# European survey on scholarly practices and digital needs in the arts and humanities Digital Methods and Practices Observatory Working Group (DiMPO) Survey highlights EN

Dallas Costis, Nephelie Chatzidiakou, Agiatis Benardou, Claire Clivaz, John Cunningham, Meredith Dabek, Patricia Garrido, Elena Gonzalez-Blanco, Jurij Hadalin, Lorna Hughes, et al.

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

## ► To cite this version:

Dallas Costis, Nephelie Chatzidiakou, Agiatis Benardou, Claire Clivaz, John Cunningham, et al. European survey on scholarly practices and digital needs in the arts and humanities Digital Methods and Practices Observatory Working Group (DiMPO) Survey highlights EN. [Research Report] DARIAH; DIMPO. 2017. [hal-01449002](https://hal.science/hal-01449002)

HAL Id: hal-01449002

https://hal.science/hal-01449002

Submitted on 29 Jan 2017

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published 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>
# European survey on scholarly practices and digital needs in the arts and humanities

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

## Survey highlights

Digital Methods and Practices Observatory Working Group (DiMPO)
DARIAH-EU European Research Infrastructure Consortium

October 2016

http://bit.ly/scholarlypractices
# 2,177 respondents across Europe, using digital resources, methods and tools

10 languages

6 national profiles

Austria

Greece

Lithuania

Poland

Serbia

Switzerland

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

DARIAH-EU

Web Survey

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

## Age of respondents

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Age of respondents. N=2169

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

56,5% women

43,5% men

## Years in research

49,9% - more than 10 years

29% - 3-10 years

16,2% - 1-3 years

4,6% - less than 1 year

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

Professional affiliation. N=2018

## Professional affiliation

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

DARIAH-EU

Scholarly practices survey
Digital humanists access research materials
both on digital devices and in analogue form

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

Use of desktop/laptop PC, mobile devices, and print or analogue
devices to consult research material. N= 2177

Most respondents consult research resources
on a desktop or laptop PC,
more often than in printed or analogue format

...with the exception of
books and archival items

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

More than two out of
five digital humanists
use a mobile device to
consult most kinds of
research resources

Except for books, digital humanists access research
resources more often in digital than in analogue form.
Ranked in order of frequency, digital devices such as PCs
and laptops are most often used to access scholarly articles,
images, video, audio, maps, and less often archival holdings
and books. But nine out of ten digital humanists read books
in print (compared to three out of five online), while more
than half also access articles and archival holdings in
analogue form. In tandem, three out of five respondents use
a mobile device, such as a tablet, to consult images, video
and audio resources while two out of five for research
articles, books or maps.
## Digital humanists use digital methods or tools across the research lifecycle

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

Purpose of use of digital methods or tools. N=2176

Respondents reported using digital methods or tools to support all phases of the research lifecycle, from discovery to publication. However, while most respondents use them to discover, collect or create research assets, a smaller percentage reports using them for other purposes. Only about two out of three respondents reported use of digital methods or tools to annotate, enrich, or curate research assets.

## Almost half of digital humanists use regularly a 'tetrad' of digital scholarly dissemination channels

Between 10-15% of respondents reported very frequent use of **open access journals** or publications, **institutional portals and repositories**, **personal blogs or websites**, and **scholarly communities** such as Academia and ResearchGate, to disseminate their work. A larger percentage, between 35-45%, use this 'tetrad' of dissemination channels regularly. On the other hand, eight out of ten state that they have used open content journals or publication, albeit seldom.

In addition, two out of ten respondents say they use regularly social media networks to disseminate their research. Less than one out of ten state that they use regularly generic online content services, such as Slideshare, Flickr or Youtube.

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

Means of dissemination of scholarly work. N=2132
Online library catalogues, digital collections and data
repositories, and online journals are frequently consulted

When working online, almost all
respondents use web search very
frequently to find research assets.
Nine out of ten reported frequent use
of online library catalogues, and
slightly less of digital archives,
collections or repositories, and online
journals. Only seven out of ten use
academic search engines (such as
Google Scholar) regularly. More than
two out of five respondents say they
use all these methods very frequently.
On the other hand, frequent use of
social media networks for resource
discovery is reported by only one out
of seven respondents.

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

Frequency of use of services. N= 1452

Word processors and spreadsheets are the most common
applications used to store and manage research assets

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

Use of applications to store and manage research assets. N= 2176

For storage and management
of research assets, nine out of
ten respondents reported using
a word processor. Three out of
five respondents stated they
use spreadsheets, while about
one third said they use data-
base management systems, or
note-taking and bibliographic
citation management applica-
tions. Only one out of seven
presently use web-based
content management systems
(CMS) to store and manage
research assets.
## Digital humanities researchers engage regularly in collaborative research

One out of three respondents indicate that they collaborate very often with others on a research project. Altogether, seven out of ten say that they engage often or very often in research collaboration. Only a very small fraction – less than one out of fifteen – state that they never collaborate in research.

## The majority often use primary sources from abroad, but native tongue persists as the primary language of publication

One out of five respondents access primary sources outside of their country of residence very often, and more than half do so often. Only one in seven never uses primary sources from outside their country.

On the other hand, when asked to rank the languages which they use for scholarly publication, seven out of ten digital humanists identify their native language as their primary language of publication, while only one quarter identify English as the primary language. Nevertheless, the great majority – four out of five – do include English as a second publication language. In addition, almost one out of five suggest that they use another language for scholarly publication, as one of their first two choices. A additional three quarters of respondents, bringing the total to nine out of ten, state that they publish in another language beside their own and English as a third choice.

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>I collaborate with others on a research project</figcaption></figure>

Frequency of collaborating with others on a research project. N= 2135

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>I access primary sources outside my country of residence</figcaption></figure>

Frequency of accessing primary sources outside one's country of residence. N= 2136

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>In which language do you primarily publish?</figcaption></figure>

Publishing language. N= 1773
Improved findability of digital resources and digitization of
non-digital ones are most highly valued

Asked to rate the importance of different needs in a scale
from 1 to 10, three quarters of digital humanists rated
**improved findability and access to existing digital
research resources** or data as the most important, with a
score exceeding 9.5 out of 10. A slightly lower score of 9 was
granted to **digitization of research resources or data
currently not in digital form** by three out of four
respondents. Two other needs, **improved findability and
access to digital tools or software**, and **networking with
other researchers, research groups and institutions**,

share third place with a score exceeding 7 by more
than three out of four respondents. Other functions,
such as **technical support** on digital infrastructures,
tools or software, **online advice and information
on using digital methods** and tools for research,
**courses or workshops** on how digital humanities
methods and tools provide help in the course of the
research, and **online support from archivists,
curators and/or librarians** are also valued, but with
a lower score.

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

Importance of digital infrastructure affordances. N= 2077

The full report and publications

A multi-authored report presenting the descriptive
findings of the 2015 survey, as well as a journal paper,
is compiled by members of the Digital Methods and
Practices Working Group (DiMPO). The report, and
further publications, present the consolidated and
comparative findings of the survey, as well as selective
country profiles. In addition, contributors from particular
countries author publications on findings related to their
country, and also in their national language.
Hashtags: #DARIAH #DiMPO #ScholarlyPractices

Table of contents

1. Introduction N. Chatzidiakou & C. Dallas

2. Methodology and analysis C. Dallas & N. Chatzidiakou

3. Consolidated findings N. Chatzidiakou & C. Dallas

4. Country profile: Austria G. Schneider & W. Scholger

5. Country profile: Greece N. Chatzidiakou & C. Dallas

6. Country profile: Lithuania I. Kelpšienė

7. Country profile: Poland M. Maryl

8. Country profile: Serbia T. Tasovac & N. Chatzidiakou

9. Country profile: Switzerland B. Immenhauser

10. Comparative findings All authors

11. Conclusions C. Dallas
# Digital Methods and Practices Observatory Working Group (DiMPO)

The DARIAH Digital Methods and Practices Observatory WG (DiMPO) aims to develop and provide an evidence-based, up-to-date, and pragmatically useful account of the emerging information practices, needs and attitudes of arts and humanities researchers in the evolving European digital scholarly environment, for the benefit of the digital humanities research community. It seeks to achieve this objective through the inception of a longitudinal mixed methods research and monitoring programme on the information practices and scholarly methods employed in digitally-enabled arts and humanities work across Europe, and through the digital dissemination, validation and enrichment of research outcomes by the scholarly community. For further information or to join please contact the WG chair, Prof. Costis Dallas (c.dallas@dcu.gr).

# Scholarly practices survey: scope, objectives and plans

The European survey on scholarly practices and digital needs in the arts and humanities is the outcome of collaborative work of European researchers from different countries, working within the DiMPO Working Group. It has been designed as a multiregional longitudinal survey, to be conducted online across European countries and to be repeated every few years. Its aim is to provide an evidence-based outlook of scholarly practices, needs and attitudes of European humanities researchers towards digital resources, methods and tools across space and time. Results of the first run of the survey (completed in March 2015) are presented in a multi-authored report, which includes comparative and consolidated analyses, as well as six country profiles. A new run is planned for 2017-18.
For more information, see bit.ly/scholarlypractices.

# Contributors

## Project lead

**Costis Dallas**, Digital Curation Unit, IMIS-Athena Research Centre, Greece & Faculty of Information, University of Toronto, Canada

## Survey coordinator

**Nephelie Chatzidiakou**, Digital Curation Unit, IMIS-Athena Research Centre, Greece

## Country profile authors

**Gerlinde Schneider & Walter Scholger**, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Austria

**Nephelie Chatzidiakou & Costis Dallas**, Digital Curation Unit, IMIS-Athena Research Centre, Greece

**Ingrida Kelpšienė**, Vilnius University, Lithuania

**Maciej Maryl**, Institute of Literary Research, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland

**Toma Tasovac**, Belgrade Center for Digital Humanities, Serbia

**Beat Immenhauser**, Schweizerische Akademie der Geistes und Sozialwissenschaften Haus der Akademien, Switzerland

## Technical infrastructure

**Stavros Angelis & Dimitris Gavrilis**, Digital Curation Unit, IMIS-Athena Research Centre, Greece

## Audiovisual media

**Panagiotis Karioris**, Institute for Language and Speech Processing, Athena Research Centre, Greece

## Questionnaire, translation and dissemination

**Gerlinde Schneider & Walter Scholger**, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Austria

**Koraljka Kuzman, Marko Lukin & Tvrtko Zebec**, Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Research, Zagreb, Croatia

**Anne Joly** TGIR Huma-Num, CNRS, France & Aurelien Berra, Université Paris-Ouest Nanterre, France

**Manfred Thaller & Zoe Schubert**, Universität zu Köln, and Michael Bender, TU Darmstadt, Germany

**Costis Dallas, Nephelie Chatzidiakou, Agiatis Benardou & Eliza Papaki**, Digital Curation Unit, IMIS, Athena RC, Greece

**John Cunningham, Trinity College Dublin, and Susan Schreibman & Meredith Dabek**, National University of Ireland Maynooth, Ireland

**Ingrida Kelpšienė**, Vilnius University, Lithuania

**Maciej Maryl, Marcin Werla & Michał Kozak**, Institute of Literary Research, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland

**Toma Tasovac & Irena Marinski**, Belgrade Center for Digital Humanities, Serbia

**Jurij Hadalin**, Institute of Contemporary History, Slovenia

**Elena Gonzalez-Blanco**, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Spain

**Claire Clivaz**, Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (SIB), and **Beat Immenhauser**, Schweizerische Akademie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften, Haus der Akademien, Switzerland

**Lorna Hughes**, HATII, Glasgow University, and **Robert Owain**, National Library of Wales, United Kingdom

This document was authored by Nephelie Chatzidiakou and Costis Dallas, with support from the Digital Curation Unit, IMIS-Athena Research Centre, Greece.
Authors wish to thank project contributors and all 2,177 survey respondents for their valuable input to this study.