• Inclusive Design and Dissemination In Digital Scholarly Editing: Survey Questions

    Elli Bleeker, Wout Dillen (see profile) , Aodhán Kelly, Merisa Martinez, Anna-Maria Sichani
    Digital Humanists, Textual Scholarship
    Scholarly electronic publishing, Editing, Criticism, Textual, Barrier-free design, Open access publishing
    Item Type:
    Data set
    Web Accessibility, knowledge dissemination, inclusion, Digital Scholarly Edition, Digital scholarly editing, Textual scholarship, Accessibility, Open-access publishing
    Permanent URL:
    In 2017, the authors designed a survey titled Inclusive Design and Dissemination in Digital Scholarly Editions. The survey was designed and hosted using SurveyMonkey (https://www.surveymonkey.com) and was open from 1 July to 31 November 2017. The survey received 219 responses, 109 of which completed every required question in the survey – resulting in a completion rate of 49,7%. At the 2017 ADHO conference in Montreal (Canada), the authors participated in a panel discussion on the subject, where they discussed some preliminary survey results (Sichani et al. 2017). A more detailed treatment of the complete survey results will be published Variants 14 (https://journals.openedition.org/variants/), the journal of the ESTS (Martinez et al. forthcoming). In view of this publication, the authors have deposited the survey results as data sets here. These include a CSV file of the survey’s data (scrubbed of respondents’ personal information), and the current PDF with graphical representations of the survey’s statistics. Both files present the survey’s raw, uncorrected (albeit redacted) data, as recorded and automatically analyzed by SurveyMonkey, including response rates per question and diagrams. As the uncorrected survey results, some of the data offered in these files may differ slightly from those presented in the forthcoming Variants article. For their qualitative analysis of the survey’s data in that publication, the authors corrected the data (e.g. excluding invalid answers, or reclassifying incorrectly classified answers), and interpreted them (e.g. creating categories for similar responses). Such interventions were justified in the relevant sections of the Variants article. Rather than depositing the corrected version of the survey’s results in the Humanities Commons repository, the authors decided to publish the uncorrected results instead, so as not to force their interpretation of the survey’s data on future research.
    Last Updated:
    4 years ago
    Share this:


    Item Name: pdf 2019_bleekerdillen-kellymartinezsichani_inclusivedesignanddisseminationindigitalscholarlyediting_surveyquestions.pdf
      Download View in browser
    Activity: Downloads: 77