Are you a Digital Humanities student or early career researcher in Belgium who would like to discuss DH with other early career researchers in the Belgian DH community? If so, you might be interested in joining the DH Virtual Discussion Group for ECRs!

The DH Virtual Discussion Group is a joint initiative organized by individuals at multiple Belgian institutions. We strive to involve speakers from all Belgian institutions and encourage participation from all those who are interested in DH and are located at any Belgian institution. This year, the core organizers are Leah Budke (KU Leuven Libraries Artes), Sara Budts (VUB), Fiammetta Comelli (UGent), Tom Gheldof (KU Leuven, CLARIAH-VL+), and Annerose Tartler-Ostrizek (FedOSC). Over the past years, the series has become a regular event. The fall 2026 edition proudly marks our thirteenth term.

Our sessions this fall will continue the “under-the-hood” format, which entails a volunteer from our community providing a thirty-minute overview of a digital project implementing a given tool, approach, or platform. This is not meant to be a polished research presentation, or to present findings or results, but rather to give our community a behind-the-scenes look at how decisions were made and why specific tools were chosen or developed. The hope is also that this presenter will give attendees some ideas about how to get started implementing a specific tool or workflow, and that they can also answer questions or contribute to a discussion on other projects in our community that might be using similar methodologies or addressing similar issues. This “under-the-hood” session format allows us to have focused discussions around a specific project where we can learn from each other in an informal way. In addition, by implementing this format we can maintain the low threshold for contributing and engaging in the conversations.

---

The following sessions are on the schedule for the fall 2026 semester (details in this post will be updated as confirmed):

Session 1
Monday 19 October, 15h-16h30 CEST via Teams
Speaker(s): Ine De Daele, KU Leuven
Title: Making Historical Data Work: The STUDIUM.AI Research Infrastructure
Abstract: A surprising amount of historical data already exists in digital form. The challenge is that it is often scattered across library catalogues, research databases, and digitized archival records, each with their own formats, standards, and quirks. One of the main goals of STUDIUM.AI is therefore to bring together diverse digital resources relating to the premodern University of Leuven (1425–1797) within a single research infrastructure.

But how do historical data move from library metadata, research databases and spreadsheets into a shared infrastructure? In this presentation, I will go over the workflows and challenges involved, from my perspective as a historian turned data manager. I will provide a practical overview of processing and importing historical datasets and explain how I document these workflows through some concrete examples. Along the way, I reflect on choosing the right tools for data processing and the importance of reproducibility. In short, this talk reflects the lessons I learned during my first year as data manager at STUDIUM.AI: perfect historical data do not exist, manual intervention is sometimes necessary, and thorough documentation is often as important as the data themselves.

View Ine’s presentation slides in our Zenodo community: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23499749

Session 2
Monday 16 November, 15h-16h30 CET via Teams
Speaker(s): Fiammetta Comelli, Ghent University
Title: From Medieval Texts to Structured Data: Developing a Named Entity Recognition Model for Hagiographical Sources
Abstract: How can medieval narrative sources be transformed into structured data suitable for computational analysis? This session presents a research project exploring the application and adaptation of Named Entity Recognition (NER) to Medieval Latin hagiographical texts, focusing on the Vita sanctae Glodesindis (BHL 3562). A central focus will be the development and fine-tuning of an NER model capable of automatically identifying and classifying entities – including persons, places, institutions, and divine entities -in historically complex textual sources. It will discuss both the opportunities and the methodological challenges of this process, from semantic ambiguity and linguistic variation to the limitations of existing models and the need for human validation. Despite these difficulties, model adaptation yielded a substantial improvement in performance, demonstrating the potential of tailored NLP approaches to convert unstructured historical texts into structured, machine-readable data. The talk will consider both the promising results and the remaining limitations, reflecting on how reliable entity extraction can provide the foundation for large-scale analysis of relationships and networks in medieval hagiography.

Session 3 
Monday 14 December, 15h-16h30 CET via Teams
Speaker(s): Marie Serisier, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB)
Title: to be confirmed
Abstract: to be confirmed

---

There are an increasing number of conferences, workshops, and funding opportunities in DH, and we would like to ensure that you are aware of them. We will start every session with a moment for individuals to share news about upcoming lectures, workshops, seminars, and conferences. We have a corresponding Slack group where we also share these opportunities both during the discussion group meetings and in between. The link to join the Slack group is included in every email sent out to the mailing list, so watch for it there or send us an email to request access.

If you would like to register or invite other colleagues to join, please complete the registration form for the mailing list here. Please note, if you have received emails from us about the Discussion Group in the past, it means you are already on our mailing list. In that case, there is no need to register again—you will receive the emails with the MS Teams link and any additional information on the day of the session. Additionally, you will also receive updates on upcoming sessions including further details about speakers and the “under-the-hood” presentation topics. 

Are you a frequent attendee of the DH Virtual Discussion Group and would like a low-threshold way to become more involved in the organization? We are looking for ambassadors to promote the group within their university networks. If this might be a role you would like to take on, get in touch and we can tell you more!

We look forward to seeing you this fall!

This event is only open to KU Leuven researchers and staff.

The Artes Research team from KU Leuven Libraries Artes and the ABAP council will kick off the new academic year with a special “How Do You Do (It)?” (HDYDI) session dedicated to research data workflows. This special session will coincide with the start of the Digital Scholarship Module taught by the Artes Research team. It will take place on Tuesday 10 November, 14:00-16:30, in the entrance hall and Justus Lipsiuszaal of the Erasmushuis (Leuven).

Everyone is welcome to attend, you do not need to register!

Program

14:00-15:00

To help you through the afternoon slump, we will start with coffee and cookies which will be served in the main entrance hall of the Erasmushuis.

15:00-16h30

We will then move up to the 8^th floor (Justus Lipsiuszaal) to start the session which will feature talks from researchers at the Faculty of Arts who outline their research workflows: how do they approach their research, what tools do they use, with what kind of data are they working, etc. We will get a behind-the-scenes look from:

• Mariia Timoshchuk (Latin Literature)
• Ronald Van Velzen (Early Modern History, 15th-18th Centuries)
• Thomas Van Hoey (Quantitative Lexicology and Variational Linguistics)

There will be lots of time for questions and getting to know each other’s workflows.

The event will take place in Leuven, but if you would like to join online you can let us know at artesresearch@kuleuven.be and we will provide you with the link.

Practical details

• When: Tuesday 10 November 2026, from 14:00 to 16:30
• Where: coffee in main entrance hall and session in Justus Lipsiuszaal (Erasmushuis, Leuven) with online option: if you would like to join online you can let us know at artesresearch@kuleuven.be and we will provide you with the link
• Price: free
• Registration: no registration required

Have you been meaning to set up an appointment to ask about research data management for your project, an aspect of your research workflow, or a specific DH tool or method? Visit one of our drop-in sessions and we will help you on the spot! No need to make an appointment!

The sessions are designed to support researchers, students, and staff members in all areas of digital scholarship. The initiative is a collaboration between Artes Research, DH-support staff and researchers at the Faculty of Arts, and ICTS at the Faculty of Arts.

Some areas we can help you with:

• Providing resources for various DH and RDM tools
• Advice on DMPs and Research Data Management in general
• Suggesting DH tools or methods for your specific research questions
  • Relational databases in FileMaker
  • Social Network Analysis and network visualizations
  • Computational tools for working with texts
  • …
• Getting started with Zotero or optimizing Zotero use with an existing Zotero library
• Advice on scholarly communication
• Advice on Lirias
• … and much more!

Don’t have a question about any of the above but want to learn more about DH? No problem! Come and use our space for co-working! It’s a great moment to develop digital skills by starting a Programming Historian tutorial, for instance!

Everyone is welcome to attend, you do not need to register!

Stop by on one of the following dates and we will be glad to help you:

• 24/09/2026: 13:30h -15:30h, Het Salon LETT 00.24, Erasmushuis
• 22/10/2026: 13:30h -15:30h, Het Salon LETT 00.24, Erasmushuis
• 10/11/2026: 11:00h -13:00h, Het Salon LETT 00.24, Erasmushuis
• 10/12/2026: 13:30h -15:30h, Het Salon LETT 00.24, Erasmushuis

The following interview was conducted by Sam Goven, a master’s student in Journalism at KU Leuven, with Andreas Ketele, BiblioTech Hackathon participant. Andreas is a master’s student in Digital Humanities and works as legal counsel for the Agency Opgroeien. Andreas’ team, Inked and Stamped, worked with the postcards collection. You can learn more about the team’s work by having a look at their project poster in the BiblioTech Zenodo community and by visiting their project website.

The BiblioTech Hackathon is a 10-day event organized by KU Leuven Libraries and the Faculty of Arts. Students, researchers, and staff members of KU Leuven worked in multidisciplinary teams with digitized collections from KU Leuven Libraries. The theme of the 2026 edition was travel, which was reflected in the selected datasets: historical postcards and historical travelogues. More information about the hackathon and its results can be found on the BiblioTech 2026 website.

To start off, could you tell us a bit about your academic background? Had you participated in a hackathon before, and what drew you to this one?

I have a degree in law and have been working for a few years now. At the same time, I’ve always been very interested in IT and programming, so I was really happy when I discovered that there is an advanced master’s program in Digital Humanities. The program is a collaboration between the Faculty of Engineering Science and the Faculty of Arts, and it is specifically designed for people with a humanities background who want to learn how to program and how to use computational methods to strengthen their own field. For me, that felt like a perfect match, and I really enjoy it.

During the program, we learned about the hackathon and were encouraged to participate. What interested me most was the chance to apply what we were learning and really put it into practice. The program does include practical components, of course, but there is still so much more to learn when you can actually work with a large and complex dataset like the one we received during the hackathon.

This was also my first hackathon. I had done some programming before, but I had never participated in a hackathon.

Your team won the prize for best enrichment. Could you briefly describe your project?

We worked with the postcard dataset. One of the first things we did was index the postcards based on their use of color. From that, we were able to derive several insights, for example, who was printing in color, when this happened, and how that evolved over time. In addition, we made the collection searchable by the places depicted on the postcards. Finally, we extracted a number of postage stamps, allowing users to explore those in more detail as well. This part of the project was still in progress: we had several additional features in the pipeline, but they were not fully completed yet, so we weren’t able to deliver everything we had initially envisioned.

The final outcome is a website where users can explore both the postcards and the postage stamps, combined with a poster presenting our research findings.

Did you have a clear idea of what a hackathon actually is? What were your expectations, and did you feel that, with your background in Digital Humanities, you had the skills needed to get started?

Yes and no, let’s put it that way. In general, I try not to have too many expectations and to step into things with an open mind. As for having the necessary skills, yes, to some extent. In the sense that I had already done a bit of programming.

But for me, having the necessary skills often sounds like you’re expected to know everything already and be able to build a complete project in five minutes. And what I really liked about this hackathon was that this wasn’t the case at all. It was very explicitly communicated that this was also a space to learn, and that’s exactly what we did. We learned a lot along the way, which made the whole experience even more enjoyable.

At the ‘Meet the Data, Meet the People’ event, you were introduced to the data for the first time. What was the brainstorming process like? Did you feel overwhelmed with ideas, or was it clear early on which direction you wanted to take?

It was mainly a lot of different ideas coming together at first. Michiel, our team leader, did a great job of getting the conversation going, and from there we continued brainstorming and gradually exploring the data in more depth. The dataset itself was enormous, around 200 gigabytes, which is not something you can fully grasp in just a few hours. So we took time to really dig into it after the event and see what was possible.

What I really enjoyed was that process of exploration. We reflected on our ideas and experimented a lot, and that’s exactly what a hackathon is about for me: discovering possibilities along the way. If you already know everything in advance and the only thing left is implementation, you might actually miss interesting directions.

As we explored the data together, we also discovered each other’s strengths, which is one of the nicest aspects of working in a group like this. Everyone in the team was genuinely motivated, and there was a strong sense of what can we create together. That kind of shared energy is really the magic of a hackathon.

Could you describe your role in the project? Was it in line with what you were expecting?

I mainly contributed by programming and working on the content. I supported others whenever I could and asked for help myself when I needed it. Overall, it was very much a team effort: we shared tasks and built on each other’s strengths.

How would you describe the entire process from start to finish? What was your own experience like?

It was a fantastic experience. I’m usually not someone who uses very strong words, but this really was fantastic. Programming on your own can be enjoyable too, you can build interesting things that way, but here we were working as a group of highly motivated people. We collaborated very well and benefited enormously from all the support we received along the way.

That support was really essential: the infrastructure, the help, the tips, and the exchange of ideas. It made a huge difference, because you learn so much and can really move forward. A concrete example of that support is my experience with an AI model. At one point, I was working on a specific task, and the first steps went well. But when I reached a stage involving dimensionality reduction, the process ran for five minutes and then crashed with an error saying it was trying to allocate 40 gigabytes of RAM. Having access to a supercomputer where you can offload that workload is incredibly valuable, and frankly, also really exciting.

What I also loved was, on the one hand, building something ourselves, and on the other hand, seeing the final presentations from the other teams. I was genuinely impressed by what the other teams had created.

As an outsider, I also had the feeling that there was a lot of support around the hackathon, and that the people from the organizing team put a great deal of passion into it. That really stood out to me, whenever I spoke with them, you could hear how genuinely enthusiastic they were.

That’s actually something I’d really like to add as well, because I’m very grateful for it. I’ve also told them this directly: for me, this has been the best experience of my entire KU Leuven education so far, and I’ve studied in Leuven for several years. Being encouraged to explore, and being in such a positive environment where you can really feel that everyone wants to move forward, was incredibly special. It felt almost magical.

You’ve mentioned several times that you learned a lot during the hackathon. Which specific skills or aspects do you think you’ll be able to apply in the future?

Well, I’m already working on projects using the tips and techniques I picked up during the hackathon. I also received additional advice from some of the participants during the final presentations that I want to look into. So I do already have a few ideas I’d like to explore in the future.

The only downside, and I say this partly as a joke, is that now I’ll have to do it on my own (laughs).

Were there any roadblocks during the process? Did you run into things that didn’t go as expected, and how did you deal with them?

Of course, everyone in the team ran into obstacles at some point. And how did we deal with that? Partly by doing our own research, partly through trial and error, and partly by asking for help. Looking back, we probably could have asked for help even more often. Once you realize that something really isn’t working after a while, it’s important to look for a different approach.

That’s also one of the things I really like about a hackathon: you’re allowed to hack, not in the sense of breaking into things, of course, but in the original sense of creatively finding ways to make things work.

Another challenge was combining the hackathon with my situation as a working student. It was made very clear in advance that participation was possible for working students as well, and that the duration of the hackathon was designed with that in mind. Still, it was quite intense, and I ended up putting in a lot of hours. That was definitely challenging, but then again, if everything went perfectly smoothly, it wouldn’t really be a hackathon. I learned a lot from that experience too, and I’m very grateful to all my teammates for the great collaboration.

As a final question, what advice would you give to future teams taking part in a hackathon?

First of all, I would say: enjoy the experience, and make sure you set aside enough time. That’s really important. We had the incredible luxury of being able to ask questions and get support. We did make use of that, but looking back, I think I could have done so even more, so I would definitely encourage future teams to take full advantage of that opportunity.

It’s also crucial to communicate well within your group, so that everyone is working towards the same goal and pulling in the same direction. That’s not always easy, but it really makes a difference.

And finally, don’t be afraid to experiment. A hackathon is exactly the right place to try things out and explore ideas!

As part of our blog series, “Stories from the Research Trenches,” we often invite researchers and colleagues to share their personal experiences. For this post, we are delighted to hand the floor to Bonnie Varlet from the KU Leuven Cultural Studies Research Group, who offers a closer look at how she integrates Zotero into her research workflow.

Written by Bonnie Varlet

New technology, like machine learning systems, are being deployed across a wide range of institutional backgrounds. Hospitals use it to flag diagnoses, and archives use it to catalog their collections. Modern machine learning has made great leaps in its capabilities. However, these tools do not exist in a vacuum.

My research looks at what governs the relation between institutions and the technology they use. For example, when a machine learning system is introduced into a new operational environment, it changes workflows, changes what skills are required, and creates new dependencies that did not previously exist. Validation processes that were designed for human-scale output volumes become inadequate when a system can produce ten times more at the same time. Accountability structures built around individual judgment become harder to maintain when outputs are generated algorithmically. At the same time, organizations also change technology. Institutional priorities shape which systems get acquired and how they are used, and informal workarounds created by staff can become de facto operating procedures. The system produced by this process is often meaningfully different from the system initially deployed.

These processes do not happen independently. They influence each other; it is iterative, and it compounds. There is currently no widely adopted methodology for tracking this relationship in a way that is observable in comparable and replicable terms. Most existing research either examines technology deployment in isolation or analyzes governance structures without tracing their operational consequences. This remains largely unmapped, which makes it difficult for organizations, regulators, and researchers to fully understand how technology and institutions interact in practice. My work aims to help develop a way of systematically observing these interactions as they take shape in real operational contexts.

Tackling a project like this, especially my first one done independently during my Fulbright, was also a lesson in how small logistical problems can get you off course. Over the course of the project, I collected tens of papers, books, website links, and other sources. At the start, when it was only a couple of papers, it was manageable, but as the project matured, it became increasingly difficult to stay organized. This became particularly challenging given the breadth of the topic, which required me to move between technical material, governance literature, and case-based examples.

At that point, I was lucky to have resources available through KU Leuven, such as the Artes Research team, where I was introduced to tools that could help manage my workflow. I decided to try Zotero, which was easy to set up and start using immediately. What changed right away was that I stopped getting lost in my sea of sources. All my papers, books, and links were kept in one place dedicated to my project, and I did not have to go back and look up publication details because the browser extension stored that information when I saved a new source.

As I explored Zotero further, I also shifted how I organized my work. Because it makes it easy to tag and sort sources, I grouped them in the manner in which I used them. Sources used for case studies were given a case study tag, while sources that provided foundational knowledge were grouped separately. Since my project is broken up into different parts, this made it easier to see where I was pulling information from and how it influenced my analysis. In a project that tries to trace relationships between governance decisions and technical systems, being able to clearly track how different types of sources contributed to different parts of the argument was particularly useful.

I also began annotating and brainstorming directly within the same program, instead of splitting my workflow across multiple tools. For example, I would highlight a quote in a source, save it, and add a note explaining how or why it was useful. This made it easier to trace my thought process and how I arrived at certain conclusions, both for myself and in the final project.

Looking back, I wish I had reached out for help managing my workflow sooner. Not only with this specific software, but also with the more general question of how to structure a research project of this scope. I spent a significant amount of time at the start recreating approaches to organizing my work, rather than focusing on the project itself.

I would not treat exploring research management tools as a last resort. No matter the field, the people around you have likely encountered similar challenges and found better ways to address them. Trying something new partway through a project should not feel like a disruption. In my case, it was what allowed the second half of the project to go substantially better than the first, and made it easier to carry out research that depends on systematically tracing complex relationships between institutions and technology. It also made it possible to more clearly trace how different sources, ideas, and cases connect—something that is central to my research itself, which focuses on understanding how relationships between institutions and technology take shape over time.

The following interview was conducted by Sam Goven, a master’s student in Journalism at KU Leuven, with Luisa Ripoll-Alberola, team leader of the BiblioTech Hackathon project Captacats. Luisa is a PhD candidate at Leipzig University working on the Horizon Europe funded MECANO project. Luisa’s team, Captacats, worked with the travelogues collection. You can learn more about the team’s work by having a look at their project poster in the BiblioTech Zenodo community and by visiting their project website.

The BiblioTech Hackathon is a 10-day event organized by KU Leuven Libraries and the Faculty of Arts. Students, researchers, and staff members of KU Leuven worked in multidisciplinary teams with digitized collections from KU Leuven Libraries. The theme of the 2026 edition was travel, which was reflected in the selected datasets: historical postcards and historical travelogues. More information about the hackathon and its results can be found on the BiblioTech 2026 website.

Congratulations again on your team winning the prize for most original project! To start, could you tell us a bit about your background, what first interested you in the hackathon, and whether you had participated in one before?

I’m currently a PhD student in Digital Humanities, working on the MECANO project. I had never participated in a hackathon before, but I knew that I wanted to take part in one at some point. There’s a very large Digital Humanities hackathon in Helsinki every year, with five or six different datasets, but participating there can be quite expensive.

While I was doing a research stay here in Leuven, I learned about the BiblioTech Hackathon. It really felt like the stars were aligning, because it was the perfect situation. As I mentioned, I was already thinking about joining a hackathon, and having the opportunity not only to participate but also to be a team leader was exactly what I was looking for. It allowed me to take part in a Digital Humanities activity in a more informal setting, which I really liked.

Could you describe your project and your output in a nutshell?

We created a prototype web visualization called ShipAdvisor, which is loosely inspired by modern platforms like TripAdvisor, but focused on historical Mediterranean travel routes. Using travelogues from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the tool allows users to navigate different routes and see how travelers at the time rated places and journeys.

Through the visualization, users can explore which routes were most popular and how perceptions of safety and danger varied across regions. These perceptions were shaped not only by environmental factors such as weather, but also by historical phenomena like Mediterranean piracy. In terms of design and approach, we drew inspiration from digital humanities platforms such as ArcGIS StoryMaps and Itiner‑e.

You mentioned that you were the team leader in your group. What did that role involve, and was it in line with what you expected? Did you find it difficult to lead the team throughout the project?

I have to say it was actually super easy. I was very, very lucky with my team, they were all extremely motivated. Supporting them felt very natural and light. We had quite a lot of meetings during the process, but it never felt forced; everything just happened quite organically.

As a team leader, I didn’t want to take up too much space. I really wanted the group to feel horizontal and collaborative. However, in the first few days, when people were still a bit shy, I think it helped for the team leader to propose ideas, bring different ideas together, and guide things slightly in that sense. Beyond that, my role was more about offering support, often acting as a bridge between the participants and the experts. Before reaching out to the experts, I was there to help where I could.

Overall, it was, as I said, very easy, and it never felt like an artificial hierarchy or like I was in a superior position. It really felt like teamwork.

At the ‘Meet the Data, Meet the People’ event, you were introduced to the data for the first time. How did the brainstorming process go?

At the beginning, we had four or five main ideas. Our approach was to take some time after the first day to reflect on them individually, and then meet again the following Monday to make a decision. During that meeting, we decided to go with the idea of ShipAdvisor, mainly because it allowed us to integrate many different elements.

For example, we could look at which routes were more affected by piracy, which was a particular interest for some of the team members, while others wanted to work with illustrations. The concept really allowed for different approaches to come together within the same interface.

At first, it can feel a bit overwhelming, you think, I need to produce something, but I’m not yet sure what that will be. But because everyone in the team was so motivated, we ended up arriving at a solid idea quite naturally.

What kind of audience did you have in mind when working on your project and the website? Who should be able to use it?

We mainly had the general public in mind. We didn’t want the website to require any specific background knowledge, whether technical or academic. The idea was that anyone could use it, people who are simply curious and want to explore the corpus in a different way.

Did you run into any problems during the hackathon, and how did you tackle them?

File coordination was probably the trickiest part. At the beginning, we planned to use all the infrastructure the library was offering, such as the computing cluster. In the end, though, we didn’t really use it. One reason was that the team had different levels of technical expertise, and for some people the computing cluster felt like too much to handle. As a result, everyone ended up working in their own way and sharing files through the Teams group instead.

That approach worked, but it wasn’t always ideal. At times it felt a bit overwhelming to navigate, because we had many documents and different versions circulating. Sometimes people were working in parallel, and you had to wait for the latest version from a teammate before you could continue your own work. Our file‑sharing setup certainly wasn’t the most structured solution, but in the end it worked for us.

You mentioned that this was the first hackathon you participated in. Do you feel you picked up any new skills along the way, and how might you use them in future research?

As a PhD student in Digital Humanities, I mainly work with text analysis. My thesis focuses on the reception of ancient authors in academic prose and academic discourse, so my work is very text‑based. Before this hackathon, I had never really worked with geographical data.

That made this project especially interesting for me, because in my own research I don’t often have the opportunity to work with spatial data. The hackathon gave me the chance to explore that a bit, experiment with different tools, and see how geographical data could be integrated into a digital humanities project.

What kind of advice would you give to someone who might be hesitant to participate in their first hackathon?

I think one of the biggest insecurities people often have is feeling that they don’t have enough technical skills to participate. What I would say is that the support provided by the library and the pool of experts was truly incredible, you were never really on your own. You were always supported, both by the experts and by your teammates.

People with less technical experience found other important roles within the team. That could be doing more close reading, contributing to the final analysis, or working on the design of the poster. I would definitely encourage anyone who feels insecure about their technical background to take part. First of all, you learn a lot. Second, as I’ve said, you’re never alone, you’re very well supported by both the experts and the team. And finally, even if you don’t feel fully comfortable at first, you will definitely find meaningful ways to contribute to the group.

And what kind of advice would you give to a future team leader of a hackathon team?

I would say: don’t stress too much. I remember feeling quite insecure at times about our final outcome, but in the end, whatever you produce is going to be fine. In reality, the hackathon is meant to be fun, and not a competition.

What really matters is not the end product, but the process: working together, learning new things, and enjoying the experience. That’s what makes it valuable.

The following interview was conducted by Sam Goven, a master’s student in Journalism at KU Leuven, with Dawn Zhuang, BiblioTech Hackathon participant. Dawn is currently the project manager and data coordinator for the research project RegInfra (Regionalizing Infrastructures in Chinese History). Dawn’s team, W@nder, worked with the travelogues collection. You can learn more about the team’s work by having a look at their project poster in the BiblioTech Zenodo community and by visiting their project website.

The BiblioTech Hackathon is a 10-day event organized by KU Leuven Libraries and the Faculty of Arts. Students, researchers, and staff members of KU Leuven worked in multidisciplinary teams with digitized collections from KU Leuven Libraries. The theme of the 2026 edition was travel, which was reflected in the selected datasets: historical postcards and historical travelogues. More information about the hackathon and its results can be found on the BiblioTech 2026 website.

To start off, could you tell us a bit about your academic background? Had you participated in a hackathon before, and what drew you to this one?

I’m currently working as a project manager and data specialist in the research group Regionalizing Infrastructures in Chinese History (RegInfra). My role combines digital methods with humanities research. I graduated from the Master in Digital Humanities three years ago, and that’s when I participated in the first edition of the BiblioTech Hackathon, in 2023.

That experience was a lot of fun, and I learned many new skills. It helped me see how the digital methods I learned during the program could be applied in a real project setting. On top of that, I made new friends throughout the hackathon, which is one of the main reasons I wanted to participate again this time.

On a more personal note, during the previous hackathon I worked with the postcard collection, and I noticed that the dataset was reused this year. I was curious to see how other groups would approach it. This time, I chose to work with the travelogue dataset, since it relates to the same overall theme. In a way, it felt like a continuation of an ongoing project.

Your team won the prize for best visualisation. Could you briefly describe your project?

We chose a small‑data approach and built an interactive map based on it. Starting from the travelogues dataset, we selected a small part of the larger corpus, specifically three volumes of The Book and the Land. We then visualized and mapped the routes described in those texts, as well as the stories that unfold along the way.

The result is an interactive map where users can click on nodes and routes to explore the journeys. Through this interface, they can see extracted illustrations along with their contextual information, which helps connect the visual material to the narratives in the travelogues.

As you mentioned, you had already participated in the first edition of the BiblioTech Hackathon. What were your expectations at the start of this one, and did you feel well equipped for the project?

Because techniques and AI have developed so much in recent years, I expected to learn even more this time, especially since the methodologies have evolved as well. I was also working with a different dataset, so overall I was really looking forward to trying out new approaches and learning new things with a different group of teammates.

At the same time, I did feel well equipped. During the first hackathon, I was still a student and everything felt very new to me. Now I already have some working experience with digital projects, and I can really see how my skill set has grown. I felt more confident this time and was happy to realize that I was able to take on more complex tasks.

At the ‘Meet the Data, Meet the People’ event, you were introduced to the data for the first time. What was the brainstorming process like? Did you feel overwhelmed with ideas, or was it clear early on which direction you wanted to take?

I’d say that during brainstorming you always get little sparks of ideas here and there. In our team, we had people from very different backgrounds, linguists, historians, and AI experts, and everyone just shared what they were thinking. At our first meeting, we didn’t go through the entire dataset yet, and some of the initial ideas turned out to be a bit too ambitious or not very practical in the end.

Still, I think the general direction was already quite clear early on. During the brainstorming phase, we decided fairly quickly that we wanted to work with an interactive map, and in the end that’s exactly what we managed to accomplish. After the weekend and one of the training sessions, we had an in‑person discussion where we exchanged our observations about the dataset and then pinned down a more practical pipeline and timeline to work with.

What’s interesting is that during the brainstorming itself, none of us really knew yet how we were going to do it. And somehow, through discussion and experimentation, it all came together. It’s a bit of a magical experience.

Could you describe your role in the project? Was it in line with what you were expecting?

I’d say it pretty much aligned with my expectations. I see myself as a digital humanities enthusiast, and through my experience I’ve become familiar with a range of tools and platforms that can help achieve different kinds of results. Within the team, I mainly took on a supportive role, contributing from the early exploration of the dataset to deciding which direction we should take.

I also have some experience with web design, so I ended up putting most of my effort into building the final webpage. Overall, I like working on different aspects of a project: trying out new techniques, moving between tasks, and supporting my teammates wherever needed.

Did you face any problems or roadblocks that you had to overcome during the project?

I think the most challenging part was moving from the initial idea to something concrete and practical. Before this project, none of us had experience linking data to a map and making it fully interactive. So while the concept was clear, the question was how we could actually realize it, what tools or platforms we could use, and how to build everything within the limited time we had.

We spent quite a bit of time and energy figuring out how to translate our idea into a realistic workflow and deciding what was feasible within the time constraints. I’d say that phase, moving from the blueprint to an actual work plan, was definitely the toughest part of the project.

Did you face any technical problems along the way, situations where things didn’t work as you had expected?

Initially, we wanted to retrieve the dataset directly from the ManGO platform. I tried running the code within the HPC environment, but I ran into a few issues. I then posted my question to the expert pool in MS Teams, and I received a lot of help.

The support was also very timely, I posted my question in the morning, and by the afternoon there was already a working solution. The expert team really provided solid support, which made a big difference in helping us move forward.

You already mentioned that during your first hackathon you picked up a lot of new skills. Did you have the same experience this time, and how might you use those skills in future projects?

Yes, definitely. I learned a lot from this project as well. For me, working with geo‑referencing and data conversion was completely new, and it’s actually quite relevant to my current work. I can definitely see myself using these skills in future research projects or for creating other visualizations.

Although our project didn’t ultimately rely on the HPC environment, I did participate in the training sessions and did some exploration on my own. I really appreciated the opportunity to work within that environment, especially because future projects I’m involved in will likely have some connection with the HPC. So for me, it was very good practice and a valuable learning experience.

What kind of advice would you give someone who is participating in their first hackathon?

I would say: think bold. There’s a lot of support available, and you’re surrounded by a great team of experts who are there to help you. If you allow yourself to think ambitiously and take a few risks, you’ll be surprised by how much you can accomplish by the end.

Lastly, how would you describe your overall experience?

For me, it was truly inspiring and very enjoyable. And something I didn’t mention earlier is that I really made good friends through the hackathon and learned a great deal from my teammates, as well as from the other groups. That’s a very precious takeaway for me.

The following interview was conducted by Sam Goven, a master’s student in Journalism at KU Leuven, with Roberta Pireddu, team leader of the BiblioTech Hackathon project PostScript. Roberta provides academic support for the Master in Digital Humanities at KU Leuven. Roberta’s team worked with the postcard collection. You can learn more about the team’s work by having a look at their project poster in the BiblioTech Zenodo community and by visiting their project website.

The BiblioTech Hackathon is a 10-day event organized by KU Leuven Libraries and the Faculty of Arts. Students, researchers, and staff members of KU Leuven worked in multidisciplinary teams with digitized collections from KU Leuven Libraries. The theme of the 2026 edition was travel, which was reflected in the selected datasets: historical postcards and historical travelogues. More information about the hackathon and its results can be found on the BiblioTech 2026 website.

Congratulations on winning both the first prize and the public’s favorite! Can you tell me a bit about what first drew you to the hackathon, and have you participated in one before?

I hadn’t participated in a hackathon before, but I had organized a small one myself. It was for a project on Artificial Intelligence and its application in the cultural heritage sector. I knew a lot about the organizational aspects, but not much about how to actually participate in a hackathon. What I mainly did then was observe the other groups: what they were doing and how they came up with their projects. So I was mostly involved from the sidelines.

As for why I participated: I’m currently praktijkassistant and teaching assistant for the Master in Digital Humanities, and digital humanities students are an important target group for the BiblioTech hackathon. Taking part myself allowed me to work on a project together with the students. I also already knew the postcard collection, as I had worked with it in the past, and I thought it would be nice to create something new using that material.

And your own background is in Digital Humanities as well?

Yes, that’s right. I studied Digital Humanities in Leuven, and before that I studied history, more specifically medieval history, so my background is very much in the humanities. I’ve mainly worked with heritage collections, like the ones that were used for this hackathon.

I already mentioned you won the first prize with your project. Could you describe it in a nutshell?

Our team worked with the postcard collection, which is a very large one, and visually very attractive. It’s rich in information, with a lot of detail in the metadata, but because of its size it can be quite difficult to really explore all of those details.

What we wanted to create was a kind of website or digital space where people could explore the collection more easily and from different perspectives. We chose three main perspectives. One of them, for example, is a map, where users can see the locations represented in the collection and then zoom in on the details. On the website, users can also explore specific elements, like all the trains in the collection, all the cars, parks, and so on.

In addition, we created a crowdsourcing section. We wanted to include user participation so that the collection could be enriched with additional information. For example, on the back of the postcards there are greetings, and we wanted to allow users to transcribe or translate those messages so they could be added to the metadata.

You were the team leader of your group. Was this role in line with what you had expected?

I expected that I would need to give structure to the team: define the focus of the project, set concrete steps, and remind everyone of deadlines. In the end, though, everything developed very organically and smoothly, and I was really happy with how it worked out.

At the ‘Meet the Data, Meet the People’ event, you were introduced to the data for the first time. How did the brainstorming process go?

At first, it wasn’t very clear what specific skills everyone could bring to the project, or how we should approach such a large collection. That led to a lot of questions: what do we actually want to do with this collection, and what do we want to highlight?

In the beginning, we had many different ideas. We thought about working with the colors of the postcards, or focusing on locations, and that’s when the idea of using a map came up. There were a lot of possibilities. At a certain point, though, we decided that we really needed to look more closely at the dataset, see what was actually there, and then make a decision. That happened a couple of days after the opening event. We had some time to reflect, explore the data, and then settle on a clear approach.

Was it difficult to decide in which direction you wanted to go?

A bit, yes. But in the end, the direction really emerged from what we actually found in the data. As I mentioned before, we initially wanted to work with color, but when we started thinking about the kind of results that would produce, we realized it wasn’t the direction that appealed to us the most. So at some point we had to make a clear decision: okay, let’s go in this direction and really commit to it.

That said, it was still a bit challenging, because along the way new ideas kept popping up. For example, we considered adding a gamification aspect to the crowdsourcing section, where participants could earn points based on how much they contributed. In the end, we had to leave that out because of time constraints. At some point we realized, there are only three days left, how can we realistically make this work? It’s important at that stage to be realistic and say, okay, this is something we can do, and this is something we can’t.

During your final presentation at the closing event, you mentioned the educational goal of the project and its collaborative aspect. What kind of audience did you have in mind? Who should be able to use the website you developed?

We definitely had researchers in mind. The idea was to help them shape their research by giving them access to all these additional details in the collection. Because the postcard collection is so broad, it’s not immediately obvious what kind of research questions you could explore with it, and we wanted to make that easier.

At the same time, we wanted to reach a wider audience, people who are curious about Belgium’s history, about tourist places, and what they looked like in the past. Some might be interested in comparing then and now, others in seeing how streets and cities have changed, or just browsing the collection and feeling a bit nostalgic.

One thing I found very appealing was how user‑friendly the website was, it really looked like something anyone could use.

Yes, absolutely. I think a lot of people would love the idea of being able to see how a place looked in the past and compare it to how it looks now, seeing how much it has changed, or sometimes how it no longer exists at all.

The end result was a success, but did you face any roadblocks during the hackathon?

There was one issue at the beginning related to the locations of the postcards. We wanted to create a map and link each image directly to a specific place, but the coordinates were missing in the collection. So we first had to retrieve that information, and that took some time. At one point, we even thought it wouldn’t be possible. In the end, though, one of the team members managed to clean the dataset and recover the exact coordinates for each location, which allowed us to move forward.

You mentioned that this was the first hackathon you participated in. Do you feel you picked up any new skills along the way, and how might you use them in future research?

The crowdsourcing concept was particularly interesting for me. It’s something I had already worked with in earlier projects where we involved the public. For example, we showed people images, often of places in cities, and asked them to share additional information about what they saw.

What was new for me in this project was the specific crowdsourcing tool that we embedded in the website. I think that’s something I’ll definitely use again in the future. It’s very user‑friendly and easy to integrate, and the fact that it automatically produces a file with all the participants’ responses is very useful.

What advice would you give to someone who might be hesitant to participate in a hackathon because of their background?

I really think everyone can participate, because there’s a place for everyone in a hackathon, even if you don’t have strong technical skills. Whatever your background or skills, there’s always a way to contribute and find your role within the group. That might be through creative ideas, working on the poster, or helping shape the concept of the project. There’s always something meaningful you can bring to the team.

Last question: what advice would you give a team leader?

I would say don’t be too strict at the beginning. It’s important to give everyone enough space to be creative and to let people explore ideas, so that everyone’s skills can really emerge. I think the brainstorming phase is especially important, because that’s when you start to understand what each team member can do and how everyone can contribute to the project.

Congratulations one more time! It’s amazing how much each team accomplished in such a short period of time. For me, it almost felt unreal, this looked like a year’s worth of work.

Yes, exactly. For me, this could have been a thesis, the kind of results you would expect from a master’s thesis. That’s really what made it so remarkable to me.

The following post was written by Sam Goven, a master’s student in Journalism at KU Leuven. It offers a participant’s perspective on the BiblioTech Hackathon, reflecting on the experience, the creative process, and collaborative spirit that shaped the event.

Libraries are often seen as places of preservation rather than experimentation, but the BiblioTech Hackathon turns KU Leuven Libraries into a digital playground. Drawing on rich library datasets, students, researchers, and staff from diverse backgrounds work in interdisciplinary teams to reimagine historical collections through digital tools and collaboration.

The second edition of the hackathon culminated on 26 March in the University Library in Leuven, where seven teams presented their final projects to a jury. Over the course of ten days, materials from the library collection were transformed into innovative digital outputs, ranging from interactive maps and searchable databases to experimental interfaces, which can be explored via the project websites. Team PostScript ultimately claimed both the jury prize and the audience award with an interactive digital archive of Belgian postcards.

By combining technical support, curated library collections, and an emphasis on experimentation rather than competition, the BiblioTech Hackathon demonstrates that digital humanities can be accessible, creative, and collaborative, even for those new to computational approaches.

What is a Hackathon?

During a hackathon, a blend of “hacking” and “marathon”, participants work together in teams on a project against a tight deadline. These projects often have a digital component and can be developed over one or several days, resulting in a website, database, or another form of digital output.

The first edition of the BiblioTech Hackathon took place in 2023, organized by KU Leuven Libraries and the Faculty of Arts. Participants could choose from seven datasets, including the Bible of Anjou and wartime posters. The focus was on exploring documentary heritage from a fresh perspective by transforming it into computational data. The hackathon proved to be a success and led to a second edition in 2026.

Meet the Data, Meet the People

The second edition kicked off on 12 March in Agora Learning Centre in Leuven. As the smell of pizza filled the space, the perfect brain food for sharp minds, the seven teams discovered both the datasets and each other for the first time. In total, 39 enthusiastic participants from a wide range of backgrounds took on the challenge. The hackathon attracted not only master’s students, but also PhD candidates, postdoctoral researchers, and KU Leuven staff. Participants represented a broad variety of disciplines and research fields, including Computer Science, Egyptology, Law, and Economics.

To make the most of this diversity, teams were formed in advance based on digital skills and areas of expertise, ensuring a balanced mix. Each team was supported by a designated team leader to keep the project on track, while technical experts were readily available throughout the hackathon to answer questions and provide assistance. To ensure everyone could get started smoothly, an additional training session on the technical infrastructure and tools was organized the next day.

Following an introduction to the datasets and the available support network, the teams dove into the material. This year’s hackathon offered two datasets: well over 35.000 historical postcards from Belgium and around 300 travel accounts written by European authors describing the destinations they visited. Once again, these historical sources provided ample opportunities for innovative perspectives. Four teams chose to work with the travelogues, while the remaining three focused on the postcards.

The brainstorming phase reflected the exploratory nature of the hackathon. Faced with rich datasets and a wide range of ideas and ambitions, teams took time to explore different directions before narrowing their focus. Working within a limited timeframe required careful consideration of what was both innovative and feasible. This process not only helped shape the projects but also allowed participants to recognize and build on each other’s strengths. Andreas Ketele, a member of the Inked and Stamped team, reflected afterwards: “What I really enjoyed was that process of exploration. We reflected on our ideas and experimented a lot, and that’s exactly what a hackathon is about: discovering possibilities along the way.” (full interview)

The Final Projects

On 26 March, participants, jury members, and guests gathered in the University Library for the final presentations accompanied by a poster exhibition, marking the culmination of the hackathon and an opportunity for teams to present their work. The evening opened with welcoming words from the organizing team, Demmy Verbeke (Head of KU Leuven Libraries Artes), and Geert Brône (Vice Dean for Research at the Faculty of Arts), who praised the creativity and commitment shown throughout the hackathon.

The presentations were opened by team CaptaCats with their project ShipAdvisor. Loosely inspired by the travel website TripAdvisor, the team developed a web platform that maps maritime routes in the Mediterranean during the 18th and 19th centuries, based on historical travel accounts.

Next, team DH.xml presented their analysis of the postcard dataset. They argued that historical postcards functioned as a form of social media avant la lettre, and used the collection to identify recurring visual trends and patterns.

All Reads Lead to Leuven focused on how 19th-century French travel writers wrote about African languages. Their project resulted in a website featuring Instagram-inspired posts that reveal the vocabulary and framing these authors used when describing linguistic encounters.

Using the postcard dataset, Inked and Stamped built a searchable digital database. Its intuitive interface allows users to explore the collection by location, date, and even the color of the postcards.

Team PostScript adopted a similar approach, but with a specific focus on postcards from Antwerp. In addition to a searchable database, they introduced interactive features such as maps that contrast contemporary photographs with historical images from the collection.

The penultimate presentation came from Team W@nder. Drawing on The Land and the Book, a 19th-century publication by W. M. Thompson, they visualized the author’s travels in the Levant. As with other projects, historical illustrations were juxtaposed with present-day photographs to highlight continuity and change.

The evening concluded with a presentation by Team Julie Verne. They developed an oracle-like search tool based on the travelogues dataset. Through their website, users can query the texts and receive the most relevant responses generated from the corpus.

After a brief deliberation by the jury and a public vote, the awards were announced. The jury consisted of experts in data and digital research: Julie Birkholz (Coordinator CLARIAH VL+), Geert Brône (Vice Dean for Research of the Faculty of Arts), Jo Rademakers, (Head of LIBIS), Fred Truyen (Head of CS Digital), and Katrien Verbert (Program director of the POC Digital Humanities). Team PostScript was awarded both the jury prize and the audience award. As in the 2023 edition, however, each team received recognition, including awards such as Best Research Potential and Best Visualization. The evening concluded with a reception, where teams presented their project posters over food and drinks. To share the creativity and impact of the hackathon with a wider audience, the posters are currently touring across KU Leuven.

A Community Built Through Collaboration

Not only were the results of the hackathon impressive, participants also praised the atmosphere and strong sense of community that developed throughout the event. In post-hackathon interviews, several participants reflected on the collaborative environment that emerged over the course of the ten days. Andreas Ketele described the experience as particularly rewarding: “I’m usually not someone who uses very strong words, but this really was fantastic. […] We were working as a group of highly motivated people. We collaborated very well and benefited enormously from all the support we received along the way.” (full interview)

The diversity of backgrounds and skill levels did not prove to be a challenge, but rather one of the hackathon’s greatest strengths. By bringing together participants with different perspectives, expertise, and levels of technical experience, the hackathon created space for learning from one another. As Roberta Pireddu, team leader of PostScript, explained: “I really think everyone can participate, because there’s a place for everyone in a hackathon, even if you don’t have strong technical skills. Whatever your background or skills, there’s always a way to contribute and find your role within the group.” (full interview)

For many participants, this emphasis on collaboration rather than competition was key. As advice for future participants, Luisa Ripoll Alberola, team leader of CaptaCats, encouraged newcomers not to focus too heavily on the final outcome: “What really matters is not the end product, but the process: working together, learning new things, and enjoying the experience. That’s what makes it valuable.” (full interview)

The second edition of the BiblioTech Hackathon proved once again how working with library data can foster meaningful collaboration across disciplines. By bringing together diverse participants, the hackathon strengthened connections within the academic community and opened up new ways of engaging with humanities collections.

More information about the hackathon, its datasets, and the final projects can be found on the BiblioTech 2026 website. We encourage you to have a look at the project posters and websites to explore the teams’ outputs and discover the creative ways in which KU Leuven’s library collections continue to inspire digital humanities research. We also invite you to explore interviews with participants, offering a personal insight into their experiences during the event.

Are you a Digital Humanities student or early career researcher in Belgium who would like to discuss DH with other early career researchers in the Belgian DH community? If so, you might be interested in joining the DH Virtual Discussion Group for ECRs!

The DH Virtual Discussion Group is a joint initiative organized by individuals at multiple Belgian institutions. We strive to involve speakers from all Belgian institutions and encourage participation from all those who are interested in DH and are located at any Belgian institution. This series, the core organizers are Leah Budke (KU Leuven), Tom Gheldof (KU Leuven, CLARIAH-VL+), Paavo van der Eecken (University of Antwerp), and Loren Verreyen (University of Antwerp). Over the past years, the series has become a regular event. The spring 2026 edition proudly marks our twelfth term.

Our first two sessions this spring will continue the “under-the-hood” format, which entails a volunteer from our community providing a thirty-minute overview of a digital project implementing a given tool, approach, or platform. This is not meant to be a polished research presentation, or to present findings or results, but rather to give our community a behind-the-scenes look at how decisions were made and why specific tools were chosen or developed. The hope is also that this presenter will give attendees some ideas about how to get started implementing a specific tool or workflow, and that they can also answer questions or contribute to a discussion on other projects in our community that might be using similar methodologies or addressing similar issues. This “under-the-hood” session format allows us to have focused discussions around a specific project where we can learn from each other in an informal way. In addition, by implementing this format we can maintain the low threshold for contributing and engaging in the conversations.

Our final session will be a special in person session during which members of our community can give an elevator pitch of their DH Benelux contribution.

---

The spring 2026 schedule will be updated as details about upcoming talks are confirmed. Please check back here or on the website (linked above) for full details. Information about each session will also be circulated via the mailing list. 

Session 1
Date: Monday 30 March, 15h-16h30 CEST via Teams
Speaker(s): Julie Van Ongeval, VUB
Title: The Fall of Antwerp (1585) as a linguistic turning point? Language change from macro- and micro-perspectives.
Abstract:  The Spanish recapture of Antwerp (1585) during the Eighty Years’ War, known as the Fall of Antwerp, marks a crucial turning point, not only from a historical but also from a linguistic perspective. Historically, the Fall triggered profound social, economic, and demographic transformations. Prior to 1585, Antwerp had flourished as one of Europe’s largest and most prosperous cities, characterized by substantial immigration. In the aftermath of the Fall, however, the city experienced severe socio-economic decline and large-scale emigration, causing its population to decrease by more than half (from 100,000 inhabitants in 1580 to 42,000 in 1589) (De Meester 2011, Lesger 2007). From a linguistic standpoint, the Fall has traditionally been associated with what De Vooys (1970) termed “the decline of the Southern Netherlands”. The event is believed to have shifted the linguistic center of gravity to the Northern Netherlands, slowing down or even halting the ongoing processes of language standardization in the Southern Netherlands and, by extension, in Early Modern Antwerp (Van der Sijs 2020). ​Yet, these linguistic claims have primarily been based on printed, literary, or explicitly normative texts. Considerably less is known about language use in more informal and everyday contexts (Elspaß 2020). 

This study addresses that gap by analyzing informal, handwritten letters preserved in the newly developed Early Modern Antwerp Corpus (1564-1653). Drawing on Dixon’s punctuated equilibrium model (1997), which proposes that significant historical events can accelerate linguistic change, we test an alternative hypothesis: rather than causing stagnation, the Fall of Antwerp may have triggered intensified linguistic variation and change. To assess this hypothesis, we examine six linguistic features that were undergoing change and were relevant to the process of Dutch standardization (clause negation, verbal cluster order variation, schwa apocope, the prefix ge- in past participles, word-final /k/, spelling of /ɣ/ in onset). First, we analyze developments at the community level to identify broader patterns of change. We then adopt a more microscopic perspective, investigating how individual writers respond to the shifting sociohistorical context. This includes both inter-individual variation (e.g. social categories and networks) and intra-individual change across the lifespan. By investigating the linguistic consequences of the Fall of Antwerp from both macro- and micro-level perspectives, this study aims to bridge the three waves of sociolinguistic research, integrating community-level patterns with individual-level variation and change.  

Session 2
Date: Monday 20 April, 15h-16h30 CET via Teams
Speaker(s): Léa Hermenault, UA
Title: The Belgian Historical Gazetteer: (historical) toponyms in a digital era
Abstract:My presentation will introduce the Belgian Historical Gazetteer, a project founded by CLARIAH-VL+ and hosted at the University of Antwerp. This project aims to set up a historical gazetteer of toponyms for the whole present-day territory of Belgium, in order to provide researchers with a collection of data that does not stop at Belgian provincial borders and which goes beyond the level of municipalities.

First, I will explain how the gazetteer is constructed using both automatic extraction of text from old maps and manual corrections/additions. Then, I will show how this gazetteer will help researchers deal with place names that appear in their sources. Finally, I will demonstrate the potential of digitized lists of historical place names for both toponymic and landscape studies which make digital gazetteers, aside from their classic function, innovative exploring tools.

Session 3 – Special In-Person DH Benelux Session
Date: Monday 18 May, 13h30-16h CEST,
Location: room 1.01 Gogotte, Hoek 38, Leuvenseweg 38, Brussels (location is within walking distance from the central station)
Speaker(s): various members of our community
Format: elevator pitches of DH Benelux contributions

---

There are an increasing number of conferences, workshops, and funding opportunities in DH, and we would like to ensure that you are aware of them. We will start every session with a moment for individuals to share news about upcoming lectures, workshops, seminars, and conferences. We have a corresponding Slack group where we also share these opportunities both during the discussion group meetings and in between. The link to join the Slack group is included in every email sent out to the mailing list, so watch for it there or send us an email to request access.

If you would like to register or invite other colleagues to join, please complete the registration form for the mailing list here. Please note, if you have received emails from us about the Discussion Group in the past, it means you are already on our mailing list. In that case, there is no need to register again—you will receive the emails with the MS Teams link and any additional information on the day of the session. Additionally, you will also receive updates on upcoming sessions including further details about speakers and the “under-the-hood” presentation topics. 

Are you a frequent attendee of the DH Virtual Discussion Group and would like a low-threshold way to become more involved in the organization? We are looking for ambassadors to promote the group within their university networks. If this might be a role you would like to take on, get in touch and we can tell you more!

We look forward to seeing you this spring!

These events are only open to KU Leuven researchers and staff

To support researchers in their use of relational data, CLARIAH-VL+ & Artes Research (partners in DH@rts) are hosting 2 Nodegoat workshops.

Nodegoat is a web-based research environment designed for the Humanities. The platform enables researchers to manage and visualize complex historical data, including vague dates and historical regions, as well as to generate diachronic geographical and social network visualizations.

During the workshop, participants will learn how to use this flexible digital environment for their own projects.

Program

The workshops will be given by Geert Kessels & Pim van Bree (the developers of LAB1100).

• The morning session (09:30-12:30) will cover a general introduction to Nodegoat
• During the afternoon session (14:00-17:00) the developers will present more advanced Nodegoat features.

You may sign up for just the morning session, just the afternoon session, or both workshops.  Just make sure to register for each session individually.

Practicalities

• When: April 24, 2026 from 09:30 to 12:30 and from 14:00-17:00
• Where: Colloquium (05.28) in the University Library. These are in-person workshops and will not be recorded.
• For who: This event is open to KU Leuven researchers working in the Humanities. No prior experience is required. Participants are encouraged to bring their own research questions or datasets to explore within Nodegoat
• Price and registration: Free but mandatory. You can register here. You may sign up for just the morning session, just the afternoon session, or both workshops.  Just make sure to register for each session individually. Registration deadline is 10 April 2026. 
• More info: Click here

Every academic year, the HDYDI (How Do You Do (It)?) event on research data workflows signals the start of the Digital Scholarship Module. Through a series of sessions and (mini-)workshops, Artes Research aims to guide students through the complexities of scholarship in the digital age, from Open Science to Research Data Management and beyond.

At the HDYDI kick-off event, we invite three researchers from the Faculty of Arts to open the black box of their research workflows. By sharing the practical tools, decisions, and challenges that shape their day‑to‑day work, they aim to offer the first-year PhD researchers a realistic insight into what digital scholarship can look like across disciplines. We hope these behind‑the‑scenes glimpses help you discover approaches that can inform your own research journey!

---

Tim Debroyer: From Paper to Digital Source

The first speaker, Tim Debroyer, is a third-year PhD candidate at the Cultural History since 1750 research group. Under the supervision of Joris Vandendriessche and Kaat Wils, Tim is studying the evolution of 20th-century Belgian patient organisations as an overlooked link in the development of the modern welfare state. This involves examining their oral history as well as archival and published sources.

The focus of Tim’s talk is on the latter – periodicals specifically form one of the most important sources of information for his project. Faced with thousands of pages early on in his research project, he had to make strategic decisions: what to photograph, how to photograph it, and which digital methods were worth the investment.

Taking BVS Nieuws, the periodical of a diabetes association founded in the 1940s, as an example, Tim explains that he ended up manually photographing the entire series of journals so as to allow for a more thorough discourse analysis. This experience taught him some “tricks” which might be useful to others looking to photograph large amounts of text. Firstly, he used a classic camera in order to avoid the post-processing which smartphones tend to apply, and which can harm OCR quality. Secondly, he made sure to always photograph beyond the edges of the page to make it easier for the OCR software to recognize the boundaries. Thirdly, since taking pictures in the library was quite hectic, Tim always made notes of what he was doing: for instance, what stood out in the issues and what was missing – this made it much easier to return to the sources later on in his trajectory.

Once he properly organized the resulting pictures in folders per issue or volume with short, meaningful names, Tim set to extract the text using OCR (Optical Text Recognition) tools in order to enable keyword searches and quantitative analysis. (This is a labor-intensive step, he cautions, so make sure that it makes sense for your methodology before adopting it yourself.) Numerous scanning apps and online tools exist – Tesseract, Google Cloud Vision and Transkribus (for handwritten text) are great options for the more technically minded – but Tim made use of ABBYY FineReader, a commonly used OCR tool that is very performant and user-friendly. It is a commercial tool, but computers with ABBYY licenses are available at the Maurits Sabbe Library and Agora, so researchers looking to digitize a limited number of sources are free to go there without having to purchase their own license. ABBYY FineReader allows for image pre-processing (e.g. fixing lighting, straightening and cropping pictures), supports various languages, recognizes images in sources as well, and offers various formats for exporting (including .txt files). Tim was quite satisfied with the quality of the OCR’d texts: take good pictures, he says, and ABBYY will deliver good results!

To conclude, Tim shows how he processed the resulting text files in AntConc, a free concordance tool that’s often used for text mining. It allows for large-scale word searching and analysis, can provide keyword frequencies and information about relations to other words, and can easily compare different corpora. (Tim provides a small tip for those looking to explore AntConc: keep a stopword list of high-frequency words with little thematic content that the tool can filter out of its analysis.)

Of course, every researcher has to figure out what workflow suits them, but Tim importantly highlights that you should think about what you want to achieve before investing in digital methods. Consider the nature of your research project, the characteristics of your source corpus, the methodologies you use (discourse analysis, quantitative analysis, network & visual analysis) and let these things decide how you will process and study your sources. At the same time, don’t be afraid to try out new tools that might work well for you!

Of course, the quality of ABBYY FineReader’s OCR results depends on the quality of the input images.

---

Lauren Ottaviani: Mapping and Analyzing Women’s Magazine Archives

Our second speaker is Lauren Ottaviani, fourth-year PhD candidate in English Literature. Lauren’s project, supervised by Elke D’hoker, focuses on the representation of the women’s suffrage movement in two conservative, middlebrow periodicals dating to the late 19th and early 20th centuries: The Woman at Home and Lady of the House. In doing so, the research seeks to consider the interaction between suffrage and domestic ideals at the turn of the twentieth century.

Similarly to Tim, then, Lauren also works with a large corpus of periodicals; and just as we saw with Tim, many of the magazines’ issues – which tend to be quite lengthy – remained as yet undigitized. The complexity of her materials meant that Lauren had to decide early on how to approach data management efficiently. In the end, a combination of three tools informed her research workflow.

Firstly, early on, she shifted from using Word for note-taking to using the free open-source tool Obsidian instead. As Lauren says, Obsidian (which was covered in last year’s HDYDI session as well) has the same ease of use that a program like Word offers, but you’ll actually be able to find your note again! With its added functionality, Obsidian allowed her to create a relational database of notes categorized by date, theme, or type, so as to keep track of any stories worth revisiting. Through tags and linked notes, Lauren could keep track of authorship, include direct links to the digitized magazine pages, and even uncover recurring anonymous authors. It’s also just a great tool for conference notes and miscellaneous admin.

Secondly, Lauren made use of the storage that’s provided by KU Leuven on OneDrive for Business. Currently, OneDrive is no longer recommended as a primary storage solution for research data at the university,¹ but it does have some useful features – and it proved particularly handy for Lauren’s use case. Using the OneDrive smartphone app, she took pictures of interesting articles in the periodicals she was studying and placed those in her pre-organized folder structure. In contrast to Tim, Lauren did not think full OCR of her corpus was worth the time investment or really relevant to her research questions, but this smaller-scale scanning process (which resulted in perfectly legible captures) worked great for her methodology.

Thirdly and finally, Lauren also adopted Nodegoat as part of her workflow, mainly for its “mapping” potential. That is, Nodegoat is a database tool, but it also offers built-in network visualization capabilities, which Lauren used to map out different entries – i.e. letters from the magazines’ correspondence columns – tagged with geolocations. The resulting visualization allowed her to track where readers lived, what the magazines’ geographical reach was, and how their readership expanded over time – elements that were central to her analysis of the periodicals’ circulation.

Using a combination of these three tools, Lauren was able to create a structured, well-organized database out of a vast, undigitized corpus; and even though her approach differed quite substantially from that of Tim, both illustrate how the right tools, used well, help make large-scale periodical research manageable.

Using Nodegoat, Lauren was able to map out the readership of the periodicals she’s studying.

---

Sinem Bilican: Managing Multimodal Data in Healthcare Research

Sinem Bilican is the last speaker: as a PhD candidate at the Research Unit Translation & Interpreting Studies, she is part of the interdisciplinary research project Managing Language Barriers in Unplanned Care (MaLBUC). With the help of her supervisor Heidi Salaets, Sinem studies linguistic diversity and multilingual communication in healthcare practices with the goal of laying bare overlooked communication barriers. As such, her project involves collaboration with the Faculty of Medicine, and we can reasonably expect very different data types from what we saw in Tim’s and Lauren’s presentations.

Indeed, the interdisciplinary and collaborative nature of the research project – which encompasses ethnographic observations as well as a large-scale survey and interviews – necessitates the implementation of clear research data management practices. Sinem works with extensive field notes, images, video and audio recordings, questionnaires, and other survey data: a lot of materials to manage, to be sure!

Sinem begins by outlining the tools involved in her daily research workflow. Zotero is a usual suspect here, and one which we see in many researchers’ workflows as a handy reference manager as well as a note-taking and annotation tool. OneDrive, meanwhile, enables Sinem to exchange data, drafts and other documents transparently between team members; whereas for a related larger-scale project, the team opted for the ease of use of Teams and SharePoint (which is a recommended storage solution at the Faculty of Arts). Finally, Obsidian is mentioned again, and Sinem stresses its convenience for taking both academic and miscellaneous notes.

Next, Sinem presents some of the tools she used during the data collection phase of her research project. Interestingly, the first tool she talks about is an actual physical tool: a Livescribe pen. This smart pen with a built-in recorder synchronizes handwritten notes with audio, allowing Sinem to easily reconstruct interviews and medical consultations she attended² – after a day of fieldwork, you can just plug it into your laptop and have everything appear in the Livescribe app. For the surveys, Sinem uses REDCap, which is commonly used in the Biomedical Sciences: it is a highly secure, KU Leuven-authenticated tool that can automatically generate full survey reports. It is, as Sinem points out, also quite a technical tool, but the university provides comprehensive support for users.

The last tool Sinem considers takes us from data collection to research dissemination – namely, Canva. Canva is a user-friendly, web-based design platform that’s great for making posters, visuals, and any other materials you might need to present your research. It allows for image upscaling, QR-code generation, and even themed PowerPoint slide decks. Sinem’s enthusiasm for Canva is infectious – and fittingly, she used it to create her HDYDI presentation as well!

By combining these tools, Sinem is able to navigate a complex, interdisciplinary project that involves varied datasets with clarity and structure; and while her workflow differs markedly from those of Tim and Lauren, it likewise shows how thoughtful tool choices can make even the most challenging research environments manageable.

REDCap proved a useful tool for Sinem’s research data workflow.

---

Across all three presentations, the workflows we saw revealed both overlaps and differences, but the shared message was clear: the best workflow is the one that genuinely works for your project. Let these examples inspire you, try out the tools that seem useful, and keep what supports your work. With a bit of exploration, you may find a data workflow that not only suits your project, but strengthens it!

---

1. As explained in the university’s storage solution FAQ, there are a number of reasons why OneDrive is no longer recommended as a primary solution for long-term research data storage; most significantly the fact that data stored on OneDrive servers is inaccessible to KU Leuven, which goes against RDM policy (principle II). This means that any data that you’ve kept on OneDrive is erased as soon as you leave the university for any reason, and recovering files is a difficult and costly procedure. ︎
2. Of course, these recordings were made with informed consent of all involved. ︎

Have you been meaning to set up an appointment to ask about research data management for your project, an aspect of your research workflow, or a specific DH tool or method? Visit one of our drop-in sessions and we will help you on the spot! No need to make an appointment!

The sessions are designed to support researchers, students, and staff members in all areas of digital scholarship. The initiative is a collaboration between Artes Research, DH-support staff and researchers at the Faculty of Arts, and ICTS at the Faculty of Arts.

Some areas we can help you with:

• Providing resources for various DH and RDM tools
• Advice on DMPs and Research Data Management in general
• Suggesting DH tools or methods for your specific research questions
  • Relational databases in FileMaker
  • Social Network Analysis and network visualizations
  • Computational tools for working with texts
  • …
• Getting started with Zotero or optimizing Zotero use with an existing Zotero library
• Advice on scholarly communication
• Advice on Lirias
• … and much more!

Don’t have a question about any of the above but want to learn more about DH? No problem! Come and use our space for co-working! It’s a great moment to develop digital skills by starting a Programming Historian tutorial, for instance!

Everyone is welcome to attend, you do not need to register!

Stop by on one of the following dates and we will be glad to help you:

• 29/01/2026: 14:00h -16:00h, Het Salon LETT 00.24, Erasmushuis
• 19/02/2026: 14:00h -16:00h, Het Salon LETT 00.24, Erasmushuis
• 19/03/2026: 14:00h -16:00h, Het Salon LETT 00.24, Erasmushuis
• 28/04/2026: 14:00h -16:00h, Het Salon LETT 00.24, Erasmushuis
• 26/05/2026: 14:00h -16:00h, Het Salon LETT 00.24, Erasmushuis
• 25/06/2026: 14:00h -16:00h, Het Salon LETT 00.24, Erasmushuis

This event is only open to KU Leuven researchers, students and staff.

In March 2026, KU Leuven Libraries and the Faculty of Arts will organize the second edition of the BiblioTech Hackathon!

What is a hackathon? It is an event that is usually organized over a short period of time where participants come together in small groups and work intensively on a creative digital project or towards some digital end. In the case of BiblioTech, KU Leuven researchers, students, or staff will be divided into small groups and will work specifically on one of the datasets prepared (by LIBIS) for the hackathon. The groups will be guided by at least one group leader and will be able to rely on the help of an expert pool comprised of people who have specific technical knowledge and skills. The groups are free to follow their creative inspiration but must apply some digital approaches or tools to the dataset to produce an end result that will be presented in the form of a short presentation and a poster at the closing event of the hackathon.

Who are we looking for? One of the amazing benefits of hackathons is that they allow many different people with diverse backgrounds and skill sets to come together and to learn from one another. This is our goal for BiblioTech! We welcome applications from researchers at all stages of their careers, motivated students, and also KU Leuven staff members. Digital skills are not a must, but a willingness to learn about digital approaches definitely is. The hackathon should be a fun and engaging experience, and each participant should find themselves with new skills and perspectives at the end.

What about the data? The 2026 edition of the BiblioTech Hackathon is going places! Participants will have the option to work with two datasets both focused on the experience of travel. The first dataset comes from KU Leuven Libraries digitized collections and features historical picture postcards. The second dataset comprises historical travelogues. This combination of image, metadata, and textual materials provides many opportunities for the application of DH methods. We are all excited to see where this data leads you! 

Practical details

The hackathon will span 10 days and will take place from Monday 16 March until Thursday 26 March. In addition to the working period of the hackathon, there will be a pre-hackathon brainstorming event where participants “Meet the Data, Meet the People,” prior to the start of the hackathon, a training day to learn how to use the infrastructure (ManGO and HPC service), and a closing event where the teams’ projects are presented.

• When: Mark your calendars for the following dates:
  • Application Deadline: 5 January 2026 (23:59 CET)
  • Pre-Hackathon Brainstorm | Meet the Data, Meet the People: 12 March 2026
  • Infrastructure Training: 13 March 2026
  • Hackathon Working Period: 16–26 March 2026
  • Hackathon Closing Event: 26 March 2026
  • from Monday 13 March until Thursday 23 March
• Where: Leuven (see above for more details)
• For whom: We welcome applications from researchers at all stages of their careers, motivated students, and also KU Leuven staff members. Digital skills are not a must, but a willingness to learn about digital approaches definitely is.
• Price: free
• Registration: Already convinced and want to take part? Great! Submit an application here. The deadline to apply is 5 January 2026 (23:59 CET).  We look forward to hacking with you!

Want to see further details? Check out the BiblioTech Hackathon website for the most current information.

Are you a Digital Humanities student or early career researcher in Belgium who would like to discuss DH with other early career researchers in the Belgian DH community? If so, you might be interested in joining the DH Virtual Discussion Group for ECRs!

The DH Virtual Discussion Group is a joint initiative organized by individuals at multiple Belgian institutions. We strive to involve speakers from all Belgian institutions and encourage participation from all those who are interested in DH and are located at any Belgian institution. This year, the core organizers are Leah Budke (KU Leuven Libraries Artes), Tom Gheldof (KU Leuven, CLARIAH-VL+), Paavo van der Eecken (University of Antwerp), and Loren Verreyen (University of Antwerp). Over the past years, the series has become a regular event. The fall 2025 edition proudly marks our eleventh term.

Our first two sessions this fall will continue the “under-the-hood” format, which entails a volunteer from our community providing a thirty-minute overview of a digital project implementing a given tool, approach, or platform. This is not meant to be a polished research presentation, or to present findings or results, but rather to give our community a behind-the-scenes look at how decisions were made and why specific tools were chosen or developed. The hope is also that this presenter will give attendees some ideas about how to get started implementing a specific tool or workflow, and that they can also answer questions or contribute to a discussion on other projects in our community that might be using similar methodologies or addressing similar issues. This “under-the-hood” session format allows us to have focused discussions around a specific project where we can learn from each other in an informal way. In addition, by implementing this format we can maintain the low threshold for contributing and engaging in the conversations.

Our final session will be a round table session during which 3-4 members of our community chat with us about their experience doing a PhD with a Digital Humanities component.

---

The following sessions are on the schedule for the fall 2025 semester (details will be updated as confirmed):

Session 1
Monday 20 October, 15h-16h30 CEST via Teams
Speaker(s): Theodora Rontzova, KU Leuven
Title: Cultural Heritage in Virtual Worlds – the IMPULSE Project
Abstract: My presentation will introduce IMPULSE, a project that aims to enhance accessibility to digitized cultural heritage collections through immersive technology, fostering diverse narrative and public engagement. Over the course of three years, IMPULSE will enhance accessibility to digitized cultural content, optimize streamline digitization processes in the three focus areas of education, artistic creation and CCSIs, develop legal frameworks to mitigate risks and barriers in utilizing cultural heritage data, and foster collaborative creation on immersive platforms. My presentation will provide an overview of the most recent developments within the different Work Packages of the project, with focus on the findings of the two recent workshops in Leuven and in Malta. I will share insights from the development of the virtual platform that will lead to the project’s final Hackathon later this year, and I will finally invite participants to engage with our Community of Practice.

Session 2
Monday 17 November, 15h-16h30 CET via Teams
Speaker(s): Sara Budts, VUB
Title: Finding Patterns in Lottery Rhymes of the Late Medieval and Early Modern Low Countries with and without AI
Abstract: This presentation explores the patterns in lottery rhymes produced in the late medieval and early modern Low Countries, with a focus on the rhymes written by women. The lottery was a popular fundraising event in the Low Countries. Lottery rhymes, personal messages attached to the lottery tickets, provide a valuable source for historians. We collected more than 11,000 digitised short texts from five lotteries held between 1446 and 1606. We have used GysBERT, a language model of historical Dutch, to identify distinctively male and female discourses in the lottery rhymes corpus. Although the model pointed us to some interesting patterns, it also showed that lottery rhymes written by men and women do not radically differ from each other. This is consistent with insights from premodern women’s history which stresses that women worked within societal, and in this case literary, conventions, sometimes subverting them, sometimes adapting them, sometimes adopting them unchanged.

Session 3 – Round Table Session
Monday 15 December, 15h-16h30 CET via Teams
Speaker(s): To be confirmed
Session Description: This session features insights from 3-4 PhD researchers in our network who are working with DH methods. The session is designed to be free-flowing and informal, but you can expect the following avenues of discussion: (1) how the researcher became interested or started integrating DH methods in their research, (2) the challenges faced when learning new DH skills, (3) important resources that have helped throughout this process, (4) other challenges encountered related to the perception or acceptance of DH, and (5) specific benefits that DH methods have offered for the researcher’s work.

---

There are an increasing number of conferences, workshops, and funding opportunities in DH, and we would like to ensure that you are aware of them. We will start every session with a moment for individuals to share news about upcoming lectures, workshops, seminars, and conferences. We have a corresponding Slack group where we also share these opportunities both during the discussion group meetings and in between. The link to join the Slack group is included in every email sent out to the mailing list, so watch for it there or send us an email to request access.

If you would like to register or invite other colleagues to join, please complete the registration form for the mailing list here. Please note, if you have received emails from us about the Discussion Group in the past, it means you are already on our mailing list. In that case, there is no need to register again—you will receive the emails with the MS Teams link and any additional information on the day of the session. Additionally, you will also receive updates on upcoming sessions including further details about speakers and the “under-the-hood” presentation topics. 

Are you a frequent attendee of the DH Virtual Discussion Group and would like a low-threshold way to become more involved in the organization? We are looking for ambassadors to promote the group within their university networks. If this might be a role you would like to take on, get in touch and we can tell you more!

We look forward to seeing you this fall!

This event is only open to KU Leuven researchers and staff.

The Artes Research team from KU Leuven Libraries Artes and the ABAP council will kick off the new academic year with a special “How Do You Do (It)?” (HDYDI) session dedicated to research data workflows. This special session will coincide with the start of the Digital Scholarship Module taught by the Artes Research team. It will take place on Thursday 6 November, 14:00-16:30, in the Justus Lipsiuszaal (Erasmushuis, Leuven).

Everyone is welcome to attend, you do not need to register!

Program

14:00-15:00

To help you through the afternoon slump, we will start with coffee and cookies which will be served in the main entrance hall of the Erasmushuis.

15:00-16h30

We will then move up to the 8^th floor (Justus Lipsiuszaal) to start the session which will feature talks from researchers at the Faculty of Arts who outline their research workflows: how do they approach their research, what tools do they use, with what kind of data are they working, etc. We will get a behind-the-scenes look from:

• Tim Debroyer (Cultural History since 1750)
• Lauren Ottaviani (English Literature)
• Sinem Bilican (Interpreting Studies)

There will be lots of time for questions and getting to know each other’s workflows.

The event will take place in Leuven, but if you would like to join online you can let us know at artesresearch@kuleuven.be and we will provide you with the link.

Practical details

• When: Thursday 6 November, from 14:00 to 16:30
• Where: coffee in main entrance hall and session in Justus Lipsiuszaal (Erasmushuis, Leuven) with online option: if you would like to join online you can let us know at artesresearch@kuleuven.be and we will provide you with the link
• Price: free
• Registration: no registration required

The Flanders Training Network for Methodology and Statistics (FLAMES) is an inter-university training network comprised of Ghent University, Hasselt University, University of Antwerp, KU Leuven, and the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. This network is organizing a number of statistics and methodology courses this fall.

Some courses that may be of interest to our researchers include:

03/10/2025: Photovoice – the use of participatory photography in qualitative research – ON CAMPUS
27/10/2025: Critical Discourse Analysis – ON CAMPUS
05/11/2025: Strategies in qualitative data-analysis from a Grounded Theory perspective – ON CAMPUS
07/11/2025: Introduction to Interpretability & explanability in AI with Python – ONLINE
17/11/2025: Ethnographic research and observational methods – ONLINE
24/11/2025: Using NVivo for Qualitative Data Analysis – ON CAMPUS

The above is just a selection of the courses that are on the program for this fall. To see the full list of training opportunities and to register for any of the courses, visit the FLAMES website.

Each year the Artes Research team offers the opportunity for students to do an internship with our team. During spring 2025, Helin Toprak, a student in the Advanced Master in Digital Humanities, joined us.

The Artes Research team frequently (co-)organizes training opportunities and collects training resources for researchers at the Faculty of Arts. Helin’s internship focused on this aspect of our work. During her three months with us, she developed resources on a variety of tools we find useful for our researchers. Helin created tutorials showcasing the functionalities of OpenRefine, and two Knight Lab tools, Timeline JS, and StoryMap JS.

OpenRefine is a tool that is useful for nearly all researchers who work with structured data and computational methods. An aspect of the research data workflow that is crucial in the beginning stages is data cleaning and transformation. OpenRefine is a free open-source web-based tool that allows users to do just that. During her internship, Helin created a tutorial to help researchers get started with this tool. The tutorial is designed for users who have no experience with OpenRefine and are looking to learn about the features and explore its uses.

The other two resources that Helin created focus on two tools from the Knight Lab suite. Timeline JS is an open-source tool developed to help users create interactive timelines. This is an accessible tool that anyone can use. The web-based tool just requires data that users put into a Google spreadsheet, then it’s ready to go with multiple options for customization. Advanced features allow those with more expertise to use their JSON skills to further customize their output.

StoryMap JS is also a free web-based tool developed by Knight Lab. This tool is designed to be highly visual. Users can add images and text to maps, allowing them to create a story or illustrate certain events or situations that might be relevant to their research topics. This tool is equally as accessible as Timeline JS and can be customized to fit a researcher’s needs and style.

To learn about these two tools as well as OpenRefine, you can have a look at the resources that Helin created during her internship. They are accessible via the following Zenodo record (make sure to look through all the documents in the record for each separate resource):

• Toprak, H. R. (2025, July 16). Materials for KU Leuven Libraries – Artes Research. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15982530

We would like to thank Helin for her great work during her internship! She was a pleasure to have as an intern, and we wish her all the best in her career after graduating from the Advanced Master in Digital Humanities!