In this first week of the semester, we jumped in on one of the most basic and yet most complicated topics in Digital Humanities: what is it? At first, asking ourselves what Digital Humanities is feels like a simple task, but the sheer volume of what DH includes and the fact that it is largely still being defined as a field seems to muddle every clear and concise thought you have on the subject. I got the certificate in Digital Public Humanities as part of my History MA program here at Mason and in my very first class, we were asked this same question. My blog post from that time talks about the interdisciplinary nature of the field and how it is simultaneously a set of tools, a field, and a lens which allows you to ask new and different questions of your source material.
Reading Adam Crymble’s Technology and the Historian: Transformations in the Digital Age definitely gave me more to think about, especially when interwoven with our class discussion. Crymble gives a pretty solid history of the digital humanities field, at least in the English speaking world, discussing the impact of technology on the work of historians and educators at every level from graduate degree programs to elementary educators. This point is held in tandem with another of Crymble’s, that “doing history in the digital age” should remain the priority, rather than pursuing histories that suit different technological advancements or shiny new tools. Earlier this week, I was in a meeting where Dr. Robertson was speaking to PhD students about the possibility of doing a digital dissertation. He went on to explain that we should be thinking of this idea, not as a daunting challenge, but as an opportunity to not fit a square peg into a round hole. That is, if there is even just a portion of our dissertations that would be more effective as a digital element, we could embrace that rather than adapting it into traditional text. I was reminded of this discussion when reading Technology and the Historian because Dr. Robertson was very much in line with this charge to treat digital methods as an addition to historical scholarship, not the other way around.
Our class discussion was also pretty thought provoking. Like everyone else, I am in love with Asha’s metaphor of diagnostic criteria when determining if something is or is not digital humanities. I enjoyed talking with my group about the ways in which digital humanities touches so many different fields and audiences. Nicola made great points about how art galleries increase their accessibility with virtual reality, Josh was interested in databases as a part of the field, Kris spoke about generationally different attitudes about DH and how “history doesn’t feel like history on the computer.” We all discussed how DH can even just be an alteration in frame of mind, how maybe digital humanities doesn’t actually have to be what we usually think of as digital. We pondered if DH could just be the incorporation of non-traditional tech or methods into historical practice. For the latter, I was specifically thinking about an early project of W. E. B Dubois, where he took a map of Philadelphia’s Seventh Ward and re-drew it to reflect social data about the “conditions” or class of people. In 1899 with not a computer in sight, Dubois was very much doing Digital Humanities work: combining mapping with social data to interpret and tell the story of a neighborhood of people.
Our main technical exercise this week was setting up our WordPress site and blog page. Thankfully, I still had mine running from my previous program so many of my bugs had already been fixed. Although, I did get logged out of both my cPanel and Reclaim Hosting and have to change my passwords a record amount of times. Also in the technical realm of the week, I was re-familiarizing myself with Slack after a summer of going on mute and fully embracing out of sight, out of mind. I was so excited to see that the tech support channel has already been so active and that everyone has been so friendly and helpful. I know I’m going to need this more than a few times this semester so I’m making it a goal of mine to offer suggestions and advice wherever I can.
In all, I think this week was a perfect introduction class that reminded me of things I’d learned or thought in the past, challenged me to change my mind or complicate my ideas, and tap into what I know will become an incredibly strong intellectual community of peers. Reflecting on how I once defined Digital Humanities, I still think many of my earlier assertions are valid, AND I’ve also learned in the last couple of years, and with readings like the ones from this week, that my definition of DH is meant to change and evolve with scholarship and over time.
Leave a Reply