Report on the Franco-German Summer School “Open(ing) Science? Digital Humanities in Area Studies”
By Longhai Gao (School of History, Nanjing University/University of Munich), Le Thuy Tien NGUYEN (Paris, Ecole nationale des chartes) and Sánchez Heldiza (Universität Leipzig)

Introduction
From July 7 to 11, 2025, the Leipzig Research Centre Global Dynamics (ReCentGlobe) and the French consortium DISTAM (DIgital STudies Africa, Asia, Middle East) jointly hosted the inaugural Franco-German Summer School on Digital Humanities and Area Studies at Leipzig University. This summer school featured three key characteristics:
First, it embraced diversified research themes with an emphasis on interaction. The themes focused on four core areas: working with text using handwritten text recognition (HTR) and optical character recognition (OCR); data visualization; spatialization and its digital representation via geo-information systems (GIS) and related methods; and open data and data sharing. These themes collectively covered almost all domains of digital humanities research. Additionally, the project presentations exhibited distinct cross-regional, cross-temporal, and interdisciplinary attributes.
Second, the participants boasted a highly international background, encompassing researchers from Germany, France, China, Vietnam, the United Kingdom, and other countries. The research themes also spanned multiple global domains, including manuscript documents from regions such as Europe, Africa, and Asia, with languages covering Latin, German, French, Arabic, Armenian, and Edo language.
Third, it adopted diversified course formats integrating social activities and field trips. Beyond delivering digital humanities education through methods such as lectures, roundtable discussions, workshops, and project presentations, the summer school also organized field visits for teachers and students to the Bibliotheca Albertina and its Manuscript Centre, as well as the Grassi Museum of Ethnology, offering firsthand experiences of Leipzig’s digital humanities cultural practices.
The following article will elaborate on three aspects of the event: lectures and roundtable discussions, parallel workshops, and cultural exploration tours in Leipzig.
Lectures and Roundtable Discussions
Lectures were delivered based on individual or team projects, with a stronger emphasis on practice. Each report presented a relatively mature case, demonstrating the entire workflow of implementing a digital humanities project and thus providing valuable references for participants. These presentations not only outlined the specific objectives, methodologies, and technical frameworks of the projects but also highlighted the practical challenges encountered during execution and the corresponding solutions. By showcasing such well-developed cases, they offered participants concrete models to draw upon, helping them better understand how to translate theoretical concepts into actionable research practices in the field of digital humanities.
Daniel Kinitz (Saxon Academy of Sciences and Humanities), in his lecture he introduced the “Bibliotheca Arabica” project, which has established a large-scale database of Arabic manuscripts aiming to provide new perspectives for traditional Arabic studies. Through the specific case of “Commentarial Relations,” the project explores the complex relationships (political, cultural, religious, etc.) between manuscript commentaries and elaborates on the current challenges encountered, such as digitization costs, policy changes, and ethical and legal issues.
Shih-Pei Chen (Max Planck Institute for the History of Science) introduced the “Local Gazetteers Research Tools (LoGaRT)”—a digital humanities research tool designed for searching, analyzing, and collecting digitized data from Chinese local gazetteers. Using concrete cases, she demonstrated how large-scale gazetteers reveal the underlying knowledge structures and their evolution over time.
Cosima Wagner (Freie Universität Berlin & NFDI4Memory) delivered a lecture on the challenges with regard to multilinguality and data access which sought to address the strong biases toward English and other major languages in digital research infrastructure – from library catalogues to DH tools. She analysed the structural hindrances and proposed ideas for knowledge infrastructures that take into account the multilingual diversity of research worldwide.
Eiloghosa Obobaifo & Iwinosa Oyakhire (Institute for Digital Heritage) presented the project “Digital Benin”, a platform that aggregates digital records of excavated artifacts looted from the Kingdom of Benin (now southern Nigeria). By utilizing platform data and integrating oral histories and local knowledge systems, the project aims to develop a more nuanced understanding of the artifacts’ origins and cultural significance.
Eva Ommert (Leipzig University & NFDI4Memory) held a presentation on research data management, offering suggestions and insights for digital humanities researchers with regard to data organization, data documentation and metadata, legal and ethical issues, and archiving and reusing research data.
From the above discussions, we can conclude that digital humanities represents both an inheritance and a transcendence of traditional humanities. The research approach in traditional humanities relies on scholars—working individually or in small teams—who form their own perspectives after engaging with large volumes of literature. However, the capacity of individuals or small teams to process such extensive materials is inherently limited, making it difficult to achieve comprehensive coverage of all relevant texts. Digital humanities research, by contrast, effectively addresses this limitation: through the application of digital methodologies—such as training models to conduct extensive analysis of documents within large-scale corpora—researchers can identify new questions, phenomena, and patterns that are challenging to discern through traditional humanities approaches. This exploratory mode of research constitutes a significant source of academic innovation.
In addition, the summer school hosted two roundtables, focusing on the digital humanities turn in area studies, along with its applications and challenges. The first discussion was chaired by Kathleen Schlütter (Leipzig University & NFDI4Memory), with Anne Lipp (University Library Leipzig), Matthias Middell (Leipzig University & NFDI4Memory), Mercedes Volait (CNRS & DISTAM), and Sandra Aube (CNRS & DISTAM) jointly addressing Franco-German perspectives on the digital turn in area studies. The experts focused their discussions on the differences and common features of this digital turn in France and Germany, with an emphasis on the role of libraries as partners in data access and research.
The second roundtable, moderated by Mercedes Volait (CNRS & DISTAM), centered on artificial intelligence, open access, and ethical dimensions. Chahan Vidal-Gorène (École nationale des chartes & Calfa), Cosima Wagner (Freie Universität Berlin & NFDI4Memory), Mareike König (German Historical Institute, Paris), and Torsten Wollina (De Gruyter/Brill) primarily explored three aspects: the role of publishing houses in assuring (or hindering) access to research publications; the possibilities but also challenges of open science; how Large Language Models (LLMs) are changing the game.
Against the backdrop of the vigorous development of artificial intelligence (AI), these discussions directly addressed the impact of AI on traditional humanities disciplines and explored the digital humanities turn in academic research along with its attendant challenges. For researchers, artificial intelligence presents both challenges and opportunities in academic inquiry. Therefore, we should neither evade nor fear it, nor overstate its role. Even though AI can surpass researchers in processing large-scale texts, its cognitive source remains rooted in the literature within corpora; one could say that its cognitive “boundaries” are coterminous with the “boundaries” of digitized documents. While digital humanities can identify new questions and patterns, it lacks the humanistic value orientation inherent in human researchers. Thus, the future research direction for humanities scholars should be to build upon their humanistic values, supplemented by AI-based technical methods, ultimately achieving the goals of new exploration and discovery.

Parallel Workshops
Working with Text (from Longhai Gao’s perspective)
The “Working with Text” workshop series consisted of four workshops, where instructors delivered phased lectures covering topics such as the working principles of automatic text recognition; practical operations including automatic recognition, extraction, proper storage, and critical editing of text data; construction and training of corpora; and application of corpora in relevant research.
First of all, Marie Bizais-Lillig (University of Strasbourg & DISTAM), in her workshop on structuring a corpus of text, focused on the formats and methods for text editing. After standardizing the text, she provided solutions for structuring, documenting, and enriching text editing formats.
Secondly, Chahan Vidal-Gorène (Ecole des Chartes & Calfa) introduced the application of vision transformers in the detection and deciphering of inscriptions. Using Armenian ancient inscriptions and art history corpus research as case studies, this workshop introduced the basic principles of image annotation and trained a new model for image detection, which facilitated subsequent research. This model training method can be extended to the recognition and processing of any type of corpus, making it one of the most widely used approaches in the current field of digital humanities.
Thirdly, Noëmie Lucas (University of Edinburgh) and Chahan Vidal-Gorène (École nationale des chartes & Calfa) co-led a workshop that focused on automatic text recognition for non-Latin languages and explored the construction of solutions using existing OCR/HTR methods. The workshop not only offered an introductory guide to these methods but also discussed the challenges, difficulties, recent advancements, and new perspectives in applying OCR to non-Latin languages.
Finally, Noëmie Lucas (University of Edinburgh) conducted a workshop that focussed on Arabic manuscript texts, this workshop delved into the technical details of OCR/HTR and project implementation. Additionally, it demonstrated text re-use analysis and explored how to deeply integrate research questions with digital humanities methods.
I actively participated in the “Working with Text” parallel workshop. As I had previously attended a Digital Humanities Summer Workshop co-hosted by Peking University and Harvard University in 2022, I’d like to share some thoughts on the specificities of both concepts. The Peking University workshop adopted a hybrid format of “instructor lectures + project practice,” covering both theoretical and technical fundamentals of digital humanities and hands-on project practice for participants. Participant teams of 4–5 members competed and presented an academic project under the guidance of instructors This hands-on approach to specific projects maximized the integration of theory and practice. But content-wise, the workshop primarily involved the Chinese language, with scarce discussions on other languages. Its themes were relatively concentrated, covering a narrow geographical scope that included studies on ancient Chinese history, Chinese philosophy, and the urban space of Beijing. The technical focus was also confined to text analysis using the R language, resulting in a relatively limited research scope.
In contrast, the Franco-German Summer School featured more international themes and a broader geographical scope of research. It not only included text analysis of major European languages such as English, German, French, and Latin but also covered texts from regions like Africa, Armenia, and the Arab world. Moreover, it incorporated emerging content on large AI language models, applying them to model training developed by researchers themselves to enhance the accuracy of text or image recognition. This results in a less intensive training of the different methods, while a the same time providing a good overview.
The Franco-German Summer School enabled participants to gain insight into the entire workflow of digital humanities projects—from automatic text recognition, extraction, and storage to corpus and large model training, and further to critical text editing, research, and corpus application. It also provided a deeper understanding of diverse research pathways across different projects, which is crucial for expanding academic horizons. For me, this summer school not only offered opportunities to learn more digital tools and methods amid the rapid evolution of digital technologies, thereby forming a clearer and more concrete understanding of the overall process of digital humanities research projects, but also strengthened my resolve to complete my doctoral dissertation using digital methods through interactions with researchers and peers. I am also convinced that digital historical research holds broad prospects for development.
In my own research, I am attempting to apply topic modeling to explore the 18th-century German perception of the world. Through participation in the “Working with Text” workshop, I constructed a corpus using the Jesuit-published magazine Der Neue Welt-Bott and gained an understanding of how to more effectively train large language models with it. With the assistance of fellow participants, I also became familiar with more OCR and large language model tools, which have been of great benefit to my research. Furthermore, I drew on the project experiences shared by the workshop researchers; the difficulties they encountered in their projects, as well as their solutions, have enhanced my problem-solving abilities. In conclusion, I appreciated the approaches of both summer schools which helped me with different aspects of my research.
Data Visualization (from NGUYEN Le Thuy Tien’s perspective)
Regarding data visualization workshops, the program included introduction sessions about map conceptualization and development or geographical representations for Digital Humanities research projects, along with practical workshops to learn more about some new tools commonly employed in network data analysis and visualization: Nodegoat and Gephi, both widely used in Digital Humanities projects.
In the introductory workshop led by Jana Moser, I revisited my approach to mapping and data visualization. Indeed, Moser clarified that focus would not be on technical aspects such as GIS tools, but rather on conceptual thinking and critical reflection. She emphasized that there is no single “correct” map— and that different maps serve different purposes, depending on the intended message and research question.
I used to view maps as purely technical tools for precisely representing location. However, this workshop opened my eyes to the many more possibilities offered by maps: to tell stories, reflect historical or political contexts, and even reveal underlying biases. Moser presented several examples, such as propaganda or distorted maps, due to political borders shifting, and explained how colors and scale can shape the viewer’s perception. As a matter of fact, she recommended using neutral backgrounds such as light gray to ensure that data remains the focal point. She also warned against modern basemaps tools, like OpenStreetMap, to use for historical data, as contemporary features may distort the temporal accuracy of the visualization.
Moser also introduced alternatives to conventional territorial maps, such as dot maps, proportional symbol maps, and cartograms, which can more effectively convey information such as population or election results. She referenced Jacques Bertin’s theory of visual variables—such as size, color, texture, and shape—and explained how these should be aligned with the type of data being visualized (nominal, ordinal, or quantitative). For example, using a color gradient for nominal data like profession may imply a false sense of hierarchy.
Another aspect of the workshop was the debate among participants, some of whom presented their own visualizations for discussion. Moser’s feedback helped highlight the importance of understanding principles such as map projection, data classification, and color usage—all of which significantly affect how results are interpreted. The workshop inspired me to consider building interactive maps for future research, or even creating story maps that combine narrative text, imagery, and geolocation to convey more engaging stories.
Then, I participated in two additional workshops about Nodegoat (led by Kathleen Schlütter) and Gephi (led by Roman Kuhn). With Nodegoat, we were introduced to a web-based platform tailored for data modeling, management, and visualization, along with spatial and temporal dimensions. Nodegoat is particularly powerful for its ability to customize data structures, assign geographic coordinates as well as time markers to entities, and visualize them through dynamic maps and interactive timelines. It also supports collaborative work, with options to share research projects privately or publicly, and can easily embed charts or maps into websites.
During the hands-on session, we were guided through each step—from accessing Nodegoat, creating a data model, importing CSV files, down to data visualization on maps and network diagrams. This experience made me realize the potential of Nodegoat not only for organizing research data but also for presenting it as a narrative.
In the Gephi workshop, I gained a better understanding of network analysis within the context of humanities and social sciences. Kuhn presented fundamental concepts such as nodes, edges, modularity, and centrality measures like degree and PageRank. He also emphasized that visualizations are never entirely neutral—choosing the wrong layout or metric can lead to misleading interpretations, especially when dealing with historical or textual data.
The practical component allowed us to explore layout algorithms such as ForceAtlas2 and GeoLayout to construct and analyze networks. I was particularly impressed by Voltaire’s letter network case study, where identifying communities, intermediary nodes, and influential actors sparked ideas for my own research. I am specifically interested in applying similar methods to study the relationships between Buddhist texts and scholarly networks in colonial Indochina.
What I appreciated most about these workshops was the emphasis on methodological rigor and critical thinking. A single misstep—such as selecting an inappropriate metric or misdirecting a network—can result in flawed conclusions. These experiences have increased my confidence in using tools such as Nodegoat and Gephi, not only as visualization aids, but as powerful data analysis and interpretation instruments in my academic work.
Spatialization (from Heldiza Sánchez’s perspective)
In terms of spatialization, the first workshop held was Introduction to Spatial Humanities I led by Thomas Efer. The workshop covered spatial humanities while implying that digital workflows also go beyond geographical information systems. This allowed us to discuss further the attributes of interest that we were given when combining dynamism and ambiguity, which constitute the elements of space, time, and place. Thus, it was established that spatial humanities redefine the study by reinserting and enabling us to craft questions about how geography, human behavior, and cultural development coexist in the same space.
After that, we were introduced to various applications (which include but are not limited to devising maps, linking texts and databases) that use and put into practice the above, from those that provide locations from a historical perspective to others that provide coordinates from text. In addition to these reference systems, which can sometimes involve a “deep map,” combined with a breviary exercise where the class collaborated on a visual representation of networks, it was possible to reveal networks based on the following: human experience and the assignment of categories based on temporality.
For the second workshop, (in my case) I selected How to use Nodegoat as a research environment and for data visualization conducted by Kathleen Schlütter. After a brief introduction to the project and what the platform comprised, the practical session commenced. The purpose of Nodegoat is to store objects of study (analysis) and their relationship to one another in a digital environment, in a given set of data. The program has many advantages, as it provides filters for analysis, allows for various visualization options and provides scenarios, its interfaces allow for data import and export, and it maintains portability and connectivity as it is compatible with Linked Open Data (LOD) networks. This is very useful as they provide a special focus between units in a shared structure and allows to have a very ground-based detail on how data is visualized, and ontologies.
The participants gained an understanding of the basic components of operation (objects, sub-objects, and categories). After the exercise, the program’s functionalities and other issues such as display settings and properties were resolved. It is undoubtedly a tool that allows users to explore data models with network analysis in a dynamic way and with the search attributes that they assign.
Finally, the third workshop in the spatialization category was Geolocating place names in texts and rasters with Recogito, delivered by Yanis Mokri. Recogito differs from traditional forms of text processing because it allows georeferencing, annotation and enrichment using place names from resources such as bitmaps, text, images and tabular data, thus an association with the given description is created which allows for relations. The activity on this occasion consisted in uploading a dataset, familiarizing oneself with the tools, identification, and downloading the document. This tool represents an advance as it has control features and is compatible for collaborations with access level designations for specific users, contributing to the identification and annotation of locations and people in a text.
My perspective with regard to digital humanities has shifted significantly. I now recognize this field as a space where conventional and digital practices converge, enabling us to create and innovate new ways and alternatives to visualize, study, analyze, critique, and generate research and information beyond the limitations imposed by contemporary constraints.
As a current student in the Master’s program in Global Studies and planning to develop my thesis, these new ways of compiling, analyzing, extracting, and sharing information will undoubtedly be invaluable tools during my research.
Given my interest in migration, I believe that applications such as Nodegoat and Recogito will help me to do things more efficiently, improving not only my experience as a user or small-scale researcher but also giving me a better understanding by enabling me to visualize migration patterns more efficiently, design models that are up to date and provide greater portability due to the internal format of the digital document.
The applications provided enable us to construe, design, and interpret data in a manner that is not only easier to observe and classify, but also implies a sense of responsibility regarding information management, a commitment to data sharing, and an opportunity to evaluate and assess how we make knowledge inclusive.
Digital Publishing
The final workshop series, entitled Digital Publishing, primarily explored three dimensions: how text publishing based on “minimal computing” can break the monopoly in academic publishing; how to enhance the visibility, accessibility, and impact of research outputs; and how to formulate more proactive strategies for disseminating research findings.
First, Till Grallert (Humboldt University of Berlin & NFDI4Memory) presented his ideas for so-called “minimal computing” as a way to confront issues such as the monopolistic predicament in text processing through software packages like Microsoft Office, restricted access to digital publishing resources, and the academic hierarchy between the global North and South. He emphasized that researchers can leverage digital technologies to disrupt this status quo by providing knowledge under open licenses or even copyleft frameworks. During the workshop, Till Grallert demonstrated and instructed participants on the use of Pandoc, including how to input text and convert document formats via the command line. For instance, converting HTML content from web pages to Markdown to better support academic research. Participants also raised their respective specific issues during the workshop and provided valuable feedback on Till’s explanations. From my perspective, these exploratory theories and methods concerning digital publishing not only offer insights for addressing academic inequalities between the global North and South but also provide early-career researchers with an alternative approach to existing academic publishing and dissemination systems. Given that early-career researchers face challenges such as difficulties in publishing their research findings and in getting their works disseminated, this approach may serve as a feasible and practical guide to breaking through the predicaments in academic publishing. However, how such new modes of academic publishing and dissemination can gain recognition within the academic community remains an unresolved issue. This is likely to require the collective efforts of all researchers to achieve. (from Longhai Gao’s perspective)
Second, Mareike König (German Historical Institute, Paris) led a workshop on sustainable digital publishing and research outreach. It was a session with an open and welcoming atmosphere: Mareike not only presented the content but also continuously asked questions and offered prompts so that all participants could join the discussion. The ideas from the participants and her feedback intertwined and were noted down in the Piratepad, capturing an exchange on how research can be shared widely and made accessible, while still staying safe and sustainable. In this session, she introduced the concept of Open Science, the principles of sustainable digital publishing, and analyzed both its benefits and challenges. People brought up all kinds of perspectives — from how open publishing could create more chances to collaborate and make data more transparent, to worries about legal hurdles, uneven access to resources between countries, and the risk of data being misused. König also introduced the data and publications repositories HAL, Zenodo, Humanities Commons; ORCID, the digital identifier for researchers; Creative Commons licenses, the FAIR principles for data management, as well as “shadow libraries” and discipline-specific repositories. The workshop gave me a fresh perspective on publishing, especially in the context of digital publishing. I used to see publishing as simply the last stage of a research project — a place where the results are stored for others to read. Now, I see it more as a process that can be planned and shaped from the very start: choosing the right platform, format, and license, and thinking about how to reach and engage with readers. It’s not just about putting the data out there — it’s about finding ways for it to stay relevant, be picked up and used again in the right context, and still mean something down the line. I can picture using this approach when I work on future articles or decide to share my master’s thesis, so it speaks to more people while keeping its academic worth. (from NGUYEN Le Thuy Tien’s perspective)
Third, Pia Siemer (Leipzig University & Else Frenkel Brunswik Institute for Democracy Research in Saxony) conducted a workshop on science communication for social scientists and humanists. We began with a brief introduction of each of the participants, and then she gave us a short text to analyze, so that we could propose a title that would really give the reader the key information in the text. We were introduced to the scientific approach, thus optimal methodology was induced to us regarding how effective communications is led regarding scientific information; where there are currently a number of aspects that one should consider when disseminating information, such as framing, press releases, the use of networks such as LinkedIn, where one should create a personal image to be attractive to one’s audience, and even consider alternative options that are currently in vogue, such as podcasts. We proceeded to question several of the impacts that technology is having on our society and how this fits in with being visible as researchers and disseminating information, in an era where, by being online, we are users subject to the unpredictability of an algorithm and the impact of artificial intelligence. We concluded by focusing on the fact that the main purpose should always be centered on one thing: creating and fostering dialogue. This is the only sure way to build a connection or foundation with the public. The goal of the workshop was achieved as findings into how to connect with the audience and giving key messages were visualized and thoroughly explained. (from Heldiza Sánchez’s perspective)

Cultural Exploration Tours in Leipzig
The Franco-German Summer School also arranged three cultural experience tours in Leipzig, as detailed below:
First, all teachers and students were led to watch the documentary New Silk Roads in Local and Global Politics, a film by John Njenga Karugia. The world premiere was screened exclusively for the summer school participants in one of Leipzig’s independent cinemas, Prager Frühling. Focusing on the “New Silk Roads,” Karugia, who is a researcher himself, traversed routes from Bandung to Nairobi, Xi’an to Dar es Salaam, Athens, Hamburg to the Strait of Malacca, Mombasa to Rotterdam, and beyond. Through the lens of cross-regional infrastructure projects under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the film illustrates the local reception and impacts of China’s global investments. Featuring interlocutors from Africa, Asia, and Europe, the film presents their personal experiences and analyses of the emerging New Silk Roads infrastructure, offering the audience insights into the advantages, disadvantages, gains, and losses brought by it.
Second, participants visited the Bibliotheca Albertina and its Manuscript Centre. Christoph Mackert, Head of the Manuscript Centre, and Researcher Katrin Sturm introduced the core work of the center and elaborated on the research conducted by its scholars from six dimensions: Data (When was the manuscript created), Place (Where was the manuscript produced), Reception (For whom was the manuscript written), Content (What texts does the manuscript contain), Binding (When and where was the manuscript bound), and History (Which individuals or institutions have owned the manuscript). Researchers also guided the participants through a hands-on experience of optical character recognition (OCR) on manuscripts, helping them understand the specific processes of manuscript digitization.
The third experience was a tour of the Grassi Museum of Ethnology, led by curator Stefanie Bach and her colleague Christine Fischer. She introduced the museum’s history and its ethnological collections from continents including Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas, explaining not only how these diverse artifacts came to be gathered in Leipzig, but also how the museum addresses these issues in its exhibitions. For example by inviting todays communities, descendants from the peoples that these artifacts originated from, or by inviting artists from there to curate parts of the exhibition. In the second part of the visit, scientific staff member Juliane Heinze and her colleague presented the digital approaches of the museum. Their presentation and the discussion showed the challenges of making artefacts accessible online when resources are limited and many other tasks are equally important.

This report has been previously published at the journal Connections.
Original citation: Le Thuy Tien NGUYEN / Sánchez Heldiza / Longhai Gao, Tagungsbericht: Report on the Franco-German summer school “Open(ing) Science? Digital Humanities in Area Studies”, in: Connections. A Journal for Historians and Area Specialists, 17.10.2025, https://www.connections.clio-online.net/conferencereport/id/fdkn-157896.
About the authors
Longhai Gao: Currently pursuing a doctoral degree in World History at the School of History, Nanjing University. His research focuses on German history from the early modern period to the Enlightenment, digital history, and transatlantic history—with a particular emphasis on the transfer and circulation of knowledge between the Americas and Europe. He served as an exchange student at the University of Freiburg for six months in 2021, and held the position of visiting scholar at the University of Munich for one year (2024–2025).
NGUYEN Le Thuy Tien: Graduated Master’s degrees in Asian Studies and in Digital Technologies Applied to History from École Pratique des Hautes Études and École Nationale des Chartes (Paris, France). Currently working as an Ingénieure d’études at the German Historical Institute in Paris, she has professional experience in both research and cultural institutions, including the French Senate Archives, CNRS, MSH Mondes, and the Arab World Institute. She specializes in digital archiving, corpus automation, and data processing, with academic and professional interest in digital humanities, archival preservation, and the history and religions of Southeast Asia.
Heldiza Sánchez: Currently pursuing a Master’s degree in Global Studies, with academic experience at the University of Wroclaw in Poland and an upcoming stay in Leipzig, Germany. She has worked in both the private and public sectors, including as a Technical-Administrative member of the Mexican Foreign Service, and has collaborated on research projects related to migration, international law, and global governance. Her academic and professional interests include unaccompanied minor migration, refugee access to healthcare, and conflict resolution.
OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
recentglobe (October 21, 2025). Report on the Franco-German Summer School “Open(ing) Science? Digital Humanities in Area Studies”. Global Dynamics. Retrieved January 13, 2026 from https://doi.org/10.58079/1502u
