How digital are the digital humanities? An analysis of two scholarly blogging platforms

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2015, Pages

  Puschmann, Cornelius ^a   Bastos, Marco ^b  

^a ZEPPELIN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL HUMANITIES; HUMANITIES; HUMANITIES ARTS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ALLIANCE AND COLLABORATORY; HYPOTHESES; INFORMATION CENTER; INFORMATION LITERACY; LIBRARY; MASS MEDIUM; PEDAGOGICS; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; SOCIAL MEDIA; SOCIAL NETWORK; THEMATIC ANALYSIS; HUMAN; INTERNET; ORGANIZATION;

ACADEMIES AND INSTITUTES; BLOGGING; HUMANS; LIBRARIES, DIGITAL; PUBLISHING; SOCIAL MEDIA; SOCIAL NETWORKING;

EID: 84922983653     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115035     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Borgman CL (2007) Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 360 p. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erm028 PMID: 25506957
2. Meyer ET, Schroeder R (2009) The world wide web of research and access to knowledge. Knowl Manag Res Pract 7: 218-233. doi: 10.1057/kmrp.2009.13.
3. Nentwich M, König R (2012) Cyberscience 2.0: Research in the age of digital social networks. Frankfurt am Main: Campus. 237 p. doi: 10.1007/s12070-012-0514-9 PMID: 25621271
4. Dutton WH, Jeffreys PW, editors (2010) World wide research: Reshaping the sciences and humanities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 408 p. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014397.001.0001.
5. Evans JA (2008) Electronic publication and the narrowing of science and scholarship. Science 321: 395-399. doi: 10.1126/science.1150473 PMID: 18635800
6. Cope WW, Kalantzis M (2009) Signs of epistemic disruption: Transformations in the knowledge system of the academic journal. First Monday 14. Available: http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2309/2163. Accessed 23 December 2014.
7. Mahrt M, Weller K, Peters I (2014) Twitter in scholarly communication. In: Weller K, Bruns A, Burgess J, Mahrt M, Puschmann C, editors. Twitter and society. New York: Peter Lang. pp. 399-410.
8. Puschmann C, Mahrt M (2012) Scholarly blogging: A new form of publishing or science journalism 2.0?In: Tokar A, Beurskens M, Keuneke S, Mahrt M, Peters I, et al., editors. Science and the Internet. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press. pp. 171-181.
9. Puschmann C (2014) (Micro)blogging science? Notes on potentials and constraints of new forms of scholarly communication. In: Bartling S, Friesike S, editors. Opening Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing. pp. 89-106. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8.
10. Shema H, Bar-Ilan J, Thelwall M (2012) Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PLoS One 7: e35869. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035869 PMID: 22606239
11. Kjellberg S (2010) I am a blogging researcher: Motivations for blogging in a scholarly context. First Monday 15. Available: http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2962/2580. Accessed 23 December 2014.
12. Gruzd A, Staves K, Wilk A (2012) Connected scholars: Examining the role of social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model. Comput Human Behav 28: 2340-2350. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.004.
13. Rowlands I, Nicholas D, Russell B, Canty N, Watkinson A (2011) Social media use in the research workflow. Learn Publ 24: 183-195. doi: 10.1087/20110306.
14. Priem J, Hemminger BH (2010) Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social web. First Monday 15. Available: http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2874/2570. Accessed 23 December 2014.
15. th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. Montréal: Science-Metrix and OST. pp. 98-109.
16. Schreibman S, Siemens R, Unsworth JM, editors (2004) A companion to digital humanities. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 604 p. PMID: 25057686
17. Gold MK, editor (2012) Debates in the digital humanities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 532 p. doi: 10.1007/s12070-012-0514-9 PMID: 25621271
18. Berry D (2012) Understanding digital humanities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 336 p. doi: 10.1007/s12070-012-0514-9 PMID: 25621271
19. Kirschenbaum MG (2010) What is digital humanities and what's it doing in English departments? ADE Bull 150: 55-61.
20. Juola P (2008) Killer applications in digital humanities. Lit Linguist Comput 23: 73-83. doi: 10.1093/llc/fqm042.
21. Moretti F (2007) Graphs, maps, trees: Abstract models for a literary history. New York: Verso. 119 p. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2007.07.008 PMID: 19013884
22. McPherson T (2008) Introduction: Media studies and the digital humanities. Cine J 48: 119-123. doi: 10.1353/cj.0.0077.
23. Pinch TJ, Bijker WE (1984) The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Soc Stud Sci 14: 399-441. doi: 10.1177/030631284014003004.
24. Ross C, Terras M, Warwick C, Welsh A (2011) Enabled backchannel: Conference Twitter use by digital humanists. J Doc 67: 214-237. doi: 10.1108/00220411111109449.
25. Puschmann C, Weller K, Dröge E (2011) Studying Twitter conversations as (dynamic) graphs: Visualization and structural comparison. In: Taddicken M, editor. Proceedings of General Online Research 2011. Düsseldorf: DGOF.
26. th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. Montréal: Science-Metrix and OST. pp. 917-926.
27. Davidson CN, Goldberg DT (2004) A manifesto for the humanities in a technological age. Chron High Educ: B7.
28. HASTAC (2014) About HASTAC. Available: http://www.hastac.org/about. Accessed 23 December 2014.
29. Hypotheses.org (2014) About Hypotheses. Available: http://hypotheses.org/about/hypotheses-org-en. Accessed 23 December 2014.
30. th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Jeju Island, Korea: ACL. pp. 25-30.
31. Callon M, Courtial J-P, Turner WA, Bauin S (1983) From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Soc Sci Inf 22: 191-235. doi: 10.1177/053901883022002003.
32. Taddy M (2013) Multinomial inverse regression for text analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 108: 755-770. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2012.734168.
33. Lipsitz SR, Laird NM, Harrington DP (1991) Generalized estimating equations for correlated binary data: Using the odds ratio as a measure of association. Biometrika 78: 153-160. doi: 10.1093/biomet/78.1.153.
34. Moody J, Light R (2006) A view from above: The evolving sociological landscape. Am Sociol 37: 67-86. doi: 10.1007/s12108-006-1006-8.
35. Leydesdorff L (2004) Top-down decomposition of the Journal Citation Report of the Social Science Citation Index: Graph- and factor-analytical approaches. Scientometrics 60: 159-180. doi: 10.1023/B:SCIE.0000027678.31097.e0.
36. Kruskal JB (1964) Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika 29: 1-27. doi: 10.1007/BF02289565.
37. Moody J (2004) The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. Am Sociol Rev 69: 213-238. doi: 10.1177/000312240406900204.
38. Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. 213 p. PMID: 25506961
39. Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI (2003) Latent dirichlet allocation. J Mach Learn Res 3: 993-1022. doi: 10. 1162/jmlr.2003.3.4-5.993.
40. Grün B, Hornik K (2011) topicmodels: An R package for fitting topic models. J Stat Softw 40. PMID: 22523482
41. Feinerer I, Hornik K, Meyer D (2008) Text mining infrastructure in R. J Stat Softw 25.