Insights from a Digital Exhibition in the Humanities

Core Concepts

Research transparency and reproducibility are essential in the humanities to open the "black box" of research.

Abstract

1. Abstract

Open Science aims for research reproducibility.
Lack of consensus on reproducibility in different research fields.
Digital twin creation for "The Other Renaissance" exhibition.
2. Theoretical Background and Related Works

Three types of reproducibility: methods, results, inferential.
Application of reproducibility concepts in humanities.
Replication studies in different disciplines.
3. Making the Digitisation Process More Transparent

Documentation of digitisation workflow.
Data management practices for reproducibility.
4. Making Interpretation More Transparent

Selection process for cultural heritage digitisation.
Use of photogrammetry and structured light scanner.
5. Discussion and Conclusions

Importance of research transparency and accountability.
Challenges in documenting research methodologies.
References

Various studies and methodologies related to research reproducibility.

Stats

"The creation of the digital twin – via the acquisition, processing, modelling, export, metadata creation, and upload of the 3D models to a web-based framework – was documented throughout in a structured manner in order to make the entire process transparent and reproducible."
"No reproducibility is possible without transparency, or the careful and complete documentation of all relevant aspects of the study."
"They found that in all cases replication studies help corroborate the findings of the original studies."

Quotes

"No reproducibility is possible without transparency, or the careful and complete documentation of all relevant aspects of the study." - Source
"Replication studies help corroborate the findings of the original studies and can provide a more thorough understanding of the relevant research field." - Source

Key Insights Distilled From

Thinking Outside the Black Box

by Sebastian Ba... at arxiv.org 03-28-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.12000.pdf

Deeper Inquiries

How can the concept of reproducibility be adapted to the changing nature of temporary exhibitions in cultural heritage?

In the context of temporary exhibitions in cultural heritage, the concept of reproducibility can be adapted by focusing on documenting the entire process of creating a digital twin or replica of the exhibition. Since temporary exhibitions are by nature transient and may not exist in their original form after they conclude, it is crucial to meticulously document each step of the digitization process. This documentation should include details on the acquisition, processing, modeling, metadata creation, and upload of 3D models to ensure transparency and reproducibility.
To adapt reproducibility to changing exhibitions, researchers can focus on creating machine-readable representations of the physical collection and its digital counterpart. By structuring data in a way that allows for easy access and understanding, even after the exhibition has ended, researchers can ensure that the process can be repeated or applied to new data in the future. This documentation should also include information on the interpretation of the exhibition elements selected for digitization, as well as the methodologies and tools used in the digitization process.

Should the application of reproducibility concepts be universal across all research areas, including the humanities?

The application of reproducibility concepts should not necessarily be universal across all research areas, including the humanities. While reproducibility is a fundamental aspect of scientific research, the nature of research in the humanities often involves subjective interpretations, diverse viewpoints, and complex cultural contexts that may not lend themselves to strict reproducibility standards.
In the humanities, concepts like replicability and replication may be more suitable than strict reproducibility. These concepts allow for different interpretations and perspectives to coexist, acknowledging the diversity of approaches in humanities research. While transparency and documentation of research methodologies are essential in all fields, the application of reproducibility standards should be flexible enough to accommodate the unique characteristics of each discipline.

How can the documentation of research methodologies be incentivized and rewarded in academia to promote transparency and reproducibility?

To incentivize and reward the documentation of research methodologies in academia, institutions and funding agencies can implement several strategies:

Recognition and Promotion: Researchers who demonstrate thorough documentation of research methodologies could be recognized through awards, promotions, or inclusion in tenure evaluations. Highlighting the importance of transparency and reproducibility in academic success can motivate researchers to prioritize documentation.

Funding Opportunities: Funding agencies can prioritize projects that include detailed Data Management Plans and transparent research methodologies. Grant applications that demonstrate a commitment to openness and reproducibility could receive additional funding or support.

Training and Resources: Academic institutions can provide training and resources on best practices for documenting research methodologies. Workshops, seminars, and online resources can help researchers understand the importance of transparency and provide guidance on how to effectively document their processes.

Publication Standards: Journals can establish guidelines for reporting research methodologies in publications. Articles that include detailed descriptions of study design, data collection, and analysis techniques could be given preference or highlighted as examples of good practice.

By creating a culture that values and rewards transparent documentation of research methodologies, academia can promote reproducibility and enhance the credibility of research outcomes.