没有合适的资源?快使用搜索试试~ 我知道了~
可视化和数字人文: 迈向更强有力的合作.pdf
1.该资源内容由用户上传,如若侵权请联系客服进行举报
2.虚拟产品一经售出概不退款(资源遇到问题,请及时私信上传者)
2.虚拟产品一经售出概不退款(资源遇到问题,请及时私信上传者)
版权申诉
0 下载量 192 浏览量
2024-03-31
10:43:54
上传
评论
收藏 398KB PDF 举报
温馨提示
试读
18页
可视化和数字人文: 迈向更强有力的合作.pdf
资源推荐
资源详情
资源评论
IEEE CG&A Special Issue on Visualization Connections
Visualization and the Digital Humanities:
Moving towards Stronger Collaborations
Abstract For the past two years, researchers from the visualization community and the digital
humanities have come together at the IEEE VIS conference to discuss how both disciplines
can work together to push research goals in their respective disciplines. This process has been
both fruitful and challenging, bringing to light how different knowledge is created in the
sciences and the humanities, but also how methodological differences can be traversed to
produce truly interdisciplinary work. In this paper, we present our experiences as a group and
our individual experiences as humanists and computer scientists. While we explore a broad
spectrum of ideas, our goals are strikingly similar: to understand the processes and
motivations of each other’s work better as a way of increasing self-reflection on our own.
1 Introduction
Visualization researchers, always looking for new data into which to gain insight, have acted too
soon in trying to map topics from the humanities into the domain of visualization. The prospect of
rich data sets, some containing language that is thousands of years old, is tempting to engage in.
But, in our excitement at the variety of different datasets available, we have clumped together
the work of many disciplines and subdisciplines from the humanities and social sciences under
the same rubric, which we simply label ‘data’. On account of the different ways that the sciences
and humanities create knowledge, the subtleties of humanities subject are often lost when we
take them through a visualization design process. That is not to say that visualization specialists
neglect their stakeholders, just that something is lost in the translation from the humanities to the
sciences. Over the past three years and through two iterations of the Vis4DH workshop, we have
come to understand that in these translations of work into data we have missed that these
disciplines have as much to teach us about visualization as visualization has to teach them about
1
their subjects of study.
Humanities disciplines, as they have either come to adopt digital tools or have been subjected to
digital analysis, are increasingly adopting the umbrella term ”Digital Humanities” (DH). But even
scholars who identify as digital humanists admit that DH contains many different ways of working
and thinking. This is both because the humanities themselves are a large domain comprised of
many disciplines and because the kinds of digital interventions to which they have been
subjected are so variable. Just as the purview of the humanities might be said to be constantly
changing, we see the larger group labelled DH also constantly defining and redefining itself.
Much DH work has been published in journals such as Digital Humanities Quarterly, Digital
Scholarship in the Humanities as well as the ongoing series “Debates in the Digital Humanities.”
There has also been a vibrant international conference scene, including, but not limited to, the
annual Association of Digital Humanities Organizations (ADHO) conference. What has resulted
from this vibrant, international debate is a broad and inclusive definition of the discipline: that any
scholar using digital environments to showcase research or applying computation to humanities
work is participating in the digital humanities. This ”big tent” notion is both freeing and limiting.
Much research in DH embodies a implicit promise of “digitizing” the humanities, thus bringing it
into the technological future, and learned societies and scholarly associations have funded that
promise. The difficulty is that, seen from the world of computing, what is labelled digital
humanities can vary widely: the digital edition of texts, basic studies of frequency in documents,
geo-spatial analysis of archival maps, even the application of complex machine learning across
corpora. A digital humanities project can participate in anything from digital archives, document
digitization, library sciences, history, literary criticism, philosophy, theater history, visual arts,
linguistics, and countless other subjects. We see this potential for interdisciplinarity as a strength,
but the diversity also makes it difficulty to pin down a set of research directions based on the
vastness of the possibilities for inquiry. To complicate matters further, humanities disciplines
have an ever-changing abundance of research questions, and in many fields, a majority of
scholars do not see the immediate relevance of computing to their work, beyond a basic service
role. While the breadth of the humanities has made them an enticing source of data for computer
science, it is not clear how computer science can provide authentic learning opportunities to
humanities scholars. In order to be relevant to today’s humanities scholarship, we have to do
more than simply map data to a view. We have to engage with the ways that the humanities
traditionally build knowledge, and through embracing ways of thinking that are new to us, we
believe that new shared languages between the disciplines are possible. The task is not an easy
one, however. In this paper we present an overview of the past Vis4DH workshops at the IEEE
Vis conference and some of what we as an organizing committee have learned about the
relationship between visualization and the humanities. We present both accounts of the goings
on at the workshop and testimonies from members of both the DH and Viz communities that
speak to the wide ranging possibilities of ongoing and future collaborations.
We need to change our approach: Rather than seeing
the humanities as a data source, we must begin to think
of them as partners in a new hybrid epistemology.
Visualization and the Digital Humanities: Moving Towards Stronger Collaborations 2
2 Looking Back: Vis4DH Workshops 2016 and 2017
The inaugural workshop, co-located with IEEE VIS 2016 in Baltimore, was the first
interdisciplinary event of this kind organized by visualization scholars aiming to bring together
researchers from both the visualization and the digital humanities communities. A varied full-day
program consisting of paper sessions and panel discussions comprised 17 accepted out of 21
submitted short and position papers. The diversity of digital humanities projects was also
reflected by the presented works. Many papers addressed the development of visualizations to
support visual text analyses [1]. Close reading visualizations, which focus on a limited amount of
textual data, were designed to support text annotations, to facilitate the analysis of poems, or to
compare classical text editions. On the other hand, distant reading visualizations, which support
exploring large text collections, were presented for analyzing topic modeling results, to browse
slave narratives with the help of tapestries, and to explore structure in Shakespeare’s plays after
topology-based analysis.
In addition, a conceptual work flow of the problem-solving process in digital humanities projects
with visual text analytics was presented [2], and, independent of the data type, the benefits of
combining Immersive Analytics and Deep Mapping were discussed [3]. Next to those rather
application-driven topics, the workshop provided a platform also for critical perspectives on
visualization as a method in digital humanities. This included talks given by digital humanities
scholars about “slow analytics” as a method of sense-making in literary studies [4], the
embedding of close readings to facilitate the interpretation of distant readings [5], and feminist
data visualization [6]. Finally, the challenges of digital humanities projects to generate valuable
research outcomes for both the visualization and the digital humanities fields were discussed [7].
Representatives of both research fields framed the first Vis4DH workshop with keynote talks.
Gregory Crane, Alexander von Humboldt Professor of Digital Humanities at Leipzig University,
outlined how visualization has changed the practices of mainstream humanists so far, and he
introduced classical philology as a sub- domain of the humanities that provides a broad range of
challenges for future visualization research. Min Chen, professor of scientific visualization at
Oxford University, shared his team’s experience in collaborating with digital humanities scholars,
and he characterized the occurring problems as “treasure troves” as they offer “a broad spectrum
of challenges and opportunities to the application as well as the advancement of visualization
technology.” Though both keynote talks pointed out the benefits of visualization for digital
humanities research, it was evident that the approaches in how visualization is designed or how it
is used differ among the disciplines. While, on the one hand, the (digital) humanities are often
seen as a data source for visualization scholars, on the other hand visualization is often seen by
the humanities as a mere provider of tools. As Jänicke [7] pointed out, digital humanities realms
have not often been places where researchers from both domains meet. The first Vis4DH
workshop can be seen as a success simply in providing such a meeting place, since 27% out of
70 attendees characterized themselves as digital humanities scholars.
Encouraged by the positive response to the first workshop, we organized a follow-up workshop
co-located with IEEE VIS 2017 in Phoenix. Organized as a half-day workshop, VIS4DH2017
accepted 10 out of 17 submissions for presentation. As in the first workshop, the presented
works addressed quite diverse research topics, but geo-visualization as a means to interact with
digital humanities data, e.g., to explore language endangerment data, or to analyze relational
changes in biography and prosopography data, provided a particular focus. Also, two talks
Visualization and the Digital Humanities: Moving Towards Stronger Collaborations 3
introduced movie data as a valuable resource for digital humanities projects. One position paper
reflected on collaborative practices at the intersection of visualization and humanities research
and proposed with a set questions to help researchers involved in digital humanities projects
negotiating collaborative roles and project aims [8]. The keynote talk was given by Uta Hinrichs,
lecturer at the School of Computer Science at the University of St Andrews, who described her
concept of considering visualization in the digital humanities as “sandcastles” that, “in the
process of their construction, facilitate the exploration of research questions, and, in their final
stage, reflect detours and lessons learned”. She pointed out the value of visualization for digital
humanities research to triggering new hypotheses that can lead to changing research
perspectives requiring visualization re-design. The concluding audience-driven discussion
generated questions like “What is the role of the human in visualizations for digital humanities?”,
“How do we design visualizations to communicate data skepticism?” and “What can the
humanities community do to help developing theory and methods for improving visualization
literacy?” These remain to be addressed by researchers from both fields in the future.
[1] S. Jänicke, G. Franzini, M. F. Cheema, and G. Scheuermann, “Visual Text Analysis in Digital Humanities,” Computer Graphics
Forum, vol. 36, no. 6, 2016, pp. 226-250.
[2] M. El-Assady, V. Gold, M. John, T. Ertl, and D. A. Keim, “Visual Text Analytics in Context of Digital Humanities,” Workshop on
Visualization for the Digital Humanities (Vis4DH 16), 2016.
[3] J. Roberts, J. Mearman, P. Ritsos, H. Miles, A. Wilson, D. Perkins, J. Jackson, B. Tiddeman, F. Labrosse, B. Edwards, and R.
Karl, “Immersive Analytics and Deep Maps - the Next Big Thing for Cultural Heritage Archaeology,” Workshop on Visualization for the
Digital Humanities (Vis4DH 16), 2016.
[4] A. J. Bradley, H. Mehta, M. Hancock, and C. Collins, “Visualization, Digital Humanities, and the Problem of Instrumentalism,”
Workshop on Visualization for the Digital Humanities (Vis4DH 16), 2016.
[5] B. Schmidt, “A public exploratory data analysis of gender bias in teaching evaluations,” Workshop on Visualization for the Digital
Humanities (Vis4DH 16), 2016.
[6] C. D’Ignazio and L. Klein, “Feminist Data Visualization,” Workshop on Visualization for the Digital Humanities (Vis4DH 16), 2016.
[7] S. Jänicke, “Valuable Research for Visualization and Digital Humanities: A Balancing Act,” Workshop on Visualization for the
Digital Humanities (Vis4DH 16), 2016.
[8] U. Hinrichs, M. El-Assady, A. J. Bradley, S. Forlini, and C. Collins, “Risk the Drift! Stretching Disciplinary Boundaries through
Critical Collaborations between the Humanities and Visualization,” 2nd Workshop on Visualization for the Digital Humanities (Vis4DH
17), 2017.
3 The Vis4DH experiment
Overall the Vis4DH experiment has been a success, but not in the ways we originally thought it
would be. We say that because we were thinking initially of our work as inherently providing a
service to the humanities, as if any form of visualization intervention would provide added value
to their work, but the humanists had different ideas: they wanted visualizations that gave insight
into their research problems, not ours. This difference in perception speaks in part to the large
gap in epistemological outlook between the two fields, a gap between very different ways of
creating knowledge that at times led to misunderstanding and controversy. Some interactions
from our first two years have ranged from on-the-floor disagreements sparking outrage to some
genuinely interesting interchanges of ideas. The humanists, we came to realize, perceived that
we did not understand the traditions and complexities underlying their data; it was as if we were
trying to get them to adapt to our methodologies and vocabularies without likewise learning from
their processes and workflows. Even the style of delivery of the papers between humanists and
visualization people was different, the humanists often read papers prepared just for the event,
while the presentations from viz scholars used slides to describe the contents of the submissions.
Another difference was the expectation of debate after the paper was presented. Humanists use
debate as a way of building knowledge and they expect the opportunity for question and answer
periods at conferences. These debates can often get heated. While this was a surprise to the vis
community, it seemed quite normal for the humanists in the room. This type of engagement,
which is central to their practice, is often frowned upon in visualization. It took us two workshops
Visualization and the Digital Humanities: Moving Towards Stronger Collaborations 4
剩余17页未读,继续阅读
资源评论
百态老人
- 粉丝: 1635
- 资源: 2万+
下载权益
C知道特权
VIP文章
课程特权
开通VIP
上传资源 快速赚钱
- 我的内容管理 展开
- 我的资源 快来上传第一个资源
- 我的收益 登录查看自己的收益
- 我的积分 登录查看自己的积分
- 我的C币 登录后查看C币余额
- 我的收藏
- 我的下载
- 下载帮助
安全验证
文档复制为VIP权益,开通VIP直接复制
信息提交成功