CI Studies Bibliography – Scientific Research Infrastructure

By tags: Affordance theory | Animals | Architecture | Art and aesthetics | Borders and migration | Business & industry | City and urban studies | Cloud | Cyberinfrastructure for research | Data infrastructures | Development | Digital humanities | Disability & accessibility | Disaster | EconomicsEnergy | Environment | Ethnographical approaches | Feminist | Fiction | Higher educationInformation & IT | Institutional | Internet (& ICT) | Labor & work | Landscape | Large technical systems | Library, museum, and archive | LogisticsMaterials | Media infrastructures | MilitaryMinimal computing | Mining, oil, & extractionMission critical | Object & thing studiesOrganizationalPhotography | Platform studies | Poetry | PolicyPostcolonial & colonial | Race and ethnicity | Repair & care | Scientific research infrastructure | Security | Small technical systemsSocial justice | STS (science technology studies) | TelecommunicationsTransportationWaste, garbage, sewage | Water
ToC rev. 29 May 2022

Pawlicka-Deger, Urszula. “Infrastructuring Digital Humanities: On Relational Infrastructure and Global Reconfiguration of the Field.” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 37, no. 2 (2021): 534–50. Cite
Pawlicka-Deger, Urszula. “Place Matters: Thinking about Spaces for Humanities Practices.” Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 20, no. 3 (2021): 320–38. Cite
Edmond, Jennifer, and Open Book Publishers, eds. Digital Technology and the Practices of Humanities Research. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Open Book Publishers, 2020. Cite
Pawlicka-Deger, Urszula. “A Laboratory as the Infrastructure of Engagement: Epistemological Reflections.” Open Library of Humanities 6, no. 2 (2020). Cite
Malazita, James W., Ezra J. Teboul, and Hined Rafeh. “Digital Humanities as Epistemic Cultures: How DH Labs Make Knowledge, Objects, and Subjects.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 14, no. 3 (2020). Cite
Pawlicka-Deger, Urszula. “The Laboratory Turn: Exploring Discourses, Landscapes, and Models of Humanities Labs.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 14, no. 3 (2020). Cite
Chan, Leslie. “Whose Open Science? And Why Infrastructure Matters.” Presented at the OpenCon Cascadia, Portland, 2019. Cite
Borgman, Christine L. Big Data, Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in the Networked World. MIT Press, 2015. Cite
Anderson, Sheila, and Tobias Blanke. “Taking the Long View: From e-Science Humanities to Humanities Digital Ecosystems.” Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung 37, no. 3 (141) (2012): 147–64. Cite
Graham, Mark, Scott A. Hale, and Monica Stephens. Geographies of the World’s Knowledge. London: Convoco! Edition, 2011. Cite
Anderson, Sheila, Tobias Blanke, and Stuart Dunn. “Methodological Commons: Arts and Humanities e-Science Fundamentals.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 368, no. 1925 (2010): 3779–96. Cite
Bowker, Geoffrey C., Karen Baker, Florence Miller, and David Ribes. “Toward Information Infrastructure Studies: Ways of Knowing in a Networked Environment.” In In Hunsinger et al. (Eds) International Handbook of Internet Research, 97–117. Springer, 2010. Cite
Edwards, Paul N., Steven J. Jackson, Geoffrey C. Bowker, and Cory P. Knobel. “Understanding Infrastructure: Dynamics, Tensions, and Design: Report of a Workshop on ‘History & Theory of Infrastructure: Lessons for New Scientific Cyberinfrastructures.’” University of Michigan Library, Deep Blue Repository, June 2007. Cite
Williams, Rosalind. “All That Is Solid Melts into Air’: Historians of Technology in the Information Revolution.” Technology and Culture 41, no. 4 (n.d.): 641–88. Cite