“That looks like something I would do”: understanding humanities researchers’ digital hoarding behaviors in digital scholarshipMingxia Jia, Yuxiang Chris Zhao, Xiaoyu Zhang, Dawei WuJournal of Documentation, Vol. 81, No. 1, pp.24-55
In the era of digital intelligence, individuals are increasingly interacting with digital information in their daily lives and work, and a growing phenomenon known as digital hoarding is becoming more prevalent. Prior research suggests that humanities researchers have unique and longstanding information interaction and management practices in the digital scholarship context. This study therefore aims to understand how digital hoarding manifests in humanities researchers’ behavior, identify the influencing factors associated with it, and explore how they perceive and respond to digital hoarding behavior.
Qualitative research methods enable us to acquire a rich insight and nuanced understanding of digital hoarding practices. In this study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 humanities researchers who were pre-screened for a high propensity for digital hoarding. Thematic analyses were then used to analyze the interview data.
Three main characteristics of digital hoarding were identified. Further, the research paradigm, digital affordance, and personality traits and habits, collectively influencing the emergence and development of digital hoarding behaviors, were examined. The subtle influence of traditional Chinese culture was encountered. Interestingly, this study found that humanists perceive digital hoarding as a positive expectation (associated with inspiration, aesthetic pursuit, and uncertainty avoidance). Meanwhile, humanists’ problematic perception of this behavior is more widely observed — they experience what we conceptualize as an “expectation-perception” gap. Three specific information behaviors related to avoidance were identified as aggravating factors for digital hoarding.
The findings deepen the understanding of digital hoarding behaviors and personal information management among humanities researchers within the LIS field, and implications for humanities researchers, digital scholarship service providers, and digital tool developers are discussed.
