Digital Humanity Paradigm 2.0

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Digital Humanity Paradigm 2.0

Valentyna, Voronkova, Yuriy, Kaganov, Vitalina, Nikitenko, Gennadiy Vasyl'chuk

Abstract

paradigm digital humanitie

The paradigm relevance analysis of digital humanitarianism 2.0 today arouses great interest from all sides, so today, in combination with computer technologies, an original innovative paradigm, aptly named Digital Humanitie, appeared. Central to this combination is the connection between the humanities and digital or computer technologies. The computer technology use in their research is nothing new for researchers in the humanities or social sciences. Today, the changes brought about in the teaching of the humanities by new communication technologies, including web-based media forms, technology, digital archives, social networks, mixed realities, and cloud computing, are so vast in scale and reach that they can be measured by comparison with the print revolution. The purpose of the research is a systematic philosophical problematic analysis of scientific knowledge in digital humanities 2.0 paradigm. The aim is to move beyond these critical positions and understand the nature of the relationship between the humanities and the digital. The research is based on the hypothesis that digital humanities are approaches to knowledge that build theories, which are aimed at explaining and understanding the complexity of certain semiotic objects, which help to implement “digital” processing of semiotic objects. We hope to show that HNs unfold in a context between the scientific approach of pragmatic influence and the scientific approach of hermeneutic influence related to the interpretation required by the semiotic objects of scientific research. Research objectives: 1) to provide a conceptual analysis of “humanism” in an evolution context of humanitarian knowledge; 2) reveal the humanitarian scientific concept and its transdisciplinary nature; 3) characterize the scientific humanity concept: from theory to practice; 4) to investigate the applied role of digital humanitarianism in the new scientific paradigm context. - to form a digital city model as a creative sustainable development factor. The basis of the research is the axiological method as a learning value method of digital humanitarianism, the method systemic analysis and synthesis, aimed at uniting the disparate system of knowledge into a single coherent scientific system - theory, Agile methodology method, which analyze principles and approaches system, based on which adaptive human adaptation mechanisms to the “knowledge society”, digital society, which uses the entire digital humanitarianism system to learn objective reality. The richness and ambiguity of the terms “humanities” and “humanism” make their use both difficult and inevitable. The applied digital humanitarianism value is that it has an applied value, and is often used as a humanitarian mission to help populations that are in a digital inequality or live situation in hard-to-reach regions of the planet, as needing humanitarian assistance in the humanitarian mission context.

Keywords: scientific paradigm, digital humanitarianism, humanism, communication technologies, humanitarian practice, humanitarian aid.

Анотація

ВОРОНКОВА, ВАЛЕНТИНА - доктор філософських наук, професор,

Академік академії наук вищої освіти України, завідувач кафедри менеджменту організацій та управління проектами, Інженерний навчально-науковий інститут ім. Ю. М. Потебні Запорізького національного університету (Запоріжжя, Україна)

КАГАНОВ, ЮРІЙ - доктор історичних наук, професор, проректор з науково-педагогічної роботи (Запоріжжя, Україна)

НІКІТЕНКО, ВІТАЛІНА - доктор філософських наук, доцент, професор кафедри менеджменту організацій та управління проектами,

Інженерний навчально-науковий інститут ім. Ю. М. Потебні Запорізького національного університету (Запоріжжя, Україна)

ВАСИЛЬЧУК, ГЕННАДІЙ - доктор історичних наук, професор,

проректор з наукової роботи, Запорізький національний університет (Запоріжжя, Україна)

ПАРАДИГМА ЦИФРОВОЇ ГУМАНІТАРИСТИКИ 2.0

Актуальність аналізу парадигми цифрової гуманітаристики 2.0 викликає сьогодні велику зацікавленість з усіх сторін, так сьогодні з'явилася у поєднанні з комп'ютерними технологіями оригінальна інноваційна парадигма, яку влучно назвали Digital Humanitie. Центральним пунктом цього поєднання є зв'язок між гуманітарними науками та цифровими або комп'ютерними технологіями. Використання комп'ютерних технологій у своїх дослідженнях для дослідників гуманітарних чи соціальних наук не є чимось новим. Сьогодні зміни, викликані при викладанні гуманітарних наук новими комунікаційними технологіями, включаючи веб-форми медіа, технології, цифрові архіви, соціальні мережі, змішані реалії, хмарні обчислення, масштаби та охоплення яких настільки величезні, що їх можна виміряти, порівнюючи із друкованою революцією. Метою дослідження є системний аналіз філософських проблем наукового пізнання парадигми цифрових гуманітарних наук 2.0. Мета полягає в тому, щоб вийти з цих критичних позицій та зрозуміти природу відносин між гуманітарними науками та цифровими. В основі дослідження гіпотеза про те, що цифрові гуманітарні науки - це підходи до знань, які будують теорії, які спрямовані на пояснення та розуміння складності певних семіотичних об'єктів, що допомагають здійснити «цифрову» обробку семіотичних об'єктів. Ми сподіваємось показати, що HNs розгортаються у контексті між науковим підходом прагматичного впливу та науковим підходом герменевтичного впливу, пов'язаного з інтерпретацією, якої вимагає семіотичність об'єктів наукового дослідження. Завдання дослідження: 1) дати аналіз поняття «гуманізм» у контексті еволюції гуманітарного знання; 2) розкрити концепцію гуманітарних наук та її трансдисциплінарний характер; 3) охарактеризувати наукову концепцію гуманітарних наук: від теорії до практики; 4) дослідити прикладну роль цифрової гуманітаристики у контексті нової наукової парадигми. - сформувати модель цифрового міста як чинник креативного сталого розвитку. В основі дослідження - аксіологічний метод як метод пізнання цінностей цифрової гуманітаристики, метод системного аналізу і синтезу, націлений об'єднати розрізнену систему знань до єдиної цілісної наукової системи - теорії, метод Agile-методології, що аналізує систему принципів та підходів, в основі яких адаптаційні механізми пристосування людини до «суспільства знань», цифрового суспільства, яка використовує всю систему цифрової гуманітаристики для пізнання об'єктивної дійсності. Багатство та багатозначність понять «гуманітарні науки» та «гуманізм» роблять їх використання водночас складним і неминучим. Прикладне значення цифрової гуманітаристики у тому, що має прикладне значення, і часто використовується як гуманітарна місія допомозі населення, яке знаходиться у ситуації цифрової нерівності або живе у важкодступних регіонах планети, як потребують гуманітарної допомоги у контексті гуманітарних місій.

Ключові слова: наукова парадигма, цифрова гуманітаристика, гуманізм, комунікаційні технології, гуманітарна практика, гуманітарна допомога.

Statement of the problem in a general form and its connection with important scientific or practical tasks. In the 2000s, in conjunction with computer technology, an original and innovative paradigm emerged, aptly named Digital Humanities. In the French-speaking world, the English expression was translated by the expression “Digital humanities” (HN). Despite significant differences in semantics and related practices, the term was nevertheless adopted. By digital humanities 2.0, we mean philosophical studies that use information technology as a central part of the methodology for creating and/or processing data. Central to these definitions is the relationship between the humanities and digital or computing technologies. At first glance, these interactions and relationships seem unproblematic. The computer technology use in their research is nothing new for researchers in the humanities or social sciences. Today, the changes brought about in the teaching of the humanities by new communication technologies, including web-based media forms, technology, digital archives, social networks, mixed realities, and cloud computing, are so vast in scale and reach that they can be measured by comparison with the print revolution. The difference is that today's changes are happening on a very fast time scale that will happen over months and years, not decades and centuries (Oksana Buhaychuk, Vitalina Nikitenko, et al., 2022).

HN should be understood not as a separate branch, but as a standard scientific communication form, scientific ecologic reconceptualization, the evolution of a new scientific activity understanding as a constant exchange of ideas. This new scholar communication paradigm involves bridging the traditional divide between teaching, science, and service. Recognition and development of the common intellectual past nature is the way to form humanistic ontology, existence, axiology, epistemology. Thanks to the rapid intellectual tool development, disciplinary practices and institutional digital humanitarian structures began to respond to the pressure and demands of massive social, cultural, economic and educational transformations taking place in the globalized space.

New media and digital technologies are cultivating new opportunities to transform research, teaching and learning in the humanities and social sciences (SHS). Definitions of digital humanities vary, exploring the universe in which knowledge is produced and disseminated, and print is absorbed by new multimedia configurations that have profoundly altered the production and dissemination of knowledge in the arts, literature, and social sciences.

Highlighting previously unsolved parts of the general problem, to which the specified article is devoted to. Digital Humanities 2.0 includes a wide range of creative practices, using, applying, interpreting and researching information technologies.

These practices affect all areas of the humanities within the university and change the ways in which scholarly humanities knowledge is shared among scholars, researchers, and communities outside the university. UCLA's CDH (Center for Digital Humanities) specializes in 3D reconstruction of historical or archaeological sites.

He is also the author ofthe first “Manifestol” for HN. UCLA Digital Humanities Manifesto 2.0 is a call for humanists to engage more deeply in the creation, dissemination, access, and ownership of digital culture. Like all manifestos, especially those originating in the European avant-garde in the early 20th century, the Digital Humanities Manifesto cultivates a digital thinking paradigm. It is a call to action aimed at achieving debate and transformation.

HN is also a movement, as evidenced by the recent publication of the “Digital Humanities Manifesto”, which emphasizes that it is a borderless, multidisciplinary community, with the aim of advancing knowledge, enhancing the quality of research, enriching knowledge and collective heritage, integrating digital culture into the general culture of the 21st century century. In terms of guiding principles, the manifesto articulates the desire for free access to metadata, free dissemination of research methods and results.

The first manifesto 1, as defined by the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus, is a written statement of the beliefs, goals, and policies of an organization, especially a political party. European Digital Humanities calls for the of digital humanity learning integration within SHS courses, specialist training and special diplomas, the formation of special skills in career development and the best practices dissemination.

Analysis of the latest research and publications, from which the solution of this problem was initiated and on which the authors rely

The term “digital humanities” refers to research practices that mobilize digital technologies in a structural way to shape epistemological models, according to Pierre Mounier. Some authors, such as Alan Liu, raise the disciplinary significant question, the hypothesis of which is that the understanding of HNs can reach the explaining level that the main issue is the disciplinary identity humanities themselves. Other authors speak about an approach, a profession, a discipline, even a transdisciplinary or “post-disciplinary” paradigm, given that there are courses or degrees specific to digital humanities, autonomous centers that bring together different disciplines and different skills. This brings us back to a fundamental question: is “digital humanities” a field or a discipline in the traditional sense? The Digital Humanitarian Manifesto 2.0 is described as a series of convergent practices. The HN community includes people from different disciplines, methodological approaches, professional roles and theoretical preferences (Voronkova Valentina, Nikitenko Vitalina, Metelenko Natalya et al., 2022a).

Aurelien Berra addresses a more fundamental question: are HNs based on a particular relationship between practice and theory? He offers to reflect on the element description of epistemological culture: “If the role of epistemology is to say how we know what we know, imagining ways the subject of knowledge and its relationship with its objects change depending on knowledge eras and spheres. Then we can abandon the theoretical unification programs of the scientific field and observe the pluralism methods even within disciplines. However, this is not entirely satisfactory in the face of the complex phenomenon marked by the digital humanities, which in turn are seen as a practice community, a space for dialogue, and a laboratory theories adapted to our times. In fact, in order to determine their specificity, it is necessary to give them legitimacy, outside the rhetoric of the digital revolution in the new epistemologic context. According to Milad Douyhi in the book “The Great Digital Conversion”, the digital technological impact on society is happening today, which requires the formation of digital literacy skills. As research becomes increasingly digital and interdisciplinary, challenges arise in organizing, developing, and deploying the technologies required to work at the big data scale. The search for solutions requires cooperation between disciplines - humanitarian, social and technological.

The epistemological status of HN is addressed by Matthew Gold in his book, co-authored with his American colleagues, Debates in the Digital Humanities (Gold, 2012). Diminescu, Viviorca, and Pierre Mounier add two important aspects about the digital challenge. Mounier turned to scientific communication and research management models in the transformation context. According to him, recent events demand questioning the place that scientific models occupy today, the representation they create about social life (Voronkova, Nikitenko, et al., 2022b).

Furthermore, it seems important to trace the historical and geographical genealogy of these new research practices in order to identify the changes taking place. Magis and Granjon consider a critical approach to the digital turn around production, scientific property and technological materiality. Aurelien Berra highlights and explains the origin, role and significance of HN and its development; Dacos & Mounier examine the state of research in an international context. According to Oralien Berra, HNs require taking into account the “digital mediation of knowledge” and suggest looking at scientific activity from the perspective of the scientific and technological history. Digital Humanities aims to develop and support research across all SHS disciplines with the common goal of improving a sustainable, coordinated network infrastructure and community, connecting and accelerating research in the broad field of HN; improve the digital literacy of researchers in the field of humanitarian sciences, apply more effective research methodologies and raise new research questions; to reveal the research potential of digital sources through their interaction and creation of virtual research environments; to create an interdisciplinary, sustainable HN network that works within a larger European network; participate in national and international research projects.

Universities in EU countries receive large funding for the development of digital humanities. Yes, French universities have received funding from Google in their staff support program; Aedilis - updating the portal for online publications; Telma is an online platform for the publication of sources developed by the Institute for the Research and History of Texts (IRHT) and aims to create a unique space for the main digital multimedia documents used in the humanities and social sciences. In 2009, TGE Adonis launched the unified access platform ISIDORE5, which allows the metadata collection and enriches the French research data in the SHS. This initiative is in line with their more global goal of bringing together and creating interoperable access to scientific data produced by SHS. Under the European H2020 Humanities project, it brings together European research and innovation programs such as the Framework Program for Research and Technological Development (P. C. R. D. T.), Euratom (or CEEA, European Atomic Energy Community), innovation and competitiveness programs funded by the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) (Nikitenko, 2020).

The purpose and formation of the goals in the article (task statement). The purpose of the research is a systematic analysis of the philosophical problems of scientific knowledge in the digital humanity paradigm 2.0. The aim is to move beyond these critical positions and understand the nature of the relationship between the humanities and the digital. The research is based on the hypothesis that digital humanities are approaches to knowledge that build theories, which are aimed at explaining and understanding the complexity of certain semiotic objects, which help to implement “digital” processing of semiotic objects. We hope to show that HNs unfold in a context between the scientific approach of pragmatic influence and the scientific approach of hermeneutic influence related to the interpretation required by the semiotics objects of scientific research (Voronkova, Kaganov, & Metelenko, 2022c).

Objectives of the research

- give a conceptual analysis of “humanism” in an evolution context of humanitarian knowledge;

- to reveal the humanitarian scientific concept and its transdisciplinary nature;

- characterize the scientific humanitarian scientific concept: from theory to practice;

- to investigate the applied role of digital humanitarianism in the context of the new scientific paradigm.

Research methodology. The growing importance of the digital revolution has had a profound impact on the humanities, changed the nature and methods of building knowledge, introduced new analystic methods, particularly empirical and quantitative, and transformed didactic processes and research practices. The digital technological impact on the interpretation of digital data has been the subject of many studies and publications. Among the scientific debates is the harmonization research issue in the humanities and social sciences related to the digital age. Digital documentation plays an increasingly important role in researchers' private and cultural information practices. Statistical methods play an important role. Among those surveyed, less than 20 % of respondents refer to paper documents more than to digital ones, almost 40 % believe that they refer to more than 75 % of digital documents. Among them, almost 78 % professionally use the Internet for more than 2 hours a day (and 9 % for more than 6 hours). According to Researchers of Tomorrow: The Research Behavior of Generation Y PhD students, which involved 17.000 PhD students from 70 UK universities, there are specific challenges that `Generation Y' PhD students face. The basis of the research is the axiological method as learning value method of digital humanitarianism, systemic analys and synthes method, aimed at uniting the disparate system of knowledge into a single coherent scientific system - theory, the Agile methodological method, which analyzes system principles and approaches, based on which adaptive human adaptation mechanisms to the “knowledge society”, digital society, which uses the entire digital humanitarian system to learn objective reality. (Oleksenko, R., Bilohur, S., Rybalchenko, et al., 2021).

Presentation of the main material in the research with the obtained scientific results justification.

1. The “humanism” concept in an evolution context of humanitarian knowledge.

The digital turn has not only changed the nature and knowledge construction methods, but also introduced new analysis and transformed research practice methods. Related to the SHS and computer science intersection, HNs refer to research practices that are structurally enabled by digital technologies, epistemological models, and ways of disseminating scientific results that benefit from networked communication. The relationship between digital culture, science and digital publishing and all participants is very complex. So far, we cannot give clear answers about who influences whom and how these influences are directed. Only interdisciplinary research can make these complex relationships more transparent. HNs should be distinguished from a whole experimentation area that crosses SHS and computing (literary/linguistic/humanities computing). Born in digitization part and the resource availability, this movement aims to integrate digital culture and technology into SHS research practice (Rowan, David, 2021).

New information and communication technologies (ICT) are at the heart of the subject through their functioning, use and evolution. The research asked: how to fulfill traditional SHS missions in a landscape largely disrupted by digital technologies. The nature and research goals HNs are seen as a practice community, a space for dialogue, and a laboratory of theories adapted to the contemporary research environment. The research aims to better understand the nature, structure and dynamics of the field under study. The term “humanism” appeared in the French language only in the 19th century. In other words, it took critics three centuries to theorize the movement of sixteenth-century thinkers. The richness and ambiguity of the terms “humanities” and “humanism” make their use both difficult and inevitable.

In order to measure the HN problem, it is necessary to understand the essence of these concepts. From the mid-15th to the 16th century, Europe was swept by an intellectual, scientific, and artistic movement based on the almost universal hope that man could improve himself. It is called humanism, a movement of ideas that “put the human person and his dignity above all values.” According to Margolin, humanism first went beyond the cultural Renaissance history to find its use or its function in moral or political philosophy.

The word itself and its various versions in different languages - humanism, humanismus, umanesimo, etc. are, however, post-Renaissance. We can find a related Italian original word that has appeared since the end of the Middle Ages: umanista. This word denoted a professor of grammar and rhetoric, as artista was a professor of liberal arts and jurista a professor of law. The word humanist, which appeared in Western Europe in the 16th century, denotes scientists who were no longer satisfied with Latin knowledge, the language common to all the Renaissance scientists. Instead, they study other prestigious antiquity languages, such as Greek, Hebrew, etc. A humanist would be qualified as a maestro di umanita, one who teaches studia humanitatis or litterae humaniores (also called bonae litterae, the Latin phrase from which the French expression belleslettres derives). These “studies of humanity” make it possible to acquire humanitas, that is, the knowledge necessary to acquire the intellectual and moral qualities that form a human personality governed by reason and will, capable of mastering or regulating the passions or violent movements of nature (Erasme, 1992). Erasmus expresses this idea of man or humanity, which is central to the concept of humanism, although the latter term was not used by Erasmus. In the universities of the 16th century. Studia humanitatis were taught at the Faculty of Arts; Studia divinitatis, for its part, belong to the Faculty of Theology. The expression studia humanitatis or litterae humaniores meant “the letters of mankind.” More specifically, humanity “is inseparable from the dignity of a person who is able to go beyond the limits of the definitions of his nature” (Teslenko, & Zadoia, 2021).

In the book “An Anthology of European Renaissance Humanists” (2007), the eminent Renaissance scholar Jean-Claude Margolin discusses the concept of Europe and, above all, the concept of the Renaissance and humanism. The author demonstrates how difficult it is to define this complex phenomenon, which is humanism. He gives, among others, a “restrictive definition” of two Renaissance specialists, the philosopher Paul-Oscar Christeller and the Latinist Jacques Chaumar. “A humanist would be, according to them, only a “maestro di humanita”, a master, an author of manuals, dictionaries, critical editions of ancient authors, translations from Greek into Latin, responsible for teaching and transmitting the “humanities”, i. e. “the letters of humanity”, those that make you more human (humaniores)» (Margolin, 2007, p. 21). Although one of the strongest currents of Renaissance humanism is what is known as Christian humanism, humanism does not necessarily involve voluntary submission to religious belief or religious question. According to Margolin (Erasme, 1992), it moves from the “letters of humanity” to the philosophy of man. This movement of thought was formed around the philosophy of a kind, educated and open person. Different European countries were able to develop different types of humanism (Teslenko, 2021).

In The Age of Humanism: Renaissance Europe (1963), Andre Chastel and Robert Klein pointed out that there were different types of humanism from one end of Europe to the other. Italian humanism, associated with the development of literary academies, with political imperatives, adhered to the “return to antiquity” in order to adapt to modern civilization. Marsile Ficino, founder of the Platonic Academy in Florence and one of the most influential humanist philosophers, attempted to reconcile religious speculation and Platonic metaphysics (Margolin, 2007). France developed a current of conservative humanism, acquiring a reformist character (Erasme, 1992). In England, humanism had a decisive influence on English literature and the Elizabethan theater.

The humanism of the Netherlands was largely open to modern life and its demands, worried about the morality of the individual and the community, and devoted itself to great educational initiatives. The humanism of the 14th-16th centuries, which was a cultural revolution on a European scale, was reformism rather than progressivism. In the study of Renaissance humanism “From Humanism to the Humanities” (1986), E. Grafton and L. Jardine were concerned with the social function of education, describing the humanities as a curriculum for the formation of a social elite that would be able to fulfill a predetermined social role. The authors present Renaissance education as cultivating “safe conformity” and “obedience to authority” (Rybalchenko, N., Bilohur, et al., 2021).

Grafton and Jardine focus on teaching practice and provide case studies that are used to argue for a shift from “humanism to the humanities,” from morality to grammar, from charismatic teaching to institutional routinization. Their work can be considered as a study of European humanists of the early modern period to solve the problem that almost all representatives of the humanities face: the correspondence of humanities education to the belief in humanism and devotion to it as the necessary foundation of a civilized society.

Through case studies examining major humanist teachers and teaching materials, Grafton and Jardine argue that humanist education triumphed not because it was more creative than medieval education, nor because it better suited the practical needs of 15 th century Europe. On the contrary, it was more in line with the emerging European society. In short, early modern European humanists believed that they had in mind the formation of future humans. With their works, the humanists of the Renaissance hoped to lead people to thinking based on openness. These are what we call studia humanitatis or “letters of humanity” (Kyrychenko, 2019).

2. The humanitarian scientific concept and its transdisciplinary nature.

The transdisciplinary character of the humanities has given rise to problems of its definition. These difficulties arise primarily from confusion about the term “humanities”. In fact, the French term “Humanites” does not correspond in any way to the English concept of Humanities. The humanities in the French sense are not based on the division between the human sciences and the exact sciences. The history of the concept of the humanities allows us to better understand current problems and to better conceptualize the future of the humanities. Since the 19th century, the humanities have been defined as disciplines that cultivate the expression of the human mind (“sciences of the mind”). Thus, the study of music, literature, language, and visual arts belong to the humanities, unlike the study of nature, which belongs to the natural sciences, and the study of people in their social context belongs to the social sciences. These definitions are not acceptable. A more pragmatic position may be more appropriate: the humanities are disciplines taught in various humanities departments, usually including linguistics, musicology, philology, literary theory, historical disciplines (including art history), and newer disciplines such as film and media studies. In some countries, theology and philosophy are taught in humanities faculties, while in others they constitute a separate faculty. Although many histories of certain humanistic disciplines (such as linguistics or literary theory) have been written over the past two centuries, from a historiographical point of view, there is no history of the humanities. According to Bod et al. (2010), connections between the methods and principles of literary theory and art studies, or between musicology and linguistics, are rare, perhaps because of the notorious fragmentation of the humanities over the past century. Some authors suggest that the formation of the humanitarian discipline has its roots long before the development of Geisteswissenschaften in the 19th century (Voronkova, Nikitenko, & Vasyl'chuk, 2022d).

Digital humanities encompasses a set of research practices at the intersection of digital technologies and various humanities disciplines. Humanities is a traditional term that denotes part of an additional set of so-called natural sciences, and in particular, sciences related to culture, such as sociology, cultural anthropology, language sciences, law, artistic practices (music, theater, painting, dances), literature and even journalism. If the meaning is a little more precise, the humanities would include several humanities disciplines, for example, sociology, philosophy, media communications. In French, Italian and Spanish contexts, the humanities tend to refer more to the intellectual tradition and humanistic ethics of the Erasmus movement than to the university disciplinary field. But when this tradition is expressed in semiotic forms, studies are interested in artefacts related to art, media, even science and social policy (Altrade, Dagogo, 2021).

However, we increasingly accept the overlap of the two extensions of these terms “Humanities”, especially if we add the qualifiers “digital”, and in some cases we will also include “digital studies”, information and communication systems (SIC) using the digital toolkit of knowledge. For the purposes of our analysis, we will use the neologism digital humanities to denote a field of study that, despite its many variants, combines two radically different entities. On the one hand, we find disciplines of the humanities and social sciences, which are called the humanities, and are interested in complex objects of semiotic types - languages and communications, culture, social representations, etc. On the other hand, there are so-called digital information processing technologies. Despite the resistance caused by these two classifiers, humanitarian and digital, it must be clearly understood that this is a research program in computational semiotics.

Indeed, the humanities (HN) manipulate symbols or semiotic representations, i. e., to use Peirce's classical vocabulary, signs that are carried out with the help of so-called digital technologies. These symbols are important and can be of different types: texts, sounds, images, behaviors, and will be processed by computers. It turns out that in a completely different dictionary and paradigm, artificial intelligence is defined in a similar way. As Newell and Marr define, computers are machines that manipulate symbols that have meaning and represent discourses about new disciplinary territories defined by digital knowledge (Punchenko, & Nikitenko, 2020).

Artificial intelligence scientists analyze computers as machines that manipulate symbols, but add that when used in artificial intelligence, these symbols have meaning. The most fundamental concept of a symbol includes what gives them the character of symbolism, which allows them to denote a certain entity. We call these concepts the designation of artificial intelligence projects. Symbols denote the essences and properties of realities that are of interest to various humanities, and the object composed of symbols refers to the object of humanities. However, this vision of HN faces two critical positions: on the one hand, the human or social sciences view the computer as a simple gadget tool that can only perform superficial processing due to the complexity of semiotics. On the other hand, there are those who do not believe in the possibility of computer processing of difficult-to-perceive objects.

3. Scientific humanitarian scientific concept: from theory to practice.

At first glance, it would seem difficult to place HNs within the scientific-type framework research, because from the very beginning it would be intuitive to place them within the hermeneutic scientific horizon. But this complexity depends on a specific science vision, where it is considered as a set of formal statements, the truth of which is confirmed by experiment, which constitutes an essential part of its ethical and explanatory value. This restrictive view of science has been challenged by several scholars and epistemologists, not because it is wrong, but because it is primarily a normative view rather than a pragmatic one. As such, it is often reductive and favors demonstration through experimentation. But, above all, it does not correspond to the actual practice of several modern sciences.

One of the important classical philosophic theses of science is that it, in its knowledge pursuit, is a discourse that builds a theory about its objects. But it is not so much this thesis of science that is problematic, but rather the discourse, as well as the understanding of the very theoretical concept that it contains. And actually, it is precisely from the nature of such a theory that a difference of opinion will arise. A disagreement that will lead to an understanding revision of the very scienctific nature. Let us briefly recall these various conceptions offered by the scientific philosophy concerning so-called scientific theory nature (Cherep, A., Voronkova, et al, 2020).

The first, called syntactic, comes from logical positivism. Here a theory is defined as a set of propositions formed by strict rules, some of which are either theorems or axioms or postulates: a scientific theory is thus considered a syntactically confirmed set of theoretical (axioms, propositions, theorems and laws) together with their interpretation through appropriate sentence. The second so-called semantic view takes this position, but specifies the nature of the statements. For Van Frassen, a theory should be a “mathematical structure.” In other words, a theory is not just a set of syntactically well-formed statements, but to which we add semantics, relating primarily to mathematical structures relevant to the field of study. These two visions of scientific theory have been widely criticized. Although these theoretical types are technically acceptable, they remain rare and not very applicable in most sciences. Analytical studies have shown that many scientific practices are not reducible to scientific theories, the main form of which is a set of formal statements, and that the explanation type that is provided is not only presented in a nomological and deductive form. And this is often what humanitarians/humanitarians mean when they oppose the scientific approach (Nikitenko, Voronkova, et al., 2022).

A third so-called pragmatic vision also appeared. She was influenced by the old American pragmatism tradition: James, Dewey, Sellars, Feyerabend, Kuhn, Hacking. etc. And we would say that this is related to European trends in the scienctific culture and the sociology of knowledge (Weber, Mannheim, Foucault, Lukman), Duhem, Theory is considered as a stabilization state of a complex cognitive process that is often repeated and that is expressed in various semiotic and discursive forms, formal or informal, or even iconic (graphics, plans, simulations, etc.). This cognitive process actually brings together different points of view, perspectives and research strategies, demonstrations, languages related to the phenomena being studied. Each one point of view, perspectives, interests, which are grouped in the pragmatic vision of the term “model”. Armatt and Dahan have shown that theory has adapted to the many changes that have occurred in the practice of all sciences, including the humanities, management sciences, and even engineering. In addition, the advent of the computer accelerated its implementation. Indeed, all sciences quickly encountered new research objects, different points of view, hybrid expertise, various formal languages. These changes immediately made this model more heuristic (Cherep, A., Voronkova, & Cherep, O., 2022a).

4. The applied digital humanitarianism role.

Patrick Mayer began to use the term “digital humanitarianism” promotes the digital humanitarianism development, which traces the humanitarianism origins firmly rooted in the analog era with significant changes due to the digital technological impact. ahead. Vincent Fevrier notes that social media can benefit the humanitarian sector by providing information that allows organizations to have better situational awareness for broad strategic and logistical planning, software and digital humanitarian platforms such as the Standby Task Force, OpenStreetMap and many others « were active during numerous disasters. In fact, social media role in digital humanitarian efforts is significant. Big data is a component of social relations in which digital humanitarians claim both the formal humanitarian sector and victims of crises who need the services and manpower that digital humanitarians can provide. In 2005, the question was raised whether it can be considered Wikipedia digital humanities (Oleksenko, R., Bortnykov, et al., 2021).

Humanitarianism in the digital age. In an almost digital era, humanitarians and human rights defenders are gradually adapting and integrating new technologies into their practice, even if it causes surprise and sometimes upsets certain facts. Everyone also wonders, and sometimes worries, about the challenges and dangers of these new technologies. Data protection is often mentioned, as well as the too ephemeral and short-term online activism effects, especially on social media. “Humanitarian” covers so many different things, views and goals, today private humanitarian organizations, states and international organizations work in this field with different and sometimes contradictory logics, but all are united by the same desire for public recognition. Thus, humanitarianism developed in the space left empty by the decline of traditional collective participation forms, drawing its strength from the need felt by the modern Western approach an idealized itself conception and translate it into visible action. The technological environment certainly plays a role in this phenomenon due to certain changes in the worldview that it has caused: electronic information ways, at least in appearance, the entire planet at our fingertips, bringing us home in real time. The transformation we are experiencing now is a radical transformation that is taking place, changing our personal behavior as well as our ways of living in society.

Digital humanitarianism is applied, humanitarian missions often take place in hard-to-reach areas, call in specialists who do not all speak the same language, face legal challenges... To anticipate these challenges and ensure that everything is done well at the local level, NGOs need project managers. Their role is to coordinate the logistical, administrative, financial, legal and personnel aspects of the mission. Positions that require both a practical mind and a good physical condition, as well as an analytical mind and knowledge of the issues and the geopolitical context, so as not to make mistakes and give the project every chance to succeed. The integration of new digital technologies into the humanitarian sector will meet critical information needs. These technologies raise very high expectations for the improvement of humanitarian work, particularly through the geographic information systems (GIS) use, machine learning and artificial intelligence techniques for big data. The applied digital humanitarianism role aims to: analyze the humanitarian workers expectations regarding the development of a geographical informative system and artificial intelligence methods in general; evaluate the information generated quality by system; and evaluate ethical standards of the system. The size, reach and impact of philanthropic organizations on development aid initiatives has never been greater. In the United States, the latest figures show that the sector's income, expenditure and assets continue to grow (Cherep, A., Voronkova, & Androsova, 2022b).

Foundations are experiencing a rapid development, a second golden age that can be compared to the period when these organizations received legal recognition. Despite the significant slowdown associated with the Great Recession, growth also characterizes the long-term trend in individual giving. Much more than an American phenomenon, efforts to document transnational trends in initiatives supported by philanthropy and civil society reveal a growing global pattern. Unlike what has happened in the development world, so-called “emergency” humanitarian aid provision has always been the specialty of actors from the North. ALIMA (Alliance for International Medical Action) claims an innovative medical humanitarian aid model aimed at “decentralizing operations and management to national actors: African doctors. Philanthropic capitalism questions new combinations between the profitability logic and the solidarity logic, between economic goals and social goals in the practices of action and international humanitarian aid cooperation. The aim is to understand, through critical reflection, both on the specific territories and objects basis, and on a conceptual level, whether these practices will develop by conquering the space within the “system” without actually transforming it, or whether they will shape the “system”, which includes a new transformation/adaptation stage (Schwab, Klaus, 2019).

Conclusions. The formation of a digital humanitarianism model is important for the scientific theory unification and practice using hybrid and diversified approaches. Models are seen as scientific explanation cornerstones. Scientific philosophers give this model notion an important epistemological role in all sciences, be they natural, social, or humanities. To explain a phenomenon means to find a model that corresponds to the basic theoretical structure, allows to derive complex phenomenological law analogs that are true for it. A good example is cognitive science. Indeed, due to the multiplicity and variety of tasks and even research objects, the use of models becomes an essential heuristic support of research. For example, these sciences study complex cognitive operations, which are classically characterized by semiotics or intentionality. Scientists are interested in many objects, such as: imagination, categorization, reasoning, emotions, decisions, etc., which contribute to the humanitarianism development. Some advocates of the digital humanities see in the humanities (DH) the opening of an original research program that radically renews the practice and humanity methods and social sciences. The use of the term digital humanities reflects a growing sense of the digital tool importance and resources for the humanities. The Oxford's Center University of Digital Humanities defines digital humanities as encompassing a set of research practices at the intersection of digital technologies and various humanity disciplines. One of the most profound digital transformations is the modification of the knowledge productive conditions. The goal is to reflect new knowledge dissemination practices in the cultural and scientific spheres, in modalities that allow the digital humanities to develop new social missions. DH manifestos affirm the relevance and necessity of the humanities in the globalization age, the pandemic, to reflect on new ways of using new knowledge, new positions and new paradigms that mark humanities research in digital technologcal age. New technological trends generate new knowledge circulations, giving researchers the opportunity to make the best data use obtained with new tools.

Список використаних джерел

paradigm digital humanitie

Oksana Buhaychuk, Vitalina Nikitenko, Valentyna Voronkova, Regina Andriukaitiene, Myroslava Malysh.Iteraction of the digital person and society in the context of the philosophy of politics. Cuestiones Pohticas, 2022. Volumen 40, Nfimero 72.

Voronkova Valentina, Nikitenko Vitalina, Metelenko Natalya. AGILE-economy as a factor in improving the digital society. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, Riga, Latvia : “Baltija Publishing”, 2022, Vol. 8. No. 2. P. 51-58.

Valentyna Voronkova, Vitalina Nikitenko, Vlada Bilohur, Roman Oleksenko, Taras Butchenko. The conceptualization of smart-philosophy as a post-modern project of non-linear pattern development of the XXI century. Cuestiones Pohticas, Volumen 40, Nfimero 73, 2022. Pp. 527-538.

Voronkova Valentyna, Kaganov Yuriy, & Metelenko Natalia. Conceptual basis of “the digital economy forsite model”: european experience. HUMANITIES STUDIES: Collection of Scientific Papers / ed. V Voronkova. Zaporizhzhia : Publishing house “Helvetica”, 2022. 10 (87). 9-19.

Voronkova Valentyna, Nikitenko Vitalina & Vasyl'chuk Gennadiy. European paradigm of socially responsible governance as conditions for exiting the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. Освітній дискурс: збірник наукових праць / гол ред. О. П. Кивлюк. Київ : ТОВ Науково-інформаційне агетство «Наука-технології-інформація». 2022. 39 (1-3). 26-36.

Kyrychenko Mykola. The impact of digital technologies on the development of human and social capital in the conditions of the digitalized society. Humanities Studies. 2019. 1 (78). Р. 108-129.

Nikitenko Vitalina. Evolution and further development of the real world in the conditions of technological changes in the context of socio-philosophical discourse. Humanities studies : зб. наук. пр. / Запоріз. нац. ун-т. Запоріжжя : ЗНУ 2020. 4 (81). 60-73.

Nikitenko Vitalina, Voronkova Valentyna, Oleksenko Roman. Andriukaitiene Regina, Liudmyla Holovii. Education as a factor of cognitive society development in the conditions of digital transformation. Revista de la Universidad del Zulia, Vol. 13, Nfim. 38, 2022. Pp. 680-695.

Олтрейд Дагого. Нове мислення. Від Айнштейна до штучного інтелекту: наука і технології, що змінили світ / пер. з англ. І. Возняка. Харків : Віват, 2021. 368 с.

Oleksenko R., Bortnykov Y., Bilohur S., Rybalchenko N., & Natalia M. Transformations of the organizational and legal mechanism of the Ukrainian state policy in tourism and hospitality. Cuestiones pofiticas. 2021. 39 (70). 768-783.

Oleksenko R., Bilohur S., Rybalchenko N., Verkhovod I., & Harbar H. The ecological component of agrotourism development under the COVID-19 pandemic. Cuestiones pohticas. 2021. 39 (69). 870-881.

Роуен Девід. Non-Bullshit Innovation. Радикальні ідеї від найпотужніших радикалів світу / пер з англ. Наталя Палій. Дніпро : «Баланс Бізнес Букс», 2021. 464 с.

Teslenko Tatyana & Zadoia Viacheslav. Breakthrough technologies as a factor of formation of information economy in the conditions of digitalization. Humanities studies: Collection of Scientific Papers. Zaporizhzhrn : Zaporizhzhia National University, 2021. 7 (84). P. 48-57.

Тесленко Т В. Науково-епістемологічна еволюція понятійно-категоріального апарату філософії економіки як нового філософського знання. Humanities studies: Collection of Scientific Papers. Zaporizhzhrn : Zaporizhzhia National University, 2021. 4 (81). P. 126-144.

Rybalchenko N., Bilohur S., Oleksenko R., Voronkova V., & Verkhovod I. Clasterization tendences of Ukraine's tourism sphere and way out of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. Revista de la universidad del zulia. 2021. 60-75.