Die Nutzung von Computern und digitalen Methoden ist in der täglichen Praxis der Geisteswissenschaften fest verankert. Von der Erstellung einer Sammlung, über Bildanalysen, Text-Annotierung, bis hin zu Netzwerk-Analysen für die Ideengeschichte, keiner dieser Bereiche wird heutzutage noch ohne Computer angegangen.

Dies bringt Themen, die ursprünglich in der Software-Entwicklung angesiedelt waren, in den Fokus der Geistes- und Kulturwissenschaften. So stellt sich zum Beispiel die Frage nach der Nachhaltigkeit einer Software-Entwicklung für ein geisteswissenschaftliches Forschungsvorhaben oder welchen Best-Practice-Maßstäben dabei gefolgt werden sollte.

Ein wichtiger Faktor bei solchen Überlegungen ist die Möglichkeit, den Erfolg und die Nützlichkeit dieser digitalen Ansätze in den Geisteswissenschaften zu validieren.

Während der zweiten und dritten Förderphase von DARIAH-DE wurden verschiedene Ansätze zur Messung und Auswertung dieser Faktoren zusammengetragen und in eine übersichtliche Messanleitung gegossen, die Impactomatrix, zugänglich auf Github. So konnten Faktoren identifiziert werden, die den sogenannten Impact eines Werkzeuges oder eines Dienstes messen können, sowie Kriterien, mit deren Hilfe der Impact beeinflusst werden kann.

[...]

Quelle: https://dhd-blog.org/?p=12098

At the moment, I am re-writing the chapter presenting the case studies, including cutting most details needed for the German dissertation out of the upcoming monograph. I’ll try to roughly work parallel on the editing of the German publication and the re-writing of the English monograph, and I am now coming to the end of the Scandinavian case studies.

So, what brought me to include the Scandinavian kingdoms into my research? England and even Scotland were pretty clear, the English even have a reputation for being “king-slayers” – it’s a bit undeserved; usually they deposed their monarchs first, or more precise, forced them to abdicate – afterwards, they killed them, so it should be something like “ex-king-slayers”? But even the English with all their depositions from 1327 (Edward II) right through the Wars of the Roses and until Charles I and James II in the 17th century, do not hold a candle to the Swedish.
Very early on, it became clear that if I want to understand deposition, I have to include Sweden. If I counted correctly, from all the kings between ca. 1350 until 1600, only three were not deposed. Plus Margaret who ruled but was never crowned.

[...]

Quelle: http://csarti.net/2019/07/sweden-is-record-holder-for-deposing-monarchs/

What I really like about the chance to rewrite my German doctoral thesis as an English academic monograph is the possibility to re-structure the book, and to make it about the reader (hopefully, some people will read it…). When I started the PhD journey, I took my time researching and later on, writing and researching. While writing, new problems turned up, details were unclear (to me), and more research and more reading needed to be done. In the end, the German dissertation shows this thought process, no matter how many times I edited. I can still tell which parts I wrote first, and where I already found out where this writing is going. Maybe you can see this as well when reading the German (Open Access) version.
First of all, there were the usual expectations to a doctoral thesis on an extensive literature and methodology review, detailed source interpretation, and broad contextualising (incl. to place the own research in research fields which turned out to be not that relevant for my work). I am grateful that I spend quite a lot of time on this, and especially on the introduction where I summed up relevant research on the vast field of “Herrschaft” (authority, rule, government, power…) and political history (incl. political thought or history of ideas) and really dug deep to also form my own understanding of power, authority, and rule in the early modern period.

[...]

Quelle: http://csarti.net/2019/07/writing-a-dissertation-vs-writing-an-academic-monograph/