How (not) to do textual criticism online: A user’s perspective on selected Nordic digital scholarly editions

(1)

How (not) to do textual criticism online : A user’s perspective

on selected Nordic digital scholarly editions

Per Pippin Aspaas & Philipp Conzett

University Library, UiT The Arctic University of Norway [email protected], [email protected]

Digital Humanities in the Nordic Countries Conference, Oslo 15-17 March 2016

(2)

• How (not) to do textual criticism online : A user’s perspective on selected Nordic digital scholarly editions

(3)

• Academic end users (PhC: Nordic Philology; PPA: Classical Philology)

• Outsiders (no first-hand experience with major scholarly edition projects)

- This talk is based on 1) literature

2) tests of three selected online editions

(4)

Background literature

(5)

Theoretical (polemical) literature

(Oxford University Press 2015)

(6)

transcribing, collating, annotating, proof reading, …

TIME CONSUMING

RESOURCES!

(7)

TIME CONSUMING RESOURCES!

mostly canonized authors

(8)

(9)

TIME CONSUMING RESOURCES!

mostly canonized authors

(10)

Methodological literature (Patrick Sahle et al.)

(11)

Sahle et al.’s Criteria for Reviewing Scholarly Digital Editions

• Published in 2012, revised English version in 2014

• Provide “a framework for the description and evaluation of scholarly digital editions (SDE)”

• “Scholarly digital editions are not merely publications in digital form;

rather, they are information systems which follow a methodology

determined by a digital paradigm, just as traditional print editions follow a methodology determined by the paradigms of print culture.”

• “The evaluation of SDEs is based on the established methods of the editorial sciences of the print-era and on the experiences with digital editions in the last decades.”

• “[M]any questions are still under discussion (...). [R]eviews of SDEs should be seen as yet another contribution to ongoing methodological discussions.”

(12)

Sahle et al.’s Criteria for Reviewing Scholarly Digital Editions (II)

• Criteria grouped into four main sections:

– General information about the edition – Subject and content

– Aims and methods

– Publications and presentation

• Individual criteria presented when we discuss analysis/results

(13)

Sahle et al.’s Criteria for Reviewing Scholarly Digital Editions (III)

• Focus on criteria which can be easily evaluated on a three level scale, according to whether an issue is

• In addition:

– Criterion is not applicable (= N/A, grey background) – Criterion is not evaluated (white background)

– Will only comment on criteria which are not appropriately addressed by at least two editions

- appropriately addressed (= A, green background), - partially addressed (= P, orange background)

- not addressed (= N, red background)

(14)

Three selected editions

(15)

Three selected editions (II)

(16)

Three selected editions (III)

(17)

Preliminary review: 1 General information

(18)

Preliminary review: 1 General information (II)

(19)

Preliminary review: 2 Subject and content

(20)

Preliminary review: 3 Aims and methods

(21)

Preliminary review: 3 Aims and methods (II)

(22)

Preliminary review: 3 Aims and methods (III)

(23)

Preliminary review: 4 Publication and presentation

(24)

Preliminary review: 4 Publication and presentation (II)

(25)

Preliminary review: 4 Publication and presentation (III)

(26)

Preliminary review: 4 Publication and presentation (V)

(27)

Preliminary review: 4 Publication and presentation (VI)

(28)

Finland framställdt på tre skärmar

(29)

Finland framställdt på tre skärmar – II

(30)

Finland framställdt på tre skärmar – III

(31)

Finland framställdt på tre skärmar – III b

(32)

Finland framställdt på tre skärmar – III b

(33)

Superfluous hard copies? (NAOMI S. BARON 2015)

- digital texts are fantastic for searching, browsing, rapid reading

- digital texts are NOT good for «deep reading»

GENERATION QUESTION?

- no, even «digital born» students prefer reading on paper

CULTURAL QUESTION?

- yes and no. But even in countries where smartphones and e-readers are widespread, the measured knowledge outcome of hard- copy curriculums have been found to surpas electronic curriculums

(34)

Superfluous hard copies? > NORDIC SCHOLARLY EDITING

- canonized authors call for «deep reading»

- if we only publish online, the texts are likely to be browsed rather than studied

- if we only publish hard copies, we will (probably) get no funding, and besides, we do not comply with basic principles of open science

- if you apply for 50 million for a digital edition

project, make sure to smuggle into your application another 0,5 mill. for hard copy production as well!

(35)

References

Scholarly digital editions:

Henrik Ibsens skrifter, digital version 1.1. Universitetet i Oslo ved Henrik Ibsens skrifter og Eining for digital dokumentasjon. Available at http://www.ibsen.uio.no/. Accessed in March 2016.

Søren Kierkegaards Skrifter, digital version 1.8.1, ved Karsten Kynde. Søren Kierkegaard Forskningscenteret. Available at http://www.sks.dk/. Accessed in March 2016.

Zacharias Topelius Skrifter, digital edition. Svenska litteratursällskapet i Finland. Available at http://topelius.fi/. Accessed in March 2016.

Other sources:

Baron, Naomi S. 2015. Words onscreen. The fate of reading in a digital world. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Dahlström, Mats & Espen S. Ore. 2013. “Elektronisches Edieren in Skandinavien”. In Henrikson, Paula & Christian Janss (eds.). 2013. Geschichte der Edition in

Skandinavien. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 143–166.

Forssell, Pia & Carola Herberts (eds.). 2011. Digitala och tryckta utgåvor. Erfarenheter, planering och teknik i förändring. Bidrag till en konferens anordnad av Nordiskt Nätverk för Editionsfilologer, 11-13 september 2009. (Skrifter (Svenska litteratursällskapet i

Finland) nr. 755; Skrifter (Nordisk Netværk for Editionsfilologer) 9). Helsingfors: Svenska litteratursällskapet i Finland.