Digital document and interpretation: re-thinking “text” and scholarship in electronic settings [Book Review]

Poiesis and Praxis 5 (2):139-153 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The contribution starts from outlining the evolution of the scholarly production flow from the print based paradigm to the digital age and in this context it explores the opposition of digital versus analog representation modes. It then develops on the triple paradigm shift caused by genuine digital publishing and its specific consequences for the social sciences and humanities (SSH) which in turn results in re-constituting basic scholarly notions such as ‘text’ and ‘document’. The paper concludes with discussing the specific value that could be added in systematically using digital text resources as a basis for scholarly work and also states some of the necessary conditions for such a ‘digital turn’ to be successful in the SSH

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,897

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Phenomenology of digital-being.Joohan Kim - 2001 - Human Studies 24 (1-2):87-111.
History in the digital age.Toni Weller (ed.) - 2013 - New York: Routledge.
Analog and digital representation.Matthew Katz - 2008 - Minds and Machines 18 (3):403-408.
Analog and digital, continuous and discrete.Corey J. Maley - 2011 - Philosophical Studies 155 (1):117-131.
Digital publishing: tools and products. [REVIEW]Wilhelm Ott - 2008 - Poiesis and Praxis 5 (2):81-112.
Digitalization and global ethics.Zonghao Bao & Kun Xiang - 2006 - Ethics and Information Technology 8 (1):41-47.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-02

Downloads
64 (#252,940)

6 months
8 (#361,431)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

A Theory of Semiotics.Robert Scholes - 1977 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 35 (4):476-478.

Add more references