# Digitized and Digitalized Humanities: Words and Identity

Claire Clivaz

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Claire Clivaz. Digitized and Digitalized Humanities: Words and Identity. Atti del IX Convegno Annuale AIUCD. La svolta inevitabile: sfide e prospettive per l'Informatica Umanistica, AIUCD, Jan 2020, Milano, Italy. pp.67-73, 10.6092/unibo/amsacta/6316. hal-02441076

HAL Id: hal-02441076

https://hal.science/hal-02441076

Submitted on 15 Jan 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
Atti del IX Convegno Annuale
dell'Associazione per l'Informatica
Umanistica e la Cultura Digitale
(AIUCD)

LA SVOLTA INEVITABILE:
SFIDE E PROSPETTIVE PER
L'INFORMATICA UMANISTICA

15 – 17 gennaio 2020

Milano

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

A CURA DI:

Cristina Marras

Marco Passarotti

Greta Franzini

Eleonora Litta
ISBN: 978-88-942535-4-2

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Copyright © 2020

Associazione per l'Informatica Umanistica e la Cultura Digitale

Copyright of each individual chapter is maintained by the authors.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 International license (CC-BY-SA 4.0). This license allows you to share, copy, distribute and transmit the text; to adapt the text and to make commercial use of the text providing attribution is made to the authors (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Attribution should include the following information:

Cristina Marras, Marco Passarotti, Greta Franzini, Eleonora Litta (a cura di), Atti del IX Convegno Annuale AIUCD. La svolta inevitabile: sfide e prospettive per l'Informatica Umanistica.

Available online as a supplement of Umanistica Digitale: https://umanisticadigitale.unibo.it

All links were visited on 29th December 2019, unless otherwise indicated.

Every effort has been made to identify and contact copyright holders and any omission or error will be corrected if notified to the editors.
Prefazione

La nona edizione del convegno annuale dell'Associazione per l'Informatica Umanistica e la Cultura Digitale (AIUCD 2020; Milano, 15-17 gennaio 2020) ha come tema "La svolta inevitabile: sfide e prospettive per l'Informatica Umanistica", con lo specifico obiettivo di fornire un'occasione per riflettere sulle conseguenze della crescente diffusione dell'approccio computazionale al trattamento dei dati connessi all'ambito umanistico. Questo volume raccoglie gli articoli i cui contenuti sono stati presentati al convegno. A diversa stregua, essi affrontano il tema proposto da un punto di vista ora più teorico-metodologico, ora più empirico-pratico, presentando i risultati di lavori e progetti (conclusi o in corso) che considerino centrale il trattamento computazionale dei dati.

Dunque, la svolta inevitabile qui a tema va intesa innanzitutto come metodologica e, più nello specifico, computazionale. Ad essa la ricerca umanistica contemporanea assiste, con diversi gradi di accoglienza, critica addirittura rifiuto. La computabilità del dato empirico (anche) in area umanistica è, infatti, il tratto distintivo e il vero valore aggiunto che le innovazioni tecnologiche degli ultimi decenni hanno comportato in questo ambito. Nonostante negli anni il settore delle cosiddette Digital Humanities si sia voluto caratterizzare, anche a partire dalla propria denominazione, insistendo maggiormente sull'aspetto digitale che non su quello computazionale, i tempi sembrano ormai maturi perché il termine Computational Humanities, o il troppo precocemente accantonato Humanities Computing, (ri)prenda il posto oggi ancora occupato da Digital Humanities.<fnref n="1" /> Digitale è, infatti, il formato dei dati con cui attualmente si ha in gran parte a che fare nel nostro settore: ma è computazionale l'uso che di questi dati si fa ed è un fatto che gran parte dei lavori prodotti nell'area delle Digital Humanities consista nel "fare conti" sui dati.<fnref n="2" />

Come tanti suoi predecessori, anche il formato digitale passerà; mentre il metodo, e la svolta che esso comporta, resterà, perché solidamente ancorato all'evidenza empirica del dato che è il punto di partenza e, quindi, il centro di analisi di molta ricerca umanistica. Per questa ragione, la svolta computazionale nelle scienze umanistiche è innanzitutto metodologica: a cambiare radicalmente non è tanto il formato dei dati, ma il modo con cui ad essi ci si approccia e l'uso che di essi si fa.

Non va negato un certo scetticismo reazionario che, ora esplicito, ora sottaciuto, parte del mondo della ricerca umanistica nutre nei confronti dei metodi e degli strumenti che la svolta computazionale ha messo a disposizione di noi ricercatori, che viviamo l'attuale scorcio di storia della scienza. Negli anni, tale scetticismo ha alimentato una irragionevole distinzione, e conseguente separazione, tra umanisti “tradizionali” e umanisti “digitali”, quasi che si debbano identificare due aree al fine di evitare che gli uni infastidiscano troppo gli altri con le proprie ricerche, trascurando che esse trattano i medesimi oggetti e hanno quale fine comune la produzione di nuova conoscenza.

Siffatta separazione è dovuta a errori imputabili all'una e all'altra parte. Da un lato, certi umanisti “digitali” tendono a produrre ricerca che rischia di scadere nella superficialità, assumendo che l'alta quantità dei dati trattati possa compensarne l'eventuale bassa qualità e dimenticando, così, che le ricerche di area umanistica molto raramente lavorano su Big Data e non possono (anzi, non vogliono) accontentarsi di tendenze percentuali fondate su dati imprecisi. Dall'altro lato, i “tradizionali” sono spesso afflitti da un conservatorismo protezionista incompatibile con la natura stessa del lavoro di ricerca, che è in sé progressivo e in costante evoluzione. Ne consegue un dialogo interrotto tra le due parti: i “digitali” sono considerati dei tecnici (inteso in senso riduttivo) che brutalizzano il delicato dato umanistico, mentre i “tradizionali” vengono derubricati a dinosauri incartapecoriti che ormai non hanno più niente di nuovo da dire.

Ma la svolta computazionale non è né “digitale”, né “tradizionale”. Semplicemente, essa è inevitabile. Chi ne fa cattivo uso, come certo mondo “digitale”, non sa valorizzarne la forza della portata; chi la rifiuta a priori, si pone fuori dalla realtà e, volutamente ignorando il nuovo, ferisce la ragione stessa del far ricerca.

<footnote n="1">¹ Una valida sintesi della questione relativa alla denominazione del settore, con una buona bibliografia a supporto, è riportata in un articolo di Leah Henrikson pubblicato su 3:AM Magazine (24 Ottobre 2019) e disponibile presso https://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/humanities-computing-digital-humanities-and-computational-humanities-whats-in-a-name/</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Da, Nan Z. "The computational case against computational literary studies." *Critical Inquiry* 45.3 (2019): 601-639.</footnote>
Ma resta che la svolta è inevitabile: non si comprende perché sul tavolo dell'umanista del 2020 non possano trovarsi al contempo un'edizione critica cartacea e i risultati di un analizzatore morfologico automatico proiettati sullo schermo di un computer. Entrambi sono strumenti che diversamente trattano il comune oggetto d'interesse di tanta ricerca, ovvero i dati.

Ma di una svolta non solo metodologica questa edizione 2020 del convegno AIUCD vuole trattare e farsi carico, aspirando anzi a mettere in atto anche una piccola, ma sostanziale svolta organizzativa. Per la prima volta, la call for papers di un convegno dell'Associazione, ha richiesto l'invio non di abstract, ma di articoli completi della lunghezza di un massimo di 4 pagine (bibliografia esclusa). Di concerto con il Comitato Direttivo dell'Associazione, abbiamo deciso di orientarci in tal senso per due ragioni principali. Primo, crediamo che, giunto alla propria nona edizione, il convegno annuale della AIUCD sia ormai sufficientemente maturo per passare a una fase il cui obiettivo sia quello di accogliere nel programma del convegno proposte che nel formato dell'articolo completo consentissero ai revisori una valutazione piena e più accurata. Ciò si lega anche alla seconda ragione. Il nostro settore come è noto è molto veloce: i dati (e i risultati su di essi basati) tendono a cambiare nel giro di poco tempo. Ricevere articoli completi ci ha consentito di mettere i contenuti del presente volume nelle mani dei partecipanti (e più in generale della comunità tutta) il primo giorno del convegno, fornendo così una realistica fotografia dello stato dei lavori al gennaio 2020.

Tutti gli articoli selezionati per essere presentati al convegno hanno cittadinanza in questo volume. Anche questa è una svolta: diversamente dall'uso fino ad oggi adottato, gli articoli pubblicati non sono più il risultato di una selezione a posteriori rispetto al convegno, ma tutti quelli effettivamente apparsi nel programma di AIUCD 2020. In tal senso, una certa esclusività promossa a livello di selezione scientifica si fa inclusività in termini di pubblicazione e, dunque di visibilità dei lavori presentati. Ogni proposta è stata valutata da tre revisori; si è dovuto ricorrere a una quarta valutazione solo nel caso di due proposte su cui i tre revisori avevano espresso opinioni che rendevano difficile prendere una decisione in merito alla loro accettazione, o meno. Al proposito delle differenze tra i revisori, abbiamo constatato divergenze piuttosto frequenti e, in alcuni casi, nette tra coloro che provengono dall'area linguistico-computazionale e quanti, invece, sono a vario titolo legati ai diversi settori dell' "umanistica digitale". Mentre i linguisti computazionali sono tradizionalmente usi a valutare articoli completi e tendono a richiedere che i contenuti di essi descrivano motivazioni, metodi e risultati (preferibilmente replicabili) di lavori di ricerca in corso, o completati, i revisori di area umanistico-digitale sono disposti a valutare positivamente anche idee e proposte che ancora non si siano incarnate in una reale applicazione ai dati. La constatazione di tale diversità è il risultato della composizione volutamente inter- e trans-disciplinare del comitato dei revisori, a rappresentare la natura trasversale di AIUCD e, di riflesso, del suo convegno annuale. Nel prendere le decisioni in merito alle proposte, abbiamo cercato un equilibrio tra gli atteggiamenti delle due parti, favoriti dall'avere a disposizione un livello di dettaglio sul lavoro descritto. La richiesta di articoli completi ha avuto un impatto non molto rilevante sul numero delle proposte inviate, che sono state 71, di cui 67 sottoposte al processo di revisione, mentre 4 sono state escluse perché non confacenti ai criteri richiesti dalla call for papers (tra cui anonimato e originalità). Alla precedente edizione del convegno AIUCD (Udine, 23-25 gennaio 2019) erano state inviate 82 proposte, di cui 75 sottoposte a revisione. Conseguenze più sostanziali si sono, invece, riscontrate sulla percentuale delle proposte accettate e rifiutate. Delle 67 proposte valutate, 45 sono state accettate per apparire nel programma del convegno e, quindi, in questo volume, mentre 22 sono state rifiutate, risultando così in una percentuale di accettazione pari al 67.16%. All'edizione udinese, la percentuale si era attestata intorno all'84%. La contrazione del numero di proposte accettate è strettamente connessa alla richiesta di articoli completi invece che di abstract.

Il programma del convegno ha incluso due sessioni poster. Dei 45 contributi accettati, 21 sono stati giudicati adatti alla presentazione in modalità poster. Rispetto alle consuetudini del settore, che tende a relegare le proposte meno interessanti o più problematiche nelle sessioni poster, abbiamo deciso di assegnare la modalità di comunicazione in forma di poster non secondo la qualità, ma piuttosto in base alla tipologia della proposta. Dunque, tendenzialmente le proposte che presentano lavori che hanno portato a risultati pratici (come strumenti, risorse, o interfacce) sono state giudicate più adatte a una presentazione in formato poster, mentre le discussioni teoriche, disciplinari, o metodologiche hanno occupato le sessioni di comunicazioni orali. Resta che non sussiste differenza alcuna in termini di selezione qualitativa tra un articolo i cui contenuti sono stati
presentati al convegno in forma orale, o in forma di poster, come dimostra l'aver riservato il medesimo numero
di pagine a tutti gli articoli presenti in questo volume.

I contenuti dei testi qui raccolti in ordine alfabetico testimoniano la varietà dei temi che usualmente sono trattati nei convegni della AIUCD. Essi spaziano da riflessioni generali sui settore di ricerca alla realizzazione di nuove risorse linguistiche e strumenti di analisi dei dati, da lavori di filologia ed editoria digitale a temi connessi alla digitalizzazione delle fonti in ambito bibliotecario. Oltre alla presentazione dei contenuti degli articoli di questo volume, il programma del convegno ha previsto tre relazioni su invito (una per ciascuno dei tre giorni della sua durata), che sono state rispettivamente presentate da Roberto Navigli (Sapienza, Università di Roma), Julianne Nyhan (University College London) e Steven Jones (University of South Florida).

Il contributo di Roberto Navigli, intitolato Every time I hire a linguist my performance goes up (or: the quest for multilingual lexical knowledge in a deep (learning) world), è un esempio di ricerca che dice della ineludibilità del legame e, auspicabilmente, della collaborazione tra mondo scientifico e mondo umanistico e, nello specifico, tra la comunità che si riconosce nella AIUCD e quella della linguistica computazionale. Gli interventi di Julianne Nyhan (Where does the history of the Digital Humanities fit in the longer history of the Humanities? Reflections on the historiography of the 'old' in the work of Fr Roberto Busa S.J.) e Steven Jones (Digging into CAAL: Father Roberto Busa's Center and the Prehistory of the Digital Humanities) si posizionano nell'alveo della storia della disciplina, particolarmente riferendo in merito ai loro studi sulle attività di padre Roberto Busa. La figura di Busa è strettamente legata all'Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano, dove a partire dalla fine degli anni settanta il gesuita tenne un corso di Linguistica Computazionale e Matematica e fondò un gruppo di ricerca che, nel 2009, fu trasformato in un Centro di Ricerca; quel CIRCSE che con l'AIUCD ha organizzato il convegno annuale dell'associazione di cui questo volume raccoglie gli Atti. Nel 2010, un anno prima di lasciarci, padre Busa volle donare alla Biblioteca della Cattolica il proprio archivio personale. Una ricchissima documentazione del lavoro di Busa e della sua diffusione, oltre che delle sue relazioni personali e professionali (ricostruibili attraverso il vasto epistolario), l'Archivio Busa è attualmente in fase di catalogazione e digitalizzazione da parte della Biblioteca d'Ateneo. Una selezione di materiale tratto dall'Archivio è stata resa direttamente accessibile ai partecipanti dell'edizione milanese del convegno AIUCD in una piccola mostra allestita nell'atrio dell'aula dei lavori congressuali. Le teche della mostra raccolgono fogli di lavoro, lettere, schede perforate, nastri e articoli di quotidiani che trattano del lavoro di padre Busa: una forma di ringraziamento che l'Università Cattolica, il CIRCSE e la comunità scientifica tutta vuole riservare a uno dei pionieri dell'analisi linguistica automatica.

I nostri ringraziamenti vanno innanzitutto alla Presidente di AIUCD Francesca Tomasi e a Fabio Ciotti, che in quel ruolo l'ha preceduta, per aver scelto Milano quale sede dell'edizione 2020 del convegno. Da loro è venuto il primo, fondamentale, sostegno alla "svolta organizzativa" di cui abbiamo voluto farci portatori. Ringraziamo altresi il Consiglio Direttivo dell'Associazione, il Comitato di Programma e tutti i revisori, che hanno lavorato alacremente per metterci nelle condizioni di definire il miglior programma possibile. La sede milanese dell'Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore ci ha supportato a livello amministrativo e logistico; teniamo particolarmente a ringraziare l'Ufficio Formazione Permanente, nello specifico di Elisa Ballerini, la Biblioteca d'Ateneo, e specificatamente Paolo Senna, che ci ha messo a disposizione i materiali dell'Archivio Busa, l'Ufficio Eventi e la Direzione di Sede, che hanno fornito gli spazi per il convegno. Grazie soprattutto a chi ha inviato proposte, ai relatori e ai partecipanti tutti, perché sono loro i protagonisti essenziali dell'evento.

La nostra speranza è che il lavoro fatto sia utile ancora prima che apprezzato. E che i suoi risultati
si mantengano nelle edizioni a venire, con l'obiettivo di migliorare sempre, guardando avanti; perché saper
vedere le svolte e affrontarle è la ragione stessa della ricerca.

Cristina Marras
Marco Passarotti
Greta Franzini
Eleonora Litta
# Chair e Comitati

## General Chair

* Cristina Marras

## Chair del comitato scientifico e di programma

* Marco Passarotti

## Comitato scientifico e di programma

* Maristella Agosti

* Stefano Allegrezza

* Federica Bressan

* Cristiano Chesi

* Fabio Ciraci

* Greta Franzini

* Angelo Mario Del Grosso

* Eleonora Litta

* Pietro Maria Liuzzo

* Federico Meschini

* Johanna Monti

* Federico Nanni

* Marianna Nicolosi

* Dario Rodighiero

* Marco Rospocher

* Chiara Zuanni

## Comitato Organizzatore

* Greta Franzini

* Eleonora Litta
Indice dei Contenuti

**EcoDigit-Ecosistema Digitale per la fruizione e la valorizzazione dei beni e delle attività culturali del Lazio** 1

Luigi Asprino, Antonio Budano, Marco Canciani, Luisa Carbone, Miguel Ceriani, Ludovica Marinucci, Massimo Mecella, Federico Meschini, Marialuisa Mongelli, Andrea Giovanni Nuzzolese, Valentina Presutti, Marco Puccini, Mauro Saccone

**Encoding the Critical Apparatus by Domain Specific Languages: The Case of the Hebrew Book of Qohelet** 7

Luigi Bambaci, Federico Boschetti

**600 maestri raccontano la loro vita professionale in video: un progetto di (fully searchable) open data** 14

Gianfranco Bandini, Andrea Mangiatordi

**Ripensare i dati come risorse digitali: un processo difficile?** 19

Nicola Barbuti

**Verso il riconoscimento delle Digital Humanities come Area Scientifica: il catalogo online condiviso delle pubblicazioni dell'AIUCD** 24

Nicola Barbuti, Maurizio Lana, Vittore Casarosa

**Il trattamento automatico del linguaggio applicato all'italiano volgare. La redazione di un *formario* tratto dalle prime dieci *Lettere* di Alessandra M. Strozzi** 28

Ottavia Bersano, Nadezda Okinina

**Annotazione semantica e visualizzazione di un corpus di corrispondenze di guerra** 34

Beatrice Dal Bo, Francesca Frontini, Giancarlo Luxardo

**The Use of Parallel Corpora for a Contrastive (Russian-Italian) Description of Resource Markers: New Instruments Compared to Traditional Lexicography** 39

Anna Bonola, Valentina Noseda

**PhiloEditor: Simplified HTML Markup for Interpretative Pathways over Literary Collections** 47

Claudia Bonsi, Angelo Di Iorio, Paola Italia, Francesca Tomasi, Fabio Vitali, Ersilia Russo

**An Empirical Study of Versioning in Digital Scholarly Editions** 55

Martina Bürgermeister
<table>
  <tr>
    <td>ELA: fasi del progetto, bilanci e prospettive<br>Emmanuela Carbé, Nicola Giannelli</td>
    <td>61</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Digitized and Digitalized Humanities: Words and Identity<br>Claire Clivaz</td>
    <td>67</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>La geolinguistica digitale e le sfide lessicografiche nell'era delle digital humanities: l'esempio di VerbaAlpina<br>Beatrice Colcuc</td>
    <td>74</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Una proposta di ontologia basata su RDA per il patrimonio culturale di Vincenzo Bellini<br>Salvatore Cristofaro, Daria Spampinato</td>
    <td>82</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Biblioteche di conservazione e libera fruizione dei manoscritti digitalizzati: la Veneranda Biblioteca Ambrosiana e la svolta inevitabile grazie a IIIF<br>Fabio Cusimano</td>
    <td>89</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Repertori terminologici plurilingui fra normatività e uso nella comunicazione digitale istituzionale e professionale<br>Klara Dankova, Silvia Calvi</td>
    <td>98</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>The Digital Lexicon Translaticium Latinum: Theoretical and Methodological Issues<br>Chiara Fedriani, Irene De Felice, William Michael Short</td>
    <td>106</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Selling Autograph Manuscripts in 19th c. Paris: Digitising the Revue des Autographes<br>Simon Gabay, Lucie Rondeau du Noyer, Mohamed Khemakhem</td>
    <td>113</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Enriching a Multilingual Terminology Exploiting Parallel Texts: an Experiment on the Italian Translation of the Babylonian Talmud<br>Angelo Mario Del Grosso, Emiliano Giovannetti, Simone Marchi</td>
    <td>119</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Towards a Lexical Standard for the Representation of Etymological Data<br>Fahad Khan, Jack Bowers</td>
    <td>125</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Workflows, Digital Data Management and Curation in the RETOPEA Project<br>Ilenia Eleonor Laudito</td>
    <td>130</td>
  </tr>
</table>
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Il confronto con Wikipedia come occasione di valorizzazione professionale: il case study di Biblioteca digitale BEIC<br>Lisa Longhi</td>
      <td>136</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Making a Digital Edition: The Petrarchive Project<br>Isabella Magni</td>
      <td>142</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Extending the DSE: LOD Support and TEI/IIIF Integration in EVT<br>Paolo Monella, Roberto Rosselli Del Turco</td>
      <td>148</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Mapping as a Contemporary Instrument for Orientation in Conferences<br>Chloe Ye-Eun Moon, Dario Rodighiero</td>
      <td>156</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Argumentation Mapping for the History of Philosophical and Scientific Ideas: The TheSu Annotation Scheme and its Application to Plutarch's Aquane an ignis<br>Daniele Morrone</td>
      <td>163</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Leitwort Detection, Quantification and Discernment<br>Rachel Moskowitz, Moriyah Schick, Joshua Waxman</td>
      <td>171</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>From Copies to an Original: The Contribution of Statistical Methods<br>Amanda Murphy, Raffaella Zardoni, Felicita Mornata</td>
      <td>178</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>FORMAL. Mapping Fountains over Time and Place. Mappare il movimento delle fontane monumentali nel tempo e nello spazio attraverso la geovisualizzazione<br>Pamela Palomba, Emanuele Garzia, Roberto Montanari</td>
      <td>185</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Paul is Dead? Differences and Similarities before and after Paul McCartney's Supposed Death. Stylometric Analysis of Transcribed Interviews<br>Antonio Pascucci, Raffaele Manna, Vincenzo Masucci, Johanna Monti</td>
      <td>191</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Digital Projects for Music Research and Education from the Center for Music Research and Documentation (CIDoM), Associated Unit of the Spanish National Research Council<br>Juan José Pastor Comín, Francisco Manuel López Gómez</td>
      <td>198</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Prospects for Computational Hermeneutics<br>Michael Piotrowski, Markus Neuwirth</td>
      <td>204</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>EModSar: A Corpus of Early Modern Sardinian Texts<br>Nicoletta Puddu, Luigi Talamo</td>
      <td>210</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Shared Emotions in Reading Pirandello. An Experiment with Sentiment Analysis<br>Simone Rebora</td>
      <td>216</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>DH as an Ideal Educational Environment: The Ethnographic Museum of La Spezia<br>Letizia Ricci, Francesco Melighetti, Federico Boschetti, Angelo Mario Del Grosso, Enrica Salvatori</td>
      <td>222</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
<table><tr><td>A Digital Review of Critical Editions: A Case Study on Sophocles, Ajax 1-332<br>Camilla Rossini</td><td>227</td></tr><tr><td>Strategie e metodi per il recupero di dizionari storici<br>Eva Sassolini, Marco Biffi</td><td>235</td></tr><tr><td>Encoding Byzantine Seals: SigiDoc<br>Alessio Sopracasa, Martina Filosa</td><td>240</td></tr><tr><td>Preliminary Results on Mapping Digital Humanities Research<br>Gianmarco Spinaci, Giovanni Colavizza, Silvio Peroni</td><td>246</td></tr><tr><td>Epistolario De Gasperi: National Edition of De Gasperi's Letters in Digital Format<br>Sara Tonelli, Rachele Sprugnoli, Giovanni Moretti, Stefano Malfatti, Marco Odorizzi</td><td>253</td></tr><tr><td>Visualizing Romanesco; or, Old Data, New Insights<br>Gianluca Valenti</td><td>260</td></tr><tr><td>What is a Last Letter? A Linguistics/Preventive Analysis of Prisoner Letters from the Two World Wars<br>Giovanni Pietro Vitali</td><td>265</td></tr><tr><td>L'organizzazione e la descrizione di un fondo nativo digitale: PAD e l'Archivio Franco Buffoni<br>Paul Gabriele Weston, Primo Baldini, Laura Pusterla</td><td>273</td></tr></table>
# Digitized and Digitalized Humanities: Words and Identity

Claire Clivaz

Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics
claire.clivaz@sib.swiss

## Abstract

**English.** This paper analyses two closely related but different concepts, *digitization* and *digitalization*, first discussed in an encyclopedia article by Brennen and Kreiss in 2016. Digital Humanities mainly uses the first term, whereas business and economics tend to use the second to praise the process of the digitalization of society. But *digitalization* was coined as a critical concept in 1971 by Wachal and is sometimes used in post-colonial studies. Consequently, humanist scholars are invited to avoid the “path of least resistance” when using *digitalization*, and to explore its critical potential. The paper concludes by considering the effect of the digitalization perspective and by expressing author’s point of view on the issue.

**Italiano.** Questo articolo analizza due concetti correlati ma differenti fra loro, “digitization” e “digitalization”, discussi la prima volta in una voce di enciclopedia da Brennen e Kreiss nel 2016. Nelle scienze umane digitali si utilizza sostanzialmente il primo termine, mentre in economia si tende a utilizzare il secondo per sottolineare il processo di digitalizzazione della società. Ma il termine “digitalization” era stato creato nel 1971 da Wachal come un concetto critico, ed era stato utilizzato in alcuni studi sul post-colonialismo. Di conseguenza, gli studiosi nelle scienze umane sono invitati a evitare di utilizzare “digitalization” in modo triviale, e ad esplorare il suo potenziale critico. L'articolo termina con alcune considerazioni sugli effetti della prospettiva della digitalizzazione, presentando il punto di vista dell'autore.

## 1 Introduction: Words and Identity in Digital Humanities

As the 2020 AIUCD conference topic underlines, the identity and definition of the Humanities that has met the computing world, is in constant reshaping (Ciotti, 2019)<fnref n="1" />. The English language has acknowledged the important turn from *humanities computing* to *digital humanities* at the beginning of the 21st century (Kirschenbaum, 2010), whereas French-speaking scholarship is wrestling between *humanités numériques* (Berra, 2012; Doueihi, 2014) and *humanités digitales* (LeDeuff, 2016; Cormerais-Gilbert, 2016; Clivaz, 2019). Moreover, new words are often tested to express the intensity of what is at stake: if Jones has chosen the term “eversion” for describing the present state of the digital turn (Jones, 2016), the French thinker Bernard Stiegler focuses on “disruption” (Stiegler, 2016). German and Hebrew link digital humanities naming with the vocabulary of spirit/mind, whereas the outmoded word *humanités* has come back in French through the naming of the *humanités numériques*, recalling the presence of the body (Clivaz, 2017).

Inscribed in this linguistic effervescence, a phenomenon has so far not drawn the attention of the humanist scholarship: the difference between *digitization* and *digitalization*, or between *digitized* and *digitalized* Humanities. The present paper will explore, as far as possible, the emergence of this dualistic vocabulary, inside and outside of digital humanities scholarship, looking for its meanings and implications. It represents only a first overview about the scare definitions and occasional uses of “digitalization”, even if the debate between digitization and digitalization can sometimes inform implicitly the discourse, as we will see in Section 4 (Smithies, 2017). Section 2 will first comment similarity and difference between both words, looking for “digitalization” definitions, and its uses. Section 3 discusses in detail the only definition article we have so far debating these two concepts. Section 4 considers more broadly the digitalization perspective and presents the author’s point of view on the issue, including its articulation to the AIUCD 2020 topic.

## 2 Looking for “digitalization” definition and uses

English native speakers would surely ask first if there is really a difference between “digitization” and “digitalization.” “Digitalization” does not benefit from its own entry in Wikipedia or in the *Collins Dictionary*

<footnote n="1">¹ Many thanks are due to the reviewers for their remarks, to Andrea Stevens for her English proof-reading, and to Elena Giglia for her translation of the Italian abstract.</footnote>
online.<fnref n="2" /> However, the *Oxford English Dictionary* (OED) dates the first use of digitalization as equivalent to digitization in 1959,<fnref n="3" /> whereas the medical sense appeared in 1876.<fnref n="4" /> OED presents also *digitalization* as meaning “the adoption or increase in use of digital or computer technology by an organization, industry, country, etc.”<fnref n="5" /> In the Wikipedia entry “digital transformation”, a similar definition is given for “digitalization”: “unlike digitization, *digitalization* is the ‘organizational process’ or ‘business process’ of the technologically-induced change within industries, organizations, markets and branches.”<fnref n="6" /> A most decisive shift in the sense of a difference between the two words can be seen in the *International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy*, which published an entry on “Digitalization” by J. Scott Brennen and Daniel Kreiss in 2016. They argue in favour of a distinction from “digitization” (Brennen-Kreiss, 2016). This publication is in itself a quite clear signal, according to our cultural and scholarly habits, that “digitalization” exists with its own meanings, since it has been defined in an encyclopedia. As far as I have been able to determine, it is the only article trying to define both concepts and is discussed in detail in Section 3.

As we see, references to digitalization's definition are quite scare. So far, there it is not even possible to do a systematic overview of its theoretical background based in the scholarly literature because it is not discussed, with the exception of the Brennen-Kreiss article. But if we look at its uses, some aspects clearly emerge. "Digitalization" is mainly used in the business and economical world, and very infrequently in digital humanities. For example, according to Jari Collin in a 2015 Finnish volume of collected essays, digitalization refers to the understanding of "the dualistic role of IT in order to make right strategic decisions on IT priorities and on the budget for the coming years. IT should not be seen only as a cost center function anymore!" (Collin, 2015, 30). Digitalization seems to be "one of the major trends changing society and business. Digitalization causes changes for companies due to the adoption of digital technologies in the organization or in the operation environment" (Parvianien et al., 2017, 63).

According to Mäenpää and Korhonen, “from the retail business point of view, the ‘digitalization of the consumer’ is of essence. People are increasingly able to use digital services and are even beginning to expect them. To a certain extent, this is a generational issue. The younger generations, such as Millennials, are growing up with digitalization and are eagerly in the forefront of adopting new technology and its affordances” (Mäenpää-Korhonen, 2015, 90). In 2018, Toni Ryynäen and Torsti Hyyryläinen, members of the *Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science* at the *Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry*, published an article seeking to fill the gap between the digitalization process and digital humanities, by focusing on the concern for “new forms of e-commerce, changing consumer roles and the digital virtual consumption” (Ryynäen – Hyyryläinen, 2018, 1). In this process, the role of digital humanities is described in a way that is quite hard to recognize for DHers, at least for those not involved in digital social sciences: “A challenge for digital humanities research is how to outline the most interesting phenomena from the endless pool of consumption activities and practices. Another challenge is how to define a combination of accessible datasets needed for solving the chosen research tasks” (Ryynäen – Hyyryläinen, 2018, 1).

In light of such clear descriptions of what “digitalization” means for business and economy, digital humanities scholarship demonstrates a deafening silence about this notion. The 2004 and 2016 editions of the reference work *Companion to Digital Humanities* do not mention the word. In the established series *Debates in the Digital Humanities*, one finds one occurrence in the five volumes, under the pen of Domenico Fiormonte (2016). As a third example, the collected essays *Text and Genre in Reconstruction: Effects of Digitalization on Ideas, Behaviours, Products and Institutions*, edited by Willard McCarty (2010), can only surprise the reader: indeed, “digitalization” stands in the title, but the word is then totally absent from the volume. When questioned about this discrepancy, McCarty answered that the publisher had requested to have this word in the title. This request has led to a damaging side effect in terms of Google searches: if one searches for “digitalization” and “digital humanities”, one gets several book titles that do not contain no mention of this word other than a reference to *Text and Genre’s* title. It is also the case in my 2019 book *Ecritures digitales*.

<footnote n="2">² Entry “digitization” in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digitization; entry “digitalize” in the *Collins Dictionary* online: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/digitalize. All hyperlinks have been last checked on 30/11/19.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Entry “digitalization n.2”, OED, https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/242061</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Entry “digitalization n.1”, OED, https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/52616: “the administration of digitalis or any of its constituent cardiac glycosides to a person or animal, esp. in such a way as to achieve and maintain optimum blood levels of the drug. Also: the physiological condition resulting from this”.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Entry “digitalization n.2” in the *Oxford English Dictionary* online: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/24206</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Entry “digital transformation” in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_transformation#Digitization_(of_information)</footnote>
*Digital writing, digital Scriptures:* the unique occurrence of “digitalization” occurs in my reference to McCarty’s collected essays (Clivaz, 2019).

One can sometimes meet infrequent uses of digitalization in digital humanities, such as a 2013 article by Amelia Sanz. She uses the word to describe Google Books and the Hathi Trust's effect on Spanish literature: "Digital Libraries as Google Books or Hathi Trust include numerous works belonging to our study period among its *digitalized* collections in US universities, because most of these forgotten authors make part of the Spanish diaspora after the Civil War (1936-39) and during the subsequent dictatorship (1939-1975). In fact, European copyright legislation has made Google *digitalize* only works prior to 1870 in Spain, and, unfortunately for Spanish researchers, those works appear to be in 'limited access' due to the existing diffusion/circulation rights, but available in 'full text' mode for researchers located in the US" (Sanz, 2013, n.p.). The two italicized words are the unique occurrences of *digitalization* vocabulary in an article focused on the effects of digitization. When asked about her use of these two words, Sanz answered that it was probably a misuse of language, since she is not a native English speaker.

Usually in digital humanities scholarship, one speaks about “Humanities digitized” (Shaw, 2012)<fnref n="7" />, and the mutation to the digital sphere is seen as a pre-step before the processes of interpretation.<fnref n="8" /> Uses of digitalization and cognate terms remain rare, like Domenico Fiormonte, who is also a non-native English speaker and the only one to use *digitalization* in the series *Debates in Digital Humanities*: “In the last ten years, the extended colonization, both material and symbolical, of digital technologies has completely overwhelmed the research and educational world. Digitalization has become not only a vogue or an imperative, but a normality. In this sort of ‘gold rush’, the digital humanities perhaps have been losing their original openness and revolutionary potential” (Fiormonte, 2016, n.p.). Fiormonte compares digitalization to a colonization process: if there is some consciousness of the digitalization vocabulary in humanities, it can be indeed found in research about cultural diversity and colonialism, such as in a 2007 article by Maja van der Velden, “Invisibility and the Ethics of the Digitalization: Designing so as not to Hurt Others.”

Van der Velden studies “the designs of Indymedia, an Internet-based alternative media network, and TAMI, an Aboriginal database, [...] informed by the confrontations over different ways of knowing” (2007, 81). She points to the fact that, “if we understand knowledge not as a commodity but as a process of knowing, something produced socially, we must ask about the nature of digitalization itself. As the Aboriginal elders say, ‘Things are not real without their story’” (2007, 82). She documents in this way two examples of non-Western digital projects, in which the diversity of the source codes and standards has led to recurrent negotiations: “the confrontations over issues of privacy and control resulted in different ways of organizing access and information management” (2007, 89). Van der Velden’s article allows one to understand, from a humanist point of view, what is at stake in the concept of *digitalization*, a perspective that the next section develops. But it should be underlined that, even in this article pointing to cultural and digital control issues, *digitalization* is not discussed as such. The apparent lack of awareness about this binomial vocabulary and its implication for DH scholarly literature appears to be a real blind spot that section 4 considers.

### 3 Claiming a Critical Use of *Digitalization* in Humanities

In their overview article, Brennen and Kreiss give a general definition of “digitalization” similar to the one presented in Section 2: “We [...] define digitization as the material process of converting analog streams of information into digital bits. In contrast, we refer to digitalization as the way many domains of social life are restructured around digital communication and media infrastructures” (Brennen-Kreiss, 2016, 1). They usefully remind us that “digitization is a process that has both symbolic and material dimensions” (2016, 2), and that “analog and digital media, [...] all forms of mediation necessarily interpret the world” (2016, 3). The authors also consider that “the first contemporary use of the term ‘digitalization’ in conjunction with computerization appeared in a 1971 essay first published in the North American Review. In it, Robert Wachal discusses the social implications of the ‘digitalization of society’ in the context of considering objections to, and the potential for, computer-assisted humanities research. From this beginning, writing about digitalization has grown into a massive literature” (2016, 5). The reference to Wachal’s article is a very interesting one, and it deserves more attention than the co-authors devote to it. Moreover, they omit any reference to Maja van der Velden’s article or to similar approaches in Brennen and Kreiss’s article. The “winners” of their digitalization

<footnote n="7">⁷ One can also see uses of *digitalization* in the humanities in archaeology, notably in conjunction with 3D discussion (Ercek–Viviers –Warfée, 2009).</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ See Earhart–Taylor (2016): “Our *White Violence, Black Resistance* project merges foundational digital humanities approaches with issues of social justice by engaging students and the community in digitizing and interpreting historical moments of racial conflicts.”</footnote>
definition are scholars from the vein of Manuel Castells, who argues that “technology is society, and society cannot be understood or represented without its technological tools” (Brennen-Kreiss, 2016, 5).

To get a deeper understanding of the critical potential of *digitalization*, it is worth reading Wachal’s 1971 article. He uses *digitalization* in just one sentence: “The humanist’s fears are not entirely without foundation, and in any case, as a humane man he naturally fears the digitalization of the society. He doesn’t like to be computed. He doesn’t want to be randomly fingered by a credit card company computer” (1971, 30). The entire article is an ironic confrontation between the habits of a humanist scholar and what a programmer and a computer could do for humanities. As a computer programmer teacher himself, Wachal remembers the term coined by Theodor Nelson, “cybercrud”: “putting things over on people [by] saying using computers. When you consider that this includes everything from intimidation (‘Because we are using automatic computers, it is necessary to assign common expiration dates to all subscriptions’) to mal implementation (‘You’re going to have to shorten your name - it doesn’t fit in to the computer’), it may be that cybercrud is one of the most important activities of the computer field” (1971, 30). In other words, computer scholars have a clear awareness about their world, as Nelson and Wachal after him demonstrate. After this *captatio benevolentiae*, Wachal raises what is for him the main issue with the humanist point of view on computing: “Dare we hope that the day has come when humanists will begin asking some new questions?” (1971, 33), referring also to artificial intelligence (1971, 31). His “personal view”, as announced in the article title, is an open call that is still worth humanist scholars’ attention.

The complex elements of the discussion of the digitization/digitized vs digitalization/digitalized divide indicates that it is surely time for DHers to pay attention to this binomial expression, so successfully deployed in business or economy that a publisher can get it in a title of collected essays that does not contain the word *digitalization* at all. It is time to form an understanding of *digitalization* that still denounces “cybercrud” when needed, or helps us to pay attention to “the confrontations over issues of privacy and control resulted in different ways of organizing access and information management” (van der Velden, 2007, 89). To express it in an electronic vocabulary, Brennen and Kreiss present a “path of least resistance” to the definition of digitalization, according to the path describing the third potential state of an electronic circuit (open, closed, or not working), because electricity follows the “path of least resistance.”<fnref n="9" /> But it is a core skill of the humanities to renounce the paths of least resistance and to wrestle with words, concepts, and realities. In that perspective, the last Section will develop some tracks to further the debate.

## 4 The effect of the “digitalization” perspective

The binomial expression “digitization” versus “digitalization” enters in the international debate through the English language. Such a distinction does not exist in French, Italian, or German, for example. But the inquiry of this article demonstrates that it this concept is worthy of exploration in an effort to grasp what is at stake in an explicit way in the English language. It represents surely one further argument in favor of a multilingual approach to digital epistemology, like the one developed in *Digital writing, digital Scriptures* (Clivaz, 2019).

I firstly underline how striking it is that even in the few occurrences where humanist scholars consciously use the term “digitalization” (van der Velden, Fiammonte), it is not discussed *per se*: a blind point exists in the scholarly discussion apart of Brennen and Kreiss’s article. After all, the first use of “digitalization” in relation to the computer sphere was by a programmer (Wachal, 1971), but nowadays its use in critical discussion is mainly found under the pen of scholars outside of humanities who make claims about the “essence” of “the ‘digitalization of the consumer’” (Mäenpää-Korhonen, 2015, 90; quoted in Section 2). In light of this consumerist perspective, DH scholars are generally confident in the traditional critical impact of their methodologies and knowledge. Alan Liu, for example, writes that “the digital humanities serve as a shadow play for a future form of the humanities that wishes to include what contemporary society values about the digital without losing its soul to other domains of knowledge work that have gone digital to stake their claim to that society” (2013, 410). In the same line, the HERA 2017 call hopes that the humanities, when digitized, will be able “to deepen the theoretical and empirical cultural understanding of public spaces in a European context.”<fnref n="10" />

But it could secondly be argued that the blind point of the absent discussion about digitization/digitalization demonstrates an overconfidence of the digital humanities in its capacity to not lose the soul of the humanities in digital networks. Other voices are indeed more sensitive to the limitations imposed on humanities research

<footnote n="9">⁹ See “Path of Leaf Resistance”, Wikipedia, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_of_least_resistance</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ See “HERA Public Spaces”, 31.08.17, http://heranet.info/2017/08/31/hera-launches-its-fourth-joint-research-programme-public-spaces/</footnote>
by digital constraints, as we have seen with Maja van der Velden: even if she uses the word “digitalization”
without discussing it, her article clearly points to digital control issues in the practice of building a database or
a virtual research environment. From a more general and theoretical point of view, James Smithies strongly
underlines in his book *The Digital Humanities and the Digital Modern* the same issues, even if the word
*digitalization* is totally absent in it. He suggests that “our digital infrastructure [...] has grown opaque and has
extended into areas well outside scholarly or even governmental control” (2017, 11). His discourse becomes
overtly political when he affirms the existence of a “point of entanglement between the humanities and
neoliberalism, implicating digital humanists and their critics in equal measure” (2017, 218).

We are probably reaching here the main root of the silence about the digitization/digitalization challenge
in DH debates: this binomial expression points to the political dimension of the digital revolution in
humanities, to its economic and institutional implications, something that we prefer to let aside, consciously
or unconsciously. This fear is also described by Wachal: “The humanist’s fears are not entirely without
foundation, and in any case, as a humane man he naturally fears the digitalization of the society” (1971, 30;
quoted in Section 3). Listening to Wachal, and almost fifty years later to Smithies, can begin to lead us beyond
the “path of leaf resistance” of Brennen and Kreiss. We should consider digitalization rather as the top of a
mountain: it can be reached only through the *via ferrata* of the debates about cultural and multilingual diversity,
about multiple source codes and standards, a multiplicity that preserves, at the end, diversity in human-
computing knowledge productions.

Moreover, we are probably reaching right now the start of the DH awareness of this linguistic debate. As I
end this article, I have opened the debate in the list Humanist Discussion Group and Simon Tanner has signaled
his interest in the point, referring to Brennen and Kreiss’ definition: “I have found the difference to be
significant enough to seek to define it for my current book and in the past it has been a source of confusion or
conflation that has not been helpful. I make it very clear to our students in the Masters of Digital Humanities
or the MA Digital Asset and Media Management that they should not use the interchangeably” (Tanner, 2019).

Third, since the binomial expression digitization/digitalization is a vehicle for its own impact and meaning
within the DH epistemology, is it possible to tie these concepts to the general challenge raised by the AIUCD
2020 call for papers? Notably, this discussion raises the following questions: “is it still necessary to talk about
(and make) a distinction between ‘traditional’ humanists and ‘digital’ humanists? Is the term ‘Digital
Humanities’ still appropriate or should it be replaced with ‘Computational Humanities’ or ‘Humanities
Computing’? Is the computational dimension of the research projects typically presented at AIUCD
conferences that methodologically distinctive?”<fnref n="11" /> At the root of these problems stands of course an important
debate in Italian speaking DH, present in the name itself of the national DH organization, the AIUCD. This
name mentions “Humanities Computing” (*informatica umanistica*) and “digital culture” (*cultura digitale*):
*AIUCD - Associazione per l'Informatica Umanistica e la Cultura Digitale*.<fnref n="12" /> But beyond this specific Italian
perspective, the importance of collaboration between DHers and other humanist scholars concerns all of us.

The dialectic between *Humanities Computing* and *Digital Humanities* will in all cases remain in the
historical memory of the DH development. But I am personally not convinced that a “step back” in the form
of a return to *Humanities Computing*, motivated by a desire to keep all the humanists together under the banner
of the *informatica umanistica*, is viable. Why? When the *Harvard Magazine* published in 2012 one of its first
articles about the digital humanities, it was entitled “Humanities Digitized” (Shaw, 2012). It has always been
meaningful for me to think in that direction. As I have argued elsewhere in detail, we could “begin to speak
about the *digitized humanities*, or simply about *humanities* again, instead of *digital humanities*. Such an
evolution might occur, if one looks at the evolution of the expression ‘digital computer’ which was in common
usage during the fifties, but it has been now replaced by the single latter word ‘computer’ (Williams, 1984,
310; Dennhardt, 2016). When humanities finally become almost entirely digitized, perhaps it is safe to bet that
we will once again speak simply about *humanities* in English or about *humanités* in French, thus making this
outmoded word again meaningful through the process of cultural digitization” (Clivaz, 2019, 85–86).

According to this perspective, the debate between “humanities digitized” or “humanities digitalized”, with
all its cultural, economic, material, institutional and political dimensions, could signal a third step after
*Humanities Computing* and *Digital Humanities*. This third step would stand at the crossroads where all
humanists could meet up again, in an academic world definitively digitized, but hopefully not totally
digitalized. It is up to all of us to decide if, in the third millennium, Humanities will be digitized or digitalized.

<footnote n="11">¹¹See “Convegno annuale dell'Associazione per l'Informatica Umanistica e la Cultura Digitale. Call for papers”, https://aiucd2020.unicatt.it/aiucd-call-for-papers-1683.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² See AIUCD, www.aiucd.it.</footnote>
## References

Aurélien Berra. 2012. *Faire des Humanités Numériques. Read/Write Book 2*. Pierre Mounier (ed.). Paris, OpenEdition Press, 25–43. http://books.openedition.org/oep/238

J. Scott Brennen and Daniel Kreiss. 2016. *Digitalization. International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy* 23 October: 1–11. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect111

Fabio Ciotti. 2019. Oltre la galassia delle Digital Humanities : per la costituzione di una disciplina di Informatica Umanistica. AIUCD2019. Book of Abstracts. Teaching and Research in Digital Humanities’ Era. Stefano Allegrezza (ed). Udine, AIUCD 2019, 52–56. http://aiucd2019.uniud.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/BoA-2019_PROVV.pdf

Claire Clivaz. 2017. *Lost in Translation? The Odyssey of “digital humanities” in French*. Studia UBB Digitalia 62/1:26-41. https://digihubb.centre.ubbcluj.ro/journal/index.php/digitalia/article/view/4

Claire Clivaz. 2019. *Ecritures digitales. Digital writing, digital Scriptures*. DBS 4. Leiden, Brill.

Jari Collin. 2015. Digitalization and Dualistic IT. *IT Leadership in Transition. The Impact of Digitalization on Finnish Organizations*. Science + Technology 7. Jari Collin, Kari Hiekkanen, Janne J. Korhonen, Marco Halén, Timo Itälä, and Mika Helenius (eds.). Helsinki, Aalto University Publication Series, 29–34.

Franc Commerais and Jacques Gilbert. 2016. Introduction. *Le texte à venir. Etudes Digitales* 1:11–16.

Robert Dennhardt. 2016. *The Term Digital Computer (Stibitz 1942) and the Flip-Flop (Turner 1920)*. München, Grin Verlag.

Milad Doueihi. 2014. Préface: quête et enquête. *Le temps des humanités digitales*. Olivier Le Deuff (dir.). Limoges, FyP editions, 7–10.

Amy A. Eahart and Toniesha L. Taylor. 2016. *Pedagogies of Race: Digital Humanities in the Age of Ferguson*. *Debates in the Digital Humanities*, volume 2. Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein (eds.). https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/read/untitled/section/58ca5d2e-da4b-41cf-abd2-d8f2a68d2914-ch21

Rudy Ercek, Didier Viviers and Nadine Warzée. 2010. *3D Reconstruction and Digitalization of an Archaeological Site, Itanos, Crete*. *Virtual Archaeology Review* volume 1/1:81–85. DOI: 10.4995/var.2010.4794

Domenico Fiormonte. 2016. *Toward a Cultural Critique of Digital Humanities. Debates in the Digital Humanities*, volume 2. Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein (eds.). https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/read/untitled/section/5cac8409-e521-4349-ab03-f341a5359a34-ch35

Steven E. Jones. 2016. *The Emergence of the Digital Humanities (the Network Is Everting). Debates in the Digital Humanities*, volume 2. Matthew K. Gold and Lauren Klein (ed.). Minneapolis, University Minnesota Press. http://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/52

Alan Liu. 2013. The Meaning of the Digital Humanities. PMLA 128/2:409-423. https://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2013.128.2.409

Willard McCarty (ed.). 2010. *Text and Genre in Reconstruction: Effects of Digitalization on Ideas, Behaviours, Products and Institutions*. Cambridge, OpenBook Publishers.

Raimo Mäenpää and Janne J. Korhonen. 2015. Digitalization in Retail: The Impact on Competition. *IT Leadership in Transition. The Impact of Digitalization on Finnish Organizations*. Science + Technology 7. Jari Collin, Kari Hiekkanen, Janne J. Korhonen, Marco Halén, Timo Itälä, and Mika Helenius (eds.). Helsinki, Aalto University Publication Series, 89–102.

Matthew G. Kirschenbaum. 2010. *What Is Digital Humanities and What’s It Doing in English Departments? ADE Bulletin* 150:55–61. http://mkirschenbaum.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/ade-final.pdf
Olivier Le Deuff. 2016. Humanités digitales versus humanités numériques, les raisons d'un choix. *Le texte à venir. Etudes Digitales* 1: 263-264.

Päivi Parvianien, Jukka Kääriäinen, Maarit Tihinen, and Susanna Teppola. 2017. *Tackling the digitalization challenge: how to benefit from digitalization in practice*. *International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management* 5/1: 63–76. DOI: 10.12821/ijispm050104.

Toni Ryynänen and Torsti Hyyryläinen. 2018. *Digitalisation of Consumption and Digital Humanities - Development Trajectories and Challenges for the Future*. *CEUR Workshop Proceedings* Vol-2084: 1–8.
[http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2084/short11.pdf](http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2084/short11.pdf)

Amelia Sanz. 2013. *Digital Humanities or Hypercolonial Studies? E-Prints Complutense*. Madrid, University of Madrid. [https://eprints.ucm.es/50610/](https://eprints.ucm.es/50610/)

Jonathan Shaw. 2012. *Humanities Digitized. Reconceiving the study of culture*. *Harvard Magazine* May–June: 40–44 and 73–75. [http://harvardmag.com/pdf/2012/05-pdfs/0512-40.pdf](http://harvardmag.com/pdf/2012/05-pdfs/0512-40.pdf)

James Smithies. 2017. *The Digital Humanities and the Digital Modern*. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

Bernard Stiegler. 2016. *Dans la disruption. Comment ne pas devenir fou?* Paris, Les liens qui libèrent.

Simon Tanner. 2019. *Delivering impact with digital resources: Planning strategy in the attention economy*. London, Facet Publishing. Forthcoming. Quotation in Simon Tanner. 2019. Digitization vs digitalization. *Humanist Discussion Group* 33.390/4. [https://dhhumanist.org/volume/33/392/](https://dhhumanist.org/volume/33/392/)

Maja van der Velden. 2007. Invisibility and the Ethics of the Digitalization: Designing so as not to Hurt Others. *Information Technology Ethics: Cultural Perspectives*. Sonja Hongladarom and Charles Ess (eds.). Hershey et al., Idea Group Reference Ed., 81–93.

Robert Wachal. 1971. *Humanities and Computers: A Personal View*. *The North American Review* 256/1:30–33. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/25117163](https://www.jstor.org/stable/25117163)

Bernard O. Williams. 1984. *Computing with Electricity, 1935–1945*. PhD Dissertation. Lawrence, University of Kansas.