{"title":"Divergence and dialogue: analyzing the linguistic turn of the archive in digital humanities research","authors":"Jiaqing Long, Viviane Frings‑Hessami, Huiling Feng","doi":"10.1007/s10502-024-09473-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Over the past two decades, many digital humanities projects have presented themselves as various forms of digital archives, and the term ‘archive’ has been used frequently by many digital humanists, leading to an expanded but also eroded concept of the archive. This phenomenon, described as the linguistic turn of the archive, has sparked intense debates in both the digital humanities and archival science research communities. The conceptual divergence between the concept of the archive in archival science and in digital humanities can lead to misunderstandings and academic exchange gaps on both sides. To bridge this divide, we conducted research by selecting all 58 cases related to archives from the International Digital Humanities Awards (2012–2023). This study draws on the socio-contextual analysis and discourse–historical analysis framework to code and analyze the characteristics of the linguistic turn. By extracting four layers ‘concept-tool-cognition-scenario’ from existing research, we innovatively proposed a framework suitable for analyzing archival terminologies within the contexts of different projects. Through analysis, we identified the following four turning features: (a) an expansion of the traditional archival terminology, i.e., many digital resources are referred to as ‘digital archive’; (b) the application of archival theories, principles, and tools for resource preservation; (c) the embedding of archival cognition in the processes of digital humanities projects; and (d) the integration of archives into broader and more socially oriented digital scenarios. This paper suggests that archivists and digital humanities researchers need to increase the dialogue between the two disciplines to better facilitate an archival paradigm shift and ensure the sustainability of digital humanities research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46131,"journal":{"name":"ARCHIVAL SCIENCE","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ARCHIVAL SCIENCE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10502-024-09473-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Over the past two decades, many digital humanities projects have presented themselves as various forms of digital archives, and the term ‘archive’ has been used frequently by many digital humanists, leading to an expanded but also eroded concept of the archive. This phenomenon, described as the linguistic turn of the archive, has sparked intense debates in both the digital humanities and archival science research communities. The conceptual divergence between the concept of the archive in archival science and in digital humanities can lead to misunderstandings and academic exchange gaps on both sides. To bridge this divide, we conducted research by selecting all 58 cases related to archives from the International Digital Humanities Awards (2012–2023). This study draws on the socio-contextual analysis and discourse–historical analysis framework to code and analyze the characteristics of the linguistic turn. By extracting four layers ‘concept-tool-cognition-scenario’ from existing research, we innovatively proposed a framework suitable for analyzing archival terminologies within the contexts of different projects. Through analysis, we identified the following four turning features: (a) an expansion of the traditional archival terminology, i.e., many digital resources are referred to as ‘digital archive’; (b) the application of archival theories, principles, and tools for resource preservation; (c) the embedding of archival cognition in the processes of digital humanities projects; and (d) the integration of archives into broader and more socially oriented digital scenarios. This paper suggests that archivists and digital humanities researchers need to increase the dialogue between the two disciplines to better facilitate an archival paradigm shift and ensure the sustainability of digital humanities research.
期刊介绍:
Archival Science promotes the development of archival science as an autonomous scientific discipline. The journal covers all aspects of archival science theory, methodology, and practice. Moreover, it investigates different cultural approaches to creation, management and provision of access to archives, records, and data. It also seeks to promote the exchange and comparison of concepts, views and attitudes related to recordkeeping issues around the world.Archival Science''s approach is integrated, interdisciplinary, and intercultural. Its scope encompasses the entire field of recorded process-related information, analyzed in terms of form, structure, and context. To meet its objectives, the journal draws from scientific disciplines that deal with the function of records and the way they are created, preserved, and retrieved; the context in which information is generated, managed, and used; and the social and cultural environment of records creation at different times and places.Covers all aspects of archival science theory, methodology, and practiceInvestigates different cultural approaches to creation, management and provision of access to archives, records, and dataPromotes the exchange and comparison of concepts, views, and attitudes related to recordkeeping issues around the worldAddresses the entire field of recorded process-related information, analyzed in terms of form, structure, and context