數位人文學學術文獻的研究特性與參考文獻型態的探索性研究

Abstract

本研究欲藉由觀察大量的數位人文學術論文，探索數位人文研究之現況與特性。本研究分析的標的包括：數位典藏與數位人文國際研討會論文集、數位人文期刊、數位人文季刊、數位研究期刊、中世紀數位研究者期刊等，於2009-2013年收錄之來源文獻與參考文獻。數位典藏與數位人文國際研討會是臺灣每年舉辦的數位人文學術會議，目前已成為亞太地區數位人文學術研究領域的重要會議；其餘五種期刊則收錄了數位人文的重要研究成果，也是此一領域的代表性出版品。本研究基於圖書館編目工作的記敘分析與主題分析的實務方法，並採取內容分析法執行研究。希望透過數據的觀察與分析，以解釋數位人文領域的研究樣貌，共計分析415篇來源文獻與8,686篇參考文獻。 研究結果發現，數位人文源自於人文學，加入了科技的部分而形成。由參考文獻之敘述性統計分析，可以看到以下的特性。 (1) 「書籍」是很重要的資料類型。此外，英國與北美地區都很重視網路資源的使用。 (2) 數位人文學的學者傾向單獨撰寫文獻，較少合作出版；然而，仍有一些機構與計畫參與數位人文的文獻產出。 (3) 由年代與引用篇數的關係圖可以看出，數位人文的文獻與引文都有前頭低而綿長、尾巴簡短高而聳的引文年代曲線，同時展現了人文學科的時間特性和科技文獻的應用新穎文獻的特性。 關於數位人文的主題領域，臺灣、英國及北美的研究主軸同中有異：無論對於參考文獻或來源文獻，歷史與資料探勘都是數位人文學的核心項目。然而，時間標記及空間跨度則很難由數位人文文獻的書目資料識別。由牽涉領域之統計發現，數位人文文獻都有一個以上的討論主題，充份顯示數位人文學的跨領域特性。 本研究由書目資料分析的方式，一併檢視了來源文獻與參考文獻，揭示數位人文出版文獻的特性，並幫助有關學者進一步認識數位人文領域。

This study demonstrates common characteristics found in important publications of digital humanities. We conducted the research based on bibliographies of DH articles. The study analyzed references and source articles listed in the following publications: Proceedings of International Conference of Digital Archives and Digital Humanities (DADH), Journal of Digital Humanities, Digital Humanities Quarterly, Digital Studies, Digital Medievalist and International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing from 2009 to 2013. DADH was held annually in Taiwan, and has become a big event in the Asian Pacific area. The other 5 international journals published important research outputs of digital humanities. The references and source articles of these research targets were investigated based on descriptive analysis and subject analysis of library practices on cataloguing. The methodology of content analysis was used to carry out the whole study. The results were analyzed from totally 8,686 references in 415 source articles. The results showed that digital humanities has transformed from the traditional humanities but added in more technology parts. From descriptive analysis in references, there were characteristics noticed as follows. (1) “Book” was the popular one in type of reference. However, UK and North America alike used resources on Internet often. (2) For number of author in the articles, many humanities authors tend to publish alone rather than to cooperate with others. Still, there are some organizations and projects supporting this kind of studies. (3) The subject-year figure depicted a long-low head and short-high tail curve in references published which demonstrated both characteristics of researches of humanities and applications of technology in Digital Humanities. For the aspects of subject analyses, Taiwan, UK, and North America had some features in common. History and data mining are two core issues in digital humanities, both for source articles and references. However, the information of temporal tags and spatial coverage were not well recognized in bibliographical records. From the number of domain, DH articles tend to have more than one subject discussed, showing the cross-discipline nature of DH. The study analyzed DH based on bibliographical records. From both source articles and references, the characteristics existed in the publications for digital humanities were also revealed, helping related scholars to know better about the field.