Patrik Svensson is the director of HUMlab at Umeå University and a docent in the humanities and information technology. His research concerns digital humanities as a field, learning and information technology, cyberinfrastructure for the humanities and new media studies. He currently leads the DH3P project (Digital Humanities as Paradigm, Practice and Projection), YouTube as a Performative Arena and a major initiative to strengthen research in the humanities and information technology at Umeå University. In 2008 he published a book on
Authored for DHQ; migrated from original DHQauthor format
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. It is argued that this renaming of humanities computing as digital
humanities carries with it a set of epistemic commitments that are not necessarily
compatible with a broad and inclusive notion of the digital humanities. In
particular, the author suggests that tensions arise from the instrumental, textual
and methodological focus of humanities computing as well as its relative lack of
engagement with the digital
as a study object. This article is the first in a
series of four articles attempting to describe and analyze the field of digital
humanities and digital humanities as a transformative practice.
How did humanities computing become digital humanities?
The humanities are undergoing a set of changes which relate to research practices, funding structures, the role of creative expression, infrastructural basis, reward systems, interdisciplinary sentiment and the emergence of a deeply networked humanities both in relation to knowledge production processes and products. An important aspect of this ongoing transformation of the humanities is humanities scholars’ increasing use and exploration of information technology as both a scholastic tool and a cultural object in need of analysis. Currently, there is a cumulative set of experiences, practices and models flourishing in what may be called digital humanities. The research presented here explores the scope and direction of this emerging field as well as the role of humanities computing in this enterprise.
In this article, the first in a four-part series, I explore the discursive shift from
humanities computing to what is now being termed the digital humanities, examining
how this naming is related to shifts in institutional, disciplinary, and social
organization. Materials such as the Humanist email list, journals, conference
materials, principal texts, professional blogs and institutional websites provide an
important empirical basis for the analysis. Academic fields are partly produced,
represented, reinforced, changed and negotiated through these modes of discourse. As
will be evident from the analysis, the renaming of humanities computing to digital
humanities brings with it a set of epistemic commitments that are not necessarily
congruent with a broad and inclusive notion of the digital humanities. I suggest that
interesting tensions arise from the instrumental, textual and methodological focus of
humanities computing as well as its relative lack of engagement with the
digital
as a study object.
In the second article, I explore the broader landscape of the digital humanities through a discussion of digital humanities and digital humanists, associated traditions, personal encounters and importantly, through a suggested set of paradigmatic modes of engagement between the humanities and information technology: information technology as a tool, an object of study, an exploratory laboratory, an expressive medium and an activist venue.
The third article discusses cyberinfrastructure for the humanities more broadly — and for the digital humanities in particular — in relation to the current discourse of cyberinfrastructure, models of implementation and possible directions. The article also presents a fairly extensive case study of HUMlab — a digital humanities center at Umeå University. Finally, tentative advice as to implementing and strategizing humanities cyberinfrastructure is offered.
In the fourth article, I explore the multiple ways in which the digital humanities have been envisioned and how the digital humanities can often become a laboratory and vehicle for thinking about the state and future of the humanities at large. Some foundational issues, including the role of the humanities and changing knowledge production systems, are discussed and related to the development of the digital humanities. Furthermore, a tentative vision of the digital humanities is presented. This vision is grounded in the article series as a whole as well as in the important collaborative possibilities and challenges that lie ahead of us.
Together these four articles constitute an attempt to outline and critically discuss how the humanities interrelates with information technology in multiple ways, to understand the historical, conceptual, and disciplinary aspects of this interrelation, and to present an expansive model for the digital humanities.
One of things that has fascinated me for a long time is the range of origins,
approaches and traditions associated with different varieties of digital humanities,
ranging from textual analysis of medieval texts and establishment of metadata schemes
to the production of alternative computer games and artistic readings of
nanotechnology. An important rationale for this article series is to facilitate a
discussion across various initiatives and disciplines and to make connections. There
are many humanities scholars involved in what may be called digital humanities who
have no or little knowledge of humanities computing, and vice versa, many humanities
computing representatives who do not engage much with current new media
studies of matters such as platform studies, transmedia perspectives or database
aesthetics. Few people will engage in activities across the board, of course, but it
is important to have a sense of the growing disciplinary landscape, associated
methodological and theoretical positions, and emerging collaborative possibilities.
To me, this is an integral part of digital humanities as a project.
There are several good reasons for giving humanities computing the particular
attention it receives in this article: its rich heritage, historical and current
accomplishments, the sheer number of people involved, and the apparent discursive
transition to digital humanities.
Furthermore, any attempt at mapping an
emerging field presupposes a discussion of disciplinary territory and ambitions, and
humanities computing provides a particularly good starting point as it is relatively
established and well-defined. And as we will see, many of the issues, considerations
and parameters relevant to humanities computing are also relevant to digital
humanities more generally.
In the following, we will start out from a particular example of humanities computing as digital humanities and associated epistemic commitments. Some of these commitments are traced in the subsequent historical, institutional and contextual description of humanities computing. We will then move on to look at the renaming of humanities computing to digital humanities, which in turn will lead to a critical discussion of humanities computing with a particular focus on some points of tension between traditional humanities computing and an expansive notion of digital humanities. In conclusion, humanities computing will be briefly juxtaposed with a very different kind of digital humanities tradition.
The Call for Proposals for Digital Humanities 2009, the principal humanities computing conference, provides an illustrative example of how the disciplinary territory of digital humanities is being defined in relation to the tradition of humanities computing and how epistemic commitments can be manifested discursively.
Epistemic cultures, as defined by those amalgams of arrangements and mechanisms
– bonded through affinity, necessity, and historical coincidence – which, in a
given field, make up
(original emphasis). We are thus concerned with ways in which knowledge is
created, represented and defended. Epistemic cultures are constructed and maintained
through, among other things, the epistemic commitments of participating scientists as
part of the means by which alignments are made between academic disciplines, the
fields of enquiry that they represent, and shared notions about what constitutes
valid research
The Digital Humanities 2009
Call is divided into three parts. The first part provides a broad and
relatively open definition of the digital humanities. The international Programme Committee invites submissions of abstracts of
between 750 and 1500 words on any aspect of digital humanities, broadly defined
to encompass the common ground between information technology and problems in
humanities research and teaching. As always, we welcome submissions in any area of the humanities, particularly
interdisciplinary work. We especially encourage submissions on the current
state of the art in digital humanities, and on recent new developments and
expected future developments in the field.
The invitation relates to Suitable subjects for proposals include, for example, any aspect of digital
humanities
which is loosely defined as the common ground between
information technology and problems in humanities research and teaching.
Interdisciplinary contributions are particularly encouraged. As expected, the second
part provides a higher level of specificity.
Here we are presented with a narrowing down of what was described in the first part.
This is common in conference calls as a way of indicating the particular focus of the
conference, of course, although it is difficult to discern any clear thematic
delimitation in this particular case. We are thus concerned with a fairly broad range
of possible topics. However, the ordering and phrasing of these topics suggest a
specific tradition or framework, and an associated set of epistemic commitments. For
instance, it is not by accident that text analysis comes first and that phrases such
as computer-based research
and use of computation
are used. Even so it
could be argued that much of what be included in a broad notion of digital humanities
could be subsumed under these topics, and that particularly the sixth topic –
research issues – opens up the scope to areas such as new media studies. But the
placement, exact wording (e.g. the cultural impact of new media
) and the
broader context may not make these potential conference participants feel targeted
unless they already have a relation to the community and humanities computing.
In the third part of the call for proposals follows a much more precise definition of
digital humanities and associated topics: The range
of topics covered by digital humanities can also be consulted in the journal of
the associations: Literary and Linguistic Computing (LLC), Oxford University
Press.
The journal
The partial institutionalization of humanities computing has resulted in academic
departments or units, annual conferences, journals, educational programs and a rather
strong sense of communal identity. These are all qualities that are typically
associated with the establishment of a new discipline (cf. Empirically, humanities computing is easily recognized as a particular academic
domain and community. We have our professional organizations, regular conferences,
journals, and a number of centers, departments, and other organizational units. A
sense for the substance of the field is also fairly easy to come by: one can
examine the proceedings of ACH/ALLC conferences, issues of CHum and JALLC, the
discussions on HUMANIST, the contents of many books and anthologies which
represent themselves as presenting work in humanities computing, and the academic
curricula and research programs at humanities computing centers and departments.
From such an exercise one easily gets a rough and ready sense of what we are
about, and considerable reassurance, if any is needed, that indeed, there is
something which we are about.
Communal identity, of course, is built over time, and history and foundational
narratives play an important role in this process. Father Roberto Busa is typically
cited as the pioneer of the field of humanities computing, and his work dates back to
the late 1940s: During the World War II, between 1941 and
1946, I began to look for machines for the automation of the linguistic
analysis of written texts. I found them, in 1949, at IBM in New York
City.
In this foundational story, two important epistemic commitments of humanities
computing are established: information technology as a tool and written texts as a
primary object of study (for linguistic analysis). Commitments such computer as
instrumental tool
and text as object
end up helping decide what are
legitimate types of questions and study objects for the field, and how work and
relevant institutions are organized.
The journal
officialjournals for humanities computing. In one of the obituaries, Willard McCarty applauds the first 25 years of the journal and comments on the editors’ final statement (which points the difficulty of maintaining the broad scope of the journal):
CHum's astonishing denial of a future for humanities computing comes in the same year as the Blackwell's Companion to Digital Humanities. […] If anything, the development of CHum since then suggests rather the opposite — a narrowing down from the breadth of humanistic interests, across the full range of disciplines, to a sharp focus on material often closer to computational linguistics than anything else — and often too technical for all but the specialist to read. This narrowing does not reflect the field.
In other words,
demiseof
The journal
newfield.
As important as these printed journals have been for establishing humanities computing as a field, humanities computing representatives were also early adopters of communication technologies such as email lists. The first message on the
We're always worrying ourselves about whether humanities computing has made its mark in the world and on the world. It seems to me, however, that quiet change, though harder to detect, is sometimes much better and more powerful in its effects than the noisy, obviously mark-making, position-taking kind. If during these 17 years Humanist has contributed to the world, it has done so very quietly by nature, like conversation, leaving hardly a trace.
Here it is also rather obvious that humanities computing
serves as an
identifying label and collaborative sentiment for the Humanist community. We will
soon return to this label (and an ongoing relabeling process) as well as the worry or
concern that McCarty mentions but first a brief look at another major institution in
this field.
One of the most important venues for humanities computing have been the annual
conferences jointly organized by the Association for Literary and Linguistic
Computing (ALLC) and the Association for Computers and the Humanities (ACH).
Originally these organizations ran their own conference series, but from 1996 they
started a joint conference series. From 2008, the Society for Digital
Humanities/
While, journals, conferences and academic associations play an important role in creating and maintaining an academic field and community, another important factor is the ways in which a field has been institutionalized. In the case of humanities computing, this has been a long and partly uncertain process, which has clearly shaped the field.
In organizational terms, humanities computing enterprises have been institutionalized in many different ways. And, of course, institutions develop over time. A useful resource is Willard McCarty’s and Matthew Kirschenbaum’s
[s]ome members of these units hold academic appointments either in or primarily associated with humanities computing.Examples include the Center for Computing in the Humanities, King’s College London, and the Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities. Even though it is said in the document that
[n]o judgement is expressed or implied as to the worth of the centres under consideration,it could probably be argued that this first category serves as a role model (based on the way criteria are created and presented, the ordering of the categories and a broader humanities computing context).
Historically, and to some extent contemporarily, it would seem that a prototypical
organizational form is a humanities computing unit or center affiliated with a school
of liberal arts or humanities. Often such units provide service to the rest of the
school and this rather instrumental function has typically been primary. Of course,
there might have been development in many other directions over time, but this basic
function cannot easily be dismissed. A prominent example would be the Humanities
Computing Unit at Oxford University whose roots go back to the 1960s and which was
closed (or transformed) in 2002. At the start
of the new millenium, the HCU employed over 20 people, half of them on external
grants and contracts valued at over 350,000 annually. With the advent of
divisionalization, however, it faced a new challenge and a new environment, in
which OUCS, as a centrally-funded service, must take particular care to meet the
needs of the whole University, in a way which complements the support activities
funded by individual divisions, rather than competing with or supplanting them.
Our strategy has been to focus on areas where the HCU's long experience in
promoting better usage of IT within one discipline can be generalized. In 2001, we
set up a new Learning Technologies Group, to act as a cross-disciplinary advocacy
and development focus for the integration of IT into traditional teaching and
learning. This new LTG is now one of four key divisions within the new OUCS,
additionally responsible for the full range of OUCS training activities.
The status of such academic units, of course, is not normally on the same level as
(traditional) departments which tend to be the privileged academic organizational
unit. In many cases humanities computing units have been seen as service units with a
rather instrumental role and representatives find themselves having to present their
field in such a way as to maintain financial support as well as their share of
integrity and independence. Frequently, like in the case above, academic units which
are seen as having a technological service function are susceptible to different
kinds of organizational changes and budget cuts. For instance, the central university
administration might question whether the most efficient organizational structure is
to have departments and faculties run their own computer support functions or whether
it is more efficient to adopt a more centralized model. Also humanities computing
units that have several functions might have to cut back on the more
research-oriented activities because, after all, technical support is more
instrumental (and sellable/buyable) and there might not be enough explicit interest
from humanities departments to motivate a more research and methodology focused
function. There are many examples of changes like these (see
While it is fair to say that the present institutional landscape is rather diverse and expansive, it is also important to acknowledge that the ratio of thriving humanities computing environments and initiatives at universities in Europe and the United States is still very low in relation to the whole of the Humanities; something that may or may not be seen as a problem. Taking Sweden as an example, there seems to be only one traditional humanities computing unit in the country (at Gothenburg University) at present. Most of the growth seems to happen in places where there is no or little humanities computing legacy (Blekinge Institute of Technology and Södertörn University College). My own environment, HUMlab at Umeå University, does relate to humanities computing, but also to many other influences, and most of the Ph.D. students, for instance, would probably not see themselves as primarily involved in humanities computing. Most of them do subscribe to the
A related and much-discussed issue – highly relevant to digital humanities generally
and to humanities computing as digital humanities – concerns whether humanities
computing should be independent and possibly an academic discipline in its own right
or whether it should primarily interrelate with existing humanities departments. This
discussion has partly been fueled by the need for academic status to create academic
positions and a sense of not wanting or needing to be reliant on traditional and
slow-moving departments and disciplines.A discipline maintains common
stories of its founding and a history complete with heroes (Father Busa),
monsters (English Departments) and timely achievements (the publication of
the TEI P4).
To study the effects and consequences of
digital technology on our culture, and how we are shaping these technologies
according to our cultural needs, we can now begin to see the contours of a
separate, autonomous field, where the historical, aesthetic, cultural and
discursive aspects of the digitalisation of our society may be examined. That
way, the field of Humanistic Informatics may contribute to the goal of the
Humanities, which is the advancement of the understanding of human patterns of
expression. We cannot leave this new development to existing fields, because
they will always privilege their traditional methods, which are based on their
own empirical objects.
Another argument for not involving all of the Humanities may be that it is not seen
as an efficient model. IATH was founded as a resource for people
who had already made a commitment to humanities computing, a commitment defined
practically by an actual project with demonstrable scholarly
importance.
The tension between trying to involve as many as possible and making a difference
through engaging people who have already shown an interest is basic and recurrent.
Naturally, any enterprise of this kind is dependent on the local environment. There
is obviously a significant difference between being an autonomous academic unit and a
service-based or organization. In practice most humanities computing units are
probably somewhere in between. Also, the service
function can, of course, be
very complex and should not be trivialized. McCarty talks about practice
and
practitioners,
and such terminology might be more suitable for many of the
service-like functions more directly related to the humanities computing enterprise.
He stresses the importance of methodological knowledge and says that [t]he practitioner learns a specific
but generalizable method for tackling problems of a certain kind
As we noted earlier humanities computing
has been a strong common denotation
for much of the work and community described above. In his
computers and the humanitiesvia
computing in the humanitiesto
humanities computing.He characterizes these three denotations as follows:
when the relationship was desired but largely unrealized(computers and the humanities),
once entry has been gained(computing in the humanities) and
confident but enigmatic(humanities computing)
humanities computinghas an instrumental ring to it. Also,
humanities computingdoes not necessarily seem to include many of the approaches and materials that interest many humanities scholars interested in information technology (and computing). Of course, these arguments are related to the ambitions and scope of the field you are trying to denote.
From this point of view, it is interesting to note that humanities computing
representatives currently seem to be appropriating the term
Looking at issues 1-20 of the
This discrepancy or co-existenceThe digital humanities,
then, and their interdisciplinary core found in the field of humanities
computing, have a long and dynamic history best illustrated by examination of
the locations at which specific disciplinary practices intersect with
computation.
A pertinent question is whether the discursive transition from humanities computing to digital humanities is mainly a matter of repackaging (humanities computing), or whether the new label also indicates an expanded scope, a new focus or a different relation to traditional humanities computing work. The editors of the book series
Humanities computing is undergoing a redefinition of basic principles by a continuous influx of new, vibrant, and diverse communities of practitioners within and well beyond the halls of academe. These practitioners recognize the value computers add to their work, that the computer itself remains an instrument subject to continual innovation, and that competition within many disciplines requires scholars to become and remain current with what computers can do.
The book series announcement as a whole, however, maintains a focus on the computer
as a tool and humanities computing methodologies. The epistemic commitment to
technology as tool is also clearly evident from [t]hese practioners recognize the value computers add to their work.
Unsurprisingly, it is difficult, possibly irrelevant, to pinpoint the meaning of a
term in change, but it is nevertheless relevant to look at how such terms are
introduced and used by an academic community. It is obvious that the term
The territory of the term is being defined and negotiated by institutional entities such as the journal
Digital humanities is by its nature a hybrid domain, crossing disciplinary boundaries and also traditional barriers between theory and practice, technological implementation and scholarly reflection. But over time this field has developed its own orthodoxies, its internal lines of affiliation and collaboration that have become intellectual paths of least resistance. In a world — perhaps scarcely imagined two decades ago — where digital issues and questions are connected with nearly every area of endeavor, we cannot take for granted a position of centrality. On the contrary, we have to work hard even to remain aware of, let alone to master, the numerous relevant domains that might affect our work and ideas. And at the same time, we need to work hard to explain our work and ideas and to make them visible to those outside our community who may find them useful.
This is an inclusive and open definition which also suggests a particular community,
associated history, changing boundaries and possibly some fence keeping (imposing a
notion of centrality or non-centrality and through identifying we
and
them
). Although no direct reference is made in the text, it is rather clear
that the tradition implicitly referred to is humanities computing. The interest in
dialogue indicated in the editorial is clearly important to the development of the
whole field. Importantly, for a broad notion of digital humanities and a consorted
effort, this dialogue must not only incorporate humanities computing as digital
humanities and other varieties of digital humanities, but must also take place across
a disciplinary landscape that additionally includes quite a number of initiatives and
people that might not primarily classify what they do as
In any case, the new name definitely suggests a broader scope and it is also used in
wider circles as a collective name for activities and structures in between the
Humanities and information technology.
If humanities computing is to be taken as a more general digital humanities project it seems relevant to carefully consider the scope, implementation and ambition of the paradigm. Also, regardless of this perspective, there are certain characteristics of the paradigm that deserve critical attention and discussion. The four issues presented below touch on some of the disciplinary boundaries and epistemic culture of humanities computing and may possibly challenge some established perceptions of humanities computing. In any case, what follows is not so much a criticism of a paradigm as an exploration of boundaries and possibilities. It should also be added that the points discussed here have a bearing on digital humanities more generally.
First, humanities computing as a whole maintains a very instrumental approach to technology in the Humanities. In her introductory chapter in the volume
[s]uffice it to say that we are concerned with theapplications of computing to research and teaching within the subjects that are loosely defined asthe humanities,or in British English,the arts
Text encoding is typically seen as a core element of humanities computing. Koenraad
de Smedt says that Text encoding seems to create the
foundation for almost any use of computers in the humanities
It might also be argued that traditional humanities computing has not primarily been
concerned with interface and how things look and feel – the materiality of the tools.
Kirschenbaum says that the digital humanities have also
not yet begun […] to initiate a serious conversation about its relationship to
visual design, aesthetics, and, yes, even beauty
[d]igital instruments are only as good
as the interfaces by which we think through them
[w]e are not only able to use digital
instruments to extend humanities research, but to reflect on the methods and
premises that shape our approach to knowledge and our understanding of how
interpretation is framed
Second, it has often been pointed out that what brings humanities computing together
is largely a common interest in methods, methodology, tools and technology. This
partly follows from an instrumental orientation, of course, and there is no reason to
question the methodological commons as a valuable interdisciplinary focus and
productive collaborative sentiment. However, this strong methodological focus
fundamentally affects the way humanities computing operates and relates to other
disciplines. The most serious implication is that a predominantly methodological link
to other disciplines may not integrate many of the specific issues that are at the
core of these disciplines. It could be argued that this makes it more difficult for
humanities computing to reach out more broadly to traditional humanities departments
and scholars. While there will always be interest in methods and technology, the
actual target group – humanities scholars with an active interest in humanities
computing tools and perspectives – must be said to be relatively
limited.digital humanities
has been emerging for decades and that there
is a perceived neglect on the part of the broader humanities community. While he is
appreciative of the work done in humanities computing, he also finds that For the past forty years, humanities computing
have more or less languished in the background of traditional scholarship.
Scholars lack incentive to participate (or even to learn about) the results of
humanities computing.
Looking at text analysis, Rockwell points out that text-analysis tools and the practices
of literary computer analysis have not had the anticipated impact on the
research community
A relevant question, of course, is whether humanities computing wants and needs to
reach out to the humanities disciplines.Why do we have
to get buy in from others? Do researchers in established fields feel they
need to convert everyone else in the humanities? Do we really need
legitimization from others?
http://tada.mcmaster.ca/view/Main/Dh2006?skin=plain
killer applications
that
Juola shares an interest in the development of a new or evolved kind of tools with
Drucker and Nowviskie and others. It could be argued that it would be beneficial to
have tools or applications that relate more directly to some of the central
discipline-specific challenges of the various humanities disciplines. Such a
development would probably lead to somewhat less focus on methodology, a tighter
integration of humanities computing and humanities disciplines[t]he field may only flourish as an
academic subject if it becomes less insular and interacts both with Computer
Science and those Humanities scholars who are less willing to accept
computing as part of their research tools
Third, humanities computing has a very strong textual focus. Given the history and
primary concerns of the field as well as the textual orientation of much of the
humanities this is not very surprising. Traditional text is clearly a privileged
level of description and analysis. In her analysis of humanities computing, which is
partly corpus-based, Terras writes that Humanities Computing research is
predominantly about text
the research potential of working with
digital tools for handling spatial data has been explored in only very limited
contexts
There are of course many advantages in
having access to images of source material over the Web, but humanities
computing practitioners, having grown used to the flexibility offered by
searchable text, again tended to regard imaging projects as not really their
thing, unless, like the Beowulf Project
There is nothing wrong with a textual focus, of course, but it does have effects on
the scope and penetration of humanities computing. The so-called visual turn
post-visual
turn represented by for instance mashups
). And, needless to say, most native digital media are not
pure text while humanities computing through focusing on text in its digitalized and
encoded form could be said to privilege a rather pure
(if annotated and
structured) form of text. It seems that there should be considerable opportunities in
this area for humanities computing – both for innovative tools and thinking – but
also in relation to making a strong case for the need for considerable
cyberinfrastructure in the Humanities.
My fourth and final point relates to data and material used in humanities computing –
or, put another way, the objects of study of humanities computing and associated
disciplines. McCarty distinguishes between four data types in his discussion of a
methodological commons: text, image, number and sound finite (but not fixed) set of tools for
manipulating them
.formal methods.
The formalistic
aspects of humanities computing will not be discussed in any great detail
here.Applications involving textual sources
have taken center stage within the development of humanities computing as
defined by its major publications and thus it is inevitable that this essay
concentrates on this area. Nor is it the place here to attempt to define
the two cultures,
to bring the rigor and
systematic unambiguous procedural methodologies characteristic of the sciences
to address problems within the humanities that had hitherto been most often
treated in a serendipitous fashion.
As we have already seen and as the above quote reinforces, text is a privileged data
type in humanities computing. Furthermore it could be argued that humanities
computing is mainly interested in digitalized texts (or in some cases, digitalized
historical sites etc.) and not material that is natively digital. Born digital
material would include computer games, blogs, virtual worlds, social spaces such as
MySpace, email collections, websites, surveillance footage, machinima films and
digital art. Most of these objects
are studied and analysed within different
kinds of new media settings and to me this is an interesting in-between zone. Would
humanities computing be interested in engaging more with new media scholars? There is
certainly a need for well-crafted tools for studying online life and culture. Why
does there not seem to be any software for doing comparative analysis and
interpretation of computer games, for instance?The
future understanding of our past and understanding of this age of
technological change will be incomplete if we do not take steps to preserve
one of the most widely used forms of electronic information — the electronic
text.
http://tapor.ualberta.ca/Resources/TAIntro/
I find the intersection between humanities computing and new media studies
intriguing. There is some new media-like work going on in humanities computing but it
is relatively marginal and there are few tools available. A more complete and
multifaceted engagement might stimulate more theoretical work in humanities
computing. Rockwell makes a case for the importance of such an engagement: Digital theory should not be left to
new media scholars, nor should we expect to get it right so that we can go back
to encoding or other humanities disciplines. Theorizing, not a theory, is
needed; we need to cultivate reflection, interruption, standing aside and
thinking about the digital. We don’t need to negotiate a canon or a grand
theory, instead I wish for thinking about and through the digital in
community.
Regardless of whether such an engagement involved theory or mainly methods and tools,
it seems that there might be mutual gains. Not least would humanities computing be
able to draw more on a growing interest in digital culture and the technological
texture
that Don Ihde postulates. A further possible result would be a more
robust link to humanities disciplines through also working in a field where there are
many current and important research challenges in relation to the digital (e.g.
participatory culture, surveillance societies, gender and technology, and emerging
art and text forms).Humanities computing is a hobby largely because there
has been a consistent failure among the practitioners of humanities computing
to rock the boat; to produce results of sufficient interest, rigor and appeal
to attract a following among scholars who *do not* make extensive use of
computers.
While rocking the boat
should not be a goal in itself
it is true that the kind of development indicated here would probably bring about
more discipline-specific and humanities-external interest.
The epistemic commitments of humanities computing are not limited to points discussed above, however these are particularly relevant for the discussion of humanities computing as digital humanities[28]. A broadly conceived digital humanities would necessarily include the instrumental, methodological, textual and digitalized, but also new study objects, multiple modes of engagement, theoretical issues from the humanities disciplines, the non-textual and the born digital.
Let us briefly contrast humanities computing with a rather different kind of institutional setting and epistemic tradition. Anne Balsamo writes about the Georgia Institute of Technology in the article
LCC used to be an English Department and was transformed in 1990. Balsamo discusses
the different identities that faculty wear and the complex interrelations associated
with being a humanities representative at a predominantly technical school. For
instance, the institutional position requires LCC faculty to be committed to
traditional humanities values, in order not to give engineering schools arguments for
reducing or doing away with the humanities requirement. The lack of a stable identity
is the result of different roles and an interdisciplinary setting, and it resonates
with the lack of stable identity that seems to be such an integral part of humanities
computing. The interdisciplinary meetings and setting are important to both
enterprises, but they are not without risk: Forging these new alliances – with
technologists, scientists, and medical educators – offers the possibility of
staking a claim on a territory that has been previously off-limits to the
nonscientist cultural theorists. As with other political struggles, the project
of alliance building is not without its risks and dangers.
Another similarity is instrumentalistic expectations from the outside.
In the
case of an institution such as LCC there are expectations of delivering high
culture
and presumably, useful knowledge, to engineering students. At the same
time there are basic values and critical perspectives that need to be expressed: As a feminist scholar, I certainly don’t
want to abandon the epistemological critique of the construction of scientific
knowledge as patriarchal knowledge. Nor do I want to give up on the pursuit of
social justice through scientific and technological means. This becomes another
occasion for the practice of identity-switching – this time not simply between
the humanist and the critic, but between the teacher and the advocate. Whereas
the teacher demands the students engage the philosophical critique of an
epistemological worldview and construct their own assessment of the value-laden
nature of a particular scientific worldview, the advocate continues to guide
them towards careers in science and technology and encourage them to find a way
to make a difference.
Both Balsamo’s engaging narrative and the narratives of humanities computing speak about being in between, having multiple identities, lacking a stable identity, and engaging richly but not unproblematically with other disciplines within and without the local setting. There is energy, risk-taking and wanting to make a difference in such narratives.
Georgia Tech and traditional humanities computing clearly represent very different
approaches to digital humanities. For example, while Balsamo sees information
technology as a cultural object in need of exploration and epistemological critique,
traditional humanities computing treats technology in a more formal and instrumental
way. In the next article in this series, an attempt to lay out a more detailed and
comprehensive map of the digital humanities will be made. A number of diverse
initiatives and approaches are used as examples, and different modes of engagement
with the digital
are discussed at more length. The story of the digital
humanities continues to be complex in terms of the theoretical, practice-based,
historical, technical and disciplinary foundations and a fast-changing landscape. It
is exactly these qualities that make digital humanities an exciting field to study,
and a place full of energy and multiple identities.
I draw on interaction with a great many helpful and inspiring scholars, managers, artists, developers and others. I would like to thank Matthew Ratto for his careful reading of drafts and his suggestions and Stephanie Hendrick for her comments and language suggestions. In addition, I have greatly benefited from discussions with Geoffrey Rockwell, Willard McCarty, David Theo Goldberg, Lisa Parks, Katherine Hayles, Christopher Witmore, Erica Robles, Michael Shanks, Jeffrey Schnapp, Anne Balsamo, Tara McPherson and many others.
Humanities Computing.