithaka S+R, Princeton.Google Scholar
- C. Pilbeam. 2013. Coordinating temporary organizations in international development through social and temporal embeddedness. Int. J. Project Manage. 31, 2 (2013), 190--199.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. A. Lundin and A. Söderholm. 1995. A theory of the temporary organization. Scand. J. Manage. 11, 4 (1995), 437--455.Google ScholarCross Ref
- H. Nowotny, P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. 2003. Introduction. Minerva 41 (2003), 179--194.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. K. Hessels and H. V. Lente. 2007. Re-thinking new Knowledge Production: A Literature Review and a Research Agenda. Utrecht University, Utrecht.Google Scholar
- D. De Solla Price. 1963. Little Science - Big Science. Columbia Univ. Press, New York (1963).Google Scholar
- L. M. Given and R. Willson. 2018. Information technology and the humanities scholar: Documenting digital research practices. J. Assoc. Info. Sci. Technol. 69, 6 (2018), 807--819.Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. G. Toms and H. L. O'Brien. 2008. Understanding the information and communication technology needs of the e-humanist. J. Document. 64 (2008), 102--130.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. Dias, M. Gerlach, J. Scharloth, and E. G. Altmann. 2017. Using text analysis to quantify the similarity and evolution of scientific disciplines. R Soc Open Sci. 17, 5 (2017).Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Digital Heritage as a Scholarly Field—Topics, Researchers, and Perspectives from a Bibliometric Point of View
Recommendations
Can we rank scholarly book publishers? A bibliometric experiment with the field of history
This is a publisher ranking study based on a citation data grant from Elsevier, specifically, book titles cited in Scopus history journals 2007-2011 and matching metadata from WorldCat® i.e., OCLC numbers, ISBN codes, publisher records, and library ...
Digital Heritage Museums and Virtual Museums
VRIC '15: Proceedings of the 2015 Virtual Reality International ConferenceVirtuality in Digital Museums is studied as the way to transmit heritage in a digital medium. The notion of virtuality is dissociated from its technological sense to be investigated with its full philosophical meaning. Three ways of virtualizing are put ...
Digital heritage and innovative collaborations workshop
SA '17: SIGGRAPH Asia 2017 WorkshopsThe "Digital Heritage and Innovative Collaborations" workshop strives to explore the tangible/intangible aspects of digital heritage conservation. It further discusses collaborative opportunities to conduct the high-resolution site survey for scholars ...
Comments