DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly
Spring 2007
Volume 1 Number 1
Volume 1 Number 1
Introducing Issues in Humanities Computing
1
The feature we are introducing in this inaugural issue of Digital Humanities Quarterly, called
“Issues in Humanities Computing”, is one end of a road that began forty-five years ago in the old
Reading Room of the British Museum. (The other end of that road is the Encyclopedia of Humanities
and Social Science Computing, which I am organizing with Vernon Burton under the auspices of the
National Center for Supercomputer Applications at the University of Illinois and scheduled to be
published by Idea Group in 2008.) My immediate impetus to consider computers as a means of
solving a scholarly problem was the difficulty I experienced in locating the significant echoes
of Milton’s Paradise Lost that Shelley had embedded in his Prometheus Unbound in order to enhance
its resonance as a master statement of poetic truth. Once back at Queens College, the quest for
assistance from computers led to the IBM Watson Laboratories in Yorktown Heights, New York, where
the language group, relieved of responsibility for creating machine translation but not formally
dismissed, created for me a crude mechanism for locating some of those echoes.
2
That initial effort was reported in September 1964 at what was probably the first conference
on computers and humanities research, the so-called Literary Data Processing Conference organized
by Harry Arader of IBM and chaired by Stephen M. Parrish of Cornell and Jess B. Bessinger of NYU.
Among the other speakers, Roberto Busa expatiated on the problems of managing 15 million words
for his magnum opus on Thomas Aquinas. Parrish and Bessinger, along with the majority of other
speakers, reported on their efforts to generate concordances with the primitive data processing
machines available at that time. In light of the current number of projects to digitize literary
works it is ironic to recall Martin Kay’s plea to the audience not to abandon their punch cards
and magnetic tapes after their concordances were printed and (hopefully) published.
3
My discovery of the number of scholars from around the country who were engaged to some extent
in using computers for humanistic research inspired the thought that we should keep in touch with
one another, and after two years I persuaded IBM to fund what at first I called Computers and the
Humanities: A Newsletter. Even after original articles started to come in and this publication
was exalted to the status of a scholarly journal, it maintained as a primary function the
exchange of information in this new and perilous environment. I have been told that our biennial
“Directory of Scholars Active”, later compiled into a book published by Pergamon Press, helped
many recent initiates into humanities computing to find their footing and locate collaborators.
Even more satisfying was the knowledge that several young assistant professors, coming up for
tenure, succeeded in retaining their grip on an academic career by publishing in the pages of
CHum. An offprint on the chairman’s desk or the dean’s, looking as dignified as one from any of
the older established journals, reportedly had the weight to outbalance the strangeness of the
activity that had attracted these young persons.
4
By 1975, Bob Dilligan of the University of Southern California, co-editor of a Keats
concordance, offered to organize a conference as a sequel to one held two years previously at the
University of Minnesota, and being there on sabbatical, I helped with that effort. That
involvement led, in turn to my participating in the organization of similar conferences at
Dartmouth and Rutgers. Sensing a need to broaden our view of humanities computing and recognizing
the growth of databases as a resource in their own right (rather than as simply the raw material
of concordances), I began a series of International Conferences on Data Bases in the Humanities
and Social Sciences at Darmouth, Grinnell and Auburn at Montgomery. The growing number of
attendees at these conferences seemed to require a permanent organization to sponsor them, and in
1978 I convened the session at the annual MLA meeting that created the Association for Computers
and the Humanities. After two years as president, I turned that operation over to Mary Dee Harris
and then Nancy Ide, so that younger people could gain whatever academic credit they could through
that position and so that the operation would have an independent stature.
5
When New York suffered its financial crisis in 1974, and it was no longer possible to publish
under the aegis of Queens College, I entrusted the journal to two commercial publishers, neither
of which saw much importance in either humanities or humanities computing and treated this
publication with consequent lack of concern. In 1984, therefore, I took early retirement and set
up my own small publishing operation in Sarasota, Florida. I was thus able to publish several
collections of essays on databases in the humanities and social sciences and to start up two new
journals, Computers and the Social Sciences (later combined with the Social Science Computing
Record) and Computers and Translation (renamed Machine Translation and published now by
Springer). Like so many small businesses, this one proved less than financially viable, and by
1987, I had sold off the various titles and returned to my more congenial academic environment.
6
In this situation I am now able to concentrate on the encyclopedia project and the “op-ed”
page of DHQ. It is our hope that this feature will provide a forum for discussion of the larger
issues that confront us as we continue our effort to bring computer technology up to what we
consider its proper status in academe and scholarly activity. The initial offering is my own take
on the problem of achieving the same respect for online publishing that is held now by print. My
hope is to set a tone of serious reflection that will be adopted by those who submit future
contributions to this section of the journal.
7
Rather than brief comments, we are hoping for thought-out and substantially developed opinions
on all the aspects of our developing discipline. Responses to these discussions are equally
welcome and will be tagged to establish a continuous flow along evolving threads. Of course,
publication will depend on the approval of the Editorial Board. A few possible topics are suggested below, but we hope these will prompt contributions on a much wider range of issues and questions.
- Can software development, rather than conventional research, serve as a step up the promotion ladder?
- Are there better ways to organize our information than the current search programs provide?
- How do we confront the trend toward English as a universal scholarly language in the face of objections, such as those from France? How far need we go in accommodating other world languages—Spanish, Russian, Chinese?
- How concerned should we be about the consequence of Web accessibility undermining the status of major research centers in or near metropolitan cities?
- Has the availability of the Internet as a scholarly medium enhanced the academic status of women and minorities?
- Will humanists’ dependence on computer-generated data lead to a scientistic search for objective and reproducible results?
- Can we learn anything about today’s resistance to new technologies from studying the reactions in the Renaissance to the introduction of printing?
- Will digital libraries make today’s libraries obsolete?
- Are the concepts and development of artificial intelligence relevant to humanistic scholarship?
