[
Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. 2016. Building Multidisciplinary Research Fields: The Cases of Materials Science, Nanotechnology and Synthetic Biology. Pp. 45–60 in ˚e Local Configuration of New Research Fields: On Regional and National Diversity, edited by M. Merz and P. Sormani. Cham: Springer.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bunout, Estelle, Maud Ehrmann, and Frédéric Clavert (eds.). 2023. Digitised Newspapers – a New Eldorado for Historians? Reflections on Tools, Methods and Epistemology. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Oldenbourg.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Callaway, Elizabeth, Jeffrey Turner, Heather Stone, and Adam Halstrom. 2020. The Push and Pull of Digital Humanities: Topic Modeling the “What Is Digital Humanities?” Genre. Digital Humanities Quarterly 14(1). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/14/1/000450/000450.html (29.06.2023).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Edmond, Jennifer. 2016. Collaboration and Infrastructure. Pp. 54–65 in A New Companion to Digital Humanities, edited by S. Schreibman, R. Siemens, and J. Unsworth. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Eve, Martin Paul. 2020. Violins in the Subway: Scarcity Correlations, Evaluative Cultures, and Disciplinary Authority in the Digital Humanities. Pp. 105–122 in Digital Technology and the Practices of Humanities Research, edited by J. Edmond. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fraistat, Neil. 2012. The Function of Digital Humanities Centers at the Present Time. Pp. 281–291 in Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by M. K. Gold. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review 48(6): 781–795.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hollingsworth, J Rogers. 2006. A Path-Dependent Perspective on Institutional and Organizational Factors Shaping Major Scientific Discoveries. Pp. 423–442 in Innovation, Science, and Institutional Change, edited by J. Hage and M. Meeus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Jacobs, Jerry A. 2013. In Defense of Disciplines: Interdisciplinarity and Specialization in the Research University. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Jannidis, Fotis, Hubertus Kohle, and Malte Rehbein (eds.). 2017. Digital Humanities: Eine Einführung. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kemman, Max. 2021. Trading Zones of Digital History. Berlin: De Gruyter Oldenbourg.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kirsch, Adam. 02.05.2014. Technology Is Taking over English Departments. In ˚e New Republic. https://newrepublic.com/article/117428/ (15.04.2020).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kirschenbaum, Matthew G. 2014. “What Is ‘Digital Humanities,’ and Why Are They Saying Such Terrible Things about It?” Differences 25(1): 46–63.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Klein, Julie Thompson. 2013. The State of the Field: Institutionalization of Interdisciplinarity. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies (31): 66–74.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Klein, Julie Thompson. 2015. Interdisciplining Digital Humanities: Boundary Work in an Emerging Field. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Krishnan, Armin. 2009. What Are Academic Disciplines? Some Observations on the Disciplinarity Vs. Interdisciplinarity Debate. NCRM Working Paper. Southampton: ESRC National Centre for Research Methods.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lässig, Simone. 2021. Digital History: Challenges and Opportunities for the Profession. Geschichte und Gesellschaft 47(1): 5–34.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Li Vigni, Fabrizio. 2021. Complexity Sciences: A Scientific Platform. Science & Technology Studies 34(4): 30–55.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Liu, Alan. 2012. Where Is Cultural Criticism in the Digital Humanities? Pp. 490-510 in Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by M. K. Gold. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Luhmann, Jan, and Manuel Burghardt. 2021. Digital Humanities – A Discipline in Its Own Right? An Analysis of the Role and Position of Digital Humanities in the Academic Landscape. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 73(2): 148–171.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
McCarty, Willard. 2012. The Residue of Uniqueness. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung 37(3): 24–45.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
McCarty, Willard. 2014. Humanities Computing. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Merz, Martina, and Philippe Sormani (eds.). 2016. ˚e Local Configuration of New Research Fields: On Regional and National Diversity. Cham: Springer.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Moles, Abraham A. 1995. Les sciences de l’imprécis. Paris: Seuil.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Oberbichler, Sarah, Emanuela Boroş, Antoine Doucet, Jani Marjanen, Eva Pfanzelter, Juha Rautiainen, Hannu Toivonen, and Mikko Tolonen. 2021. Integrated Interdisciplinary Workflows for Research on Historical Newspapers: Perspectives from Humanities Scholars, Computer Scientists, and Librarians. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 73(2): 225–239.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pidd, Michael. 2022. Building Digital Humanities Centers. Pp. 305–315 in ˚e Bloomsbury Handbook to the Digital Humanities, edited by J. O’Sullivan. Bloomsbury: Bloomsbury Publishing.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Piotrowski, Michael. 2018. Digital Humanities: An Explication. In Proceedings of INF-DH 2018, edited by M. Burghardt and C. Müller-Birn. Berlin: Gesellschaft für Informatik.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Piotrowski, Michael, and Mateusz Fafinski. 2020. Nothing New Under the Sun? Computational Humanities and the Methodology of History. Pp. 171–181 in CHR2020: Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Humanities Research, edited by F. Karsdorp, B. McGillivray, A. Nerghes, and M. Wevers. CEUR Workshop Proceedings.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ramsay, Stephen. 2013. Who’s in and Who’s Out. Pp. 239–241 in Defining Digital Humanities, edited by M. Terras, J. Nyhan, and E. Vanhoutte. Farnham: Ashgate.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Saner, Philippe. 2019. Envisioning Higher Education: How Imagining the Future Shapes the Implementation of a New Field in Higher Education. Swiss Journal of Sociology 45(3): 359–381.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Schreibman, Susan, Ray Siemens, and John Unsworth (eds.). 2004. A Companion to Digital Humanities. Oxford: Blackwell.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Small, Mario L. 1999. Departmental Conditions and the Emergence of New Disciplines: Two Cases in the Legitimation of African-American Studies. ˚eory and Society 28(5): 659–707.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sugimoto, Cassidy R., and Scott Weingart. 2015. The Kaleidoscope of Disciplinarity. Journal of Documentation 71(4): 775–794.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Svensson, Patrik. 2011. The Digital Humanities as a Humanities Project. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 11(1–2): 42–60.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Terras, Melissa. 2006. Disciplined: Using Educational Studies to Analyse “Humanities Computing”. Literary and Linguistic Computing 21(2): 229–246.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Terras, Melissa, Julianne Nyhan, and Edward Vanhoutte (eds.). 2013. Defining Digital Humanities. Farnham: Ashgate.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Van Hooland, Seth, Florence Gillet, Simon Hengchen, and Max De Wilde. 2016. Introduction aux humanités numériques : méthodes et pratiques. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck Supérieur.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Warwick, Claire. 2012. Institutional Models for Digital Humanities. Pp. 193–216 in Digital Humanities in Practice, edited by C. Warwick, M. Terras, and J. Nyhan. London: Facet.
]Search in Google Scholar
