Collaborating, Connecting, and Clustering in the Humanities

To what extent does networked scholarship in the humanities parallel established models in the sciences? The present study examines the connections of a 7-year interdisciplinary, dispersed, collaborative network composed of 33 humanities scholars investigating the Hispanic Baroque. Our findings suggest that project membership leads to greater network density and integration, without necessarily increasing the level of in-depth collaboration typically found in the sciences. Hence, collaborative models in the humanities, while increasingly important, are distinct from their counterparts in the sciences. The study provides a more nuanced view of networked scholarship because it demonstrates that large-scale collaborative projects can yield a high level of integration of the overall network, while at the same time allowing for strong thematic clustering. This dual structural process is relevant because not all network members can form dense relations with one another. Furthermore, we identified that principal investigators showed different networking strategies.

[1]  Sue Stone,et al.  Humanities scholars: Information Needs and Uses , 1982, J. Documentation.

[2]  A. Barrett.  The information-seeking habits of graduate student researchers in the Humanities , 2005 .

[3]  Thomas Robbins,et al.  NAVEL Gazing: Studying a Networked Scholarly Organization , 2012 .

[4]  Dimitrina S. Dimitrova,et al.  Changing Ties in a Far-Flung, Multidisciplinary Research Network , 2015 .

[5]  Ana-Paula Correia,et al.  Learn to use and use to learn: Technology in virtual collaboration experience , 2009, Internet High. Educ..

[6]  W. Thomas.  Computing and the Historical Imagination , 2007 .

[7]  L. Freeman,et al.  Cognitive Structure and Informant Accuracy , 1987 .

[8]  Julia L. Panko,et al.  Creating socially networked knowledge through interdisciplinary collaboration , 2012 .

[9]  The disappearance of the library: Issues in the adoption of information technology by humanists , 1995 .

[10]  Katarzyna Musial,et al.  Social Network Analysis in Applications , 2016, AI Commun..

[11]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities , 2006, Scientometrics.

[12]  Gloria Mark,et al.  Communication chains and multitasking , 2008, CHI.

[13]  Lynne Siemens.  'It's a team if you use "reply all" ': An exploration of research teams in digital humanities environments , 2009, Lit. Linguistic Comput..

[14]  Víctor M. González,et al.  "Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness": managing multiple working spheres , 2004, CHI.

[15]  D. Endres,et al.  Research as a Transdisciplinary Networked Process: A Metaphor for Difference-Making Research , 2010 .

[16]  Tsahi Hayat,et al.  Advice Giving and Receiving Within a Research Network , 2015 .

[17]  Bonnie A. Nardi,et al.  It's Not What You Know, It's Who You Know: Work in the Information Age , 2000, First Monday.

[18]  S. Wiberley,et al.  Patterns of Information Seeking in the Humanities , 1989 .

[19]  L. Freeman.  Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[20]  Jonathan Bishop,et al.  Networked: The New Social Operating System , 2013, Int. J. E Politics.

[21]  Anabel Quan-Haase.  Research and teaching in real time: 24/7 collaborative networks , 2012 .

[22]  Jason Nolan,et al.  The International Handbook of Virtual Learning Environments , 2006 .

[23]  M. Kirschenbaum.  What Is Digital Humanities and What’s It Doing in English Departments? , 2010 .

[24]  Pamela E. Carter,et al.  Self-Regulation in Instant Messaging (IM): Failures, Strategies, and Negative Consequences , 2010, Int. J. e Collab..

[25]  Richard Rothenberg,et al.  Choosing a centrality measure: Epidemiologic correlates in the Colorado Springs study of social networks☆ , 1995 .

[26]  Melissa Terras,et al.  Enabled backchannel: conference Twitter use by digital humanists , 2011, J. Documentation.