Suchergebnisse

This article discusses the implications of attaching three-dimensional artefacts with different labels such as visualisation, model or 'virtual form'. The research focus is on how this affects the artefact itself, how it is produced and received, and in the end, how the artefact engages in knowledge production, and what kind of knowledge comes out of the process. It is proposed that there is not only a difference between knowledge and 'three-dimensional' knowledge but also between knowledge derived from artefacts called by different names. The three-dimensional artefacts are intermediaries or boundary objects between the past and the present, and the makers and users of these objects. Taking the differences in names and how they are linked to epistemological differences seriously and making them visible is argued to be a key to a more reflexive and productive making and use of three-dimensional artefacts.

As an explicitly transdisciplinary idea, digital humanities provides opportunities to bring together people and interests across the sectors, from a variety of scholarly and practical disciplines, and from the society at large. It may not be crucial that everyone has an identical understanding what digital humanities is if the stakeholders have shared or compatible concerns, and practical respect each others priorities. This applies to research questions and practical interests as well as their projected significance. The compatibility of concerns and mutual understanding of each others priorities is not, however, something that would be given in a collaboration or dependency relation that crosses different disciplines and sectors. To give a few examples, problems may occur when developing and borrowing digital tools from across contexts to address research questions from the humanities disciplines, when the limits of digital approaches to address specific questions are negotiated within and between contexts, and increasingly, when digital humanities researchers are using data provided by and originally produced in other sectors and situations. Even if the digital humanities literature in general and, to a verying degree, individual research projects have emphasised the importance of being critical and sensitive to the implications of using borrowed and newly developed technologies and understanding the data, so far, there is relatively little empirical research on the implications of cross-sectoral collaborations. The aim of the presentation is to systematise observations on various problems relating to cross-sectoral collaborations in the context of digital humanities. It draws from an empirical study of archaeological documentation practices in Sweden and an analysis of the perspectives the stakeholders of archaeological information. Archaeology is an example of a discipline within which the cross- sectoral collaboration has always been significant and has increased in the post-war years due to the heritage legislation that mandates archaeological investigations before land use [1]. At the present, these investigations are producing unprecedented amounts of digital documentation data with a significant scholarly potential. In a large number of countries the majority of archaeological fieldwork is currently financed by land developers as an obligatory exercise regulated by the law. Even if the priorities and wordings vary from one country to another (e.g. [2]), the principal purpose of archaeological fieldwork is to produce an adequate documentation of an archaeological site for future research. In Sweden, the purpose is three-fold (in this particular order) as to documentan archaeological site, take care of finds, to report and communicate (mediate) the results. Moreover, the documentation material and finds shall be preserved for the future, be scholarly interpreted and placed in a cultural historical con- text [4]. What is crucial, however, is that the fieldwork itself and where it is conducted is not initiated by a scholarly interest but a need or want to develop land. Further, the financing that is coming from the land developers has an inevitable influence on the priorities of conducting fieldwork, and an interest in a part of the results. According to the analysis of the empirical material, a major question for contemporary archaeological practices is how well the current information process is capable providing meaningful information for the different stakeholders and even more importantly, what are its implications to the usability and usefulness of the information, and collaborations between stakeholders in the different sectors. Are the matters of concern [3] of the other parties understood by the individual stakeholders and what are the consequences of understanding and not understanding them? Even if the principal conclusion of the analysis so far is that there is much to be done to help the different parties to understand each other and each others priorities in cross-sectoral collaborations, it is equally apparent that many of the significant issues are relatively common organisational and collaborative challenges documented in the literature. They are not specific to archaeology or even to digital humanities. References [1] Jean-Paul Demoule. Rescue Archaeology: A European View. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41:611–626, 2012. [2] Kristian Kristiansen. Contract archaeology in Europe: an experiment in diversity. World Archaeology, 41(4):641–648, December 2009. [3] Bruno Latour. Why has critique run out of steam? from matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2):225–248, 2004. [4] Riksantikvarieämbetet. Riksantikvarieämbetets föreskrifter och allmänna råd om uppdragsarkeologi. Kulturrådets författningssamling KRFS 2015:1, Stockholm, 2015.

"This book analyses the practical, information-related dimensions of professional knowledge making and communication in extra-academic organisations. It treats the sites where research takes place and where knowledge is created outside academia in the light, among other things, of new digital resources. It provides valuable insight into the practices through which extra-academic research data and results are produced and made available and the settings in which this takes place. With case studies of knowledge-making in government organizations and state research institutes, as well as in cultural and heritage institutions, this book broadens the perspective on knowledge sharing, communication and publication, and how knowing changes as a result of the professional knowledge-making practices in the digital age. Research outside the Academy is ideal for students at all levels looking for an introduction to the topic of research and knowledge-making in society. Moreover, researchers and professionals in the fields of library and information science and science and technology studies will find the book to be adding to previous understandings of scholarly documentation and communication."--

Digitalisation of research data and massive e!orts to make it findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable has revealed that in addition to an eventual lack of description of the data itself (metadata), data reuse is often obstructed by the lack of information about the data- making and interpretation (i.e. paradata). In search of the extent and composition of categories for describing processes, this article reviews a selection of standards and recommendations frequently referred to as useful for documenting archaeological visualisations. It provides insight into 1) how current standards can be employed to document provenance and processing history (i.e. paradata), and 2) what aspects of the processing history can be made transparent using current stan- dards and which aspects are pushed back or hidden. The findings show that processes are often either completely absent or only partially addressed in the standards. However, instead of criticising standards for bias and omissions as if a perfect description of everything would be attainable, the findings point to the need for a comprehensive con- sideration of the space a standard is operating in (e.g. national heri- tage administration or international harmonisation of data). When a standard is used in a specific space it makes particular processes, methods, or tools transparent. Given these premises, if the standard helps to document what needs to be documented (e.g. paradata), and if it provides a type of transparency required in a certain space, it is reasonable to deem the standard good enough for that purpose.

Abstract
Digitalisation of research data and massive efforts to make it findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable has revealed that in addition to an eventual lack of description of the data itself (metadata), data reuse is often obstructed by the lack of information about the datamaking and interpretation (i.e. paradata). In search of the extent and composition of categories for describing processes, this article reviews a selection of standards and recommendations frequently referred to as useful for documenting archaeological visualisations. It provides insight into 1) how current standards can be employed to document provenance and processing history (i.e. paradata), and 2) what aspects of the processing history can be made transparent using current standards and which aspects are pushed back or hidden. The findings show that processes are often either completely absent or only partially addressed in the standards. However, instead of criticising standards for bias and omissions as if a perfect description of everything would be attainable, the findings point to the need for a comprehensive consideration of the space a standard is operating in (e.g. national heritage administration or international harmonisation of data). When a standard is used in a specific space it makes particular processes, methods, or tools transparent. Given these premises, if the standard helps to document what needs to be documented (e.g. paradata), and if it provides a type of transparency required in a certain space, it is reasonable to deem the standard good enough for that purpose.

This study investigates differences in attitudes towards, and experiences with, online electronic health records between cancer patients and patients with other conditions, highlighting what is characteristic to cancer patients. A national patient survey on online access to electronic health records was conducted, where cancer patients were compared with all other respondents. Overall, 2587 patients completed the survey (response rate 0.61%). A total of 347 respondents (13.4%) indicated that they suffered from cancer. Results showed that cancer patients are less likely than other patients to use online electronic health records due to general interest (p < 0.001), but more likely for getting an overview of their health history (p = 0.001) and to prepare for visits (p < 0.001). Moreover, cancer patients rate benefits of accessing their electronic health records online higher than other patients and see larger positive effects regarding improved communication with and involvement in healthcare. ; CC BY 4.0

Despite the fact that patient accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) have been around for many years in several countries, there is a lack of research investigating patient's preferences for receiving bad news, including through PAEHRs. Little is also known about the characteristics of the patients who prefer to receive bad news through the PAEHR in terms of, for example medical diagnosis, age and educational level. This study, based on a national patient survey in Sweden (N = 2587), investigated this. Results show that, generally, receiving bad news by reading in the PAEHR is still among the least preferred options. Additionally, a higher proportion of men want to receive bad news in the PAEHR compared to women (p = 0.001), and the same goes for those who are not working/have worked in healthcare (p = 0.007). An effect of disease groups was also found, showing that diabetes patients in particular, want to receive bad news through the PAEHR.