Purpose: This article describes the interviews we conducted in late 2021 with 19 researchers at the Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies at the University of Bologna. The main purpose was to shed light on the definition of the word "data" in the humanities domain, as far as FAIR data management practices are concerned, and on what researchers think of the term. Methodology: We invited one researcher for each of the official disciplinary areas represented within the department and all 19 accepted to participate in the study. Participants were then divided into 5 main research areas: philology and literary criticism, language and linguistics, history of art, computer science, archival studies. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using a grounded theory approach. Findings: A list of 13 research data types has been compiled thanks to the information collected from participants. The term "data" does not emerge as especially problematic, although a good deal of confusion remains. Looking at current research management practices, methodologies and teamwork appear more central than previously reported. Originality: Our findings confirm that "data" within the FAIR framework should include all types of input and outputs humanities research work with, including publications. Also, the participants to this study appear ready for a discussion around making their research data FAIR: they do not find the terminology particularly problematic, while they rely on precise and recognised methodologies, as well as on sharing and collaboration with colleagues.
翻译:本篇文章描述了2021年后期我们在博洛尼亚大学古典哲学和意大利研究系与19名研究人员进行的访谈,主要目的是说明人类学领域“数据”一词的定义,就FAIR数据管理实践而言,以及研究人员对这一术语的看法。方法:我们邀请了本部每个官方学科领域的一名研究人员,所有19个都同意参加研究。然后,参与者被分为5个主要研究领域:哲学和文学批评、语言和语言、艺术历史、计算机科学、档案研究。访谈采用有根据的理论方法进行整理和分析。调查结果:由于从参与者收集的信息,13种研究数据类型清单已经汇编出来。“数据”一词并不特别成问题,尽管仍然有相当的混淆。看看目前的研究管理做法、方法和团队精神似乎比以前所报告的更为重要。我们的调查结果证实,FAIR框架内的“数据”应该包括所有类型的投入和产出,人类学史、计算机科学、档案研究。这些访谈都采用有根据理论进行。结果:由于从参与者那里收集的信息,13种研究数据类型已经汇编出来。“数据”一词并非特别成问题,而是以精确的术语作为研究的基础。