This report summarizes the statistical analysis of the findings of a web-based survey conducted by the Digital Methods and Practices Observatory (DiMPO), a working group under VCC2 of the DARIAH research infrastructure (Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities).



In order to provide an evidence-based, up-to-date, and meaningful account of the emerging information practices, needs and attitudes of arts and humanities researchers in the evolving European digital scholarly environment, the web survey involved a transnational team of researchers from more than a dozen countries, and addressed digitally-enabled research practices, attitudes and needs in all areas of Europe and across different arts and humanities disciplines and contexts

Angelis, Stavros

Benardou, Agiatis

Bender, Michael

Berra, Aurélien

Chatzidaiakou, Nephelie

Clivaz, Claire

Costis, Dallas

Cunningham, John

Dabek, Meredith

Garrido, Patricia

Gavrilis, Dimitris

Gonzalez-Blanco, Elena

Hadalin, Jurij

Hughes, Lorna

Immenhauser, Beat

Joly, Anne

Karioris, Panagiotis

Kelpšienė, Ingrida

Kozak, Michał

Kuzman, Koraljka

Lukin, Marko

Marinski, Irena

Maryl, Maciej

Owain, Robert

Papaki, Eliza

Schneider, Gerlinde

Scholger, Walter

Schreibman, Susan

Schubert, Zoe

Tasovac, Toma

Thaller, Manfred

Wciślik, Piotr

Werla, Marcin

Zebec, Tvrtko

English

This report summarizes the statistical analysis of the findings of a web-based survey conducted by the Digital Methods and Practices Observatory (DiMPO), a working group under VCC2 of the DARIAH research infrastructure (Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities).In order to provide an evidence-based, up-to-date, and meaningful account of the emerging information practices, needs and attitudes of arts and humanities researchers in the evolving European digital scholarly environment, the web survey involved a transnational team of researchers from more than a dozen countries, and addressed digitally-enabled research practices, attitudes and needs in all areas of Europe and across different arts and humanities disciplines and contexts

Chatzidiakou, Nephelie

Kozak, Michal

HAL AMU

European survey on scholarly practices and digital needs in the arts and humanities Digital Methods and Practices Observatory Working Group (DiMPO) Survey highlights EN

Dallas, Costis

Enlighten: Publications

1 
European survey on scholarly practices and 
digital needs in the arts and humanities 
 
 
Digital Methods and Practices Observatory Working Group (DiMPO)  
DARIAH-EU European Research Infrastructure Consortium  
 
October 2016 
Survey highlights 
EN 
http://bit.ly/scholarlypractices 
2 
2,177 respondents across Europe, using 
digital resources, methods and tools 
 
10 languages 
6 national profiles 
Austria 
Greece 
Lithuania 
Poland 
Serbia 
Switzerland 
5,10% 
30,40
% 
39,50
% 
21,70
% 
3,30% 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
18-25
years
26-35
years
36-50
years
51-65
years
Over 65
years
Age of respondents. N=2169 
66,50% 
24,30% 
3,00% 0,80% 5,50% 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
a university a research
centre
a
government
department
or agency
a private
company
none of the
above - I am
not attached
to an
institution
Age of respondents 
Professional affiliation 
43,5% men 
56,5% women 
Years in research 
49,9% - more than 10 years 
29% - 3-10 years 
16,2%  - 1-3 years 
4,6%  - less than 1 year Professional affiliation. N=2018 
3 
Most respondents consult research resources  
on a desktop or laptop PC, 
more often than in printed or analogue format 
Use of desktop/laptop PC, mobile devices, and print or analogue 
devices to consult research material. N= 2177 
…with the exception of 
books and archival items 
Digital humanists access research materials  
both on digital devices and in analogue form 
Except for books, digital humanists access research 
resources more often in digital than in analogue form. 
Ranked in order of frequency, digital devices such as PCs 
and laptops are most often used to access scholarly articles, 
images, video, audio, maps, and less often archival holdings 
and books.  But nine out of ten digital humanists read books 
in print (compared to three out of five online), while more 
than half also access articles and archival holdings in 
analogue form. In tandem, three out of five respondents use  
a mobile device, such as a tablet, to consult images, video 
and audio resources while two out of five for research 
articles, books or maps. 
More than two out of 
five digital humanists 
use a mobile device to 
consult most kinds of 
research resources 
4 
Digital humanists use digital methods or 
tools across the research lifecycle 
Respondents reported using digital 
methods or tools to support all 
phases of the research lifecycle, 
from discovery to publication. 
However, while most respondents 
use them to discover, collect or 
create research assets, a smaller 
percentage reports using them for 
other purposes. Only about two out 
of three respondents reported use 
of digital methods or tools to 
annotate, enrich, or curate 
research assets. 
Between 10-15% of respondents 
reported very frequent use of open 
access journals or publications, 
institutional portals and reposi-
tories, personal blogs or websi-
tes, and scholarly communities 
such as Academia and Resear-
chGate, to disseminate their work. 
A larger percentage, between 35-
45%, use this ‘tetrad’ of  dissemina-
tion channels regularly. On the 
other hand, eight out of ten state 
that they have used open content 
journals or publication, albeit 
seldom. 
In addition, two out of ten respon-
dents say they use regularly social 
media networks to disseminate their 
research. Less than one out of ten 
state that they use regularly generic 
online content services, such as 
Slideshare, Flickr or Youtube. 
 
Almost half of digital humanists use regularly  
a ‘tetrad’ of digital scholarly dissemination channels 
Purpose of use of digital methods or tools. N=2176 
Means of dissemination of scholarly work. N=2132 
87,10% 
78,50% 
65,50% 
73,30% 75,40% 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
To discover,
collect, or create
my research
assets
To organize,
structure, or
manage my
research assets
To annotate,
enrich, or curate
my research
assets
To process,
analyze, or
visualize my
research assets
To publish,
disseminate, or
communicate
about my
research
5 
Word processors and spreadsheets are the most common 
applications used to store and manage research assets 
89,70% 
60,60% 
38,30% 
33,70% 32,40% 
16,70% 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A word
processor
A spreadsheet
application
Some non-
digital method
A note-taking
application
A database
management
system
A web-based
CMS
When working online, almost all 
respondents use web search very 
frequently to find research assets. 
Nine out of ten reported frequent use 
of online library catalogues, and 
slightly less of digital archives, 
collections or repositories, and online 
journals. Only seven out of ten use 
academic search engines (such as 
Google Scholar) regularly. More than 
two out of five respondents say they 
use all these methods very frequently. 
On the other hand, frequent use of 
social media networks for resource 
discovery is reported by only one out 
of seven respondents. 
 
 
For storage and management 
of research assets, nine out of 
ten respondents reported using 
a word processor. Three out of 
five respondents stated they 
use spreadsheets, while about 
one third said they use data-
base management systems, or 
note-taking and bibliographic 
citation management applica-
tions.  Only one out of seven 
presently use web-based 
content management systems 
(CMS) to store and manage 
research assets. 
Frequency of use of services. N= 1452 
Use of applications to store and manage research assets.  N= 2176 
Online library catalogues, digital collections and data 
repositories, and online journals are frequently consulted  
6 
Digital humanities 
researchers engage regularly 
in collaborative research  
One out of three respondents indicate that 
they collaborate very often with others on a 
research project. Altogether, seven out of ten 
say that they engage often or very often in 
research collaboration. Only a very small 
fraction – less than one out of fifteen – state 
that they never collaborate in research. 
Frequency of collaborating with others on a research project. N= 2135 
Frequency of accessing primary sources outside one’s country of 
residence. N= 2136 
The majority often use 
primary sources from abroad, 
but native tongue persists as 
the primary language of 
publication 
One out of five respondents access primary 
sources outside of their country of residence 
very often, and more than half do so often. 
Only one in seven never uses primary sources 
from outside their country. 
 
On the other hand, when asked to rank the 
languages which they use for scholarly 
publication, seven out of ten digital humanists 
identify their native language as their primary 
language of publication, while only one quarter 
identify English as the primary language. 
Nevertheless, the great majority – four out of 
five – do include English as a second 
publication language.  In addition, almost one 
out of five suggest that they use another 
language for scholarly publication, as one of 
their first two choices. A additional three 
quarters of respondents, bringing the total to 
nine out of ten, state that they publish in 
another language beside their own and 
English as a third choice. 
Publishing language. N= 1773 
7 
Improved findability of digital resources and digitization of 
non-digital ones are most highly valued 
Asked to rate the importance of different needs in a scale 
from 1 to 10, three quarters of digital humanists rated 
improved findability and access to existing digital 
research resources or data as the most important, with a 
score exceeding 9.5 out of 10. A slightly lower score of 9 was 
granted to digitization of research resources or data 
currently not in digital form by three out of four 
respondents. Two other needs, improved findability and 
access to digital tools or software, and networking with 
other researchers, research groups and institutions,  
share third place with a score exceeding 7 by more 
than three out of four respondents. Other functions, 
such as technical support on digital infrastructures, 
tools or software, online advice and information 
on using digital methods and tools for research, 
courses or workshops on how digital humanities 
methods and tools provide help in the course of the 
research, and online support from archivists, 
curators and/or librarians are also valued, but with 
a lower score. 
 
 
Word processors and spreadsheets are the most common 
applications used to store and manage research assets 
The full report and publications 
A multi-authored report presenting the descriptive 
findings of the 2015 survey, as well as a journal paper, 
is compiled by members of the Digital Methods and 
Practices Working Group (DiMPO). The report, and 
further publications, present the consolidated and 
comparative findings of the survey, as well as selective 
country profiles. In addition, contributors from particular 
countries author publications on findings related to their 
country, and also in their national language.  
Hashtags: #DARIAH #DiMPO #ScholarlyPractices 
1. Introduction N. Chatzidiakou & C. Dallas 
2. Methodology and analysis C. Dallas & N. Chatzidiakou 
3. Consolidated findings N. Chatzidiakou & C. Dallas 
4. Country profile: Austria G. Schneider & W. Scholger 
5. Country profile: Greece N. Chatzidiakou & C. Dallas 
6. Country profile: Lithuania I. Kelpšienė 
7. Country profile: Poland M. Maryl 
8. Country profile: Serbia T. Tasovac & N. Chatzidiakou 
9. Country profile: Switzerland B. Immenhauser 
10. Comparative findings All authors 
11. Conclusions C. Dallas 
 
 
Table of contents 
Importance of digital infrastructure affordances. N= 2077 
8 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.You must 
give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any 
reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. If you remix, trans-
form, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.  
Scholarly practices survey: scope, 
objectives and plans 
Digital Methods and Practices 
Observatory Working Group (DiMPO) 
The DARIAH Digital Methods and Practices 
Observatory WG (DiMPO) aims to develop and 
provide an evidence-based, up-to-date, and 
pragmatically useful account of the emerging 
information practices, needs and attitudes of arts and 
humanities researchers in the evolving European 
digital scholarly environment, for the benefit of the 
digital humanities research community. It seeks to 
achieve this objective through the inception of a 
longitudinal mixed methods research and monitoring 
programme on the information practices and 
scholarly methods employed in digitally-enabled arts 
and humanities work across Europe, and through the 
digital dissemination, validation and enrichment of 
research outcomes by the scholarly community.  
For further information or to join please contact the 
WG chair, Prof. Costis Dallas (c.dallas@dcu.gr). 
The European survey on scholarly practices and 
digital needs in the arts and humanities is the 
outcome of collaborative work of European 
researchers from different countries, working within 
the DiMPO Working Group. It has been designed as 
a multiregional longitudinal survey, to be conducted 
online across European countries and to be repeated 
every few years. Its aim is to provide an evidence-
based outlook of scholarly practices, needs and 
attitudes of European humanities researchers 
towards digital resources, methods and tools across 
space and time. Results of the first run of the survey 
(completed in March 2015) are presented in a multi-
authored report, which includes comparative and 
consolidated analyses, as well as six country profiles. 
A new run is planned for 2017-18.  
For more information, see bit.ly/scholarlypractices.  
Contributors 
Project lead 
Costis Dallas, Digital Curation Unit, IMIS-Athena Research 
Centre, Greece & Faculty of Information, University of Toronto, 
Canada 
Survey coordinator 
Nephelie Chatzidiakou, Digital Curation Unit, IMIS-Athena 
Research Centre, Greece 
Country profile authors 
Gerlinde Schneider & Walter Scholger , Karl-Franzens-
Universität Graz, Austria 
Nephelie Chatzidiakou & Costis Dallas, Digital Curation Unit, 
IMIS-Athena Research Centre, Greece 
Ingrida Kelpšienė, Vilnius University, Lithuania 
Maciej Maryl, Institute of Literary Research, Polish Academy of 
Sciences, Poland 
Toma Tasovac, Belgrade Center for Digital Humanities, Serbia 
Beat Immenhauser, Schweizerische Akademie der Geistes und 
Sozialwissenschaften Haus der Akademien, Switzerland 
Technical infrastructure 
Stavros Angelis & Dimitris Gavrilis, Digital Curation Unit,  
IMIS-Athena Research Centre, Greece 
Audiovisual media 
Panagiotis Karioris, Institute for Language and Speech 
Processing, Athena Research Centre, Greece 
Questionnaire, translation and dissemination 
Gerlinde Schneider  & Walter Scholger, Karl-Franzens-Universität 
Graz, Austria 
Koraljka Kuzman, Marko Lukin & Tvrtko Zebec, Institute of 
Ethnology and Folklore Research, Zagreb, Croatia 
Anne Joly TGIR Huma-Num, CNRS, France & Aurelien Berra, 
Université Paris-Ouest Nanterre, France 
Manfred Thaller & Zoe Schubert, Universität zu Köln, and Michael 
Bender, TU Darmstadt, Germany 
Costis Dallas, Nephelie Chatzidiakou, Agiatis Benardou & Eliza 
Papaki, Digital Curation Unit, IMIS, Athena RC, Greece 
John Cunningham, Trinity College Dublin, and Susan Schreibman 
& Meredith Dabek, National University of Ireland Maynooth, Ireland 
Ingrida Kelpšienė, Vilnius University, Lithuania 
Maciej Maryl, Marcin Werla & Michał Kozak, Institute of Literary 
Research, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland 
Toma Tasovac & Irena Marinski, Belgrade Center for Digital 
Humanities, Serbia 
Jurij Hadalin, Institute of Contemporary History, Slovenia 
Elena Gonzalez-Blanco, Universidad Nacional de Educación a 
Distancia, Spain 
Claire Clivaz, Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (SIB), and Beat 
Immenhauser, Schweizerische Akademie der Geistes- und 
Sozialwissenschaften, Haus der Akademien, Switzerland 
Lorna Hughes, HATII, Glasgow University, and  
Robert Owain, National Library of Wales, United Kingdom 
This document was authored by Nephelie Chatzidiakou and Costis Dallas, with support from the Digital Curation Unit, IMIS-Athena Research Centre, Greece. 
Authors wish to thank project contributors and all 2,177 survey respondents for their valuable input to this study. 


European Survey on Scholarly Practices and Digital Needs in the Arts and Humanities

HAL Descartes

Archive Ouverte a LUniversite Lyon 2

This report summarizes the statistical analysis of the findings of a web-based survey conducted by the Digital Methods and Practices Observatory (DiMPO), a working group under VCC2 of the DARIAH research infrastructure (Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities).

In order to provide an evidence-based, up-to-date, and meaningful account of the emerging information practices, needs and attitudes of arts and humanities researchers in the evolving European digital scholarly environment, the web survey involved a transnational team of researchers from more than a dozen countries, and addressed digitally-enabled research practices, attitudes and needs in all areas of Europe and across different arts and humanities disciplines and contexts

ZENODO

European survey on scholarly practices and digital needs in the arts and humanities - Highlights Report

Enlighten

1 European survey on scholarly practices and digital needs in the arts and humanities   Digital Methods and Practices Observatory Working Group (DiMPO)  DARIAH-EU European Research Infrastructure Consortium   October 2016 Survey highlights EN http://bit.ly/scholarlypractices 2 2,177 respondents across Europe, using digital resources, methods and tools  10 languages 6 national profiles Austria Greece Lithuania Poland Serbia Switzerland 5,10% 30,40% 39,50% 21,70% 3,30% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%18-25years26-35years36-50years51-65yearsOver 65yearsAge of respondents. N=2169 66,50% 24,30% 3,00% 0,80% 5,50% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%a university a researchcentreagovernmentdepartmentor agencya privatecompanynone of theabove - I amnot attachedto aninstitutionAge of respondents Professional affiliation 43,5% men 56,5% women Years in research 49,9% - more than 10 years 29% - 3-10 years 16,2%  - 1-3 years 4,6%  - less than 1 year Professional affiliation. N=2018 3 Most respondents consult research resources  on a desktop or laptop PC, more often than in printed or analogue format Use of desktop/laptop PC, mobile devices, and print or analogue devices to consult research material. N= 2177 …with the exception of books and archival items Digital humanists access research materials  both on digital devices and in analogue form Except for books, digital humanists access research resources more often in digital than in analogue form. Ranked in order of frequency, digital devices such as PCs and laptops are most often used to access scholarly articles, images, video, audio, maps, and less often archival holdings and books.  But nine out of ten digital humanists read books in print (compared to three out of five online), while more than half also access articles and archival holdings in analogue form. In tandem, three out of five respondents use  a mobile device, such as a tablet, to consult images, video and audio resources while two out of five for research articles, books or maps. More than two out of five digital humanists use a mobile device to consult most kinds of research resources 4 Digital humanists use digital methods or tools across the research lifecycle Respondents reported using digital methods or tools to support all phases of the research lifecycle, from discovery to publication. However, while most respondents use them to discover, collect or create research assets, a smaller percentage reports using them for other purposes. Only about two out of three respondents reported use of digital methods or tools to annotate, enrich, or curate research assets. Between 10-15% of respondents reported very frequent use of open access journals or publications, institutional portals and reposi-tories, personal blogs or websi-tes, and scholarly communities such as Academia and Resear-chGate, to disseminate their work. A larger percentage, between 35-45%, use this ‘tetrad’ of  dissemina-tion channels regularly. On the other hand, eight out of ten state that they have used open content journals or publication, albeit seldom. In addition, two out of ten respon-dents say they use regularly social media networks to disseminate their research. Less than one out of ten state that they use regularly generic online content services, such as Slideshare, Flickr or Youtube.  Almost half of digital humanists use regularly  a ‘tetrad’ of digital scholarly dissemination channels Purpose of use of digital methods or tools. N=2176 Means of dissemination of scholarly work. N=2132 87,10% 78,50% 65,50% 73,30% 75,40% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%To discover,collect, or createmy researchassetsTo organize,structure, ormanage myresearch assetsTo annotate,enrich, or curatemy researchassetsTo process,analyze, orvisualize myresearch assetsTo publish,disseminate, orcommunicateabout myresearch5 Word processors and spreadsheets are the most common applications used to store and manage research assets 89,70% 60,60% 38,30% 33,70% 32,40% 16,70% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%A wordprocessorA spreadsheetapplicationSome non-digital methodA note-takingapplicationA databasemanagementsystemA web-basedCMSWhen working online, almost all respondents use web search very frequently to find research assets. Nine out of ten reported frequent use of online library catalogues, and slightly less of digital archives, collections or repositories, and online journals. Only seven out of ten use academic search engines (such as Google Scholar) regularly. More than two out of five respondents say they use all these methods very frequently. On the other hand, frequent use of social media networks for resource discovery is reported by only one out of seven respondents.   For storage and management of research assets, nine out of ten respondents reported using a word processor. Three out of five respondents stated they use spreadsheets, while about one third said they use data-base management systems, or note-taking and bibliographic citation management applica-tions.  Only one out of seven presently use web-based content management systems (CMS) to store and manage research assets. Frequency of use of services. N= 1452 Use of applications to store and manage research assets.  N= 2176 Online library catalogues, digital collections and data repositories, and online journals are frequently consulted  6 Digital humanities researchers engage regularly in collaborative research  One out of three respondents indicate that they collaborate very often with others on a research project. Altogether, seven out of ten say that they engage often or very often in research collaboration. Only a very small fraction – less than one out of fifteen – state that they never collaborate in research. Frequency of collaborating with others on a research project. N= 2135 Frequency of accessing primary sources outside one’s country of residence. N= 2136 The majority often use primary sources from abroad, but native tongue persists as the primary language of publication One out of five respondents access primary sources outside of their country of residence very often, and more than half do so often. Only one in seven never uses primary sources from outside their country.  On the other hand, when asked to rank the languages which they use for scholarly publication, seven out of ten digital humanists identify their native language as their primary language of publication, while only one quarter identify English as the primary language. Nevertheless, the great majority – four out of five – do include English as a second publication language.  In addition, almost one out of five suggest that they use another language for scholarly publication, as one of their first two choices. A additional three quarters of respondents, bringing the total to nine out of ten, state that they publish in another language beside their own and English as a third choice. Publishing language. N= 1773 7 Improved findability of digital resources and digitization of non-digital ones are most highly valued Asked to rate the importance of different needs in a scale from 1 to 10, three quarters of digital humanists rated improved findability and access to existing digital research resources or data as the most important, with a score exceeding 9.5 out of 10. A slightly lower score of 9 was granted to digitization of research resources or data currently not in digital form by three out of four respondents. Two other needs, improved findability and access to digital tools or software, and networking with other researchers, research groups and institutions,  share third place with a score exceeding 7 by more than three out of four respondents. Other functions, such as technical support on digital infrastructures, tools or software, online advice and information on using digital methods and tools for research, courses or workshops on how digital humanities methods and tools provide help in the course of the research, and online support from archivists, curators and/or librarians are also valued, but with a lower score.   Word processors and spreadsheets are the most common applications used to store and manage research assets The full report and publications A multi-authored report presenting the descriptive findings of the 2015 survey, as well as a journal paper, is compiled by members of the Digital Methods and Practices Working Group (DiMPO). The report, and further publications, present the consolidated and comparative findings of the survey, as well as selective country profiles. In addition, contributors from particular countries author publications on findings related to their country, and also in their national language.  Hashtags: #DARIAH #DiMPO #ScholarlyPractices 1. Introduction N. Chatzidiakou & C. Dallas 2. Methodology and analysis C. Dallas & N. Chatzidiakou 3. Consolidated findings N. Chatzidiakou & C. Dallas 4. Country profile: Austria G. Schneider & W. Scholger 5. Country profile: Greece N. Chatzidiakou & C. Dallas 6. Country profile: Lithuania I. Kelpšienė 7. Country profile: Poland M. Maryl 8. Country profile: Serbia T. Tasovac & N. Chatzidiakou 9. Country profile: Switzerland B. Immenhauser 10. Comparative findings All authors 11. Conclusions C. Dallas   Table of contents Importance of digital infrastructure affordances. N= 2077 8 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. If you remix, trans-form, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.  Scholarly practices survey: scope, objectives and plans Digital Methods and Practices Observatory Working Group (DiMPO) The DARIAH Digital Methods and Practices Observatory WG (DiMPO) aims to develop and provide an evidence-based, up-to-date, and pragmatically useful account of the emerging information practices, needs and attitudes of arts and humanities researchers in the evolving European digital scholarly environment, for the benefit of the digital humanities research community. It seeks to achieve this objective through the inception of a longitudinal mixed methods research and monitoring programme on the information practices and scholarly methods employed in digitally-enabled arts and humanities work across Europe, and through the digital dissemination, validation and enrichment of research outcomes by the scholarly community.  For further information or to join please contact the WG chair, Prof. Costis Dallas (c.dallas@dcu.gr). The European survey on scholarly practices and digital needs in the arts and humanities is the outcome of collaborative work of European researchers from different countries, working within the DiMPO Working Group. It has been designed as a multiregional longitudinal survey, to be conducted online across European countries and to be repeated every few years. Its aim is to provide an evidence-based outlook of scholarly practices, needs and attitudes of European humanities researchers towards digital resources, methods and tools across space and time. Results of the first run of the survey (completed in March 2015) are presented in a multi-authored report, which includes comparative and consolidated analyses, as well as six country profiles. A new run is planned for 2017-18.  For more information, see bit.ly/scholarlypractices.  Contributors Project lead Costis Dallas, Digital Curation Unit, IMIS-Athena Research Centre, Greece & Faculty of Information, University of Toronto, Canada Survey coordinator Nephelie Chatzidiakou, Digital Curation Unit, IMIS-Athena Research Centre, Greece Country profile authors Gerlinde Schneider & Walter Scholger , Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Austria Nephelie Chatzidiakou & Costis Dallas, Digital Curation Unit, IMIS-Athena Research Centre, Greece Ingrida Kelpšienė, Vilnius University, Lithuania Maciej Maryl, Institute of Literary Research, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland Toma Tasovac, Belgrade Center for Digital Humanities, Serbia Beat Immenhauser, Schweizerische Akademie der Geistes und Sozialwissenschaften Haus der Akademien, Switzerland Technical infrastructure Stavros Angelis & Dimitris Gavrilis, Digital Curation Unit,  IMIS-Athena Research Centre, Greece Audiovisual media Panagiotis Karioris, Institute for Language and Speech Processing, Athena Research Centre, Greece Questionnaire, translation and dissemination Gerlinde Schneider  & Walter Scholger, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Austria Koraljka Kuzman, Marko Lukin & Tvrtko Zebec, Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Research, Zagreb, Croatia Anne Joly TGIR Huma-Num, CNRS, France & Aurelien Berra, Université Paris-Ouest Nanterre, France Manfred Thaller & Zoe Schubert, Universität zu Köln, and Michael Bender, TU Darmstadt, Germany Costis Dallas, Nephelie Chatzidiakou, Agiatis Benardou & Eliza Papaki, Digital Curation Unit, IMIS, Athena RC, Greece John Cunningham, Trinity College Dublin, and Susan Schreibman & Meredith Dabek, National University of Ireland Maynooth, Ireland Ingrida Kelpšienė, Vilnius University, Lithuania Maciej Maryl, Marcin Werla & Michał Kozak, Institute of Literary Research, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland Toma Tasovac & Irena Marinski, Belgrade Center for Digital Humanities, Serbia Jurij Hadalin, Institute of Contemporary History, Slovenia Elena Gonzalez-Blanco, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Spain Claire Clivaz, Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (SIB), and Beat Immenhauser, Schweizerische Akademie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften, Haus der Akademien, Switzerland Lorna Hughes, HATII, Glasgow University, and  Robert Owain, National Library of Wales, United Kingdom This document was authored by Nephelie Chatzidiakou and Costis Dallas, with support from the Digital Curation Unit, IMIS-Athena Research Centre, Greece. Authors wish to thank project contributors and all 2,177 survey respondents for their valuable input to this study. 

Archive Ouverte en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication

https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/166702/1/166702.pdf

European Survey on Scholarly Practices and Digital Needs in the Arts and Humanities

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions