The DARIAH ERIC: Redefining Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities in the Digital Age
As it begins its second decade of development, the Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities (DARIAH) continues to forge an innovative approach to improving support for and the vibrancy of humanities research in Europe.
This essay questions whether digital literary studies can still be meaningfully regarded as part of literary studies. This heretical question is motivated by a praxeological view of a research project for the network analysis of dramatic texts, in particular by reflecting on the project’s underlying ›epistemic thing‹, which in this case consists of specifically-formatted structural data (and not the actual primary texts themselves). What does this corpus of structural data, which was extracted from 465 plays spanning the period from 1730 to 1930, have to do with the ›epistemic things‹ of literary studies? We explore this question by providing insight into our analyses, which describe the structural evolution of the ›plays‹, try to locate ›small world‹ properties in our corpus, and develop new metrics for plot analysis. The results show not only how digital methods can supplement or enrich literary studies; they also raise questions about how digital the field of literary studies already is, since its research objects are increasingly available in digital forms.
Conference abstracts for DHd2017, Bern. (http://www.dhd2017.ch/)
We describe the creation of a corpus of Russian-language drama, comprising hundreds of texts from the middle of the 18th century to the first third of the 20th century. Texts are encoded in the XML-based markup standard TEI, the focus is on extra-linguistic, structural annotations, although additional annotation layers can be added easily.
In 19th century Germany, the number of publications in the history of philosophy increased dramatically. According to Schneider’s (1999) calculations, from 1810 through 1899, 148 original textbooks by 114 authors were published in German. The aim of this article is to analyse how the documented in these publications canonic vision of 19th century German philosophy evolved. An analysis of 66 treatises published from 1802 through 1918 allows dividing 19th century philosophers into groups based on the frequency of their names across the tables of contents, describing the changes in the leading group composition and in the share of attention received by a given philosopher over time (the patterns of attention for Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schelling, Herbart, Schleiermacher, Schopenhauer, Jacobi and Fries are discussed in detail). The paper presents thus a formal analysis of how historical reputations of philosophers were made, how they stabilised, or faded. The authors claim that the current understanding of the history of 19th century philosophy differs significantly from the one recorded in the German textbooks of the era (e.g. Herbart’s key position within the 19th century philosophical Canon; Schopenhauer’s recognition by university philosophers during his own lifetime).
This volume introduces the reader to the wide range of methods that digital humanities employ, and offers a practical guide to the study, interpretation, and presentation of cultural material and practices. In this instance, the editors consider digital humanities to include both the use of computing to understand cultural material in new ways, and the application of theories and methods from the humanities to interpret new technologies. Each chapter provides a step-by-step guide to cutting-edge methodologies so that students can make informed decisions about the methods they use, consider ethical practices, follow practical procedures, and present their work effectively. Readers will develop practical and reflexive understandings of the software and digital devices that they study and use for research, and the book will help new researchers collaborate and contribute to their scholarly communities, and to public discourse. As contemporary humanities work becomes increasingly interdisciplinary, and increasingly permeated by and with digital technologies, this volume helps new researchers navigate an evolving academic environment. Humanities and social sciences students will find this textbook an invaluable resource for assessing and creating digital projects.
Since 2006, DARIAH has been building a digital research infrastructure for the arts and humanities. The article describes this development and examines the relatively short history of research infrastructures – a scientific innovation of the 20th century – in the arts and humanities.
The IV International Scientific Conference, “Communication Trends in the Post-literacy Era: Multilingualism, Multimodality, Multiculturalism” was held at the Ural Institute of Humanities of UrFU on November 8–9, 2019. The conference was organized by the research group “Multilingualism in the Post-literacy Era,” the Confucius Institute in UrFU, the Cambridge Center in UrFU, and the Ural State Pedagogical University. The conference brought together scientists from different countries, such as Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Kazakhstan, China, and Russia, to discuss the problems relating to communication in different languages, texts, and media of different generations in a super-diverse culture.
Currently, the main source for the reconstruction of the most ancient history of humankind is archeology, which almost by definition makes it possible to restore only just a few elements of the most ancient human culture (naturally, almost exclusively – material culture). A mere introduction of comparative linguistic data makes it possible to significantly refine our reconstruction of a respective culture. If a certain linguistic Urheimat may be localized in space and in time within the area and lifespan of a certain archaeological culture, this suggests that we may have an idea of the language spoken by respective population, as the application of comparative linguistic methods allows us to reconstruct the vocabulary of the carriers of the respective protolanguage, that makes it possible to identify a set of terms denoting the realities of family organization, political attitudes, beliefs, etc. A very important part of the reconstructed vocabulary is constituted by the kinship terminology. As is well known (and as is demonstrated in this article again), the kinship terminology displays rather strong correlations with respective types of kinship organization, which could allow to reconstruct important features of clan and family structure of the respective populations. This reconstruction can be further verified by using archaeological and genetic data. It is demonstrated that the papers presented at the International Workshop ‘Murdock and Goody Re-visited: (Pre)history and evolution of Eurasian and African family systems’ that was organized in April 2015 by the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology suggest that we are close to having all the necessary ingredients to undertake such a program of a deep historical reconstruction.
During the Cold War, official Soviet institutions organized tens of exhibitions of an American figurative artist Rockwell Kent. These exhibitions, undertaken bypassing the official United States, demonstrate that promotion of Kent in the USSR was an exclusively Soviet enterprise. Examining the role of Soviet institutions in Kent’s success, the article sheds new light on the Soviet approach to the representation of American visual art during the Cold War.
Basing on unique findings from American and Russian archives, the article provides a comprehensive analysis of political and aesthetical factors, which predetermined Kent’s incredible popularity in the Soviet Union. Contextualizing the Soviet representation of Kent within relevant Cold War contexts, the article argues that Kent occupied a specific symbolic position in Soviet culture, as Soviet propaganda re-conceptualized the artist’s biography and established the Myth of Rockwell Kent. This myth served for legitimization of Soviet ideology and for anti-American propaganda.
In this article, secrecy – the practice, infrastructure, and ideology of responsibly concealing
information – is described using the empirical example of nuclear laboratories subordinated to the
Soviet atomic agency. The author pays special attention to organizational infrastructures of secrecy
and material deformations of secret research. On the basis of published documents, nuclear
memoirs, in-depth interviews from the collection of the Obninsk project and a unique declassified
archive, the author demonstrates how between the mid-1940s and the beginning of the 1970s the
concern for hiding nuclear knowledge and technology was both embedded in research practices and
deformed them. The laboratory is considered as the main unit of research activity in the Soviet
atomic project; the early stage of the implementation of large-scale nuclear programs associated
with the concentration of scientific forces, resources, secrecy, and development of a specific style of
Big Soviet science is identified as a “lab age”. Secrecy in its becoming emergence and its archive are
described via the case of Moscow–Obninsk radiochemists. Secret laboratory life is curated depictedin
the text as an assemblage of secret matter, spaces of regime economy, espionage bodies and
additional inscription devices in action. The laboratory routines, the author suggests, changed the
methods of producing scientific facts, transmuted physicists into secret physicists, and helped shape
the patterns of the Soviet culture of secrecy.