Category Archives: Uncategorized

Fashion History meets Digital Humanities

Hey guys,

I’m uploading a post from the blog Historic Dress that reflects on the relationship can exist between Fashion and Digital Humanities. It’s about a contribution that Historic Dress co-conspirator Jon Berndt Olsen gave to University of Massachusetts Amherst for the new First-Year seminar, “From Cotton to Kevlar: Fashion History meets Digital Humanities.”
I needed to post this because sometime I lose track of how DH can me interesting in every field of reality, especially mine. What’s DH’s impact in areas where it is not immediately connected?

The aim of this reading is  to try out some ideas that animate Historic Dress while also introducing students to digital approaches to humanities research and interpretation.

From Cotton to Kevlar: Fashion History Meets Digital Humanities

 

Thank you all,

Nico

Disciplinarity debates – suggested readings

The media analysis project David proposed seems extremely timely. The top hits in a Google search on science and humanities brought up article after article about the crisis in the humanities, the perceived or false threat to the humanities by scientific and quantitative approaches, the scientism and the humanities (cf the very public 2013 argument between Leon Wieseltier and Steven Pinker in The New Republic – http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114127/science-not-enemy-humanities and http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114172/leon-wieseltier-scientism-and-humanities ), etc. It all gets so old after while! And it’s not a new set of concerns.

But I came across a NEH grant proposal narrative / position paper prepared by SUNY Binghamton in 2008 for a project that sought to address the Science v. Humanities smackdown before it ever reached its current frenzy. They begin with “C.P. Snow’s (1959) description of the humanities and sciences as ‘The Two Cultures.’” And the project was aimed at breaking down this dichotomy where it matters most, at the level of the classroom (rather than continue the argument at the disciplinary level, which doesn’t actually do anything but feed the fire). Some of the project description is understandably very specific in terms of activities, but it also addresses larger theoretical questions, such as how humanities research and scientific research can complement or enhance each other in a given subject, and how a holistic investigation and interpretation of evolution, for example, could encompass different approaches to the material that are both equally valid and equally necessary: “Through evolutionary theory and its study of both ultimate explanations (such as biological fitness) and proximate explanations (such as the function and importance of the arts to human survival and development), we think that the 21st century will witness an integration of human-related subjects. Moreover, because of its emphasis on the crucial developmental functions of art, this integration can help restore the centrality of the perspectives and subjects currently associated with the humanities. ”

The project description also surveys the modern history of this disciplinary antipathy, which I think is very useful for background. Although it is not specifically a DH project, it addresses some fundamental assumptions and anxieties that contribute to current divisions and drive the debate in academia. And, as these ideas “trickle down” into the popular press, they generate both the less partisan articles like those David suggested, as well as those that politicize and perpetuate these divisions in (I think) unnecessary ways. The proposal is here: http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Wilson-02.pdf

Relevant Article

Hey guys,

While still trying to navigate a solid definition of Digital Humanities, I came across this Slate article discussing DH’s significance and how it fits into academia. I’ve been struggling with some of our assigned readings, so the purpose of this post was for me and anyone else who was feeling overwhelmed with the introduction to our most recent topics.

Digital Humanities and the Future of Technology in Higher Ed

-Scarlett

Relavent Readings For This Week

Hi All,

Here’s two articles relevant to some of our class discussions thus far. The first, Five Ideas for Digital Labor History, is a short piece by Tobias Higbie, Associate Professor in History at UCLA, in which he presents five ideas that labor historians can engage with DH. The second article, Laboring Wikipedia, follows up on Higbie’s use of Wikipedia as a class project for students to engage and collaborate in course materials. As a final class project that replaces the traditional term paper, students from his upper division labor history lecture create/edit Wikipedia entries on topics relevant to the class. Some things he highlights included project process, student experience, and future changes.

-Maple

Learning to notice and critical making

Hi All,

Re: Last week’s section on critiquing and theorizing DH, I would add Patrick Murray-John’s “Theory, Digital Humanities and Noticing,” and Roger Whitson’s blog post “Critical Making in Digital Humanities: A MLA 2014 Special Session Proposal.” Both pieces deal with the distinction between hacking and yacking, and address why this distinction is misguided.

In the former case, Murray addresses the perception that through DH, computer science is invading the humanities and laying waste to its traditions (i.e. yacking). He argues that the very opposite is happening: the humanities are invading comp sci and bringing with them questions and modes of thinking that can “help us identify why we are writing the code in the first place and help us recognize what promising directions or ideas are available.” (Granted, he also acknowledges that humanities’ practices risk (though don’t necessitate) making comp sci projects bloated and untenable.) Furthermore, he states that the hack v. yack conversation itself is a result of unfamiliarity and the fact that high theory trains one to read specific kinds of rhetoric, but not code, much like how traditional computer science trains one to read C, Java, Python, etc., but not Joyce. Thus, from within either camp, the intersection of the two may look like bad practice, when in fact it may just be different practice, which, through increased familiarity and emergent theory born out of DH projects themselves, will make more sense as a simultaneously self-critical and immediately practical endeavor.

In the latter case, Whitson gives a brief survey of “critical making” in the digital humanities and in the process he argues that “[b]uilding or making can take many different forms, all of which are critically and theoretically engaged. As Jean Bauer has argued, databases are ‘steeped in theoretical implications,’ and [], so are programming languages, data models, interfaces, algorithms, and the heads, spindles, platters, motors, and plastruders found in hardware and printers. In short, methods, tools, and applications exist in recursive relationships with discursive practices.” In other words, there is no tool that does not always already contain horizons for critical engagement, and to explore these horizons can take the form of explication through rhetoric, but it is just as possible and just as valid for this exploration to be folded into the project itself. For an example from the arts, I could write about Francis Bacon’s Crucifixions, or I could just as productively look at them and visually consider what arguments about the substantiality of paint, the limitations of representation, etc. are already folded into the works themselves. This is likewise the case for any well-thought-out DH project; at least some critical self-reflection will be embedded into the work itself. Consideration of the limits, strengths, distortions and implications of one’s tools is inherent in any mature practice.

— Ashleigh

Another possible reading…

One possible reading that could be added to future versions of this class is:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/readers-defintions-of-ed-tech-buzzwords-confusion-and-skepticism-continue/57301

This blog post addresses terms related to both education and technology deemed common yet confusing. These buzzwords were gathered by The Chronicle of Higher Education from a survey conducted of their readership. One of the terms featured prominently is “digital humanities.”

The brief article is followed by a table displaying a sampling of survey answers. You can see up to 100 of the guessed meanings from respondents for the highest ranking terms. Considering that survey participants are mostly professionals in the education field, it’s alarming and disappointing to see the misconceptions of the term “digital humanities,” or worse, the number of answers that essentially say “I have no idea what this is.” Even answers that are mostly accurate often contain a “what I think this means is…”.

The article mirrors our first week class exercise of student-offered definitions, before our understanding was clarified by the essays in section I of Debates in the Digital Humanities and other readings. The piece might be a valuable addition to the syllabus, though, since it (along with the survey responses) offers a glimpse at how DH is currently viewed, rightly or wrongly, by academia at large.

For the record, while I initially was as off-the-mark about the term as some of the Chronicle’s survey-takers, my preferred definition is now Matt’s definition from The Johns Hopkins Guide to Digital Media, i.e “an emerging field of humanities scholarship, teaching, and practice that is grounded in digital sources, methods, tools, and platforms.” (Gold)

As a self-confessed word-nerd or word-wonk, I’m somewhat reluctant to use the words “digital” and “humanities” in a definition of “digital humanities,” but I’m sticking to it. I admire its thoroughness while still being relatively concise. With some guidance from m-w.com, I see it would be easy to swap “computerized and/or electronic” for “digital,” and “humanities” with “philosophy, arts, and language studies,” but I’d only do that if the clarification was necessary.

 

Works Cited

“Digital.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2015. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/digital>.

Gold, Matthew. “Digital Humanities.” The Johns Hopkins Guide to Digital Media. Ed. Marie-Laure Ryan, Lori Emerson, and Benjamin J. Robertson. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2014. 143-149. Print.

“Humanity.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2015. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanity>.

Young, Jeffrey R. “Readers’ Definitions of Ed-Tech Buzzwords: Confusion and Skepticism Continue.” Web log post. Wired Campus. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 28 Aug. 2015. Web. 26 Sept. 2015.

 

Addition to the syllabus?

Hey all,

I was poking around thinking about what could have supplemented our reading for the first couple weeks of class, and came across this call for proposals for the annual conference of the Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations. To my mind, the couple of paragraphs below speaks to a number of the questions that have arisen for us: What counts as digital humanities? Who makes those decisions? And do DH projects have to involve code?

I don’t know that this is actually a source that should go on the syllabus — I think probably not, seems more appropriate for a blog post (!) — but it helped to clarify some of the contemporary thinking in the academic community about what DH is and who gets to decide (those folks listed at the end, I guess).

Destry

Call for Proposals, Digital Humanities 2015

Call for Proposals

Digital Humanities 2015: Global Digital Humanities

 

  1. General Information

The Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations (ADHO) invites submission of abstracts for its annual conference, on any aspect of digital humanities. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • humanities research enabled through digital media, data mining, software studies, or information design and modeling;
  • computer applications in literary, linguistic, cultural, and historical studies, including electronic literature, public humanities, and interdisciplinary aspects of modern scholarship;
  • digital arts, architecture, music, film, theatre, new media, digital games, and related areas;
  • creation and curation of humanities digital resources;
  • social, institutional, global, multilingual, and multicultural aspects of digital humanities; and
  • digital humanities in pedagogy and academic curricula.

For the 2015 conference, we particularly welcome contributions that address ‘global’ aspects of digital humanities including submissions on interdisciplinary work and new developments in the field.

Presentations may include:

  • posters (abstract maximum 750 words);
  • short papers (abstract maximum 1500 words);
  • long papers (abstract maximum 1500 words);
  • multiple paper sessions, including panels (regular abstracts + approximately 500-word overview); and
  • pre-conference workshops and tutorials (proposal maximum 1500 words)

The deadline for submitting poster, short paper, long paper, and multiple paper session proposals to the international Program Committee is midnight GMT, 3 November, 2014.  Presenters will be notified of acceptance by 6 February, 2015.

V. International Program Committee

Chair: Deb Verhoeven
Vice-Chair: Manfred Thaller

Jeremy Boggs (ACH)
Brian Croxall (ACH)
Øyvind Eide (EADH)
Jieh Hsiang (centerNet)
Diane Jakacki (CSDH/SCHN)
Kiyanori Nagasaki (JADH)
Tim Sherratt (aaDH)
Stéfan Sinclair (CSDH/SCHN)
James Smithies (aaDH)
Tomoji Tabata (JADH)
Karina van Dalen-Oskam (EADH)
Sally Wyatt (centerNet)

Outgoing Chair: Melissa Terras