David Staub

David-
The building block example of writing a paper, and starting out with research and developing a topic was a great example. Thank you for comparing DH to things that I can relate to and understand! It was very helpful to me.

David, this is a well-written and helpful articulation of the readings this past week. Thank you! I too went with the “combination of practices” approach. Much like the humanities in general, DH resists a concise definition, which makes the issue of credibility quite the challenge. For once, though, I found myself to be un-ruffled by what seemed (before reading) like a frustrating venture. I really love how Ramsay and Rockwell say that this questioning is a challenge that those in DH should welcome. I like the idea of a productive conflict, and I think this issue of credibility is a brilliant example of such conflict. While I’m sure this is easy to say from the outside of the issue, I truly felt that, as I was reading each different perspective, I was experiencing something exciting. The deep introspection and careful justification (often fairly and surprisingly emotive) born of this issue really helped me understand the field more (although I am still working on my own definition) and understand those who comprise its core.

David,

This really helped to articulate and clarify the first round of readings. I liked what you said here:

“Like most things in humanities, Digital Humanities functions better as a combination of practices rather than a defined methodology. With these combined practices we have the ability to observe multiple ideals and are not limited to one narrative.”

The further I get in teaching and in my own education, the more I tend to conceptualize theories, tools, and practices as constellations, and that was the image you evoked for me here. It seems to me that at this point in DH’s life, DH is what we make of it.

Thank you for your summary of the readings! I can particularly relate to your last part about the multiple viewpoints of the topic of digital humanities, and how DH isn’t necessarily a concrete methodology. One of my strong interests as I pursue my degree is the relevance of multidisciplinary study, particularly the increase in multidisciplinary writing courses and emphases. With the plethora of uses for writing, why would we limit the majority of written work to essay format – especially when nearly zero professions consistently utilize essays? I think DH is similar – it takes many methodologies and practical applications and combines them to explore how they feed off of each other, shedding a light on the growing intertextuality of our age.

David, good start, and I definitely agree with your implied point about one element of DH being essential for today’s wired (and wireless) world, namely, applying the kinds of questions we ask about philosophy or history or music to new media and modes of expression, for instance, to how people interact with youtube, and what that means in terms of how they perceive the world and their place in it. A question for you, similar to the question that I asked Sarah: is DH everything, and everything DH? For example, you mentioned Youtube. Is youtube, in and of itself, an example of a DH project, or is it how youtube could be interpreted that might be considered DH? Why or why not?

Love the MLA example! DH is everywhere!

Shoot. Was I not supposed to answer that? I apologize; I’m not familiar with blog etiquette!

I do not think that everything is considered DH. Youtube I do not think would fall into the category of DH. However, I will admit I am still blurry as to specifics on what would fall into the category of DH.

This is my comment sorry. I really thought I was logged in.