Abstract

Today while historians producing interactive maps and linguists use computer technology in order to determine the word pattern used in texts, it is observed that researchers from almost every discipline use internet and web interactively. It can be claimed that boundaries among the disciplines have started to become uncertain with convergence. As a result of these developments, digital humanities emerged by the beginning of using computer technologies in traditional humanities. The aim of this study was to determine the general characteristics of Digital Humanities. In this way, it is aimed to identify new types of resources and to identify the challenges of new methods and research behaviors for libraries. In this study, the scientometrics was conducted by considering scientific papers published in the field of digital humanities. Accessed publications were evaluated according to the concepts/terms used in keyword plus, document abstracts and titles. Multiple Correspondence Analysis was used in the analysis of the concepts (keywords, title or abstracts). Scope/field-oriented findings as a result of the analysis were discussed. This study tried to answer the questions such as; which kind of services do new resource types appeared in digital humanities require in libraries? Do methods used in digital humanities require new infrastructures for libraries and organizations providing information services? And points out the new challenges posed by digital humanities for libraries and information services. This study presented findings related to emerging new resource types, needs and research behaviors appeared because of developing digital humanities fields for organizations, especially libraries, providing information services.

Keywords: Digital Humanities, libraries, information services, bibliometrics, multiple correspondence analysis

References

  1. Akça, S. (2017). Dijital insanî bilimler yaklaşımıyla kültür varlıklarının görünürlüğünün ve kullanımının artırılması: Türkiye için kavramsal bir model önerisi (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi), Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  2. Al, U., Soydal, İ. ve Yalçın, H. (2010). Bibliyometrik özellikleri açısından Bilig’in değerlendirilmesi. Bilig 55, 1-20.
  3. Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music learning today: Digital pedagogy for creating, performing, and responding to music. Newyork: Oxford University Press.
  4. Burdick, A. ve Willis, H. (2011). Digital learning, digital scholarship and design thinking. Design Studies, 32(6), 546-556. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.005
  5. Callon, M., Courtial, J.-P. ve Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry. Scientometrics, 22(1), 155-205.
  6. Colavizza, G., Romanello, M. ve Kaplan, F. (2018). The references of references: a method to enrich humanities library catalogs with citation data. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 19(2-3), 151-161. doi:10.1007/s00799-017-0210-1
  7. Dalbello, M. (2011). A genealogy of digital humanities. Journal of Documentation, 67(3), 480-506. doi:10.1108/00220411111124550
  8. Deegan, M. ve McCarty, W. (2012). Collaborative Research in the Digital Humanities. London: Routledge.
  9. de la Flor, G., Jirotka, M., Luff, P., Pybus, J. ve Kirkham, R. (2010). Transforming scholarly practice: Embedding technological interventions to support the collaborative analysis of ancient texts. Computer Supported Cooperative Work-the Journal of Collaborative Computing, 19(3-4), 309-334. doi:10.1007/s10606-010-9111-1
  10. Garfield, E., Sher, I. H. veTorpie, R. J. (1964). The use of citation data in writing the history of science. 06.18.2018 tarihinde www.scimaps.org/exhibit/docs/Garfield1964use.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  11. Ghose, A., Ipeirotis, P. ve Sundararajan, A. (2007). Opinion mining using econometrics: A case study on reputation systems. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics içinde (ss. 416-423), June. Prague, Czech Republic: Association for Computational Linguistics.
  12. Hartsell-Gundy, A., Braunstein, L., Golomb, L. ve Langan, K. (2015). Digital humanities in the library: challenges and opportunities for subject specialists: Association of College and Research Libraries. http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/publications/booksanddigitalresources/digital/9780838987681_humanities_OA.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  13. Hayles, N. K. (2012). How we think: Transforming power and digital technologies. Understanding digital humanities içinde (ss. 42-66). London: Plagrave Macmillan UK.
  14. Hockey, S. M. (2000). Electronic texts in the humanities: principles and practice: London: Oxford University Press.
  15. Hoffman, D. L. ve De Leeuw, J. (1992). Interpreting multiple correspondence analysis as a multidimensional scaling method. Marketing Letters, 3(3), 259-272.
  16. Holmberg, K. ve Thelwall, M. (2014). Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1027-1042.
  17. Jeffcoat, H. ve Colati, G. (2018). From transaction to collaboration: scholarly communications design at UConn Library. Insights-the Uksg Journal. doi: http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.405
  18. Jessop, M. (2008). The inhibition of geographical information in digital humanities scholarship. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 23(1), 39-50. doi:10.1093/llc/fqm041
  19. Juola, P. (2008). Killer applications in digital humanities. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 23(1), 73-83. doi:10.1093/llc/fqm042
  20. Kear, R., Joranson, K., Kear, R. ve Joranson, K. (2018). Digital humanities, libraries, and partnerships: a critical examination of labor, networks, and community. Cambridge, MA, United States: Chandos Publishing
  21. Keary, M. (2013) Collaborative research in the digital humanities: A volume in honour of Harold Short, on the occasion of his 65th birthday and his retirement, September 2010. Online Information Review, 37(3), 480-481. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2013-0086
  22. Kirschenbaum, M. (2012a). Digital humanities as/is a tactical term. Minneapolis: Univ Minnesota Press.
  23. Kirschenbaum, M. (2012b). What Is digital humanities and what’s it doing in English departments? Minneapolis: Univ Minnesota Press.
  24. Liu, A. (2009).Digital humanities and academic change. English Language Notes, 47(1), 17-35.
  25. Liu, A. (2012). Where is cultural criticism in the digital humanities? Minneapolis: Univ Minnesota Press.
  26. Lynch, C. A. (2003). Institutional repositories: Essential infrastructure for scholarship in the digital age. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(2), 327-336.
  27. Menard, H. W. (1971). Science: Growth and change. London: Harvard University Press.
  28. Munzmay, A. (2018). Reading and writing in the digital thicket: Musicology, digital humanities, and the hybrid music library. Bibliothek Forschung Und Praxis, 42(2), 236-246. doi:10.1515/bfp-2018-0031
  29. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
  30. Price, D. D. S. (1970). Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology, and nonscience. C. E. Nelson ve D. K. Pollock (Ed.), Communication among scientists and engineers içinde (ss. 3-22). Lexington: Health Lexington.
  31. Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348-349.
  32. Rizo, C. A., Monge, M. ve Roque, X. (2018). New strategies for collaboration between research groups and libraries in the management of science archives. The case of the Center of History of Science and the Library of Science and Technology of the UAB. Metodos De Informacion, 9(16), 91-112. doi:10.5557/Iimi9-N16-091112
  33. Schaffner, J. ve Erway, R. (2014). Does every research library need a digital humanities center? (1556534663). Dublin, OHIO:
  34. Spiro, L. (2012). “This Is why we fight”: Defining the values of the digital humanities. Minneapolis: Univ Minnesota Press.
  35. Springer, M., Dulabahn, B., Michel, P., Natanson, B., Reser, D. W., Ellison, N. B., . . . Woodward, D. (2008). For the common good: The Library of Congress Flickr pilot project. https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/flickr_report_final.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  36. Sula, C. A. (2013). Digital humanities and libraries: A conceptual model. Journal of Library Administration, 53(1), 10-26.
  37. Ünal, Y. (2002). Belge sağlamanın maliyet analizi: ULAKBİM örneği (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi), Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  38. Varner, S. ve Hswe, P. (2016). Special report: Digital humanities in libraries. North Carolina: https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2016/01/04/special-report-digital-humanities-libraries/ adresinden erişildi.
  39. Vandegrift, M. ve Varner, S. (2013). Evolving in common: Creating mutually supportive relationships between libraries and the digital humanities. Journal of Library Administration, 53(1), 67-78.
  40. Wang, Y. L. (2018). Supporting digital humanities research: The innovative approaches of libraries. 3rd Annual International Conference on Information System and Artificial Intelligence (Isai2018), 1069. doi:Unsp 012054 10.1088/1742-6596/1069/1/012054
  41. Yalçın, H. (2010). Millî Folklor Dergisinin bibliyometrik profili (2007-2009).Millî Folklor, 22(85), 205-211.
  42. Yalçın, H. ve Yayla, K. (2016). Scientometric analysis of the researches about technological pedagogical content knowledge and scholarly communication. Eğitim ve Bilim, 41(188), 291-307. doi:10.15390/EB.2016.6746
  43. Yalçın, H., Yayla, K. ve Öztürk, T. (2017). Kütüphanecilik ve bilgibilim disiplininin boylamsal analizi. B. Yılmaz, T. Baş, S. Öztemiz ve M. Dişli (Ed.), Bilgi ve belge yönetimi: kuramsal yaklaşımlar içinde (ss. 287-334). İstanbul: Hiperlink.
  44. Zhang, Y., Liu, S. ve Mathews, E. (2015). Convergence of digital humanities and digital libraries. Library Management, 36(4-5), 362-377. doi:10.1108/Lm-09-2014-0116

License

Copyright (c) 2018 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to Cite

Yalçın, H. (2018). Digital Humanities and the Information Services. Information World, 19(2), 183-201. https://doi.org/10.15612/BD.2018.699