2025/6 was my first year as editor for Central Asian Studies at The DO, having previously been a contributing writer for Northeast Asian Studies. It has been an illuminating experience to collaborate with the Central Asian Studies writers over the last 12 months and be offered a window into their research interests and ongoing work. Now is the perfect time to reflect as the dawn breaks on a new publishing year.
Articles published throughout 2025-6 ultimately saw a new, dynamic direction for the team. From different angles our writers alluded to how generally digital humanists interrogate new technology and methods, especially the ever-looming role of artificial intelligence in our world and work. There was a healthy mixture of optimism and anxiety about the future of digital humanities studies which speaks to the core principles of the discipline in constantly adapting to and critically engaging with change.
Beginning the publishing year with a powerhouse of a two-part article by guest contributor, Aizat Ishembieva, showcasing the Olufsen Collection and its digital collection, a topic she has worked on during her postgraduate studies. This two-part article was an effective demonstration to the relevance of digital humanities in traditional museum and archival collections study. The first part begins with the historical context of the collection and the expeditions of Premier Lieutenant Ole Olufsen in 1896-7 and 1898-9, the collection’s namesake, which is now housed at the National Museum of Denmark. Aizat then continues in part two to examine the methods of digitalising the objects in the Olufsen collection for the museum which are shown to not only be physical images of the extant materials, but 3D mock-ups of the objects based on Olufsen’s original description. This was an unexpected addition in the digital database and took me by surprise when exploring the National Museum’s collection too. It is a valuable multilayered tool which both helps visualise Olufsen’s encounter with, and interpretation of, the object and its material qualities. Aizat’s contribution with these two articles was a strong way to begin our year and demonstrated how digital methods can enrich traditional collection-based study.
This was followed by a comprehensive and, what I’m sure will continue to be, an invaluable resource created by Michel Wong on Digital Repositories of Chaghatai Turki Sources. The article has been one of the most viewed for The DO over this past year and led to interesting collaborations following interactions in the article’s comments, demonstrating the power for academic exchange which stems from The DO, its contributors, and its readers. Michel’s article includes a number of key resources for scholars studying Chaghatai language manuscripts and texts with pros and cons of each.
Then in Spring 2026, together writers turned a more focused attention to the inevitability of artificial intelligence in many aspects of digital humanities study, reflecting a more critical, or wary view of AI.
Edward A.S. Ross wrote an article on GenAI and its potential to summarise sources in Central Asian Studies, and the issues which arose from this in practice. Edward’s article was comparative and showed the outputs from three different AI models including Claude 4.5 Sonnet, ChatGPT 5.1 and Microsoft’s M365 Copilot. It is interesting to look back at this several months later wondering how much has changed in the subsequent versions of these models and how quickly AI tools are updating. Edward highlights the tendency for the AI to omit sensitive topics, oversimplify and miss nuances revealed through cultural context. This is absolutely a conversation we need to continue, and Edward is right to question the blind “faith” developing in AI summarisation tools.
In March, Alice Casalini enthusiastically shared her thoughts on the new utilisation of AI in Buddhist practices, examining how AI has infiltrated religious practices and the subsequent rise of modern Luddites against the use of AI. This piece reflects how Alice’s views have developed over the time she has written for The DO, with more pronounced opinions on the harm and philosophical dilemma of AI, especially for the practice and study of Buddhism. Alice refers to herself now as a “neo-luddite”. She examines the existence of “buddhadroids”, an invention I found particularly compelling and disturbing.
There was a great variety of posts made through the year, spanning different digital methods, geographic regions and material; articles explored both the tangible, abstract and philosophical, looking both forwards and back. I hope this diversity continues this year as we welcome new contributing writers to our team!
As we start the next publishing season, there continues to be capacity for guest articles to be accepted on a rolling basis in Central Asian Studies. I would like to encourage any readers of The DO to get in touch to discuss an article idea/research. My email address is emmadkiey@gmail.com.
