Abstract
This article examines digital humanities (DH) centers as focal points of the
interdisciplinary transfer of knowledge. It is based on the assumption that the
manner in which the knowledge-transfer activities of DH communities are
facilitated affects the knowledge they produce. Following an analysis of eight
semi-structured interviews of directors, researchers, and administrators, the
article considers how DH professionals describe the facilitation of the
interdisciplinary transfer of knowledge in DH centers. It demonstrates that the
transfer of knowledge in DH centers is based on overlapping layers of organic
networks and stable organizational structures that support various kinds of
knowledge-sharing practices. The transfer of knowledge in DH centers combines
the exchange of ideas in the same physical space with online communication at
various levels, ranging from outside academia to the internal communication of a
research group. Further, the factors that enable information flow also have the
capability to restrict potentially meaningful information from entering into the
field. As a result, this article suggests that it is important to continue the
discussion on the boundaries for the transfer of knowledge in DH.
Introduction
Clicking repeatedly on the refresh button on the
whatisdigitalhumanities.com web page reveals a new definition for
digital humanities (DH)
[1] each time. Many of the definitions given by the over 800
participants in the
Day of DH, from 2009 to 2014,
state that DH has something to do with applying computational methods in
humanities research and teaching [
What is digital humanities]. In
the same way, the literature that ponders the character of DH points out that
the core of DH lies in combining these two approaches [
Terras 2010a]
[
Kirschenbaum 2010]. While there are almost as many ways of
verbalizing the definition of DH as there are individuals involved in it, it
seems that many of us agree that DH operates in the intersection of what has
traditionally been considered to be humanities disciplines and computing.
Therefore, it is valid to state that DH is a field that is rooted in
interdisciplinarity. The dynamics, challenges, and promises of DH all emerge
from the interaction of diverging disciplines and approaches. The
interdisciplinary character of DH emphasizes the social aspects of research,
where intellectual communication becomes an integral part of a research process.
The centers and laboratories that have been established in various universities
have become important nodes in the global “web of
DH,” owing to their ability to bring people together. These spaces
are focal points in the interdisciplinary transfer of knowledge, as they connect
humanities, social sciences, computer sciences, mathematics, and knowledge in
other fields to produce new understanding, host a multitude of projects, and
bring different departments and organizations together as part of a wider DH
network. One could say that DH centers are the hubs of DH, which both support
and gain their energy from the constant transfer of knowledge among various
actors.
If transfer of knowledge is crucial both for DH centers and the field, how do DH
centers manage and facilitate the interdisciplinary transfer of knowledge? How
is transfer of knowledge promoted so that individual scholars gain an
understanding what is being done in the other disciplines, and collaboration of
interdisciplinary research groups has less obstacles? The practices,
facilitation, and organization of DH projects and communities have been gaining
increasing scholarly interest over the past years. The themes that encompass the
tasks and institutional models of DH centers [
Svensson 2010], the
best ways to manage DH projects [
Tabak 2017]
[
Reed 2014], the steps needed for establishing a DH community [
Galina Russell 2015], or collaboration and communication [
Van Gorp and Bron 2019]
[
Matres, Oiva and Tolonen 2018]
[
Griffin and Hayler 2018]
[
Keener 2015]
[
Siemens 2011]
[
Siemens et al 2011]
[
Deegan and McCarty 2011]
[
Siemens 2009], have been topical in the ongoing discussion.
Simultaneously, interdisciplinary research and knowledge transfer within
organizations has been widely examined in management studies, thereby enabling
categorizations of the features of knowledge transfers [
Siedlok and Hibbert 2014]
[
Krishnaveni and Sujatha 2012]. These studies have provided important
information on the features of DH research and indicated factors that are
generally considered crucial in information transfers. However, thus far, it is
not very clear how the DH field facilitates interdisciplinary transfer of
knowledge and what this reveals about the field in general.
Understanding the practices, structures, and the community underlying knowledge
construction — which knowledge transfer is a crucial part of — is important for
grasping what DH research is based on and its various nuances. Knowledge is
inseparable from the communities that create it, its context, structure, and the
means with which it is produced and shared. It is an ongoing social
accomplishment, constituted and re-constituted in practice [
Krishnaveni and Sujatha 2012, 37]
[
Orlikowski 2002, 249, 253, 270]. Thus, the manner in which
DH communities function and in which their knowledge transfer activities are
facilitated influences the knowledge they produce.
This article studies how DH professionals describe the interdisciplinary transfer
of knowledge that takes place in DH centers and what they see as the main ways
of facilitating these transfers. Responding to this research question
contributes to the discussions on the premises on which DH research produces
knowledge by exploring the field from the perspective of transfer of knowledge.
The underlying idea is that understanding how knowledge is transferred within
the field enables us to analyze what kind of knowledge DH research produces and
identify the potential limitations for our knowledge base. The ways we make DH
possible influences the ways we conduct research and, finally, the outcomes of
our research.
The current study is based on eight interviews with DH facilitators in
(alphabetical order): Comhis Collective (Helsinki, Finland); HELDIG (Helsinki,
Finland); Northeastern University Library Digital Scholarship Group (from now on
NULDSG, Boston Mass., USA); NULab (Northeastern University, Boston Mass., USA);
and University College London Digital Humanities Center (from now on UCLDH,
London, UK).
[2] The interviewees worked in different
positions in DH centers — they were directors, leading scholars, managers, and
administrators — and thus the expertise of the interviewees comes with different
perspectives toward facilitating DH research. The idea of the interviews was to
collect the experiences of DH facilitators and practitioners and analyze how
they describe the organizational, infrastructure and practice based obstacles
for DH research, and their solutions to overcome them. The overarching question
of the semi-structured interviews was “how does your
center/group facilitate DH research?” excavated by detailed questions
on the everyday practices of the institution. The used analysis method was
thematic analysis with inductive essentialist approach [
Braun and Clarke 2006]. Following this approach, the article identifies platforms of and recurrent
practices and obstacles related to transfer of knowledge in the interviews. The
small sample of interviews, even if collected in three countries, does not
represent all the DH centers or even all the aspects of the studied centers.
However, being experienced and well-networked DH professionals working in
thriving DH centers, the interviewees’ visions related to the field furthers the
discussion on how the ways DH is facilitated affects the outcomes of the field.
Interdisciplinary DH and Transfer of Knowledge
I think that one of the most interesting results [of the
NULab] are some of the unexpected results of the crossed collaboration that
has come out of it.[Interview with Ryan Cordell]
When describing the activities at the NULab Ryan Cordell drew a picture of
interdisciplinary collaboration, where “people from computer
sciences work together with the people from English, people in political
science and journalism work together, folks from African-American studies
collaborate with computer scientists, [all] working together on
memes” [Interview with Ryan Cordell]. In fact all the interviewees
considered interdisciplinarity to be rooted in the core idea of DH research, and
the main factor that made DH research fascinating. Consequently, they described
the work in DH centers resulting from the activities of people belonging to
different disciplines, departments, and organizations [Interview with Élika
Orgtega] [Interview with Sarah Connell] [Interview with Eero Hyvönen] [Interview
with Caroline Klibanoff] [Interview with Mikko Tolonen] [Interview with Melissa
Terras] [Interview with David Beavan].
DH centers, as understood in this article, are
spaces manifested
through a variety networks, collaborations, organizational structures, digital
presence and occasionally, but not always, in physical premises [
Oiva and Pawlicka-Deger 2020]. Although the studied centers reside at
academic institutions, their physical “location” can be fluid
and non-bounded. Simultaneously, interdisciplinary research can be defined as a
mode of research that transgresses the traditional boundaries of disciplines and
is more extensive or powerful than the sum of the components [
Siedlok and Hibbert 2014, 197]. Research literature identifies
various forms of interdisciplinary research, and the typology of
interdisciplinary collaboration continues to be debated. For example, scholars
classify interdisciplinary research into
multidisciplinary,
transdisciplinary, and
interdisciplinary research depending on the level and
process of integration of the participating disciplines [
Klein 2014]
[
Siedlok and Hibbert 2014, 198–199]
[
Huutoniemi et al 2010, 83]. Regardless the intensity of
interdisciplinary integration, it seems that the first step required for
interdisciplinary collaboration leading to fruitful mixes of disciplinary
approaches, is the transfer of knowledge from one discipline to another.
The concept of “transfer of knowledge” in its basic
form implies “conveyance of knowledge from one place, person
or ownership to another.” Transfer of knowledge does not imply
transfer of an entire replica of the knowledge to the receiver, as the knowledge
can be modified in the receiving unit [
Krishnaveni and Sujatha 2012, 27].
Transfer of knowledge is a loose concept that has been studied in various kinds
of research that analyze activities between countries and organizations,
including within and outside academia [
Fullwood et al 2013, 130].
Because of its fluidity, transfer of knowledge can also be used as an analytical
tool in studying the facilitation of interdisciplinary collaboration, such as DH
research.
When discussing everyday interdisciplinary practices, the interviewees referred
to versatile activities of interdisciplinary transfer of knowledge, varying from
listening to talks held by scholars from other disciplines to integrated
collaboration and joint production of research findings. The reasons for
organizing all these activities lays in the ways we understand where
interdisciplinary research can lead us. The research literature reveals both
cynical and optimistic reasons for interdisciplinary researcher interaction.
Interdisciplinary research has been a fashionable buzzword in science and
innovation policy, where it has been assumed that increased collaboration leads
to increased productivity of scientific achievements and innovations. This has
led to expanded usage of the term in the funding applications, but not always in
research practice [
Siedlok and Hibbert 2014, 194]. In addition
to using interdisciplinary research as a label for being competitive in grant
calls, there is also genuine belief that only by going beyond the boundaries of
disciplines will we be able to understand and respond to the complex problems of
the world [
Podestá et al 2013, 40]. Furthermore, interdisciplinary
researcher interaction can profoundly change the premises of research [
Svensson 2010, 163]. According to the interviewees, the main
point of interdisciplinary transfer of knowledge was the potential of reaching
unexpected outcomes. For them, at its best, interdisciplinary collaboration
leads to new findings and forming new understanding. The experiences of the
interviewees demonstrated that the results of an interdisciplinary collaboration
can be more than the sum of the contributors and lead to outcomes that no one
could expect [Interview with Mikko Tolonen] [Interview with Ryan Cordell].
Interdisciplinary collaboration is the salt and pepper — and most likely also
the chili and honey — of DH research, that promises reaching for the
epoch-making findings.
While there are high expectations for interdisciplinary collaboration,
implementing it in practice is not easy. The interviewees noted that the main
challenges of such a collaboration are related to divergent ways of
understanding issues, varying from the basic assumption of the preferred
outcomes of research and concepts, to more concrete questions of what makes a
paper, or how to name authors, and to different institutional and individual
expectations [Interview with Sarah Connell] [Interview with Melissa Terras]
[Interview with Ryan Cordell]. The challenges of interdisciplinary collaboration
have been discussed widely in different fields [
Podestá et al 2013]]
[
Romero-Lankao et al 2013, 35, 38]
[
Olson and Olson 2014, 3–4]
[
Siemens 2009, 229], including DH literature. The latest
studies in DH have identified misconceptions and distrust among different
disciplines and schools, as well as structural and promotion-related obstacles
to collaborative research [
Keener 2015, ¶43]
[
Klein 2014]
[
Zorich 2012]
[
Siemens 2011]. Obstacles often arise when differing disciplinary
cultures with distinctive practices need to achieve something together. At its
worst, attempted collaboration among various disciplinary cultures can lead to
collisions due to epistemological and methodological differences,
discipline-driven understanding of the context, and uneven technical skills [
Terras 2010b, 175–176, 183–184]
[
Siedlok and Hibbert 2014, 204]. In addition to the social
challenges for interdisciplinary understanding, the literature has identified
several obstacles for information flows in DH research, which result from
combinations of siloed organizational structures and administration, using
processes of digital tools that create bottlenecks in information flows, lack of
collaboration, differences in understanding among different disciplines, unclear
knowledge-sharing practices, and lack of continuity and maintenance [
Nygren, Foka, and Buckland 2014]
[
Terras 2010b, 186].
This brings us to the question that if transfer of knowledge is simultaneously
challenging and crucial for DH, how can we enable and support fruitful
interdisciplinary transfer of knowledge? In her interview, Élika Ortega offered
a path for finding a solution to the challenge of understanding gap between
disciplines. She compared the interdisciplinary research of DH to a wide
spectrum of perspectives, where scholars coming from different disciplines
reside — literature scholars sit next to anthropologists, while mathematicians
are located closer to computer scientists in the spectrum. According to Ortega,
it can be difficult to understand someone at the other end of that spectrum,
while scholars in neighboring disciplines are easier to understand:
I think there are [problems in interdisciplinary
understanding]. [ — ] If we stretched out that spectrum, I guess some of us
[the DHers] would end up in one extreme, and some other would end up in the
other end, [ — ] but there are all of the steps in between. So, if this end
and that end are not necessarily communicating right away, then there are
steps to follow to one or the other, or to the middle point where that can
be sort of translated. And they translate little by little, like move
knowledge from one to the other. To move it through the spectrum. So, I
think it definitely happens, and the bigger the group the more that
happens.[Interview with Élika Ortega]
For Ortega, interdisciplinary research in DH is about a step-by-step transfer of
understanding along the spectrum, transmission of knowledge from one discipline
to the neighboring one, and onward from that. An analysis of the interviews of
this study reveals that implementing gradual transfer of knowledge requires
people with differing knowledge (actors), networks, and spaces facilitating
communication as well as motivation and supporting practices. The following
sub-sections of this article will discuss how these features support
interdisciplinary transfer of knowledge in DH centers.
The Creation and Maintenance of Networks
The core of the interdisciplinary transfer of knowledge in DH centers are
networks. When asked about the main activities of the DH centers, the
interviewees described various methods of creating and maintaining
interdisciplinary networks to support informal communication and structured
transfer of knowledge. The first and most crucial step in enabling
interdisciplinary transfer of knowledge is to enable people from different
disciplines to meet and communicate with each other. All the interviewees
indicate that building and maintaining the network and ensuring that people meet
each other on a regular basis to share their thoughts and ideas are the core of
facilitating DH research. The DH centers enable this meeting of people by
organizing weekly meetings, seminars, talks, tutorials, workshops, office hours,
“speed-dating,” speaker series, hackathons, summits
compiling all local DH projects, and meetings of smaller groups and other less
and more formal meetings that bring people together. [Interview with David
Beavan] [Interview with Ryan Cordell] [Interview with Eero Hyvönen] [Interview
with Melissa Terras] [Interview with Sarah Connell] [Interview with Mikko
Tolonen] [Interview with Caroline Klibanoff]. When meeting each other, the
representatives of different disciplines discuss and share ideas that often
foster new thoughts [
Galina Russell 2015]. The networking
activities of DH centers are not necessarily different from other academic
environments, but because people come to DH from different disciplines, enhanced
attention must be given to getting people together, thereby making building and
maintaining networks more essential.
The interviewed DH specialists indicated that they used various paths for
networking and sharing experiences and information in the community. Moreover,
they also added that numerous facilitators had carefully shaped the different
forms of the meetings to enable the highest level of transfer of knowledge.
Thus, one can say that they do not merely gather people together in the same
room and hope for the best but that they have created several routines or
practices that support the sharing of information. For example, at
Northeastern’s NULab and Digital Scholarship Group, administrators organize
various meetings so that there are moments where everybody talks and not only
the invited speakers [Interview with Sarah Connell].
The transfer of explicit knowledge in DH centers takes place in courses and
workshops. A few centers offer consultation sessions on various themes, as well
as help students and scholars to launch projects that contain methods that are
new for them [Interview with Caroline Klibanoff]. Although formal education is
usually directed at students, there is also a need to learn new things among
scholars who have completed their formal education. Director of HELDIG, Eero
Hyvönen, indicated that they organize DH courses not only for students but also
scholars with the hope that the latter would update their knowledge and add new
elements to their knowledge base [Interview with Eero Hyvönen].
Interestingly, numerous interviewees emphasized the importance of informal
meetings, although the centers also organize more formal event [Interview with
Ryan Cordell] [Interview with Melissa Terras] [Interview with Eero Hyvönen]. For
example, Ryan Cordell mentioned how he had learned new methods from informal
conversations with colleagues in other disciplines [Interview with Ryan
Cordell]. Thus, it appears that informal events ease the processes of becoming
acquainted with others and building trust as they allow free-flowing discussion
in a less hierarchical atmosphere, which contribute to the transfer of tacit
knowledge. Informal meetings may lead to something that the interviewees
described as “unexpected results of crossed
collaboration” [Interview with Ryan Cordell] [see also Interview with
Mikko Tolonen]. Along the same lines, Phillips et al. describe in this special
issue the “serendipitous accidents” as one of the key
engines of their lab [
Phillips et al 2020]. It appears that open and
unplanned interdisciplinary encounters foster unexpected results, which include
the promise and potential of interdisciplinary research.
Further, the interviewees described how sharing information at various levels
translates into different kinds of activities in their work, such as learning
new methods, establishing new projects, teaching, etc. According to them, the
outcomes of the transfer of knowledge can assume many forms. A discussion with a
colleague can translate into a new angle in a research project, teaching, or
form the basis of a new invention. Things learned in a workshop can be
transformed into a grant proposal, applied to research, or implemented in
teaching [Interview with Ryan Cordell] [Interview with Sarah Connell].
The active networking — or “colliding”
(“törmäyttäminen” in Finnish) of people, as formulated by
Eero Hyvönen — is not an accidental activity. In fact, it is in the very core of
creating a thriving DH center. The goal of constant networking and communication
across disciplines is the establishment of interdisciplinary research groups,
which will be helpful when applying for funding. For Melissa Terras,
[p]art of the thing is that it's good for people to meet
regularly, because if you have a chance to meet people in the seminars then
when the grant call comes in, then you will find more easily people to work
with grant applications, you can put people together with other people, you
can network when you know a lot of people, when you know a lot of people you
will be able to put together them when needed. So, the Center is set up to
be a mailman that helps people to get to know each other.[Interview with
Melissa Terras]
According to the interviewees, extensive and lively networks, promoted by active
linking of people, are an important aspect of “social
security”. Furthermore, they are also crucial for the center’s
survival in the academic world, where a great part of funding is competitive
project-based external funding. Therefore, the DH centers, for example NULab,
have created paths that support the establishment of successful research groups
from serendipitous interdisciplinary encounters in DH meetings and networking by
providing small “seed grants,” which, hopefully, lead to
receiving external research grants [Interview with Sarah Connell].
Throughout the interviews, it became evident that the studied DH centers function
as umbrellas for loose, rather informal and dynamic networks of scholars,
students, librarians, museum experts, activists, and university administrators.
When asked about the number of people involved in the activities of the centers,
the interviewees found it difficult to define exact numbers, because there is a
different number of participants in various events and the form and strength of
involvement of the people varies. Many of the interviewees identified layers of
involvement of people in the various activities of the DH center. They indicated
that some people are strongly involved in a research group, while others may be
more actively participating, for example, in a speaker series [Interview with
Sarah Connell] [Interview with Caroline Klibanoff] [Interview with Ryan Cordell]
[Interview with David Beavan]. In addition, partner organizations — such as
libraries, museums, and archives — can be integrally involved in research
projects, teaching, or participating in the open events [Interview with Melissa
Terras] [Interview with Eero Hyvönen]. Thus, thriving DH communities tend to be
larger than merely the “official” employed members of the DH
center, as they involve people with different layers of memberships and
networks. Out of these, the interconnections that can be called
“micro” and “macro” networks are
crucial for DH centers.
Interdisciplinary Transfer of Knowledge in Micro- and Macro-networks
The functions and purposes of transfer of knowledge vary in the different layers
of the DH networks. For an individual DH scholar, networks make learning what is
being done in other disciplines more reachable: if you know people from
different disciplines, it is easier to ask questions on new methods or
unfamiliar approaches when you encounter them. Simultaneously at the
“micro” (the collaborative research groups) and the
“macro” (the wider cross-institutional) layers of the DH
center the networks have different functions.
The actual face-to-face everyday interdisciplinary transfer of knowledge in DH
centers takes place in the core units of research and working groups.
Collaboration on a particular theme facilitates the efficient transfer of
knowledge among participants. For example, Élika Ortega identified
interdisciplinary working groups focusing on concrete common themes as a good
way to start interdisciplinary collaboration:
I don’t think
we have discussed [challenges of interdisciplinary collaboration] that much,
but we are looking into creating working groups based on salient things that
we could identify. Some people were talking that we could start a working
group on images, where people working with archival images, or memes, or
photography, let say. Then there was this idea to establish a social media
working group. So that’s the way that we try to bring our heads together
despite our… I don’t want to say differences, but … various profiles.
[Interview with Élika Ortega]
The micro networks of collaborative research groups, which enable recurring
meeting and discussion with representatives of other disciplines interested in
the same topic form the Communities of Practice (CoP). CoPs are informal groups
of people bound together by a common purpose and are considered particularly
good for facilitating transfer of tacit knowledge and informal circulation of
information [
Klein 2014]
[
Krishnaveni and Sujatha 2012]
[
Fragaszy Troyano and Rhody 2013]. People who participate in micro-networks learn,
in concrete terms, the approaches and understandings of scholars in other
disciplines, which is difficult to transfer through other means.
The interviewees indicated various ways to prevent challenges in transfer of
knowledge in the micro-networks. As discussed earlier, the challenges of
interdisciplinary transfer of knowledge may include misconceptions, lack of
understanding, trust, or even respect arising from the differences in
disciplinary cultures. In addition, work in interdisciplinary research teams
comes with an integrated form of collaboration that can be new, particularly in
terms of humanists who are often trained to work alone [Interview with Mikko
Tolonen] [
Terras 2010b, 173]. In order to overcome the
challenges of interdisciplinary transfer of knowledge in research teams, the
involved scholars must understand and respect the diverging approaches of their
collaborators [Interview with Melissa Terras]. Thus, behind the façades of
sophisticated methods and shiny visualizations, the very core of a successful DH
team is based on the basic human needs of being recognized and respected,
besides the desire to expand scholarly knowledge. Furthermore, for facilitating
collaboration, the research teams need to have explicit discussions on the joint
goals of the project as well as the different ways of crediting in different
disciplines in order to ensure that everybody leaves the project with the
requisite “credits” [Interview with Ryan Cordell].
Other scholars have also indicated that agreeing upon the modes of communication,
milestones, expected roles and obligations, means of conduct, and modes of
publication at the very beginning of a project can foster open communication and
prevent misunderstandings. Teams must devote time for the participants to build
trust and get to know each other so that they may work together efficiently. For
a DH project to be successful, there must be an emphasis on maintaining
communication, good human management, and sufficient face-to-face time [
Terras 2010b, 185, 187]
[
Siemens 2011]
[
Suominen 2018]
[
Taskinen, Kivimäki and Männistö 2018].
In addition to interdisciplinary transfer of knowledge in micro-networks,
communication across organizational boundaries is crucial for DH centers.
Building and maintaining networks beyond institutional boundaries, and even
outside the universities or academic circles, was considered important by the
directors and managers of established DH centers. Apart from university faculty,
a well-working DH network also includes specialists from libraries, archives,
museums, public and non-governmental organizations, and businesses [Interview
with Melissa Terras] [Interview with Eero Hyvönen] [Interview with Sarah
Connell].
In order to attract people from other organizations and expand the borders of the
DH community, the events are usually open to anyone who is interested in walking
in.
Many of our events are public, we have a lot of
researchers from other institutions. Occasionally we get real people from
the public, which is lovely when that happens, or sometimes professionals
working in industry, and things like that.[Interview with David
Beavan]
DH centers organize formal organizational meetings and industry advisory panels,
to which they invite representatives of different organizations; in addition,
they maintain the information flow through informal meetings. Melissa Terras
describes the breathtakingly wide networks that require active maintaining, but
are indispensable for the UCLDH:
[--] we have an industry
advisory panel twice a year, so we have meetings with the British Library,
British Museum, National Gallery and range of other people… London
Metropolitan Archives and the industry hearing panels, so we have a whole
network. In addition to that I spend a lot of time, two or three hours a
week, just meeting people and hearing what's going on. There are a lot of
people from different institutions that I go out for coffee we just get
together and chat about stuff about what's happening so that I can keep
together these networks and if something happens. Often grant applications
[come at] a very short term and you need to make a project very quickly and
you need to know who am I going to call and ask to participate in the
project. Networking is very important. I think it takes a certain type of
person to do that and it takes a certain type of a drive to do that. It´s
important to know what is going on in different places.[Interview with
Melissa Terras]
As discussed earlier, interorganizational networking is crucial for enabling
information flow among people and for a prompt launching of cross-organizational
project applications. Moreover, keeping oneself updated on the developments
outside the university provides an important understanding of the directions of
evolution in the realm of digitality in a wider context.
The physical context of the DH center — the city and the country in which it is
located — influences how the center regards external collaboration. The
existence of potential collaborative and rival organizations in close proximity
provide opportunities for collaboration and a background for comparison and
competition [Interview with Élika Ortega] [Interview with Sarah Connell]
[Interview with Melissa Terras] [Interview with Eero Hyvönen].
Interestingly, the interviews reveal how location in a prominent city with
several major universities (such as Boston or London) and in smaller cities with
fewer local universities (like Helsinki) make the DH centers mindful about their
position. In major cities, the scale of comparison can be within the city, while
in smaller locations, the broader international context becomes significant.
I guess another thing that has helped us here in this
particular context is… I mean Boston is a really weird city to do anything
academic, because there are, I guess 50 universities in the city. There are
the heavy weights, like the MIT and Harvard, who, I mean any normal person
is thinking that whatever I might be doing they are doing it better!
[laughs] Because it´s MIT and Harvard, right! That is interesting, and
obviously they are awesome in everything that they do, they have such long
and important institutional histories that they follow that they might not
be adopting newer trends as DH as readily. So that is where I think
Northeaster, our dean, and the NULab has made a big dent. In the absence of
having a big DH center in Harvard or MIT, and there are people doing it, and
doing it really well, although not as widespread as we do it here. So we
have had this opportunity to be competitive by doing this thing here, and we
have got the institutional support. I think that’s a higher level thinking
about the strategies.[Interview with Élika Ortega]
Everything in Finland is so small that everybody understands
that we need to do things together, if we need to accomplish something
bigger. This is why we have been able to do bigger projects in Finland. [ —
] This does not happen often abroad. One reason for that can be that there
are so strong players who can manage by themselves also. [ — ] This is why
we have created our agenda around the idea of a network so that we will
collaborate with all major institutions, and not so that the collaboration
would happen only within the university. [Interview with Eero
Hyvönen]
In the interview with the Finnish DH center, the collaboration instruments at the
level of the European Union — such as CLARIN and DARIAH — were mentioned as
important channels of collaboration [Interview with Eero Hyvönen]. In the
interviews with the US and UK DH centers, international collaboration was not
explicitly mentioned, although both institutions accommodate several
international projects. It appears that for centers in smaller countries,
comparable foreign organizations provide meaningful reference points.
Further, the means through which DH centers facilitate the transfer of knowledge
in micro- and macro-networks are similar — “colliding” people
on a regular basis! However, the purposes of these networks are different. While
practical work on a joint theme enables transfer of tacit knowledge, the general
inter-organizational meetings also provide — in addition to potential strength
in funding applications — an important context for the center. Although the
networks are different, they are both crucial for the centers and they support
each other.
Organizational Structure – the Glue that Holds Together
Although the divergent, loose, and dynamic networks of interested individuals are
the core of DH centers, the organizational structures of the centers also have
an important role in facilitating knowledge transfers. The organizational
structures provide sustainability and continuity to the dynamic and
ever-changing networks. The employment status of the members of DH centers
varies and in addition to the tenure positions, a great number of people work
part-time or have short-term contracts. This creates instability and may lead to
situations where tacit knowledge, lessons learned, best practices, and even
knowledge on the methods or deeper understanding of certain data are lost with
dynamic changes [
Reed 2014, ¶26]. A concrete illustration
of this is that at least three of the eight interviewees have changed their
positions by the publication of this article. In DH, accumulated knowledge is
not stored only in publications but also in the logics of the methods and the
datasets employed. Although a lack of continuity and maintenance of knowledge
might not be crucial problems for an individual research project, it can create
knowledge gaps in the field in the longer run. Creating continuity by supporting
documentation, accumulation, and storage of knowledge in one way or another is
an increasingly important task of DH centers.
The interviews did not address continuity directly, but they revealed many ways
in which the functions of the staff of DH centers support this. In addition to
the support for networking, the interviewees listed providing know-how through
networks, the ability to hint what needs to be addressed with specific
questions, sharing practical advice on how to begin and run a DH project, and
providing support in writing grants as crucial tasks. In many DH centers, the
coordinator works as a crucial node for maintaining and supporting, keeping
everything on track, and ensuring that communication works [Interview with Sarah
Connell] [Interview with David Beavan]. In addition, to the fact that they
“make the information flow,” they also seem to
function as crucial institutional memory of the organizations. As Sarah Connell
describes,
[w]e are especially useful for being someone you
can contact with an idea and say “I want to do this and I don’t know how, I
don’t even know who else is doing this, I even don’t know if this has been
done four hundred times” and we’ll either know — because between the three
of us Elizabeth, David and me — we have a fairly diverse expertise, or we’ll
know who to ask. So, we are a good place for people who can’t see their next
step in digital research. [Interview with Sarah Connell]
The DH centers develop new resources for research and maintain a knowledge base
by listing available tools and informally sharing information and the best
practices of the uses of them. For example, the Comhis Collective (and other
research groups affiliated with HELDIG) produce new data sets, methods, analysis
pipelines, and tools with tutorials and e-learning packages that they are
sharing with others in the spirit of open science [Interview with Mikko Tolonen]
[Interview with Eero Hyvönen]. The codes, manuals, and information on the
developed methods, tools, data sets, and pipelines require maintenance. Since
research groups are often temporary settings, there is a need for institutional
and more stable settings that support external dissemination of the new
knowledge and ensure more stable storage of the documentation.
For a DH center, resources, information on them, where they exist, and how they
can be used is fundamental for creating continuity through accumulated
knowledge. The resources are often scattered around university campuses, and DH
centers also pool resources with different institutions.
[At
the Northeastern University] the infrastructure is scattered around the
campus. Some of it is at the neural sciences institute or at the library [ —
] I think that is an advantage. Given all that, I don’t think that in big
institutions not all the infrastructure is going to be in one place. The
idea of distributed infrastructure is very useful. If you are going to try
something like that it would be useful to have an assessment of what kind of
infrastructure is [already] available and where [to whom], and who can do
what better, or more carefully. Because then the work can be done, and the
communications can happen in synchronous email or Slack, or regular meetings
monthly or so.[Interview with Élika Ortega]
In addition to the fact that the tools must exist, there is a need to spread
awareness of their availability with the help of lists and meetings. DH centers
require organizational structures and administration to keep dynamic networks
together, maintain organizational memory, and ensure continuity. Being points
that concentrate information on past projects, collected resources, and
available tools, the organizational structures of DH centers facilitate and
support the transfer of knowledge in the longer term.
Shared Physical Space as a Transmitter
The interviews with DH professionals reveal that although work in DH is about
handling digital data with digital tools, physical proximity is an important
factor facilitating the transfer of knowledge also in the DH field [see also
[
Siemens 2011]]. Sharing the same space is an important
transmitter of understanding, and it appears to be a response to the challenges
of interdisciplinary transfer of tacit knowledge. If, as suggested by the
research literature, the transfer of tacit knowledge requires interaction and
proximity of people [
Krishnaveni and Sujatha 2012, 28], how do DH centers
actually provide it?
According to the experiences of the interviewees, proximity can be achieved in
different ways. Certain DH centers have permanent spaces dedicated for joint
meetings and workshops, lab spaces with special equipment, or office space for
the staff, while others arrange meetings at a variety of locations with no
single permanent physical space. At the time of the interviews, the Boston
NULab, NULDSG, and HELDIG had, or were about to have, their own spaces for
meetings and individual work. Simultaneously, UCLDH does not have its own
physical premises apart from one lab space, but the members of the network meet
regularly in various places. Even if DH labs would have physical spaces, often,
the majority of the affiliated people do not have offices there, as they might
work in their home departments or in libraries.
Further, numerous interviewees considered the existence of a permanent physical
space as a crucial part of the center’s activities, although they described
different ways of organizing physical proximity as optimal [Interview with
Caroline Klibanoff] [Interview with Mikko Tolonen] [Interview with Sarah
Connell] [Interview with Ryan Cordell] [Interview with Eero Hyvönen]. According
to Mikko Tolonen, the possibility to surround oneself only with issues of
interest in the digital world can hinder fruitful encounters of unknown ideas,
which can happen easier in the analog world’s face-to-face encounters:
In all kinds of development informal meetings are crucial. It
is not a coincident that the concentrations of know-how are often located in
a small area. It makes you to exchange ideas. [ — ] When people meet each
other, it may lead to something unexpected. In digital world you can
demarcate exactly the kind of bubble you want to, but [physically] you are
forced to meet [all kinds of] people when you are getting yourself a coffee.
[ — ] It is easy to establish different kinds of centers to the Internet.
You can just make a website and call it something, but it does not mean that
things will actually happen there. If you have some kind of physical
presence, it forces things to start happening! [Interview with Mikko
Tolonen]
Some interviewees emphasized the importance of joint space where people can enter
easily for facilitating informal exchange of ideas, thereby increasing
(interdisciplinary) communication. Being in the same room makes one actually
understand what is going on in there [Interview with Caroline Klibanoff].
Certain interviewees considered informal collective work to be the preferable
use of the joint DH space:
The importance of people being
proximate to each other, that’s something that I think should be taken quite
seriously. [ — ] So, thinking about how we want things to work in the NULab,
we do want this space to be one for informal collective work. Where I’m
doing something on my computer and you are doing something on your computer
and then lean over, talk, talk, talk, go back to your own separate thing. We
will try to see if that happens organically, and if it doesn’t we are going
to make it happen [ — ] by scheduling some structured work time. [ — ] I
think that we are really still trying to figure out what’s the best way that
we can have this space help to make the community to take shape.[Interview
with Sarah Connell]
In addition to joint collaborative working spaces, the interviewees mentioned the
benefits of having (separate) offices located in close proximity to each other.
When asked about the benefits of belonging to the DH center, the interviewees
indicated learning from scholars in other disciplines by actively working with
them. One of the factors that they believed to promote such learning was the
location of office spaces in close proximity, which led to everyday
conversations and experimenting with new methods. For example, being located in
the same corridor encourages people to have quick conversations, which can be
more effective from the viewpoint of transfer of knowledge than long but rare
meetings [Interview with Ryan Cordell]. As an effect of proximity, “things start happening.” By establishing everyday micro
contacts and sharing small things, it is easier to understand the other person:
I think proximity is important if you want to actually
work together. When we were separated, we got together and had our meeting,
and talked that we should work on this or that, and you go your separate
ways and you don´t see them again until the next meeting, and things just
don´t really happen. And there is awful lot of value, I think, in being in
proximity, you are by, you meet more often and start talking, and start
exchanging ideas. Even just with Ben over there [in the next office] we chat
a lot, get into debates, and the whole thing. I just think it´s useful,
there are things that can be done virtually, and things that just can´t.
[Interview with Ryan Cordell]
According to Eero Hyvönen, it is essential for a DH center to have physical
premises; at the time of the interview, HELDIG was on the verge of acquiring a
permanent space, with seminar rooms, collaborative spaces, and offices for the
core staff. However, not all the staff was to have offices there, and Hyvönen
stated that people in other departments could be crucial for spreading knowledge
of DH research [Interview with Eero Hyvönen].
Although a few interviewees emphasized the importance of physical proximity, not
all DH centers have set spaces or even feel that they would need such a space.
Having a “place of one’s own” can be useful, but it
is not critical if the center staff arranges alternative meeting spaces. The
UCLDH is predominantly a virtual center that does not have a set space. The
scholars have their individual offices in different parts of the university,
where they meet with their collaborators. The center organizes a host of events,
where people meet face-to-face, but they do not need a set “DH
space” for that [Interview with Melissa Terras]. Being located in
central London makes availability of physical space scarce. In addition, the
interviewees felt that having no physical space makes the organization nimbler,
more flexible, and interdisciplinary; this is because physical space also
implies additional responsibility, and more complex financial structures.
Therefore, there is no need for a physical space when a network already exists
and functions [Interview with David Beavan].
At the level of research teams, physical proximity is not always possible. For
example, although the Comhis Collective is located in Helsinki, not all its team
members are present in the same premises or even in the same country. For them,
Slack and other digital collaboration tools enable the flow of information among
all team members. However, if there is a reliance solely on digital
collaboration tools, there is a threat that the persons who are not physically
present will not be aware of the latest developments. Therefore, in order to
make collaboration smooth, all the team members periodically get together in the
same space for days of intensive collaboration [Interview with Mikko Tolonen].
For teams working remotely, in-person meetings can be important platforms for
reviewing what has been done, planning future activities, and also for resolving
problematic questions that are difficult to solve through conference calls or
emails [
Reed 2014, ¶35]
[
Siemens 2011]. Physical meetings are often more necessary at the
beginning of a project, so that the people get used to each other. After getting
to know each other by being present in the same room, it is easier for the
scholars to engage in more informal communication, even online [
Podestá et al 2013, 44]
[
Siemens 2011].
Digital Transfers of Knowledge Within and Outside the Community
In addition to physical proximity, digital communication tools are crucial for
transfer of knowledge in DH centers. The different layers of networks and the
level of integration of people at the DH centers are reflected in the uses of
divergent communication channels, varying between openly accessible to anyone
interested and closed usage of specific groups. The channels utilized — such as
email lists, Facebook, Twitter, Slack, Google Drive, Trello, and others — all
facilitate different kinds of communication and transfer of knowledge. Each
channel has different functions and follower potential, which influences the
kind of communication which they can be used for [Interview with Sarah Connell].
In addition to the technical features directing the usage of a digital
communication tool, each channel has a distinctive culture of communication that
one has to know to be able to communicate effectively. Certain channels
facilitate low-barrier informal communication more easily, which includes asking
“stupid” questions, while others contain more formal and
public communication. For example, the interviewees stated that a Slack channel
is a good means for low-barrier communication and asking questions, while a
list-serv — used by the same community — appears more suitable for disseminating
information, but nobody uses it for asking questions. Moreover, Slack’s
chat-like functions serve as a low-barrier connector [Interview with Caroline
Klibanoff] [see also [
Evalyn et al 2020]]. In Slack, you can also see
all the people who are involved in the channel, while it is more difficult to
identify the recipients of an email sent to a list-serv.
For internal sharing of information, discussions, and keeping things on track,
numerous DH research projects — the micro-networks of DH centers — use
internet-based communication tools like Slack, digital to-do lists like Trello,
and shareable Google documents [Interview with Mikko Tolonen] [Interview with
Sarah Connell] [Interview with Ryan Cordell].
Yes, there is
a lot of Slack! I think most of the individual projects have their own Slack
[channel]. [ — ] Different projects figure out their own communication
channels, but I think a lot of them are on Slack. [Interview with Ryan
Cordell]
Transfer of tacit, non-verbalized knowledge requires informal communication. It
is easier to share tacit knowledge when people are in the same location, but it
appears that collaborating teams that already know each other can maintain
sharing of tacit knowledge and emotional ties through digital communication
tools as well [
Krishnaveni and Sujatha 2012]. Working together and knowing
each other for a longer period can give birth to a shared mini culture, where
the members of the group share the internal meanings of emojis or words [
Evalyn et al 2020]. For example, Mikko Tolonen referred to the Comhis
collective’s Slack humor as an important component of collaboration [Interview
with Mikko Tolonen]. Tacit knowledge is often learned in shared collaborative
experiences, and learning tacit knowledge requires participation and
“doing”
[
Krishnaveni and Sujatha 2012]. Moreover, transfer of tacit knowledge may be
possible if the tool itself and its code of conduct are familiar to users. In DH
research, explicit knowledge can be found in articles and on the Internet, but
tacit knowledge is received in close connection and collaboration with
colleagues.
In practice, digital and physical presence often overlap and, occasionally,
transfer of knowledge can take place synchronously via physical proximity as
well as a variety of digital channels such as Slack, Google Drive, and Twitter.
Often, even if we are physically present, we are
simultaneously digitally present. Even if we are in the same room, the
communication may happen in one of the chat options, Skype, or elsewhere.
[Interview with Mikko Tolonen]
Both digital and physical presence have different strengths and weaknesses in
transfer of knowledge. Physical proximity eases the process of getting to know
people and the transfer of tacit knowledge, and constant proximity makes things
happen faster and collaboration more efficient. Simultaneously, digital
communication tools make communication possible even over distances: a team
member can participate in a weekly meeting through Skype while being located in
a different country. In addition, it can also be easier to go back to earlier
conversations in a chat — although not too old ones, since they may be already
difficult to find in Slack for example —, and new people can join in a
conversation that was initiated a month earlier.
The online communication within DH centers and macro-networks is vital for DH
centers. The centers studied here take internet and social media communication
very seriously [Interview with Melissa Terras] [Interview with Eero Hyvönen]
[
Terras 2012].
We are digital first, which
means that we don´t really do off-line communication, we don´t do much print
communication. [ — ] But we want to have a very good digital presence, which
we take very seriously. We have a website, and Facebook and Twitter. [ — ]
We like to be creative in our design, within the limits of the content
management system we have to work with. We have a very good designer, who is
part of the team, who does all the work on the website. We keep our Twitter
feed up-to date, we keep our Facebook up-to date with all the activities
that we are doing. I think we have around 5 000 followers on Twitter. It´s
not a small thing. That means that with the digital presence, if something
happens [that we want to inform people of], with all the members of the
team, we can distribute a message to the potential audience of 30 000 people
within a second. We take that seriously. Any digital research facility
should take digital presence seriously. [Interview with Melissa
Terras]
Websites and social media are important tools for spreading information to the
public regarding the activities of a DH center. Thus, internet presence is
crucial for maintaining the public image of a center and providing members of a
community with a web identity [Interview with Eero Hyvönen] spreading
information regarding what DH is and what its impact is has become crucial for
establishing the field [
Galina Russell 2015].
Websites and social media create channels for reaching out to new people
interested in DH and in potentially joining the community. In a discussion at
the NULDSG weekly meeting, numerous participants — in particular the younger
ones — stated that social media provided them with the first encounter with DH
and the people engaging with it. Having some knowledge of a DH center and its
people “digitally” before actually coming to the meetings was
a crucial first step for them. Without this connection, it would have been too
big a step to reach out and contact a DH center and its people, or move from
other parts of the country to Boston to become involved in DH.
In addition to attracting new people, well-designed and active digital presence
is also of significance for obtaining funding and to be recognized by the larger
society. It is a means to determine how the funding has been used, what kinds of
activities the center holds, and if granted external funding, how
“well” it may potentially be used. Lack of an active
digital presence gives an impression of an outdated or inactive center.
We are aware of the fact that blog posts as a publication genre
can sometimes be incredibly helpful. I’ve assigned about fifteen blog posts
as I’m teaching this fall because it’s the best, clearest and shortest way
to introduce an important and complicated topic. But sometimes a blog post
is just the obligatory one that takes way longer to write than it should,
and doesn’t end up having a lot of readership and doesn’t really benefit the
person who wrote it. So we try to think whether the blog post is the best
format to share a piece of information. We tend to use our blog posts partly
to share research and also because we do have a lot of events, and we often
get the “I wish I could go, but…”. We Tweet the
blogpost wrap ups, if you couldn’t go at all, you can at least see the
links, and get the sense what the talk was about.[Interview with Sarah
Connell]
However, maintaining active digital presence requires effort. Several people are
needed to support the distribution of knowledge from the DH center to the
outside world by maintaining a website and social media channels [Interview with
Sarah Connell] [Interview with Élika Ortega] [Interview with Caroline Klibanoff]
[Interview with Melissa Terras] [Interview with Eero Hyvönen]. For example, the
NULab travel funds require reporting on the conference or the event visited
through a blog post, which adds a variety of content to the site [Interview with
Ryan Cordell]. It is also preferable to share the social media post
responsibility to people who are more naturally inclined toward such
information, so that an active Twitter user posts on Twitter [Interview with
Sarah Connell], while a constant Facebook hang-around posts on Facebook.
Boundaries for Knowledge Transfer
In addition to the multilayered knowledge transfers powered by interconnected
face-to-face and online networks, communication within and outside DH centers
also has restrictions. When defining and creating a space (of communication), we
also set boundaries to it. The barriers to transfer of knowledge in DH centers
are physical, digital, language-related, structural, social, and cultural.
Constructing a physical space invites certain participants but eliminates others.
David Beavan indicated, when discussing the absence of physical premises of
UCLDH, that while a physical space could increase communication among the core
members having offices in the space, it could potentially also restrict other
people’s access and cut them out [Interview with David Beavan]. Although, in
principle being open to the outside world, in practice access to the spaces of
the DH centers studied here is not easy for an outsider: for example, to enter
the space, an individual may need an access pass to the library, a key code, or
merely know how to navigate through the labyrinth of a university campus. It is
very unlikely that a person would enter these DH spaces accidentally. One of the
reasons for the practical restrictions is that open premises often demand that
someone is present to oversee that the space, which is often equipped with the
latest technology, is used for its intended purpose by the destined people.
Similarly, while digital communication tools facilitate interaction, they are not
factually open to everyone. Certain channels, particularly those used by defined
groups, allow entrance only by invitation. Communication in a small, non-public
group is often easier and less formal and potentially makes exchange of ideas
smoother [Interview with Caroline Klibanoff]. Thus, absolute openness of all
physical premises and digital tools would eliminate the boundaries that make the
DH center identifiable and water down the safer closed spaces of communication.
Although boundaries are necessary, it is important to discuss who and what kind
of knowledge we welcome. Is there knowledge that is left out from the
information flows? In recent years, the DH field has been discussing the need
for a variety of approaches and the threat of
“retro-humanism” focusing only on the canonical
representation of the humanities [
Risam 2015]
[
Martin and Runyon 2016, 20–21]. There is also strong advocacy
of the use of a variety of languages, exemplified by the use of multiple
languages at the DH2018 conference in Mexico City.
Language creates bubbles of DH communities (this article is aimed at the English
language bubble) and determines hierarchies based on the competence and fluency
of the speaker/writer. Participation in international (English language)
communication demands special attention from the DH centers in a
non-English-speaking country. In order to enable smooth international
collaboration, the content on the HELDIG websites was written in English right
from the outset, and the expansion of the staff by including international
recruits pushed the Comhis Collective to change their operational language to
English.
Until recently everybody in the Collective were
Finnish-speakers, but now almost all the new members come from elsewhere,
and we had to change our operating language and Slack humor [into
English].[laughs] [Interview with Mikko Tolonen]
In Finland, where academia is practically tri-lingual — using Finnish, Swedish,
and English — a change in the operating language is not a big problem. However,
it sets additional linguistic requirements for individual researchers who are
willing to enter the international scholarly streams of transfer of
knowledge.
Alongside linguistic barriers, the underlying structures and logic of scholarly
crediting and financing influence the ways in which research is conducted, even
if, in general, the motivation of DH scholars to participate in
interdisciplinary transfer of knowledge is high. The widely discussed issues of
crediting for open-access publishing, opening up of the used code or data, joint
publications, or potential failures of tests (that are an integral part of
developing something new) are issues that can either promote or hinder
interdisciplinary transfer of knowledge and the ultimate emergence of new
knowledge.
Therefore, social and cultural boundaries and the questions of who is invited to
a research group, whose knowledge is valued as important, or whose work we know
of are not issues that are solely related to DH; they are also related to the
larger academia and societies in general [
Griffin and Hayler 2018, ¶11–12]
[
Östling et al 2018]. One can also ask to what degree are scholars
associated with the more well-renowned centers more likely to have their
knowledge more valued
because of their association? The
interviewees, being integral participants in the DH field, did not extensively
discuss the issues of social and cultural boundaries. At the core, it is often
difficult to see the challenges in the margins; therefore, this study cannot
comprehensively cover this issue. However, a few reflections from DH
professionals may contribute important perspectives to the discussion. The
interviewees indicated that, to a great extent, DH is a question of
self-identification and a sense of belonging:
DH is at this
point still a self-reported, or self-adopted title. [ — ] It is a conceptual
magnet. Once you identify yourself as a digital humanist, then you start
participating to the community. [Interview with Élika Ortega]
Because DH is about self-identification, it would be important to create an
atmosphere of openness that facilitates the inclusion of a variety of people
into the field. This would ensure that the interdisciplinary processes of
transfer of knowledge have sufficient variety to draw on. In other words, if
knowledge is inseparable from the communities that create it, use it, and
transform it [
Krishnaveni and Sujatha 2012, 37], we must ensure that the
community is not too narrow. Further, if inclusion is the first step to
accessing equality, but not a sufficient one [
Martin and Runyon 2016, 37], further studies would be required on the effects of
infrastructures, practices, the general logic underlying information flow in DH,
and the varied nature of the DH community.
Conclusions
The interdisciplinary character of DH amplifies the social aspects of its
knowledge construction; therefore, it is crucial to study the means through
which transfer of knowledge is facilitated in this field. This article suggests
that transfer of knowledge requires people with varied knowledge, networks,
physical and virtual spaces facilitating communication, motivation, and
practices that support it. The interviews reveal that the studied DH centers,
the focal points of the transfer of knowledge of the field, combine the elements
of the transfer of knowledge in a variety of ways and, therefore, function as
engines of diverse information flows. DH centers facilitate interdisciplinary
and inter-organizational matchmaking and exchange of ideas by maintaining a
variety of networks and institutional memory as well as by providing physical
and digital spaces for exchange of explicit and tacit knowledge. Further, the
interviews indicate that in order to form a dynamic unit, in addition to the
top-down strategy-driven infrastructures, DH centers must nurture free-floating
networks of people [see also [
Fickers and Heijden 2020]]. Maintaining respect
for other perspectives and the willingness to learn and share new approaches is
crucial for the field. The questions of exclusion and inclusion, who is
recognized as a recognizable DH scholar, and what kind of information we value
are crucial for defining the kind of scholarship and research outcomes we wish
to achieve in the field in the future. The organizations running DH centers
should pay attention to these features, and adjust them to the specifics of
their cultural, geographical, academic and organizational environment. And, most
importantly, for each individual DH practitioner it is essential to consider how
our own practices affect the inclusiveness of transfer of knowledge in the
DH.
Interviews
[Interview with David Beavan] Associate Director for Research for University
College London (UCL) Centre for Digital Humanities (UCLDH) and Research Manager
(Arts and Humanities), by Mila Oiva, November 20, 2017, Skype.
[Interview with Sarah Connell] Assistant Director of the Women Writers Project
(Digital Scholarship Group, Northeastern University Library) and the NULab for
Texts, Maps, and Networks by Mila Oiva October 17, 2017, Boston Mass., USA.
[Interview with Ryan Cordell], Assistant Professor and Core Faculty member of
NULab at the Northeastern University, by Mila Oiva, October 16, 2017, Boston
Mass., USA.
[Interview with Eero Hyvönen] Director of the Helsinki Center of Digital
Humanities HELDIG, by Mila Oiva September 20, 2017, Otaniemi, Espoo, Finland.
Translations from Finnish to English by Mila Oiva.
[Interview with Caroline Klibanoff] Coordinator at the Northeastern University
Library Digital Scholarship Group (NULDSG), by Mila Oiva, October 11, 2017,
Boston Mass., USA.
[Interview with Élika Ortega] Assistant Professor at the Department of Cultures,
Societies, and Global Studies and Core Faculty at the NULab for Texts, Maps and
Networks at Northeastern University, by Mila Oiva, October 17, 2017, Boston
Mass., USA.
[Interview with Melissa Terras], Director of the University College London
Digital Humanities Center (UCLDH), by Mila Oiva, August 29, 2017, Skype.
[Interview with Mikko Tolonen] Professor of Digital Humanities and Leader of the
Comhis Collective at HELDIG, University of Helsinki, by Mila Oiva, August 22,
2017, Helsinki, Finland. Translations from Finnish to English by Mila Oiva.
Works Cited
Braun and Clarke 2006 Braun, V. and Clarke, V.
“Using thematic analysis in psychology.” in
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2)
(2006): 77-101.
Deegan and McCarty 2011 Deegan, M. and W. McCarty.
Collaborative Research in the Digital
Humanities. Ashgate, Farnham (2011).
Evalyn et al 2020 Evalyn, L., C. Henderson, J.
King, J. Lockhart, L. Mitchell and S. Conklin Akbari. “One
Loveheart at a Time: The Language of Emoji and the Building of Affective
Community in the Digital Medieval Studies Environment.” in
Digital Humanities Quarterly. Available from:
http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/14/3/000474/000474.html Fullwood et al 2013 Fullwood, R., J. Rowley and
R. Delbridge. “Knowledge Sharing amongst Academics in UK
Universities.”
Journal of Knowledge Management [Online], 17(1)
February 15, (2013): 123–-136. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271311300831.
Griffin and Hayler 2018 Griffin, G., and M. S.
Hayler. “Collaboration in Digital Humanities Research –
Persisting Silences.”
Digital Humanities Quarterly, 12(1) (2018).
Huutoniemi et al 2010 Huutoniemi, K., J. T.
Klein, H. Bruun and J. Hukkinen. “Analyzing
Interdisciplinarity: Typology and Indicators.” in
Research Policy [Online], 39(1) February 1, (2010):
79–88. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.011.
Kirschenbaum 2010 Kirschenbaum, M.G.. “What Is Digital Humanities and What’s It Doing in English
Departments?” in ADE Bulletin, no. 150
(2010): 1–7.
Krishnaveni and Sujatha 2012 Krishnaveni, R.,
and R. Sujatha. “Communities of Practice: An influencing
factor for effective knowledge transfer in organizations.” in IUP Journal of Knowledge Management 10(1), (2012):
26-40.
Martin and Runyon 2016 Martin, J. D. III,
and C. Runyon. “Digital humanities, digital hegemony:
Exploring funding practices and unequal access in the digital
humanities.” in
SIGCAS Comput. Soc.
[Online], 46(1) (2016):, 20-26. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1145/2908216.2908219.
Matres, Oiva and Tolonen 2018 Matres, I., M. Oiva
and M. Tolonen. “In Between Research Cultures — The State of
Digital Humanities in Finland”.
Informaatiotutkimus 37, no 2 (June 13, 2018).
https://doi.org/10.23978/inf.71160.
Nygren, Foka, and Buckland 2014 Nygren, T., A.
Foka, and P. Buckland. “The status quo of digital humanities
in Sweden: Past, present and future of digital history.”
H-Soz-Kult. Kommunikation und Fachinformation für die
Geschichtswissenschaften [Online], October 23, (2014). Available
from:
http://www.hsozkult.de/debate/id/diskussionen-2402.
Oiva and Pawlicka-Deger 2020 Oiva,
M. and U. Pawlicka-Deger. “Lab and Slack. Situated Research
Practices in Digital Humanities — Introduction to the DHQ Special
Issue.” in Digital Humanities Quarterly
[this issue].
Olson and Olson 2014 Olson, J. S., and G. M. Olson.
Working Together Apart: Collaboration over the
Internet. Synthesis Digital Library of Engineering and Computer
Science. Morgan and Claypool, (2014).
Orlikowski 2002 Orlikowski, W. J. “Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in
Distributed Organizing”. in
Organization
Science [Online], 13(3) June 1, (2002):, 249-273. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.3.249.2776.
Phillips et al 2020 N. M. Phillips, A. Babbitt,
S. Cho, J. Kane, C. Mejeur, and C. Pearson “Creating spaces
for interdisciplinary research across literature, neuroscience, and DH. A
case study of the Digital Humanities and Literary Cognition Lab
(DHLC).”
Digital Humanities Quarterly [this issue].
Podestá et al 2013 Podestá, G. P., C. E.
Natenzon, C. Hidalgo, and F. Ruiz Toranzo. “Interdisciplinary production of knowledge with participation of
stakeholders: A case study of a collaborative project on climate
variability, human decisions and agricultural ecosystems in the Argentine
Pampas.”
Environmental Science and Policy, Rethinking Integrated
Assessments and Management Projects in the Americas [Online], 26
February 1, (2013): 40-48. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.07.008.
Romero-Lankao et al 2013 Romero-Lankao, P.,
M. Borbor-Cordova, R. Abrutsky, G. Günther, E. Behrentz, and L. Dawidowsky.
“ADAPTE: A tale of diverse teams coming together to do
issue-driven interdisciplinary research.” in
Environmental Science and Policy, Rethinking Integrated Assessments and
Management Projects in the Americas [Online], 26 February 1, (2013):
29-39. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.12.003.
Siedlok and Hibbert 2014 Siedlok, F.
and P. Hibbert. “The organization of interdisciplinary
research: Modes, drivers and barriers.”
International Journal of Management Reviews
[Online], 16(2), (2014): 194-210. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12016.
Siemens 2009 Siemens, L.. “‘It’s a Team If You Use “Reply All”’:
An exploration of research teams in digital humanities environments”.
Literary and Linguistic Computing [Online],
24(2), (2009): 225-233. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqp009.
Siemens 2011 Siemens, L.. “The Balance between On-Line and In-Person Interactions: Methods for the
Development of Digital Humanities Collaboration.”
Digital Studies/Le Champ Numérique 2, no. 1 (May
17, 2011).
https://doi.org/10.16995/dscn.259.
Siemens et al 2011 Siemens, L., R.
Cunningham, W. Duff and C. Warwick. “A Tale of Two Cities:
Implications of the Similarities and Differences in Collaborative Approaches
within the Digital Libraries and Digital Humanities Communities.”
Literary and Linguistic Computing 26, no. 3
(September 1, 2011): 335–48. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqr028.
Suominen 2018 Suominen, J. “History of Digital Cultures”. Presentation at the Digital History Method Roadshow, University of Turku, Finland,
February 5, (2018).
Taskinen, Kivimäki and Männistö 2018 Taskinen,
I., V. Kivimäki and A. Männistö. “Big data and history of
war experience”. Presentation at the Digital History Method Roadshow,
University of Tampere, Finland, February 7, (2018).
Terras 2010a Terras, Melissa. “Present, Not Voting: Digital Humanities in the Panopticon:
Closing Plenary Speech, Digital Humanities 2010.” in
Literary and Linguistic Computing 26, no. 3 (September
1, 2011): 257–69.
https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqr016.
Terras 2010b Terras, M. “The
digital classicist: Disciplinary focus and interdisciplinary vision.”
In Digital Research in the Study of Classical
Antiquity, edited by G. Bodard and S. Mahony. Ashgate, Farnham
(2010): pp. 171-189.
Van Gorp and Bron 2019 Van Gorp, Jasmijn,
and Marc Bron. “Building Bridges: Collaboration between
Computer Sciences and Media Studies in a Television Archive Project.”
in
Digital Humanities Quarterly 013, no. 3 (October
14, 2019). Available from:
http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/13/3/000375/000375.html .
Östling et al 2018 Östling, J., D. Larsson
Heidenblad, E. Sandmo, A. Nilsson Hammar, and K.H. Nordberg. “The History of Knowledge and Circulation of Knowledge. An
Introduction.” In Circulation of Knowledge:
Explorations in the History of Knowledge, edited by J. Östling, E.
Sandmo, D. Larsson Heidenblad, A. Nilsson Hammar, and K. H. Nordberg, 9–33.
Lund: Nordic Academic Press, 2018.
