Investigating Digital Humanities: A Domain Analysis of Conference Proceedings Published in Taiwan, 2009-2016

數位人文的領域分析：以2009-2016臺灣國際會議論文為例

10.6182/jlis.201812_16(2).001

李鶴立(Hur-Li Lee)；王申罡(Shengang Wang)

Domain Analysis ； Digital Humanities ； International Conference of Digital Archives and Digital Humanities (Taipei, Taiwan) ； 領域分析 ； 數位人文 ； 數位典藏與數位人文國際研討會

圖書資訊學刊

16卷2期（2018 / 12 / 01）

1 - 23

英文

The study reports on an analysis of a chosen corpus in the emergent domain of digital humanities (DH). In contrast to other studies of the DH literature that focus on publications in the west, this study examines 129 papers published in the proceedings of the International Conferences of Digital Archives and Digital Humanities that were held in Taiwan between 2009 and 2016. In all, 236 individual authors from 15 countries contributed at least one paper; 50 domains were represented. Three East Asian countries (Taiwan, China, and Japan) show a dominating presence, and top three domains (computer science, history, and Chinese) have the highest numbers of participants and highest numbers of first authors. Unlike their counterparts in the humanities, the papers in the study have a much higher percentage of collaborative works. More than half of the papers that are collaborative works are interdisciplinary, but only one-fifth involve international collaboration. Proportionally, computer scientists' participation rate decreases and humanists' rate increases, however modestly, from 2012 onward. The study also investigates digital technology's impact on DH in various stages of the information lifecycle. More than two-thirds of the papers discuss technology's impact in the area of consuming data from digital collections for various purposes, with the impact on building retrieval systems/online platforms coming in second at 26.6%. Among different years, the first year is exceptional in showing high interest in the impact on building digital collections, building knowledge organization systems, and building retrieval systems but low interest in the impact on data consumption. Humanists in general are more attentive to the impact on consumption than technologists, while the latter lean toward the impact on building retrieval systems. Without any claim to comprehensiveness or representativeness, the study provides a snapshot of the DH literary output.

本研究對數位人文領域中的一組論文進行分析。過去類似的研究，均以在西方發表的論文作為對象，本文的研究對象，則是2009至2016年間，在臺灣舉辦的數位典藏與數位人文國際研討會中發表的129篇論文。研究的議題有三：（1）對這組論文的基本特質像是作者人數、代表國家地區、代表領域、常用詞彙等做描述統計；（2）將資訊生命周期分為四階段，分析數位科技對數位人文的影響在各階段的分布；（3）分析數位科技對數位人文造成的階段性影響是否因領域而不同。除了對全組論文進行分析，本研究更將數據分年檢視，探討論文的基本特質和數位科技的影響是否因時間的推進呈現一些趨勢。本研究給數位人文的領域分析，帶入一個新的視角。

1. Chang, Y. W.(2012).Tracking scientometric research in Taiwan using bibliometric and content analysis.Journal of Library and Information Studies,10(2),1-20.
   連結：
2. Burdick, A.,Drucker, J.,Lunenfeld, P.,Presner, T.,Schnapp, J.(2012).Digital_Humanities.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
3. Clement, T. E.,Carter, D.(2017).Connecting theory and practice in digital humanities information work.Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,68(6),1385-1396.
4. Dalbello, M.(2011).A genealogy of digital humanities.Journal of Documentation,67(3),480-506.
5. Graf, A.,Smiraglia, R.(2013).Transition in education: Domain analysis from the Encyclopedia of Milwaukee.North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization,4(1),76-87.
6. Guimarães, J. A. C.,De Oliveira, E. T.,Gracio, M. C. C.(2012).Theoretical referents in knowledge organization: A domain analysis of the knowledge organization journal.Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference,Wurzburg, Germany:
7. Hjørland, B.(2002).Domain analysis in information science: Eleven approaches–Traditional as well as innovative.Journal of documentation,58(4),422-462.
8. Hjørland, B.,Albrechtsen, H.(1995).Toward a new horizon in information science: Domain-analysis.Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,46(6),400-425.
9. Huggett, J.(2012).Core or periphery? Digital humanities from anarchaeological perspective.Historical Social Research,37(3),86-105.
10. Katz, J. S.,Martin, B. R.(1997).What is research collaboration?.Research Policy,26(1),1-18.
11. Liu, A.(2013).The meaning of the digital humanities.PMLA,128(2),409-423.
12. McPherson, T.(2012).Why are the digital humanities so white? or Thinking the histories of race and computation.Debates in the digital humanities,Minneapolis, MN:
13. Ossenblok, T. L.,Verleysen, F. T.,Engels, T. C.(2014).Coauthorship of journal articles and book chapters in the social sciences and humanities (2000–2010).Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,65(5),882-897.
14. Palmer, C. L.(1999).Aligning studies of information seeking and use with domain analysis.Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,50(12),1139-1140.
15. Poole, A. H.(2017).The conceptual ecology of digital humanities.Journal of Documentation,73(1),91-122.
16. Prieto-Díaz, R.(1990).Domain analysis: An introduction.ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes,15(2),47-54.
17. Subramanyam, K.(1983).Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review.Information Scientist,6(1),33-38.
18. Tang, M. C.,Cheng, Y. J.,Chen, K. H.(2017).A longitudinal study of intellectual cohesion in digital humanities using bibliometric analyses.Scientometrics,113(2),985-1008.
19. Wang, X.,Inaba, M.(2009).Structures and evolution of digital humanities: An empiricalresearch based on correspondence analysis and co-word analysis.Proceedings of the International Conference of Digital Archives and Digital Humanities,Taiwan: