In section five it seems to be generally stated by the majority of the authors that the digital humanities has been focused on research more than teaching/pedagogy. In order to make the next transition into the academy it is suggested that pedagogy is the next step. Luke Waltzer states that because the digital humanities values research and scholarship over teaching, learning, and curriculum development it is hard to distinguish it from other academic disciplines. This is one hang up for how to prove that the digital humanities is a unique field of study that should respectively be viewed as such instead of a subfield of the humanities. But what seems to be in flux is how to develop specific curricular design that would transition it into a specific field of study. Obviously the digital humanities is attempting in some cases to address this issue. Our class and the development of an entire certificate program in the CUNY system is proof of such efforts. The digital humanities need to take more steps like this in order to prove that it is a worthy and unique field that should be further developed. NEH seems to be a road block to such advancement because of their funding of projects that do not focus on curriculum development. How are schools supposed to further design departments and programs if there is no funding for research and development? Also, is it important enough to the digital humanities field to fight for the  competitive grants? If the next generation of digital humanists who are earning graduate degrees will theoretically need to be able to teach technical facility and critical pedagogical understanding of technologies, which is stated by Alexander Reid, they will need to be taught themselves. Do we expect them to self teach? We must figure out how to support research on curriculum and pedagogy if we expect the academy to further fund and develop the digital humanities as a separate field of study.