2022/12/12 by Bianca Gualandi, Luca Pareschi, Silvio Peroni · 1 voice · 3 citations
Arts and Humanities · Computer Science · #Digital Humanities and Scholarship #Digital and Traditional Archives Management #Research Data Management Practices
paper · pdf · doi:10.1108/jd-07-2022-0146
openalex created_date 2022/11/14 · openalex publication_date 2022/12/12 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/23
Purpose This article describes the interviews the authors conducted in late 2021 with 19 researchers at the Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies at the University of Bologna. The main purpose was to shed light on the definition of the word “data” in the humanities domain, as far as FAIR data management practices are concerned, and on what researchers think of the term. Design/methodology/approach The authors invited one researcher for each of the official disciplinary areas represented within the department and all 19 accepted to participate in the study. Participants were then divided into five main research areas: philology and literary criticism, language and linguistics, history of art, computer science and archival studies. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using a grounded theory approach. Findings A list of 13 research data types has been compiled thanks to the information collected from participants. The term “data” does not emerge as especially problematic, although a good deal of confusion remains. Looking at current research management practices, methodologies and teamwork appear more central than previously reported. Originality/value Our findings confirm that “data” within the FAIR framework should include all types of inputs and outputs humanities research work with, including publications. Also, the participants of this study appear ready for a discussion around making their research data FAIR: they do not find the terminology particularly problematic, while they rely on precise and recognised methodologies, as well as on sharing and collaboration with colleagues.