Site-Wide Activity

This post echoes some of the ideas we discussed in the “What is DH?” blog postings. I was just looking up credentials for one of my old professors at Wright State, and I noticed that she was still working on an article that she was working on five years ago when I was in school. What a contrast to DH! It’s a much quicker process, and I think that could put DHers at more of a disadvantage than at an advantage at times. This explains so much as to why it’s so difficult to define the elements of what makes DH.

The idea of using “snapshots” would be an interesting way to conceptualize the evolution of a product and a way to document it. For example, we could see Facebook’s evolution over time, and the url could continuously be updated as the project progressed.

I can’t help but think of how much of DH we lose on a daily basis because of the inability to create some type of database. I’m sure there were similar people out there with the similar idea to Facebook, but, for whatever reasons, Facebook became the paradigm. It solved the problems first, became the most appealing, and found the most success. Those other creators are still very important to DH. Even though they aren’t the ultimate paradigm, they are still an important part of the history of DH. And just like the sites they created, they slowly disappear.

I find Jeff Rothenberg’s quote about the potential length of digital information to be very interesting and relevant. As evidenced by some of the links Dr. Schocket provided, groundbreaking websites with new information get passed up constantly. In contrast, there are thousands of books sitting unused in libraries across the world. However, I think this is similar to the progression of digital information and humanities. While these old books are still available in libraries (unlike many old websites) their information may be stale and outdated. The work of a historian is to seek new angles and arguments in a particular field. It seems, at times, some historians believe it is their mission to create an irrelevancy in old books. They strive to create a new thought-process, thus essentially casting the old arguments to the dark corner of the historical community much in the way old websites are cast aside for the next big thing (Friendster to MySpace to Facebook). While these outdated websites might still exist, their accomplishments and the innovation they once displayed is still as important as understanding the older concepts of history.

I also found it interesting that Second Life was brought up. I dabbled in Second Life during its height, when it was a household name. I eventually got bored with it, not because there was not anything to do, but rather because there was so much that could be done I did not know how to process it all. The idea of Second Life was to create a new world for its users. It allowed them to create a world to their specifications which gave them the ability to live how they saw fit. As the article specifies, Second Life still has a large community but it is now relegated to a sort of niche group rather than the wide-reaching demographic it once enjoyed. I think that there are engines that seemingly took its place. Minecraft enjoys immense popularity and acts in a similar fashion. You can build just about anything you can imagine (as long as that infuriating redstone works properly). Although Second Life is arguably the most unique of the “world-immersion” engines, it seems as though its innovation has lived on through programs such as Minecraft. Even though Second Life is not nearly as mainstream as it once was, it is clear that it was a groundbreaking experience that has carried over to the present. I think it would be difficult, and wrong, to create a game with this same concept and not give some credit to Second Life.

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.

Kristen,
I feel the debate will never stop with new technologies and innovations. In the one article it brought up the hushed research of computers and how not everything could be revealed for fear of disturbing the population (my interpretation of course). Ironically I watched two movies this weekend that deal with these topics of acceptance and development. The first one that applies more directly to this readings is “Ex Machina”. It is up for an oscar and is one of those movies that leaves you shocked. I can’t stop thinking about how it ended. I won’t spoil it, but it deals with a lot of historic and contemporary themes related to ethics of creation and existence (again my opinion). I think the premise of this movie allows for us to rethink and maybe empathize with topics that are neglected or under appreciated. Unfortunately we must walk on egg shells if we don’t want to disturb the population.

The second movie I watched was “Steve Jobs”. Whether completely true or not, it made me think about the humanities portion of technological innovations. Those same themes continue today.

Another thing that kept popping up as I read all the articles was the struggle between quantitative and qualitative. This has to be the most wore out debate related to academia. The connections between this research and DH opens up a whole new can of worms.

Good points, all. One issue that various professional academic organizations have been trying to solve, including the Modern Language Association (MLA) and the American Historical Association (AHA), and individual academic units in colleges and universities have also struggled with, is not necessarily whether DH activities constitute scholarship, but rather how to evaluate that scholarship. For funded DH projects, the grant process provides at least some evaluation (people get credit for winning grants), but that’s at the point of the proposal, rather than necessarily an evaluation of the finished product. There are a number of obstacles here, some of which are detailed in the introduction to our own Evaluating DH assignment. Just as problematic as the lack of criteria are the lack of practitioners with enough expertise to provide an informed evaluation, a lack of standards in terms of how projects are documented, and the difficulty in evaluating the individual contributions of projects that can involve many collaborators. So it’s going to be a challenge for a long time.

Kristen:

Before I read this week’s assignment, I paged through your post. I won’t lie, my first reaction was “Uh, no, writing code is NOT like literary theory!” I mean, how can DOING something – as a skill – be the same as ANALYZING IT – like the result of that skill? But after reading, especially Ramsay’s portion, I have softened on that stance. While I think that performing skills and analyzing results have their separate place in humanities, I do see how DH can be a kind of theoretical practice. I especially liked the comparison of theory to prototypes. He’s totally right: prototypes are, in essence, the physical manifestation of theory. A prototype may be right the first time, but it most likely won’t be, and will require several alterations and new attempts at forward movement – just like a theory under scrutiny of the scientific method.

Later on in your post, you ask “Is DH like the STEM of literature, comprehension, and theory?” Here I would argue no, it is not, but rather the opposite: DH is to STEM as literature, theory, and comprehension are to the general humanities. Think about it for a moment … when explaining to someone your studies of literary theory and various literatures, is the practical application/benefit of those studies likely to be immediately apparent to the listener when that audience isn’t already familiar with the ins and outs of English study? Might they assume (at first, anyway) that such studies are useless when the arguments and hypotheses (so to speak) of those areas have already been long established? That’s how I feel DH is viewed in the eyes of the STEM community: why see coding, building, or the development of any technical skill as something to be rehashed or theorized – why not just DO it? That’s why I think DH gets a bad rap of sorts – it doesn’t immediately imply any form of value; it is only over time that the benefit of revisiting theory, expanding it, and performing trial and error on those expansions can really come to light.

In most things in life, “good things come to those who wait” – or, in this case, those who look back and ask “what if?” Problem is, in this day in age, nobody seems to have time for that. And if there’s no time for it, it’s not valuable – forward is the only practical movement.

Kristen,

One of the parts of Gary Hall’s Critical Theory article that interested me was his discussion of critical theory in the context of Scheinfeldt’s claim that theory’s problem is a matter of scale and timing. The argument is that the theory of DH is being compared to humanities scholarship as a whole, which is to expect every scholar to contribute a theoretical advancement to the field. Indeed, it is seen in the historical field, as well. New books, articles, essays, and presentations are all looking to produce a new idea or new way of looking at an old idea. There is, seemingly, little to no benefit for rehashing the ideas that had already been produced, albeit with a slight tweak. However, it seems that DH is new enough that there is still much to learn in terms of theory. In this sense, it seems much more common to see someone produce a work that is built upon rather than having a new work constructed that refutes the original.

I guess for me, I need DH to be black and white. Even after a few weeks in the class, I am still very confused as to what DH is, and what falls into the category of DH. The coding activity last week was like asking me to speak a whole different language, that I knew nothing about. It was very confusing, and frustrating. So I am reaching out for help to all of you to help me in better understanding what DH actually is.

I liked Sara’s post about having standards. As a middle school teacher we not only have state and national standards but we have standards set by the company that owns our charter school. I think if DH had standards and could break it down into categories that people would better understand it would help some, but also confuse some. For me, seeing what I need to teach, and the time frame I need to teach it in is way more helpful than sending me in to teach something with no guidelines or deadlines.

Right now I feel that DH is a huge category, with all these little sub categories because no one really knows that to include in DH and what not to which is even more confusing for me…
From the Debates Part II, I basically took away that research is core to understanding what DH really is, and that technology will just continue to improve. Because of that we have to stay up to date on the latest trends.

Kristen,

Just getting caught up here. In your first paragraph you say that your question “was simple compared to the questions posed by Stephen Ramsay and Geoffrey Rockwell and the questions being asked to DH scholars.” I taught first-year writing for two years, and I’ve always looked for ways to integrate technology into my students’ practices – not for the sake of doing so, but with an eye toward using the technologies’ affordances to accomplish things that traditional assignments can’t. That said, your statement resonated with me in that before this class began, I felt that I could answer the question, “What is DH?” for the sheer fact that I have been immersed in DH all this time – but the questions raised by the readings have troubled my understanding (in a good way) of what “digital humanities” means. I think, as Dr. Schocket said prior to the beginning of the class, that answering that question will be an ongoing journey versus a final destination.

Kristen, thanks for the thoughtful post. Two particular observations caught my eye here.

One is how students may now communicate with authors through social media. It’s a wonderful development, and I’m glad you pointed it out. That said, I wonder to what extent we would call that DH. For example, I could tweet a politician asking about a position, or a physicist asking about a particular experiment result. In other words, you’re talking about communication with humanities, but does that make it digital humanities? Or is there something qualitatively different about the interaction that makes this a new animal that’s different from the previously-mentioned ones.

Also, something to be clarified. The post notes that “I see that the longer I teach, the more the explanatory essay develops into a more descriptive and detailed essay, still giving fact but in an entertaining way.” There’s no question that students have much easier access to information — although, as someone who teaches history, I find that sometimes this also allows students to avoid going to that big building with all the books and old papers in it (in the old days, we used to call it a “library”!). In any case, do you mean that the explanatory essays do the same intellectual work, and in more detailed ways, or that they have exchanged analysis for description?

Kristen,

It’s interesting that you mention plagiarism in your post. As a high school English teacher myself, plagiarism has always been kind of the elephant in the room. I haven’t been able to get my students to fully understand it, much less avoid it. I hadn’t really considered how DH would affect that idea. Would the lines start to get blurry?

I’ve also been considering this plagiarism idea in light of something I have started with my students. I took a teaching grammar and writing class last semester and started using some of the ideas from one of the books, Image Grammar, Second Edition: Teaching Grammar as Part of the Writing Process by Harry Noden. Part of the book, and actually most of the books used in the course, began with imitating the work of other writers. For example, take a passage you like from a writer and change the topic and the words, but follow the sentence structure. I was under the impression that plagiarism was copying anything, including sentence structure, but I remember doing similar exercises when I was in school. Would that be considered plagiarism? And furthermore, would it be considered plagiarism if students only used imitation as a kind of warm-up and never intended to publish their results?

Kristen, thank you for your post. I think it echoes some sentiments I’ve had for some time in my master’s studies that the study and teaching of composition needs to have flexibility. Times change, people change, etc. – and we need to adapt ourselves to that fact. Digital humanities are not a replacement for traditional writing practices, but rather a supplement to what we already learn and know. I think embracing DH as a PART of those practices will not only let students have a multidisciplinary view of writing, but will also let them view writing study with an open mind, allowing them to adapt their writing to various situations and necessities. That would be invaluable!

Kristen, I too drew a connection to the world of education and DH. Like your thoughts on students interacting with authors and other students who are engaging in texts, I was thinking about how much DH has shaped my classroom from accessing texts online, chatting with authors through Twitter, or blogging with students from neighboring schools. I also had never encountered a book on this particular open format and was very intrigued about how more texts in this fashion would be so beneficial for public schools!

Thanks for your post, Aaron. It builds (see what I did there? eh?) nicely off of both David’s and Sarah’s posts. I found myself asking the same exact questions as to the “useless” material out there on Youtube. Do Matt Bellassai’s “Whine About It” videos count because they represent our culture in some way? I decided that they didn’t, but then I wondered if that was some insidious elitist streak in me.

As I read this week I felt like I was a kid again, making a sand castle. Each text I read helped me form my ideas of DH and pat down my definition, but each new text brought with it a wave that washed away the majority of my previous conception. I am currently re-reading with the intent of wrestling down some coherent thoughts that might form a better definition.

Nice metaphor, Emily. But Emily and all, don’t get too discouraged. As you can see, there’s significant disagreement even among those steeped in the field (if that’s in fact what DH is) who have very differing conceptions of what it means, its boundaries, and who qualifies as doing it.

I’m glad to hear there are others out there who were as “discouraged” as I. I thought I was having a seizure every time I would start a new section of the readings. Each definition would swirl around and in my head trying to make a connection or relationship with the other. There were some similarities that led me to believe there was an aha moment coming, but it never really came. It reminded me of my critical media class that continually led me to believe that each week was the answer and it wasn’t. So I’ve figured that all of this is relative to your own philosophies….. maybe. It is what you bring to the table and your research that clarifies the “definition” for you.

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.

Something that came to mind as I was reading the text was that DH is its own entity, but DH is also starting to infiltrate into other areas of academia. In the introduction, DH, to me, was portrayed as a result of change; some scholars are embracing the change, and some are turning the other way, leaving DH to exist on its own. I liked the idea Ramsey presented in the introduction, and later Fitzpatrick in her article, when he declared that DH was about building and creating, and scholars can’t just study it and critique it. I thought this brought about an interesting perspective on DH that I had not considered. What most interested me in DH was the description of the speed. I always associate academia with long-term research and data collected over time; however, DH is unique in that it is a speedy process because the digital world is constantly changing and being reinvented. In Part 1, Matthew Kirschenbaum touches on social media, and I can’t help but admit that my students’ lives revolve around the concept. (The sooner I embrace this…the better). In fact, I find myself relating discussions, characters, and concepts to social media in one way or another to make ideas interesting to them. Connecting these ideas made me realize that DH is very important, and, as Sarah said, it has been a part of my life for a very long time with me even realizing it.

Sarah, I like your point about DH being capacious and sprawling, which it certainly is. That said, if I were reading this post, I’m not sure that I’d get a sense of what the boundaries are. And I definitely agree that Dh can be practiced in many fields, as you noted.

That is, is anything computerized necessarily DH? For example, would a database of DNA sequences qualify as DH? Or a facebook post? Or is there something about what questions are asked and how? This is a difficult question that we struggle with, and I’m more of the “big-tent” camp than the “it-must-involve-lots-of-coding-by-specialists” camp, but are there, say, criteria you would use to give us a sense of what DH is? In other words, if your cousin asked you what DH is and isn’t, how would we answer that?

Thank you for the guidance!