As I was writing this peer review, I realized that the scope of the paper itself is too broad and that’s why I was grappling with what deserves more space and thought. I tried to keep the review focused, but as I was reading it, I realized that it needs a bit more context. One of the assumptions I make is that the reader of the review is familiar with the article. My peer review can be found on the following link:
if that doesn’t work, I’m appending it here:
I can’t stress enough the saliency of the points you bring up here and I can understand why you want to stay away from established nomenclature, such as “cultural criticism.” The question is do you borrow an existing rhetoric or do you establish a new rhetoric which would be more befitting of a new field? You emphasize how this new field exhibits a deeper and more extensive complexity, however the extent to which digital humanities differs from the other disciplines remains hazy throughout. This argumentation makes a strong case for a lack of critical discourse in DH and highlights the need for valid and effective criticism for acknowledgement in the eyes of insiders as well as outsiders. What struck me particularly was the depth to which your argument aspires and the ability to recognize the interconnections between the fields and the mutual influence they have on each other. I’d like to see a better presentation of how the overarching influence of DH raises demands for changes in criticism as well.
On the same note, you offer an intelligent discussion of the differences between the different disciplines, but you lost me when the conversation turned to digital humanities. The reader is hit with numerous assumptions that don’t receive much attention. Is it possible to flesh some of the critical points you bring up regarding the status of digital humanities and the importance of having a solid rhetoric of criticism? I’m not sure you answer how DH can incorporate a rhetoric and an aesthetics of rhetoric that will set it apart from other disciplines. I agree with you that as a new field DH presents a new challenge to DHers and others and the urgency for validity and for better recognition takes prominence in this piece.
This shows an intelligent attempt to quantify and qualify what DH means and what it should evolve into if it aspires to a stable future.