Group items tagged

In this 2011 article, Moya Z. Bailey analyzes the racial and gender makeup of the digital humanities, the navigation of marginalized groups within society, and their interactions with academia. Problems, such as the use of ableist language and the assumption that a few token minorities will eradicate marginalization, are addressed within the article. Bailey also highlights some of the ways in which Digital Humanities are being used to transform the humanities, such as Crunk Feminist Collective communicating with groups that the collective "felt accountable to outside academia."

The core purpose of this article is the promotion of the digital humanities in academia by informing digital humanists how they might be able to better communicate the value of digital humanities. The four main points are: educate the general audience about the subject matter, the need for reviewers to understand the diverse nature of the field, documentating ones role in collaborative projects for the sake of promotion, and explaining the changing nature of peer review in the field. It also briefly addresses the need for institutions to accept new forms of media.

This Dan Cohen blog discusses the weird relationship between the databases purchased by organizations and libraries and how they are utilized in the academic world. Many of these purchases are unwarranted. These buyers are over buying accumulating multiple software programs for more than one 'category". The main problem discussed is that since the buyer is not the user, ignored functional issues arise.

This article presents an examination of how digital humanities is currently conceived and described, and examines the discursive shift from humanities computing to digital humanities.

Professor John Unsworth summarizes an academic approach by outlining the schamatics of defining this study. The site inherits an authorial presence and gives the content credibility. the site is explained in a manner for a broad audience to view and understand with examples and practice explanation.

This article by Elexis Lothian is partly a response to another article, "Does DH Really Need to be Transformed?" by Roger Whitson. The article argues that although people in the field may have had good experiences with regards to acceptance, that there is still room for growth in areas such as queer studies, critical race studies, feminist studies, etc. The article also illuminates a little on the process behind choosing the tag #transformDH as well as some of the groups, such as HASTAC, which have collaborated to support the project.

This article by Roger Whitson is a response to calls from groups such as #transformDH to work harder to incorporate marginalized groups. The core of the argument being made is that the Digital Humanities are, by their nature, collaborative and that this will be the means by which the digital humanities is opened fully to marginalized groups. The argument is not that it doesn't need to happen, but that the systems are already in place which will bring it about.

This short article for the 2012 American Studies Association Annual Meeting represents a call for digital humanists to collaborate and propose ways in which American Studies and Digital Humanities can be transformed to be better address concerns such a marginalization. Provided proof that this is possible, the article highlights such "digital collectives and social movements" such as Crunk Feminist Collective, "shit [people] say" and artists offering a "productive [exploration] of digital productions and methods." The article also highlights in particular the #transformDH movement, and provides links to some of the articles and websites utilized by the group.

In this article, William Pannapacker discusses his personal "come to DH moment," his interactions with the field, his concerns about Digital Humanities, and some of the projects appearing that are interesting and address his concerns. One major project highlighted by Pannapacker is the DH Commons project, described "as the match.com for digital humanists." The article ends with a call for uninvolved scholars at institutions, particularly those that do not have DH centers, to utilize these various projects to collaborate and join the digital humanities.

Bethany Nowviskie's article proposes an overhaul of modern graduate studies by replacing aging practices and methods of education with more modern and technology appropriate forms of education. One of Nowviskie's key points of criticism it that many of these more traditional forms of graduate education are producing humanities PhDs who do not fully understand how modern universities work and are impacted by the outside world. Nowviskie's main proposal for beginning to replace these aging methods is through the cooperation of funding agencies and respected humanities organizations, ones with a good history of inter-institutional and interdisciplinary collaboration, to utilize grants to reshape graduate studies.

This article seeks to address the problem of digital humanities being code heavy by nature, but being populated a field not traditionally associated with programming. It introduces two tutorials intended to help new people break into the field of programming: Hackety Hack and "The Rubyist Historian." Hackety Hack is a free program containing a series of interactive lessons for learning to code in the Ruby language, and "The Rubyist Historian" is a blog by graduate student Jason Heppler intended to be an "accessible introduction to Ruby."

Although alt-ac is not exclusive digital humanities, or even exclusively humanities, the report on the #alt-ac panel for the Digital Humanities 2011 highlights some of the issues and questions relevant to the DH field. Some of the problems are personal in nature, such as the professional differences between#alt-ac and tenure, and others are more institutional, such as the issues with "credential creep." Although the article does not necessarily provide answers, it highlights many of the concerns alt-ac professionals have in pursuing their career.

This brief article highlights a major change in the Digital Humanities that occurred in 2012, an MLA release containing standardized guidelines for evaluating work in the Digital Humanities. Those who stand the most to gain from this release are the DH professors themselves, as the guidelines lay some basic ground rules for evaluating this material for the purposes of promotion or gaining tenure. Although the guidelines are non-enforceable, being that they are from the MLA they are likely to be given some weight.

This brief article highlights one of the preconvention workshops that was available for MLA 2012. This workshop was hosted by DHCommons, a digital humanist project intended to facilitate the collaboration of either people in the field of digital humanities or people looking to break into the field. The article contains the full announcement for the workshop, highlighting its purpose, its guests, and those sponsoring the project. Including Texas A&M.

This article about the 2011 Digital Humanities meeting highlights three big project announcements from that meeting. The first of these was a then new grant program: Digital Humanities Implementation Grants, a follow up to the Digital Humanities Start-Up Grant program. The second of these was a collection of alternative academic careers for humanities scholars titled #alt-academy. The last of these was the introduction of Press Forward, an initiative aiming to fuse traditional scholarly review with open-web filters.

THATCamp stands for "The Humanities and Technology Camp." Its creators refer to it as an "unconference." They do this to distinguish themselves from typical humanities conferences, in which the reading of papers and overly-thick academia lessens the helpfulness and practicality of it all. The website gives a number of bullets describing the idea: THATCamp is "collaborative, informal, spontaneous, timely, productive, lightweight, inexpensive to organize, not-for-profit, small, non-hierarchical, non-disciplinary, inter-professional, open, online, fun, and engaging. It expresses its desire to not only attract scholars, but people with a broad diversity of backgrounds and skills.

"In Defense of Data" presents two articles, "The Digital Inhumanities?" by Scott Selisker and "Imaginary Targets" by Holger Schott Syme, in response to an article by Stephen Marche, "Literature is Not Data: Against Digital Humanities." Selisker's essay focuses primarily on dismantling the idea that digitization removes the human element from interpretation and enforces a quasi-authoritarian view of literature. Syme's essay addresses both Marche's misunderstanding of the motivations of the movement against Google Book's digitization efforts as well as Marche's inaccurate depiction of modern literary research in the wake of digital humanities.

In this article Brian Croxall introduces the three digital workshops that will be on display at the 2013 MLA. Coxwell gives the importance of each workshop and he explains how they can be helpful while using MLA formating in the classroom. The first workshop entitled Digital Pedagogy Unconference is popularized in academia and is targeted for people who have never used technology in the classroom. The second workshop welcomes scholars who wish to pursue or join digital scholarly projects but do not have the institutional infrastruce to support them. The last workshop entitled ThatCamp is an open, inexspensive meeting where humanists and technoligies of skill levels learn and build together in sessions proposede on the spot.

With a book about Academia and its issues being faced today, Kathleen Fitzpatrick (director of Scholarly Communications for MLA) brings to question the adaptation education has to take in order to thrive including that of technology. Her blog orientated around her book gives specific to general Digital Humanities example in a theoretical aspect.