Search results

This paper presents a co-authorship study of authors who published in Digital Humanities journals and examines the apparent influence of gender, or more specifically, the quantitatively detectable influence of gender in the networks they form.

This study applied co-authorship network analysis. Data has been collected from three canonical Digital Humanities journals over 52 years (1966–2017) and analysed.

The results are presented as visualised networks and suggest that female scholars in Digital Humanities play more central roles and act as the main bridges of collaborative networks even though overall female authors are fewer in number than male authors in the network.

This is the first co-authorship network study in Digital Humanities to examine the role that gender appears to play in these co-authorship networks using statistical analysis and visualisation.

This paper presents a follow-on study that quantifies geolingual markers and their apparent connection with authorship collaboration patterns in canonical Digital Humanities (DH) journals. In particular, it seeks to detect patterns in authors' countries of work and languages in co-authorship networks.

Through an in-depth co-authorship network analysis, this study analysed bibliometric data from three canonical DH journals over a range of 52 years (1966–2017). The results are presented as visualised networks with centrality calculations.

The results suggest that while DH scholars may not collaborate as frequently as those in other disciplines, when they do so their collaborations tend to be more international than in many Science and Engineering, and Social Sciences disciplines. DH authors in some countries (e.g. Spain, Finland, Australia, Canada, and the UK) have the highest international co-author rates, while others have high national co-author rates but low international rates (e.g. Japan, the USA, and France).

This study is the first DH co-authorship network study that explores the apparent connection between language and collaboration patterns in DH. It contributes to ongoing debates about diversity, representation, and multilingualism in DH and academic publishing more widely.

Government administrative data have enormous potential for public and individual benefit through improved educational and health services to citizens, medical research, environmental and climate interventions and better use of scarce energy resources. The purpose of this study (part of the Administrative Data Research Centre in England, ADRC-E) was to examine perspectives about the sharing, linking and re-use (secondary use) of government administrative data. This study seeks to establish an analytical understanding of risk with regard to administrative data.

This qualitative study focused on the secondary use of government administrative data by academic researchers. Data collection was through 44 semi-structured interviews plus one focus group, and was supported by documentary analysis and a literature review. The study draws on the views of expert data researchers, data providers, regulatory bodies, research funders, lobby groups, information practitioners and data subjects.

This study discusses the identification and management of risk in the use of government administrative data and presents a risk framework.

This study will have resonance with records managers, risk managers, data specialists, information policy and compliance managers, citizens groups that engage with data, as well as all those responsible for the creation and management of government administrative data.

First, this study identifies and categorizes the risks arising from the research use of government administrative data, based on policy, practice and experience of those involved. Second, it identifies mitigating risk management activities, linked to five key stakeholder communities, and it discusses the locus of responsibility for risk management actions. The conclusion presents the elements of a new risk framework to inform future actions by the government data community and enable researchers to exploit the power of administrative data for public good.