DHBenelux 2020 submissions

This week the seventh DHBenelux conference will take place. This time it will technically not be in Belgium, the Netherlands, or Luxembourg, but online. It was scheduled to take place in Leiden, the Netherlands, but due to Covid-19 Leiden will host the conference in 2021 instead. In this post, I analyse the submissions, acceptances, authors, and abstracts. For the previous years see my other posts in the “dhbenelux” category.

Continue reading “DHBenelux 2020 submissions”

Paper publication: Boundary Practices of Digital Humanities Collaborations

I am really happy that today the first paper based on my PhD research was published in the DH Benelux Journal. This new journal will serve to turn select conference abstracts from the annual conference into full papers. The first volume follows last year’s conference theme Integrating Digital Humanities. My paper critically explores the integration of the humanities and the computational domains, and concludes that the digital humanities may be more heavily oriented towards the humanities than a balancing of the digital and the humanities, limiting the ability of DH to emerge as a ‘third space’ in-between the humanities and computational domains. You can find the volume here, including my paper in HTML and in PDF.

Continue reading “Paper publication: Boundary Practices of Digital Humanities Collaborations”

DHBenelux 2018 submissions

This week will be the fifth instalment of the DHBenelux conference. Last year, the conference was held in Utrecht, and this year the conference stays close, moving to Amsterdam. I forgot to apply to be a reviewer (oops!), but the organisation was kind enough to provide me all the data of submissions for my analysis. In this post I will analyse the submissions, authors, and keywords from abstracts. For the previous years see my analyses of 20172016, and 2014-2016.

Continue reading “DHBenelux 2018 submissions”


DHBenelux 2017 – Infrastructures everywhere

Last week I was at the fourth DHBenelux conference held in Utrecht, the Netherlands. With over 200 participants attending two days of almost a 100 presentations, demos, and posters, this conference has become an interesting snapshot of the state of digital humanities in the Benelux. On the C2DH blog I reviewed the conference as framing debates within the approach of infrastructures. Read the full post here.


DHBenelux 2017 submissions

This year marks the fourth annual DHBenelux conference, which cycles through the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. This fourth instalment will be held in Utrecht (the Netherlands), and last week the review process was finished and authors were contacted about the decisions. This provides me the opportunity to write down an analysis of submissions to DHBenelux 2017. For previous years, see blogposts related to 2016 and the period 2014-2016. Below I will look at the submissions, authors, and keywords.

Continue reading “DHBenelux 2017 submissions”


DHBenelux 2016 submissions

This year marks the third annual DHBenelux conference, which cycles through the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. The third instalment will be held in Luxembourg, and as part of the local organisation and programme committee I get the chance this year to look at all the submissions. Inspired by Scott Weingart’s series on submissions to the annual ADHO DH conference (see his 2016 post on submissions here), I present you a first analysis of the submissions to DHBenelux 2016. Later posts will bring comparisons with the 2014 and 2015 editions, as well as a description of the steps taken to get to the figures below.

Continue reading “DHBenelux 2016 submissions”


No tool can do all

DHBenelux 2015 (8-9 June 2015, Antwerp, Belgium), the second edition after 2014, demonstrated a nice growth from last year with 150 attendees, 62 presentations, plus seven more demos-only and three posters-only (some presentations were also presented as demo or poster): an acceptance rate of 90%.

This blogpost is not intended to provide a complete overview of the conference, but rather to show the discussion from my perspective. The main theme I will follow is that no tool can do all research for you.

Continue reading “No tool can do all”