A Case Study Protocol For Meta-Research Into Digital Practices In The Humanities

This paper presents a multicase study protocol for meta-research in Digital Humanities, prepared by Digital Methods and Practices Observatory (DiMPO) Working Group of the Digital Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities in Europe (DARIAH). The protocol is intended to help researchers in conducting meta-research and adopting this methodology for different purposes, disciplines and approaches. As many of the issues raised here are already covered in manuals for social research, our focus is the specificity of meta-research in the DH environment. The specificity of DH in this respect relies on an intrinsic challenge of bringing together generally undertheorised approaches of the humanities with very formal and process-driven ICT approaches.The main assumption behind this research is that a meaningful change in scholarly practices is taking place and is worth investigating. Moreover, a full assessment of this transformation should not focus exclusively on pioneering research, but rather on the selective uptake of digital practices and methods by researchers in the humanities: those who do not necessarily affiliate themselves with DH but simply use digital tools to explore particular problems. Hence, this paper should be of interest not only to researchers willing to conduct meta analysis, but to all DH practitioners willing to gain critical perspective on their work, as well as for those working on funding, evaluation and research policy.Three pilot studies are discussed in this paper, as they served as a basis for the protocol. They focused on different "units of inquiry" (individual researchers, projects, research communities) and varied in methodological directions: (a) individual interviews with Polish DH researchers; (b) mixed-methods analysis of digital practice in E-CURATORS, a multicase SSHRC Insight project focusing on archaeological research sites or projects, integrating individual interviews, document analysis and naturalistic observation; and, (c) group interviews with historians and literary scholars conducted within the framework of NEP4DISSENT COST Action. The resulting protocol is discussed in detail and some directions for further research are suggested.