Site-Wide Activity

Liz- to answer your question overall I do not think that DH has any significant value for me outside of this class. WOuld it be nice to digitalize more historical documents absolutely, and that aspect would help me. I could use many more primary documents in my Social Studies classes. Other than that I have no use for the coding exercises, and that kind of stuff. I think DH needs to be better explained in course postings because I think many people aren’t so sure what it means, and probably wouldn’t have taken the course. DH is more than coding yes, however I would gain alot more if we focused on other aspects like video games,social media, and digitalization. If you work or would like to work in a humanities related field where this would be beneficial to you than I think you should be required to take the class. If you do not than there is no reason to take a class like this.

I think DH will be beneficial once I get the hang of it and get a chance to use it. I actually had a little bit of HTML experience before taking this class, and it has proven helpful outside of this class. I can’t remember the specific, but I remember making a minor adjustment to something I was working on. I couldn’t figure out why it wasn’t working until I looked at the HTML and found the error in the code. It finally worked, and my frustration went away.

Also, there is a trend in teaching to be more and more technologically advanced. In my district, we are moving to a paperless existence, so more has to be done on the computer. Therefore, I see the need for more dynamic lessons on the computer that could benefit from DH. For example, I found an online game to teach my AP Lit students about women’s rights in the 1840s for our study of Jane Eyre. They were in to the game, and I was able to cover information in an interesting and efficient way. I’d like to be that comfortable with what I am learning here to be able to create richer learning environments for my students.

Liz,
I appreciate your question. Taking this course, practicing the activities, and reading the material has given each of us time to reflect on the course and see how it can apply to our regular life, outside of the class. I don’t know that I could clearly define Digital Humanities to anyone that asked me, but I do feel I have a basic understanding of what is going on. I am an English teacher, and when I think of applying my learning here to my classroom, I do see it as applicable. English class is definitely a unique one. There is a lot of material to cover, infinite different ways to do it, and so many different ways to engage students. As time goes on, we have naturally turned more toward technology to help us in the classroom. In an English classroom, there are many ways that DH can work in. Reading and communicating with people all over the world is a simple way that DH naturally works itself into an English curriculum. Through this course, I also discovered databases that would allow my students to hear the different languages and dialects around the world. Just the idea of students studying how the text is read and interpreted around the world completely changes the way English is taught today.

Liz,
As I was reading through the first paragraph of your post, the first thing that hit me was your argument that “DH is here to stay.” I am not disagreeing with you; in fact, I am whole-heartedly agreeing. However, while DH is here to stay, the DH that we are currently seeing might not be the DH we will come to know in ten years, maybe even less. In addition, I found Bogost’s chapter to be the most interesting and most relieving. In my mind, DH should be all inclusive so that it is possible to consider all aspects of “humanity.” By putting themselves on a pedestal, these humanists are creating a sort of “secret society” that creates a relatively narrow spectrum of thought and, essentially, destroys the field.

I really like your take on problems. I’ve been around people who have called problems “opportunities” before, and that had sort of seemed like just a nice way of saying “Your world is falling apart, so I’m going to spin this so you won’t freak out.” It makes sense, though, that discussing the problems with DH gives legitimacy to the field. People wouldn’t want to waste their time and energy on what they don’t think is a worthwhile enterprise, so DH must be important.

This week’s readings were much more satisfying to read in that even though they discussed problems with DH, at least there appeared to be some solutions in sight. Trying to define DH has been like trying to nail Jello to the wall for me. These readings were much more concrete in my mind, and thus easier to follow.

I just want to chime and and say I love the way you say that DH is legitimized through “critique.” It has never occurred to me that the need to critique something inherently suggests that that thing has merit – especially if the critique is whether or NOT that merit exists. It makes sense though: why talk about something if it’s not worth talking about? Why critique something if it isn’t worth critiquing? Really, DH gets criticized because it is different, but not necessarily because it is useless. That is definitely something to remember!

The issue is that DH is just becoming popular. Yes it has existed for a long time but no one really ever knew what it was unless you worked in a related field. There weren’t any DH classes when I was in my undergrad at BG. I think I would have had to take it since my undergrad was Communications. It is a new trend, something that people are becoming interested in now. There are more classes offered, more programs and more job in the DH fields. So most people that you are trying to educate in this field have no clue what DH is, or have never thought of it. It is not anyone’s fault. As technology keeps improving and changing, there will always be people that have no idea how to work the latest phone, tablet or gaming system. Is it time to upgrade? Probably, but at the same time you have people that don’t need to and are perfectly fine operating a simple computer, and phone for their emails and calls. They don’t need anything fancy, they just need to get by, and they do. Unless you work in a computer related field, and need to know and understand coding, it is like pulling teeth and looking at a different language that you can’t understand. Even with the tutorials and the instructions sometimes that is not enough for people. I am pretty sure you know what you are doing and have a grasp on this stuff. However, alot of people don’t and they are struggling. With DH becoming more popular and more accessible in colleges, it is the teachers job to break it down, keep up with the latest trends and help their students understand and get through the course. Like I said this stuff didn’t exist when I was going through school.
I don’t mean to offend anyone and I hope I didn’t, but some people just don’t get this stuff, and that’s not their fault. They were never exposed to it, just thrown into it and hope for the best.

Tonya your writings about assistive technologies really resonated with me. Last year I was an intervention specialist at a virtual academy I helped create and using assistive technology was essential to our success. It’s amazing to see how one piece of assistive technology can change a child’s life. I had a couple nonverbal students that had an eye tracker attached to their computer and they could control the mouse and keyboards with their eyes. One started typing out this was the happiest they’ve ever been because they were in direct control of their speech and could directly control something. Because of this accessibility project some of my students were able to take back control of their lives even though they were wheelchair bound. I had never really considered assistive technologies as a Digital Humanities project but this week’s readings it makes sense. Assistive technologies change people’s lives for the better and in a sense so does Digital Humanities. While these technologies might not make headlines or are the “next big thing” in the tech world, they improve lives and I would rather have that than flashy headlines any day. Sorry for the long rant and great post!

Tonya and Sarah, both of you really sparked the flow of ideas in my mind!

First– Tonya, I hadn’t truly thought that much about adaptive technologies and its relationship to DH when reading this. I believe that like everything else, DH should be accessible to everyone, however, up until reading your thoughts, I hadn’t really connected my idea of what DH is/isn’t with adaptive technologies. Surely, adapting a piece of Literature to meet the needs of the visually impaired would require DH skills, but I would never have categorized it as such before. It’s also scary to me to think there are others in positions similar to yours that hadn’t heard of tools to make this process easier, and thus, make things more available and accessible to students with special needs.

Second– Sarah, I agree with what you’re saying in a lot of ways. I had taken quite a few communications, technology, and an abundance of humanities courses in my undergrad at BG, but none of them even mentioned DH despite its long-ish history in academia. Like Tonya pointed out, I think this could be in part because soon DH will be just known as “the humanities.” As I have alluded to in other posts this semester, I’m not sure there’s a real need (beyond grants) for the distinction of DH as its own entity. So much of science is reliant on technology, and yet we don’t call it “Digital Science,” so I wonder when the line will finally blur enough that everyone in the field of humanities, rather in the traditional sense, or in the new, digital sense will play on the same team, so to speak, and be given equal recognition. From a student and teacher’s perspective (unfortunately, those are the limited perspectives I can offer), I don’t see a need to cling so tightly to the definition of DH and who it includes or excludes, but instead, should just exist and be seen as more fluid. Like you, I struggle with a lot of the coding exercises, but I could almost see making more of a case for making basic coding a requirement of a lot of post-secondary education tracks than I could see making the world of DH and all it entails a requirement. Do you feel like there’s absolutely no use for learning the code, or at least having a high-level understanding of it?

I guess I never really thought something like DH could be racist. I don’t think that it necessarily is. It all comes down to the user, or operator just like most things. I will use myself for example. I am not by any means technology illiterate. However, I am completely lost with the coding exercises. Just like everything without the proper training, for the task the operator will struggle. With the emergence now of DH I think that many more people will go into the field and better the digital world. However, it is clear that DH is not for everyone. As I mentioned in previous posts, I think that the more things that can become digitalized the better, especially historical documents.

Shanna,
I’m curious how you felt about the twitter article based on your research interest. How did you feel about the way the author used and presented the twitter feed? Is this the way you would present your studies?

Cassie, this is thought-provoking and certainly worth mentioning. I think the highly personal, emotional nature of literature is important and something we all hold dear, but to me the human aspect of literature is actually that which dictates that we cannot just focus on this type of close reading. I think it is the human element of literature that compels us to use a macroanalytic approach so we can “see and understand the degree to which literature and the individual authors who manufacture that literature respond to r react against literary and cultural trends” (Jockers 28). Literature is tied to emotion, but it is also tied to culture,

To me, the implications of Jockers’ text are that macroanalysis does not take away the mystical power of literature but rather opens us up to understanding just how powerful, and in how many ways, literature has been and can be. Macroanalysis lends validity to the things we have been saying for years.

Here’s the link to the clip Cassie is talking about:

Dead MacroAnalysis Society

I see this to be somewhat true with the microanalysis process. The point that it may be taking away the beauty and art of the work. Man I can’t believe that I this type of analysis as plausible. I believe that we need a healthy dose of both. In order to protect and respect the work, we need to fully understand its intention and historical/cultural/philosophical connection. Also, we need not eliminate the emotional connection that has for centuries supported our narrative and the basis for extensive discoveries in various topics. We wouldn’t know what we know, if we didn’t look deeper into things. Sometime it seems overboard when we break it down too much. Jockers methods seems to be combining the big picture, with the details. A mix of general to specific methods of analyzing and understanding it.

Sometimes I wish we would just see things for what they are instead of breaking them further into pieces that are confusing. After those pieces are exposed and vulnerable, we can maybe place a viable “label” on them. Does this process ruin the work? Or accentuate it? The more I type the more I struggle with my point of view. The video of Dead Poets Society reminded me that I’m a lover first and a researcher second.
I guess this is why we post and interact with each other; it creates a thought process that is immeasurable.

I enjoyed this post and the comments made by Emily and Tonya. When I think about analyzing literature, close reading, and macroanalysis, it all speaks to who we are as students. When I read literature for academic reasons and pleasure, I find that I enjoy looking to others in order to see their understanding and application. I enjoy reading the text and finding my own connection to the text, and then I like to see what others think. I do think that macroanalysis has changed the way that we are taught literature. I not longer can ask students to identify a theme, that is too easily shared. Now, I ask them to analyze the the theme and pull quotes to support claims. If done creatively, literature can remain personal while also allowing for macroanalysis and larger discussions.

I like the way you explain how microanalysis and close reading work together to formulate a “what” and “why.” It was really hard for me to remember how Jockers said macroanalysis isn’t the only step in the analysis of literature as I read throughout the book. You did a great job explaining how and why they must work in harmony.

I completely agree with how you describe the partnership between macroanalysis and close reading. In matters of literary theory (or really any kind of theory), it is easy to get carried away with all the analysis methods out there and start pitting them all against each other. But that’s isn’t necessarily the case – in fact, it probably never is. Each method uses different means to pursue somewhat different ends. Big data is great for identifying trends, while close reading is better for direct analysis of source material. Both are methods of analyzing text, but serve different purposes at the end of the day. We need to remember that as we continue analysis so we don’t accidentally disregard what could be interesting and useful information from a method we may or may not be a fan of.

I thought you did a great job of separating both macroanalysis and close reading. Both have their benefits when examining text. As Liz pointed out, dividing up the different analytical methods of any type of theory creates a divisiveness within the scholarly community. Your use of the “what” and “why” questions echoed what I had been thinking in my head: Microanalysis and close reading are not competing methods. Rather, they can be used to assist each other with macroanaylsis breaking down massive texts into manageable, bit-sized texts designed to benefit from close reading.

Cool stuff. There are all sorts of efforts to expose kids to coding. One of the best-known is Hour of Code (you can google it; in fact, it’s a google project!), Khan Academy has a lot of coding resources, and there are others. It can’t hurt for kids to start early. Thanks, Sara, for posting this.

Wow, I had no idea stuff like this was out there. Then again, as tech-savvy as kids are becoming, I am not entirely surprised. The other day I watched my fifteen month old niece swipe her finger across her mom’s iphone so she could pick a video from Kidtube.

Lots of schools in the Central Ohio area have added Khan Academy coding to their technology curriculum for elementary and middle school students, which I think is a great idea!

Sarah, thanks for getting the discussion started. A few clarifications I’d like to add in. One is that while Jockers’s Macroanalysis certainly advocates for using DH methods, it’s not a treatise on DH per se. Maybe it’s too much to ask for it to be defining the field at large, rather than demonstrating a few methods that some DHers use, especially those who do literary analysis. Another is how we draw the distinction about what DHers might use, versus what DHers make. For example. the piece mentioned Google search, Google books and Microsoft word. You’re absolutely correct that many DH practitioners find ways to use these tools. That said, these are all products made by corporate software engineers to sell, rather than by humanists to further humanistic inquiry.

Incidentally, though, I do agree with you in another way. I’m probably more open to the use of commercial tools for DH purposes than many DH practitioners. I was once part of a project of humanists, librarians, and technologists that came up with functional requirements that users would want for digital repositories. It seemed like almost all the features users wanted were already in some way implemented on commercial sites or software, and many of the features were ones that could be purchased or rented for a lot less money that it would take for DH practitioners to develop or university IT departments to maintain. So I’m a believer in what works, with of course the caveat that we must be wary of issues like who owns what, long-term sustainability, and other hazards when it comes to working with for-profit entities rather than scholars, libraries, and universities.

Sarah I feel your pain on being dazed after reading that book. I am not what some people call a “numbers guy”. Statistical data, charts, and numbers tend to bore me, so this read was very challenging for me. The book did bring up certain correlations between what we have already read and new material. I particularly connected with the part when they talk about using macroanalysis to see the bigger picture of Digital Humanities. This reminded me of the tool or instrument theory that we previously learned about. Like a telescope is used to see the universe, Digital Humanities is a lens to see the wider world of the study of humanities and I think this same principle applies to macroanalysis. I was also fascinated by the statistics that you listed, particularly the one about historical documents. As a history grad student one of the hardest parts of my job is knowing a particular document exist but having no way to access it. It’s the most annoying and frustrating feeling in the world, so I fully agree with on needing to digitize more historical documents.

I agree with you, Katie. Perhaps I am a product of my generation or the data-hungry institutional environment I work in, but I found Jockers’ book refreshing and exciting. I would never (ever) call myself a numbers person, but to me macroanalysis is about so much more than numbers. I was heavily annotating Jockers as I read him, and this had as much to do with my ineptitude in the face of abstraction as it did with my excitement.

My teaching philosophy has always been one of continuous improvement, always striving to find better ways of doing things. My philosophy on scholarship is really no different, and maybe this is why macroanalysis is so exciting to me. I feel like macroanalysis allows us access to the next phase of literary studies, a phase into which we necessarily need to move. Along with close reading, macroanalysis lends legitimacy to what we do and the claims we make. What’s more, it brings us into rank with other disciplines that have been working at this level for years.

I love and agree with Jockers when he says that his work “does more to open doors than it does to close them” (32). Yes. So much yes.

Thank you for your post! Definitely helps clarify some of his points. As someone who has never taken an economics or statistics class in her life, trying to wrap my head around Jockers’ ideas about data and macroanalysis was a scary situation. But I get where he’s coming from – data serves a strong purpose in providing a foundation for theoretical work in DH studies. Almost all theoretical fields rely on evidence and support to back up any claims made, and macroanalysis is a great way to delve into how to provide hard evidence of literary or DH theories that emerge now and in the future.

I too felt very overwhelmed by this project. I didn’t understand how I was going to write about something that I feel I am still trying to pin down my understanding of. Your post was very helpful. Not only did it show me that I am not alone, but you proposed many questions that will help me while writing my 1000-1500 words.
It really is quite interesting looking at all of the different projects and accomplishments that these DHers have accomplished. Though the exact perimeters of What defines DH is constantly changing, we can see the different things people have accomplished because of DH.

I want to comment on the part of your post that appreciates the people who had a hand in the DH project. How did you go about determining those involved, and how impactful their involvement was? For me, I find it hard to want to consider that as a criterion for evaluation because I’d wind up blurring the lines between what the creators intended and what the project really offers. Or maybe that’s a line that SHOULD be blurred in DH, as opposed to other areas?

I agree with you Arron about the fluidity of the definition of Digital Humanities and its contents. I personally like to think of Digital Humanities as a tool that allows us to see the wider world of the study of humanities. Much like how a microscope allows us to see the microbial world. Like I mentioned in my last post, Digital Humanities functions better as a combination of practices rather than a defined methodology. Much like how we view modern History, we tend to avoid the trap of the one narrative perspective. With the combined practices we our taught in Digital Humanities the ability to observe multiple ideals allows us to make much more open ended narratives. In addition, I was also drawn to the Carolina Digital Humanities Initiative specifically Documenting the American South.

Very well said Liz. I was just saying something like this in my class last night. I’m glad I’m not the only one who feels a bit boggled. I think the aha moment will be at the end when all of this is over. The gradual peeling of the proverbial onion of this complex phrase digital humanities will not be unveiled until the very last task we complete.

I appreciate your breakdown of the evaluation process. I think the main point to discuss is the subjectivity of this. I believe that all evaluation is subjective. We are all viewing this project from the lens that we have grown to trust. We will elaborate on that lens and produce a scholarly opinion of someone else’s work. Even with quantitative and qualitative glimpses of support, there lies the subjective demon peering in the shadows. I’ve noticed this more with video game research. Research articles can swing from one conclusion to the next. This is bad….. This is good….. Here’s the proof……. This scholar said this…….
These discrepancies reveal our subjective view guiding us to other views that lean to our opinions.

I may be way off on this, but I just went off on a tangent regarding the subjectivity of the academia world. I believe when we looking closely at everything it is hard to pin point a finite way of seeing or defining it.

Liz (and Tonya): I have good news and bad news. The good news is that you’re in good company in not being able to pin down, exactly, what DH is.

The bad news is that no one else can, either. The precise definition of DH will continue to be a subject of debate for a long time. In fact, because of its inter-disciplinarity, I suspect it will be a lot like how the field of American Studies has worked to define itself over the past80+ years. People in the field can recognize works and methodologies that seem to fall right in its sweet spot, but there are numerous seminal articles concerning the methods of American Studies, its ethos, and its boundaries. DH may in some ways end up the same way.

But I digress. The real question is, how should we evaluate something? I like your point, Liz, that we evaluate it on the merits of what’s apparent. Something to think about: should we also consider what is not apparent? For example, why its creators chose one platform over another, or coded it in one language rather than another, or decided to include certain kinds of content at the expense of others?

Great post, Tonya!

For me, the “high level code” explanation was counter-intuitive to what I thought it meant. I used to think complicated, FBI/CIA kind of stuff was attached to “high level.” But the explanation made sense to me once I read it.

I agree with what you said about the benefits of more people having a peek “behind the curtain” of how computers and the Internet work. People are more intimidated the more mysterious it all seems. If you demystify it and show them why things work the way they do, they’re less afraid to try. I remember a time when there seemed to be some exclusivity that came with being a “coder,” which may contribute to that attitude that coding isn’t considered intellectual language or academic.

Your questions about why the visions differed between those who made the Python tutorials vs. those who made the HTML tutorials took me back to my undergrad literature classes. Those are exactly the kinds of questions we try to answer when we’re analyzing a piece of literature to discover not just what the authors are saying, but why they’re saying it, and why they’re saying it that way. That we can ask such questions about coding and lessons about coding makes it seem pretty intellectual and consistent with academia to me.

Just going to throw my two cents out here … I’m pretty sure that this Python assignment (according to the website tutorial, rather than Dr. Schocket’s actual syllabus) was to allow beginners to view how Python works on the back-end. This is where Komodo Edit would be useful – it has an output screen so we can see actions taking place, whereas if we run that program in Python, it will often shut the screen and do the action we asked it – we did not ask it, of course, to bother us with back-end functions. But because Komodo Edit was super problematic (at least for me), Notepad was used – without an output screen. If we so chose, we could have put each command into a Python shell. But let’s face it – sometimes that just wasn’t practical.

For me, the frustration of figuring out this Python assignment wasn’t the language itself, but two things: 1. how the tutorial site explained it, and 2. not being able to see what I’m doing. Codeacademy was wonderful in explaining things simply, concretely, in a logical order and with a same-screen viewer. I am an extremely visual learner, and this helped me tremendously to understand HTML. The tutorial used for the Python assignment, though, left me more confused than understanding, and having to switch between folders and programs and screens made it even more hard for me to keep up with myself.

The visual power of programming languages is overwhelming. I can see why some would claim it’s not an intellectual field – it involves a lot more hands-on skill than we are used to seeing in academic thought-areas. But I think it should start being included, as well as taught as a method of language and research that may be of use to several other disciplines. Just because you DO something doesn’t mean it’s not intellectual.

By the way, I am “Anonymous” above. This is why I should not do my own school on my work computer.

I understand the need and use for coding in DH related fields. However, the exercise did not do anything for me but frustrate me to the point I literally gave up. I reached out to classmates and they were super supportive and tried to help, but I literally just got so frustrated and confused I stopped working on it. Sorry to be very honest, and not to offend anyone and I hope I don’t but for me I am much more interested in assignments like the DH project evaluation which was much more helpful to me, and provided me with some insight and resources that I can actually use as a middle school Social Studies teacher. Coding, and all this other stuff really looks like a different language to me and I just get more confused and frustrated than anything. Coding would be helpful to many other people such as website designers or whatever. But for me I was completely lost which ultimately makes me shut down and not really care…I am always open for help as I have been reaching out to classmates.

I agree with a lot of other commenters that coding is its own language and deserves to have acknowledgment for the level of education and expertise a coder must have to execute a code properly. I also agree that just because something is created as “doing,” doesn’t make it any less valuable. However, I just can’t view computer code as a “humanity.” It might be as intricate as Literature, but not in the same way. If we include computer code, why would we not include other things that act in the same manner, like an architect’s blueprints for example.

Cassie, good points all around.

As field (if DH is one), we have a long way to go to come up with a commonly-accepted set of criteria for evaluation. I like your pointing out the LAIRAH checklist (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/infostudies/research/circah/lairah/features/), which is a good start. But of course, like any checklist, it has its advantages and disadvantages. One the one hand, it’s a list of characteristics that a project should have, but on the other, it doesn’t prod us to think about the comparative merits of projects that have met the criteria in similar ways. Another drawback is that it is very much geared to large projects with significant institutional support. For every big project, there are probably scores of smaller ones on a bootstrap. So this is a very tough nut to crack.