DH before class: Using technology to study traditionally non-technologically inclined fields in new ways.

DH post-discussion: Using technology to shape learning, teaching and research.

Because academia often exists in a big bubble, it seems like DH scholars should be experts in keeping up with technology (as much as they can) as it pertains to research, teaching and learning. There are tools that exist that people use… that academics should know about and should also be able to use.

I guess I’m still a little stuck on the word “humanities.” Is Digital Humanities about digitization and technology in academia in general, or just within the humanities? If you don’t confine it to a field, is it just about technology? It will be interesting to explore parameters. I also keep coming back to what was mentioned in class, about how people in the physical sciences think this debate is silly–because of course you should be collaborating and using technology in your research.

I’m interested in writing,  literature, and publishing, so the scope of this definition is pretty huge here.  If you think about the future of books, for example, which is obviously an important question for universities (or it should be), the purpose is further complicated (or, has room for expansion). Is the future of publishing something that should be addressed by publishers, or should Digital Humanists be doing this research? Are DHers using the tools, developing the tools or both? So is it just about research and teaching or about technology in the world in general?  After the end of our discussion, the definition became more broad, more overwhelming and even more fascinating. I’m hoping DH scholars are aiming to pop the academic bubble.

First Definition:  Teaching and learning that take place using technology.  

Second Definition:  Research, teaching and learning that take place using technology.

Not a lot of difference between the two, I grant you, but a deeper synthesis exists in the second than the first. 

While I found the entire class discussion thought-provoking, the piece I most related to was Jones’ idea of eversion, the notion that this alternate reality we call cyberworld or cyberspace is leaking into everything in our world, that machines and humans are combining to produce some sort of postmodern reality and that DH is a crystallized form of that transformation.      

I tend to perceive reality as circles within circles, systems moving within systems, so the idea of DH as an expression of a larger process makes complete sense to me.  While Kuhn’s writings in the early 60s confined the term paradigm shift to a scientific context, I happen to think that Jones is right – we are in the throes of one conceptual worldview being replaced by another – which to my mind amounts to a paradigm shift.  The cybernetic metaphor that began reshaping our social values and environment in the 50s has now become the paradigm shift of the 21^st century, within which exists collaborative practice and spirit of community on one side of the equation, and alienation, dehumanization and a means of revolt against the dominant hierarchies on the other.   We’re living in interesting times. 

Initial Definition: Academic research pertaining to the focus of the humanities with utilization of ever-advancing technology existing as the sole mechanism for publication and instruction.

Revised Definition: The application of digital methods for use of research, collaboration, pedagogy, publication, or cataloguing across a wide array of academic disciplines.

Post-Class Analysis: From the discourse in class to the thoughts posted thus far, I am hesitant to posit a theory on whether or not DH is best looked at as more than a set of new tools for previous methodologies of mused, “analog,” humanities. However, I do agree with others that the theoretical implications of DH’s practices is worthy of investigation and debate.

Before class: Digital Humanities is an emerging academic field that explores the intersection of traditional humanities research and technology

My knowledge of DH is still so new that many definitions sound correct to me.  I guess I’m less interested in a precise definition of what DH is than in learning what the philosophies and ideologies behind DH tools and projects are.

For example, does Digital Humanities presume OSS ? Can a library database that uses technology to transform humanities research be considered a DH tool even if it comes from a private company? Is curation required to make something DH tool?

Just some thoughts and questions….

Beginning of class: Digital Humanities is a field established within academic institutions that extend methods and practices for research, archive, pedagogy, etc. that takes place on a digital platform.

The functionalities of DH that interested me the most during the course of the class discussion was its possibility to add layers to text and academic discourse. In a grant report I was preparing, about MoMA’s own experimental platform, post.at.moma.org, I found myself discussing its aim to encourage networked learning, and allow multiple voices to be added to a single essay, or any presentations on the site. Though the design is not exactly effectively conveying these goals (needs improvement) but our main interest in building this site, I hope, will continue to grow and encourage a new way of writing/discussing art histories.

Another aspects of DH I found appealing was some project’s aim to provide accessibility to knowledge making and resources, and mode of work, which is collaboration. I recently realized that while it is very important to think about preservation and of vulnerable Japanese experimental film and video is urgent, providing access to researchers (say though an online platform) is the end-goal of the effort at large. By providing access, there may be new scholarship that emerge, which could lead to exhibitions, screenings, conferences, etc. The emergence of interest (currently there is not much research being done on Japanese early video), there could be opportunity for fund-raising for preservation of works. My thinking in the past couple weeks has been reversed: from preservation–> accessibility, to accessibility–>preservation.

Post-class definition: Digital Humanities is a current development in academia in which disciplines are extending their research methods, aided by new technology, to include among other characteristics, a collaborative mode of working, layered knowledge making, and opening accessibility to research data as well as systems of knowledge making.

1st Definition: The Digital Humanities is the use of digital and technological advances in academia.

2nd Definition: The Digital Humanities is a broad field of study (usually collaborative and project-based) dedicated to digital and technological integration in academic scholarship and pedagogy.

There was a lot of discussion of “digital tools” used in DH. The way I see it, there are two opposite (yet equally useful) approaches: 1) a DHer looks at the digital tools at his or her disposal and asks, “How can I integrate these into my field of research or pedagogy?” or 2) a DHer evaluates systems of research and pedagogy that may be lacking, and then finds the right digital tools with which to get the job done more effectively. In either case, I think the common thread is the DHer’s dedication to the integration of these tools for the betterment of his primary field of study.

I don’t have a definition of Digital Humanities yet. I came into the class thinking of it as related to library sciences. After our meeting, I am thinking about the following:

1. If “analogue” is indeed the opposite (or predecessor) of “digital,” is there (was there) ever an “analogue” humanities?

2. I don’t think it’s helpful to think of DH as a set of tools. Too often, then, it becomes easy to group it with Constructivist pedagogy. I still maintain (especially after perusing the MLA job listings) that the majority of DH jobs advertised include a “preferred” or “required” background in library sciences. I suspect that the DH jobs are not being advertised on MLA as DH jobs because many schools see DH as a tools-based discipline; unfortunately, this places DH in the realm of “academic technology,” which leads to a large number of staff-based rather than faculty-based positions. I have found, though, that these staff-based positions often come with teaching and research opportunities, and I’m curious to see what will happen to DH as more universities adopt a business model and strip down their academic departments.

There There is no need to be afraid of coding! These days, DH job descriptions include a list of languages with which one should be familiar when applying (i.e., HTML, CSS, PHP, Python, etc.). I’ve seen more and more job descriptions asking for ITIL Advanced Certification. Why in the world would a graduate student from the Humanities be aware of such certifications, or be willing to pay the $2000 for the most basic level of that certification? In the few AT interviews I’ve gone to, the interviewers cannot really elucidate how these languages or certifications will apply in the day-to-day tasks.

1st Definition: A discipline that functions to study, promote, and create digital technology and tools to advance scholarship, knowledge, and literacy among humanities disciplines.

2nd Definition: A field/movement that leverages digital technology to promote knowledge and exploration in the humanities.

When our class grappled with the definition of DH, one issue captured my attention in particular- will Digital Humanities become obsolete once the “Digital” component fully saturates the academy? If DH loses its luster on the way to commonplace, who’s to say a midlife crisis/senioritis moment won’t destroy the thing altogether? The intransigence, exclusivity, bureaucracy, etc. which often plagues the establishment could conceivably take the wind out of DH’s sails, too…right? As I imagine this doomsday scenario, I find myself asking another set of questions: What attracted me to DH? What do I want from DH? What do I want to contribute to DH?

The answers that come to mind have formulated my take on why DH has the potential to stick around for a while. I like DH for its flexibility and adaptability, its collaboration and interdisciplinarity, its versioning and experimentation, its hands on approach, and its scholarly approach. There is inherent dualism in much of DH and I believe there will never be a shortage of demand to improve the interconnectedness between mind and matter.

I expect DH will have quite a few growing pains, but I do believe there’s no reason why the foundations of DH can’t serve the next iteration well. First “Humanities Computing,” now “Digital Humanities” …what’s next?