臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：數位人文學研究計畫參與者之資訊行為研究
作者：林妙樺
作者(外文)：Miao-Hua Lin
校院名稱：國立臺灣大學
系所名稱：圖書資訊學研究所
指導教授：唐牧群
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2019
主題關鍵詞：數位人文學；人文學者；資訊行為；資訊視域；數位圖書館
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:15
數位技術在學術領域以不同的速度和方式進行快速的演變，其影響遍及科學、社會科學、人文學科，各種資料庫和數位影像典藏、應用和數位工具，大規模影響人文學者取用資源的類型和使用的方法，這些改變也反映了文化和知識的思考新方式，進而促使數位人文學於2000年成為一研究新領域、人文學科中新興的主角，但數位人文學仍持續演化中，圖書資訊學社群如何有效與數位人文學社群協同合作，努力提供新設施和發展新服務，以因應人文學者變動中的研究行為和利用數位工具和方法之需求，成為圖書資訊學領域及數位圖書館發展之重要議題。
　　歷年來數位人文學之研究議題，主要聚焦於文本分析、領域分析，或是人文學者使用數位資源之相關研究，對於實際參與規劃建置資源之數位人文學者的資訊行為研究，尚付之闕如。因此本研究希望瞭解數位人文學計畫參與者的工作角色及其相關任務，這些工作角色和任務如何驅動數位人文學者尋求資訊，如何選擇及使用資源，哪些資源或服務會向圖書館、檔案館或博物館等資訊機構尋求協助，如何與跨領域專家互動合作，是否有無法取得的資源及如何克服，分析其資源偏好及資源使用特性，作為數位圖書館建置或設計資源服務的參考，並有助於瞭解臺灣數位人文學未來的發展方向。
　　本研究設計首先蒐集數位人文學者資訊行為相關研究文獻、資訊行為領域中以工作角色為核心之理論模式、數位人文學與數位圖書館等相關文獻，分析萃取其概念及面向，綜合歸納出數位人文學者在工作情境中之八大資訊行為面向及其所屬概念，作為實徵研究之基礎。實徵研究之場域選擇中央研究院數位文化中心網站近五年審核通過之數位人文學研究計畫，以計畫主持人或核心成員作為研究訪談對象，計畫成員若涉及使用數位技術和相關資源的場所，包括：圖書館、檔案館、博物館等資訊機構，亦徵詢資訊機構人員的受訪意願，進行訪談及分析，以便全面瞭解數位人文學計畫核心成員與資訊機構之間的互動及合作，作為建置或設計數位人文學研究資源之參考。
　　本研究之方法論是以深度訪談法為主、Sonnenwald資訊視域圖為輔的兩種質性研究取向進行原始資料蒐集，除了將原始資料進行處理、分析、編碼、歸納外，並參考Huvlia之資訊視域分析圖的方法，繪製數位人文學者之資訊視域分析圖，最後依研究結果，提出一套解釋數位人文學者於工作情境中之資訊行為理論框架：一、數位人文學者基於工作情境中的角色和任務，會影響其資訊行為。二、數位人文學者會依其工作角色、任務、資訊需求特性（個人特性、資源偏好）、資訊察覺、可取得資源，而可能呈現不同的資訊視域圖。
　　研究結果可概分以下三方面：第一，數位人文學者參與資源建置的原因主要有四項，包括「單位職務」、「研究興趣」、「受邀參與」、「使命感」，基於職務參與計畫者，涉入計畫程度較低，只具有資源建置者角色；基於研究興趣與受邀參與者，涉入計畫程度較深，並會使用計畫建置的資源，隨時反饋意見，同時身兼資源建置者和使用者兩種角色。參與計畫的影響，主要有五項：「促進數位人文學相關研究」、「擴展個人研究視野」、「教育推廣及加值應用」、「培育人才」、「發展數位人文學工具或平台」，參與計畫的學者普遍認為雖擠壓個人研究時間，但仍正面肯定此類計畫有其助益及重要性。第二，數位人文學者於工作情境中之資訊行為特性，包括八大面向：(一)情境（執行計畫期間、平日研究工作），只有少數人明確區分這兩種情境，大部分都是這兩種情境同時並存及相互影響。計畫屬性豐富多元，計畫成員呈現跨領域研究之多元性，執行計畫期間需透過正式或非正式溝通，必須透過長期對話，或借助跨領域人才的溝通，以增進彼此的理解。(二)工作角色及任務：包含「平日研究工作」的研究者角色，任務是完成研究論文；「數位人文學計畫」參與者有三類工作角色，內容提供者、倡導者、顧問。內容提供者的任務：內容建置、技術研發、永續維運；倡導者的任務：教育或指導、提倡或推廣；顧問的任務：轉譯、解釋、聯繫。其計畫的工作角色及任務則視其申請計畫時的目標或發展方向而有不同偏重。(三)資源需求特性：包括「個人特性」、「資源偏好」，個人特性方面在資源類型選擇上主要在於學科背景的訓練，而參與計畫年資主要的差異在於其社會網絡的人脈累積，可累積平日研究工作同儕以外之不同領域的人脈。個人特性、資源偏好也將影響是否具有察覺資訊來源、取得資源的知識和能力，以及資訊尋求是否成功的重要因素。(四)資訊察覺及資訊行為：資訊察覺主要探討兩個面向分別為「感知環境改變／知識缺乏」、「具備資訊來源的知識」，無法取得資源主要有材料缺漏及授權等徵集問題、難覓專業人才及其流動問題，除了授權及人才流動問題無法解決外，其他問題皆具備資訊來源的知識，最終可取得其所需資源，而當中因資訊察覺所涉及的資訊行為，包括：探索、搜尋、瀏覽、過濾、使用、溝通、反思、評估、監控、分享、交流，並視資訊尋求歷程而有不同的行為，有些行為有時會反覆循環出現，直到決定停止才結束。(五)資訊視域分析圖：本研究依計畫工作角色及任務，進行資訊視域圖之分析歸納，產出五種工作角色資訊視域圖：「內容提供者-內容建置」、「內容提供者-技術研發」、「內容提供者-永續維運」、「顧問-轉譯」、「顧問-解釋」，而其中僅有「內容提供者-永續維運」以數位技術作為資源進入點，其餘四種都以社會網絡為資源進入點，反映出數位人文學研究計畫在執行時，主要使用的資源類型為社會網絡，而且是涉及跨領域的學者專家。
　　依研究結果與文獻分析進行綜合討論，提出結論及建議，除了上述研究結果外，並歸納數位人文學者依不同工作情境、工作角色及任務，而呈現不同的資源使用類型偏好，計畫工作情境中「內容提供者—內容建置」任務主要使用的資源類型為實體館藏及社會網絡；「內容提供者—永續維運」主要使用的資源類型為：社會網絡及數位技術；「內容提供者—技術研發」、「顧問—轉譯」、「顧問—解釋」則是實體館藏、社會網絡、數位資源、數位技術四種資源類型皆會使用。平日研究工作情境，歷史學者主要使用的資源類型為：實體館藏、社會網絡及數位資源；人類學者主要使用的資源類型為：實體館藏及社會網絡，而數位資源及數位技術則視研究議題選用。
　　本研究分別從學科領域發展、營運實務方面提出建議：一、學科領域發展：　(一)圖書資訊學領域方面，資訊行為研究可參酌本研究發展之理論模式及資訊視域分析圖，增進對數位人文學者資訊行為特性的瞭解，並作為設計資源服務之參考。圖資課程應增設數位人文學等相關跨學科領域研究議題或學程，邀請數位人文學專家學者進行演講或舉辦工作坊，激發更多對話與合作研究。研究方法論可參考本研究之整體設計，挑選適合應用於研究歷程不同階段的方法論，以蒐集並產出最豐富多元的研究成果。(二)數位人文學領域發展方面，因屬跨學科領域屬性，社會網絡應用更加普遍多元，可透過跨領域的理論方法來從事與數位人文學社會網絡相關的研究。二、營運實務方面：(一)資訊機構之資源服務，資訊機構持續扮演協同合作的關鍵角色，提供原始典藏或數位檔供計畫使用、協調與分配資源、提供技術或資源標準之諮詢、數位工具等服務。(二)數位人文學計畫營運，計畫經費額度分配需視計畫類型進行微調、數位文化中心應轉為常設性機構、與相關機構結盟或建立聯繫管道進行人才培育及交流。
　　未來研究方向則提出以下三項建議：一、跨機構之數位人文學研究，可參考本研究架構進行其他數位人文學機構之比較研究；二、跨領域之數位人文學研究，可挑選某些數位人文學計畫，深入觀察跨領域成員之間以何種管道進行訊息或知識的交流或分享；三、數位人文學研究平台之比較研究：可探討並比較不同機構所發展的數位人文研究平台之使用者、使用界面、數位工具等議題。
The impact of digital technology has greatly expanded over the years, not just in sciences and engineering but also in social sciences and humanities. Humanities has been traditionally considered less involved in the digital technologies, yet with all kinds of digitalized archive, image collections and tools, new methodologies have also emerged among humanities scholars and their collaborators in computer sciences. These changes also reflected new ways of thinking about culture and knowledge, which in turn led to the emergence of digital humanities in 2000 and it became a new research area. However, with the continued evolution in the digital humanities, Library and Information Science (LIS) community has also actively sought how to effectively collaborate with the digital humanities scholar in order to provide new facilities and services. The study of humanities scholars’ behavior in using digital tools and methods has therefore emerged as an important issue in LIS.
In recent years, the study of how humanists use text analysis, domain analysis and digital resources become a main issue in the field of digital humanities research, yet little attention has been paid to the information behaviors of the digital humanities research projects’ participants. Therefore, this study set out to investigate the work roles and the tasks of the humanities projects’ participants, how these work roles and tasks drive digital humanities scholars to seek information, how they select and use resources, and what role the information agencies such as libraries, archives or museums can play in providing their expertise, as well as how they might interact with cross-disciplinary experts. Of particular interest are how they attempt to overcome the barriers in obtaining the resources needed. To answer these question, it is important to their analyze resource preferences and resource usage characteristics. The study can be taken as a reference for digital library construction or design resource services, and it would shed light on the future development direction of Taiwan''s digital humanities, especially in the interdisciplinary endeavor of creating new resources.
The literature review of this research firstly focused on the information behavior of digital humanities scholars, the information behavior model with work roles and tasks, other related literatures in the domain of digital humanities and digital libraries. Finally the eight information behavior dimensions of the digital humanities scholars in the work context were extracted and organized based on the synthesis of these existing model. These dimensions and related concepts are the basis of this empirical research. The digital humanities projects during the last five years from the Academia Sinica Center for Digital Cultures (ASCDC) website were chosen as the research field. The project director or core members of these projects were selected as the research interviewees. Members of libraries, archives, museums and other information agencies who had supported the research interviewees in the use of digital technology and resources, were also interviewed.
This study mainly adopts two kinds of qualitative approach, including in-depth interviewing and Sonnenwald''s information horizon to collect data. Then, Huvlia’s analytic information horizon map is applied to draw the information horizon map of digital humanities’ scholar. Finally, a theoretical framework for explaining the information behavior of digital humanities’ scholar in the work context is proposed which is based on the research results.
The results of this study can be broadly divided into the following three aspects: 1) to identify the reasons for the digital humanities scholar to participate digital humanities’ projects, including "work requirement", "research interest", "invited participation" and "mission sense". 2) to explore the impacts on their work tasks through participating in the project, including "promoting digital humanities related studies", "expanding individual research insight", "education promotion and value-added applications", "cultivating talents" and "developing digital humanities tools or platforms", participating scholars generally give a positive affirmation toward their projects and consider them as useful and important, although squeeze personal research time. 3) to discover the digital humanities’ scholars’ information behavioral characteristics. It includes the following dimensions: work contexts, work roles and tasks, resource need characteristics, information awareness and information behaviors, and analytic information horizon map. Firstly, the dimension of work contexts covers two scenarios: those involved with taking part in the projects and routine research work. Only a few people have a clear distinction between these two scenarios, both contexts intertwined with each other. The project attributes were rich and diverse, and the project members presented the diversity of cross-disciplinary research. It was found that it was necessary for participating members to enhance mutual understanding through long-term dialogue or with the assistance of cross-disciplinary talents, through formal or informal communication during the execution of the project. Next, the dimension of roles and tasks: the role and the task for routine research are to complete research papers; there are three types of work roles played during the execution of the project, including content providers, advocates and consultants. The task of content provider offered content construction, technology research and development, sustainable maintenance; the task of the advocate provided education or guidance, and promotion; the task of the consultant focused on translation, interpretation and contact. The work roles and tasks of the project are different from the goals or development directions of the application plan. Furthermore, the dimension of resource characteristics: it includes "personal characteristics" and "resource preferences", which are two major factors to see if there is an awareness of the source of information, the knowledge and the ability to acquire resources, and the success of information seeking. After that, the dimension of awareness and information behaviors: Information awareness is focused on "perceived environmental change or lack of knowledge" and "information source with knowledge". Unable to obtain resources is mainly due to material collection gaps and authorization issues. The information behaviors of digital humanities’ scholar included exploration, searching, browsing, filtering, using, communicating, reflecting, evaluating, monitoring and sharing. Lastly, the dimension of analytic information horizon map: this study analyzed and summarized the information horizon map according to the project role and tasks, and produces five kinds of information horizon maps: "content provider - content build", “content provider - technology R&D”, “content provider - sustainable maintenance” ,”consultant – translation”, “consultant – interpretation”, and only "content provider - sustainable maintenance" uses digital technology as resource entry point, the others use social networks instead. The main type of resources used was social networks, where experts in cross-disciplinary fields could be reached.
According to the research results and conclusions, the resource types of the "content provider - content construction" were mainly used for the physical collections and social networks; the resource types of the "content providers - sustainable maintenance" were mainly used for the social networks and digital technology; the resource types of the "content providers - R & D" , "consultant - translation" and "consultant – interpretation” " were used for the physical collections, social networks, digital resources and digital technology. On the routine work context, the main types of resources used by historical scholars are physical collections, social networks, and digital resources; the types of resources used by anthropologists are physical collections and social networks, whether or not digital resources and digital technologies were adopted depends on research topics.
This study proposes suggestions for the development of subject areas and operational practices: 1) the development of subject areas: firstly, in the field of LIS, the theoretical model and information field analysis developed in this research can be used for reference in the field of information behavior research, in order to advance understanding of the information behavior characteristics of digital humanities’ scholars, and to design further resource services. Library and information course should include research topics in cross-disciplinary fields of digital humanities, and invite humanities experts and scholars to give speeches or organize workshops to stimulate more dialogues and collaborative researches. Research methodology can refer to the overall design of this study, and select methodologies which are suitable for use in different stages of the research process, it will help to collect and produce the most diverse research results. Secondly, in the development of digital humanities, social network applications are more common and diverse, and cross-domain theoretical methods can be used to conduct research related to digital humanities social networks due to the attributes of the interdisciplinary field. 2) Operational practices: resource services offered by information agencies continue to play a key role in providing physical collections or digital image files, coordinating and allocating resources, consulting technical or resource standards, and digital tools. In term of the operation of digital humanities projects, the allocation of planning funds must be fine-tuned according to the type of project. The ASCDC should be transformed into a permanent institution, in order to formed alliances with relevant institutions or establish communication channels for talent cultivation and exchange.
Future research directions include: First is the study on digital humanities research. The architecture of the study can be adopted to conduct a comparative study on other digital humanities institutions. Secondly, in the study of digital humanities as ab interdisciplinary research. The channels of information exchanges or sharing between members of the cross-disciplinary team can be observed deeply within some digits humanities projects. Lastly, the comparative study of digital humanities research platforms. Explore and compare the issues between different institutions, users, interfaces and digital tools of digital humanities research platforms which are developed by various institutions.
Barrett, A. (2005). The Information-Seeking Habits of Graduate Student Researcher in the Humanities. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(4), 324-331.
Bates, M. J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13(5), 407-424.
Bates, M. J. (1994). The Design of Databases and Other Information Resources for Humanities Scholars: The Getty Online Searching Project Report No.4. Online & CDROM Review, 18(6), 331-340.
Bates, M. J. (1996). Document Familarity, Relevance, and Bradford''s Law: The Getty Online Searching Project Report No.5. Information Processing and Management, 32(6), 697-707.
Bates, M. J., Wilde, D. N., & Siegfried, S. (1995). Research Practices of Humanities Scholars in an Online Environment: The Getty Online Searching Project Report No.3. LISR, 17, 5-40.
Bernhard, R. H. (2000). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approachs. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Berry, D. M., & Fagerjord, A. (2017). Digital Humanities: Knowledge and Critique in a Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bodi, S. (2002). How Do We Bridge the Gap between What We Teach and What They Do? Some Thoughts on the Place of Questions in the Research Process. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(3), 109-114.
Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet: MIT Press.
Case, D. O. (1991). The Collective Use of of Information by Some American Historians: A Study of Motives and Methods. Library Quarterly, 61, 61-82.
Chen, K.-h, & Tang, M.-C. (2019). A Bibliographic Analysis of Scholarly Publication in the Emerging Field of Digital Humanities in Taiwan. In S. Wong, H. Li, & M. Chou (Eds.), Digital Humanities and Scholarly Research Trends in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 140-157). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7195-7.ch007
Cunningham, L. (2010). The Librarian as Digital Humanist: The Collaborative Role of the Research Library in Digital Humanities Projects. Faculty of Information Quarterly, 2(2), 1-11.
digiPrep: Best Practices for Successful Digital Projects. Standford-Digital Humanities. Retrieved March 10, 2018, from https://digitalhumanities.stanford.edu/digiPrep
Dobreva, M., O''Dwyer, A., & Feliciati, P. (2012). Introduction: user studies for digital library development. In M. Dobreva, A. O''Dwyer, & P. Feliciati (Eds.), User studies for digital library development (pp. 1-17). London: Facet Publishing.
Ellis, D. (2005). Ellis''s Model of Information Seeking Behavior. In S. E. Karen E. Fisher, Lynne McKechnie (Ed.), Theories of Information Behavior (pp. 138-142). New Jersey: Information Today, Inc.
Fidel, R., & Pejtersen, A. M. (2004). From information behaviour research to the design of information systems: the Cognitive Work Analysis framework. Information Research, 10(1), Paper210.
Fidel, R., & Pejtersen, A. M. (2005). Cognitive work analysis. In K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez, & L. E. F. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 88-93). New Jersey: Information Today, Inc.
Fidel, R., Pejtersen, A. M., Cleal, B., & Bruce, H. (2004). A multidimensional approach to the study of human-information interaction: a case study of collaborative information retrieval. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 55(11), 939-953.
Fister, B. (1992). The Research Process of Undergraduate Students. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 18(3), 163-169.
Ford, N. (2015). Intorduction to information behaviour. London: Facet Publishing.
Freire, N. (2013). Facilitating access and reuse of research materials: The case of The European Library. Information Services & Use, 33, 173-181.
Fry, J. (2006). Scholarly research and information practices: a domain analytic apporach. Information Processing and Management, 42, 299-316.
Fry, J., & Talja, S. (2007). The intellectual and social organization of academic fields and the shaping of digital resources. journal of Information Science, 33(2), 115-133.
Green, H. E. (2014). Facilitating Communities of Practice in Digital Humanities: Librarian Collaborations for Research and Training in Text Encoding. The Library Quarterly, 84(2), 219-234.
Green, R. (2000). Locating Sources in Humanities Scholarship: The Efficacy of Following Bibliographic References. Library Quarterly, 70(2), 201-229.
Harkema, C., & Nygren, C. (2012). Historypin for Library Image Collections: New Modes of Access for Unique Materials at the University of Saskatchewan Library Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 7(2), 1-11.
Holm, P., Jarrick, A., & Scott, D. (2015). Humanities World Report 2015. New York and Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Huvila, I. (2006). The Ecology of Information Work: A case study of bridging archaeological work and virtual reality based knowledge organisation. (Doctoral ), Abo Akademi University, Finland. Retrieved September 10, 2017, from http://bibbild.abo.fi/ediss/2006/HuvilaIsto.pdf
Huvila, I. (2007). Work and work roles: a context of tasks. Journal of Documentation, 64(6), 797-816.
Huvila, I. (2008). Information work analysis: an approach to research on information interactions and information behaviour in context. Information Research, 13(3), paper 349. Retrieved September 10, 2017, from http://InformationR.net/ir/13-3/paper349.html
Huvila, I. (2009). Analytical information horizon maps. Library & Information Science Research, 31, 18-28.
Ingwersen, P., & Järvelin, K. (2005). The Turn: integration of information seeking and retrieval in context Dordrecht: Springer.
Johnston, L. (2013). Digital Humanities and Digital Preservation. Retrieved March 10, 2018, from https://blogs.loc.gov/thesignal/2013/04/digital-humanities-and-digital-preservation/
Kwasitsu, L. (2003). Information-seeking behavior of design, process, and manufacturing engineers. Library & Information Science Research, 25, 459-476.
LAIRAH Project: Log Analysis of Internet Resources in the Arts and Humanities. Retrieved September 10, 2017, from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/infostudies/LAIRAH/
Leckie, G. J. (1996). Desperately Seeking Citations: Uncovering Faculty Assumptions about the Undergraduate Research Process. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 22(3), 201-208.
Leckie, G. J. (2005). General model of the information seeking of professionals. In K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez, & L. E. F. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (pp. 158-163). New Jersey: Information Today, Inc.
Leckie, G. J., Pettigrew, K. E., & Sylvain, C. (1996). Modeling The Information Seeking of Professionals: A General Model Derived From Research on Engineers, Health Care Professionals, and Lawyer. Library Quarterly, 66(2), 161-193.
Munoz, T. (2016). Recovering a Humanist Librarianship throuth Digital Humanities. In Laying the Foundation: Digital Humanities in Academic Libraries (pp. 3-14). West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press.
Pettigrew, K. E., Fidel, R., & Bruce, H. (2001). Conceptual frameworks in information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 35(1), 43-78.
Rieger, O. Y. (2010). Framing digital humanities: The role of new media in humanities scholarship. First Monday, 15(10). Retrieved September 10, 2017, from doi:http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3198/2628
Rimmer, J., Warwick, C., Blandford, A., Gow, J., & Buchanan, G. (2008). An Examination of the Physical and the Digital Qualities of Humanities Research. Information Processing and Management, 44, 1374-1392.
Reynolds, J. (1995). A Brave New World: User Studies in the Humanities Enter the Electronic Age. The Reference Librarian, 23(49-50), 61-81. doi: 10.1300/J120v23n49_05.
Rydberg-Cox, J. A. (2006). Digital Libraries and the Challenges of Digital Humanities. Oxford: Chandos Publising.
Siegfried, S., Bates, M. J., & Wilde, D. N. (1993). A Profile of End-User Searching Behavior by Humanities Scholars: The Getty Online Searching Project Report No.2. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 44(5), 273-291.
Siemens, L., Cunningham, R., Duff, W., & Warwick, C. (2011). A tale of two cities: implications of the similarities and differences in collaborative approaches within the digital libraries and digital humanities communities. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 26(3), 335-348.
Sonnenwald, D. H. (1999). Evolving Perspectives of Human Information Behavior: Contexts, Situations, Social Networks and Information Horizons. Paper presented at the Exploring the contexts of information behavior: Proceedings of the second international conference in information needs, seeking and use in different contexts, London.
Sonnenwald, D. H., Wildemuth, B. M., & Harmon, G. L. (2001). A research method to investigate information seeeking using the concept of information horizons: an example from a study of lower socio-economic students'' information seeking behaviour. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 2, 65-86.
Stone, S. (1982). Humanist Scholars: Information Needs and Uses. Journal of Documentation, 38(4), 292-313.
Sweetland, J. H. (1992). Humanists, Libraries, Electronic Publishing, and the Future. Library Trends, 40(4), 781-803.
Tang, M.-C., Cheng, Y. J., & Chen, K. H. (2017). A longitudinal study of intellectual cohesion in digital humanities using bibliometric analyses. Scientometrics, 113(2), 985-1008.
Toms, E. G. (2012). Models that inform digital library design. In M. Dobreva, A. O''Dwyer, & P. Feliciati (Eds.), User studies for digital library development (pp. 21-32). London: Facet Publishing.
Toms, E. G., & Flora, N. (2005). From physical to digital humanities library-designing the humanities scholar''s workbench. In R. Simon & D. Moorman (Eds.), Mind Technologies: Humanities Computing and the Canadian Academic Community (pp. 91-115). Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
Toms, E. G., & O''Brien, H. L. (2008). Understanding the information and communication technology needs of the e-humanist. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 102-130.
Tsai, T.-I. (2011). The Social Networks in the Information Horizons of College Students: A Pilot Study Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 47(1).
Tsai, T.-I. (2012). Coursework-related information horizons of first-generation college students. Information Research, 17(4), paper 542.
Tsai, T.-I., & Kim, K.-S. (2014). Information Horizons of College Students: Source Preferences and Source Referrals in Academic Contexts. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 50(1).
Varner, S., & Hswe, P. (2016). Special Report: Digital Humanities in Libraries: A new American Libraries/Gale Cengage survey shows uncertainty and adaptation in this growing field. American Libraries Magazine, January/February 2016.
Warwick, C. (2012). Studying users in digital humanities. In C. Warwick, M. Terras, & J. Nyhan (Eds.), Digital Humanities in Practice (pp. 1-22). London: Facet Publishing.
Warwick, C., Terras, M., Galina, I., Huntington, P., & Pappa, N. (2007). Evaluating Digital Humanities Resources: The LAIRAH Project Checklist and the Internet Shakespeare Editions Project. Paper presented at the Proceedings ELPUB2007 Conference on Electronic Publishing, Vienna, Austria.
Warwick, C., Terras, M., Huntington, P., & Pappa, N. (2007). If You Build It Will They Come? The LAIRAH Study: Quantifying the Use of Online Resources in the Arts and Humanities through Statistical Analysis of User Log Data. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 23(1), 85-102.
Warwick, C., Terras, M., Huntington, P., Pappa, N., & Galina, I. (2006). The LAIRAH Project: Log Analysis of Digital Resources in the Arts and Humanities Final Report to the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Retrieved September 10, 2017, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316185539
Warwick, C., Terras, M., & Nyhan, J. (Eds.). (2012). Digital humanities in Practice. London: Facet Publishing.
Watson-Boone, R. (1994). Information Needs and Habits of Humanities Scholars. Reference Quarterly, 34(2), 203-216.
White, J. W., & Gilbert, H. (Eds.). (2016). Laying the Foundation: Digital Humanities in Academic Libraries. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press.
Wilkinson, M. A. (2001). Information sources used by lawyers in problem-solving: An empirical exploration. Library & Information Science Research, 23, 257-276.
Wilson, T. D. (2000). Human Information Behavior. Information Science, 3(2), 49-55.
Zhang, Y., Liu, S., & Mathews, E. (2015). Convergence of digital humanities and digital libraries. Library Management, 36(4/5), 362-377.
Zorich, D. M. (2008). A Survey of Digital Humanities Centers in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources.
Holm, P., Jarrick, A., & Scott, D.（2016）。2015世界人文學科研究概況報告（Humanities World Report 2015）（王又仕、陳櫻珊、李宜珍譯)。臺北市：國立臺灣大學出版中心。（原作2015年出版）
中央研究院（2017）。2017中央研究院簡介。上網日期：2017年11月10日。網址：https://www.sinica.edu.tw/ch/articles/74。
中央研究院數位文化中心（2016）。中央研究院數位文化中心簡介。上網日期：2017年11月10日。網址：http://ascdc.sinica.edu.tw/about.jsp。
中央研究院數位文化中心（2018）。中央研究院數位人文研究平台。上網日期：2019年3月20日。網址：http://dh.ascdc.sinica.edu.tw/member/index.html。
吳明德、黃文琪、陳世娟（2006）。人文學者使用中文古籍全文資料庫之研究。圖書資訊學刊，4(1/2)，1-15。
林巧敏、陳志銘（2017）。古籍風華再現：關於古籍數位人文平台之建置。國家圖書館館刊，106年第1期，111-132。
林珊如（2000）。建構支援台灣研究的數位圖書館：使用者研究的啟示。圖書館學刊，14期，33-48。
林富士編（2017）。數位人文學白皮書。台北市：中央研究院數位文化中心。
國立東華大學數位文化中心簡介。上網日期：2018年1月10日。網址： http://faculty.ndhu.edu.tw/~dccnt/intro/super_pages.php?ID=intro&Sn=1
許倬雲（2006）。人文學科的反思。歷史月刊，217期，34-36。
陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。台北市：五南圖書。
項潔（2011）。序。在項潔編，從保存到創造：開啟數位人文研究（頁3-4）。 臺北市：臺大出版中心。
項潔（2014）。數位資源對於歷史學研究的意義：一個數位人文研究者的觀察。國史研究通訊，第七期，4-9。
項潔、涂豐恩（2011）。導論--什麼是數位人文。在項潔編，從保存到創造： 開啟數位人文研究（頁9-28）。臺北市：臺大出版中心。
臺灣大學數位人文研究中心。臺灣大學數位人文研究中心-歷年計劃。上網日期：2018年1月10日。網址： http://www.digital.ntu.edu.tw/programs.jsp。
臺灣大學數位人文研究中心、資訊工程學系。上網日期:2019年6月10日。網址： https://docusky.org.tw/DocuSky/ds-01.home.html。
臺灣數位人文學會。上網日期：2019年6月23日。網址： http://tadh.org.tw/。
鄭文惠（2014）。從人文到數位人文:知識微縮革命與人文研究範式的轉向。 人文與社會科學簡訊，15卷(4期)，169-175。
瞿海源、畢恆達、劉長萱、楊國樞編（2012）。社會及行為科學研究法. 二, 質性研究法。臺北市：臺灣東華書局。
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：862（臺灣：860，外國：2） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1473665 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67273509
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上