Mathew Kirschenbaum states that digital humanities is a means not an end; it’s about both the process and the outcome. If we think about this in the context of the debates on what IS digital humanities, who is/isn’t included, how is it changing academia, and what it means for the future the question that rises in my mind is what’s the big deal? If digital humanities is viewed as a tool, a methodology, a theoretical approach to knowledge why is there so much debate over the semantics and details of the burgeoning field of study? Despite funding issues, I think it comes down to the fact that it complicates who gets credit for what when citing and sourcing material. However, how often do we use Google as a launching point for research? How often do we scan blogs, online papers, journals, and archived data for information? Each of these sources is an available tool because of D.H. Collaboration doesn’t necessarily mean you have to give credit to everyone you have collaborated with. Do you write in your bibliography the names of every single person you talked to, including that time you ran a sentence by your roommate to make sure it sounded okay? Credit needs acknowledged where credit is due but I think, despite how departments are changing and how tenure guidelines are being ruffled in the context, people’s anxieties are making the developments that are occurring more complicated than need be.
MALS 78100: Digital Humanities in Research and Teaching
- Sameen Q. on GeoCommons
- Christina M. Ramos on GeoCommons
- Matthew K. Gold on GeoCommons
- Sameen Q. on Visualization Tools: Many Eyes
- Roxanne Shirazi on Decoding Networks