Abstract
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.
Introduction
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.
Background
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.
Setting the Stage
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 [
Knorr Cetina 1999, 1], are “those amalgams of arrangements and mechanisms
– bonded through affinity, necessity, and historical coincidence – which, in a
given field, make up
how we know what we know
” (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 [
Ratto 2006]. In the following, the epistemic
commitments of humanities computing and digital humanities are mainly traced through
looking at different modes of discourse. While these modes may have different
functions and intended audiences, they collectively add to the analysis.
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 “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.
Suitable subjects for proposals include, for example,
- text analysis, corpora, corpus linguistics, language processing,
language learning
- libraries, archives and the creation, delivery, management and
preservation of humanities digital resources
- computer-based research and computing applications in all areas of
literary, linguistic, cultural, and historical studies, including
electronic literature and interdisciplinary aspects of modern
scholarship
- use of computation in such areas as the arts, architecture, music,
film, theatre, new media, and other areas reflecting our cultural
heritage
- research issues such as: information design and modelling; the
cultural impact of the new media; software studies; Human-Computer
interaction
- the role of digital humanities in academic curricula
- digital humanities and diversity
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
Literary and Linguistic
Computing has been a key publication for humanities computing for a long
time. However, defining digital humanities through the topics presented in LLC
clearly excludes many other initiatives and developments in the intersection of the
humanities and information technology and suggests a very particular tradition,
institutional grounding and epistemic culture.
[1] Moreover,
this level of narrowing down is clearly not congruent with the description of digital
humanities given in the first part of the call, which may be said to be less
obviously situated in the tradition of humanities computing and associated epistemic
commitments.
History and Paradigm
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. [
Klein 1996, 57]). The following excerpt from a description of a 1999 panel organized by
the Association for Computing the Humanities seems to confirm this analysis:
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.[2]
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.
[Busa 2004, xvi]
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
Computers and the Humanities was started as
early as in 1966 and, interestingly, it seems as if early issues were not as
textually oriented as one might have assumed. Early articles include “PL/I: A programming language for humanities research,”
“Art, art history, and the computer” and “Musicology and the computer in New Orleans” (all from
1966-1967). Thirty years later we find articles such as “The
design of the TEI encoding scheme,”
“Current uses of hypertext in teaching literature,”
“Neural network applications in stylometry” and “Word frequency distributions and lexical semantics” (all from
1995-1996). In 2005, this journal was renamed
Language Resources
and Evaluation, and had by this time lost its status as one of the
“official” journals 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.
[Humanist 18.615]
In other words,
Computers and the Humanities was seen as
having taken a direction not fully compatible with the epistemic tradition of
humanities computing. Indicatively, in a Call for Papers from 1998,
[3] there is a special invitation for state-of-the-art surveys, and the only
example given is “Current Approaches to Punctuation in
Computational Linguistics.” Also, this happened at about the same time as
the Alliance of Digital Humanities Associations (ADHO) was formed, and another
important reason for the “demise” of
Computers and the
Humanities was that it was strategically, financially and institutionally
advantageous to make
Literary and Linguistic Computing
and not
Computers and the Humanities the principal
humanities computing journal.
[4] Indeed, these reasons were probably more important than the perceived
incompatibility between humanities computing at large and
Computers and the Humanities. Nevertheless, the result was that for a few
years, humanities computing only had one principal journal.
The journal Literary and Linguistic Computing has from
its inception focused on textual and text-based literary analysis – as you would
expect from its title. It was established in 1986 by the Association for Literary and
Linguistic Computing (itself established in 1973). This journal has clearly played an
important role in establishing the field of humanities computing – not only in
offering a publication venue, institutional structure and academic exchange but also
in publishing self-reflective articles on the role, organization and future of
humanities computing. As we saw earlier, the journal has even been used to define the
digital humanities – thus in a sense transferring the epistemic culture of the
journal and associated field to the “new” field.
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
Humanist List was sent on May 13, 1987 by founding editor
Willard McCarty, making it one of the first academic email lists to be established.
Currently about 1600 people subscribe to the Humanist list
[5] which is an email list with
consistently high quality, carefully organized threads and an often lively
discussion.
[6] Although the range of topics is very broad it is fair to say that there is
persistent and fundamental interest in textual analysis and related matters. As
McCarty himself points out,
Humanist facilitates an
ongoing, low-key and important discussion:
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.
[Humanist 18.001]
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/
Société pour l'étude des médias
interactifs (SDH/SEMI) became a third organizing association. These
three associations are all members of the Alliance of Digital Humanities
Associations. It is quite clear that these conferences predominantly address textual
analysis, markup, retrieval systems and related areas. A simple frequency analysis
based on titles of papers and sessions from 1996 to 2004 shows us that frequent
non-functional words include
text (56),
electronic (53),
language (30),
markup (28),
encoding (27),
TEI (23),
corpus (22),
authorship (18),
XML (18),
database (13) and
multimedia
(11). In comparison there is one instance of
game and two instances of
the plural form
games. This is a rather crude measurement, of course,
but it does give us a sense of the overall orientation. A more careful look at the
2005 conference (at University of Victoria, BC) does not seem to contradict this
sketch. For instance, the themed sessions that extended more than one program slot
were “Authorship Attribution,”
“Libraries, Archives & Metadata,”
“Computational Linguistics and Natural Language
Processing,”
“Encoding & Multiculturalism,”
“Scholarly Projects” and “Visualisation & Modeling.” One-slot themed sessions included “Automation,”
“Text & Technology,”
“Textual Editing & Analysis,”
“Interface Design” and “Hypertext”.
[7] Yet another
example is the 2008 Digital Humanities Summer Institute [
Humanist 21.469]. Here the focus is on text encoding, transcription, and corpus text analysis in
five out of the eight offerings in the curriculum. The other three sessions take up
digitization fundamentals, multimedia and large project planning.
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.
Institutional Models
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 “Institutional models for humanities computing”
[
McCarty & Kirschenbaum 2003]. Here a number of questions or criteria are used to list
and categorize humanities computing institutions. The first category incorporates
academic units that do research, teaching and collegial service. Also “[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. [
Burnard 2002] describes the final
stages of this development:
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. [Burnard 2002]
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 [
Flanders & Unsworth 2002] for some other examples and a further discussion).
Several prominent service-based units, including the Humanities Computing Unit at
Oxford University and Centre for Computing in the Humanities at University of
Toronto, have been closed down (or radically reformed) over time and this vulnerable
position is part of the shaping of humanities computing.
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 Humanist, however.
The Question of Autonomy
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.
[8] In fact, these disciplines may not even be considered suitable for dealing
with relevant study objects and research issues, or appropriate methodologies:
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.[9]
[Aarseth 1997]
Another argument for not involving all of the Humanities may be that it is not seen
as an efficient model. [
McGann 2001, 7] tells us about strategies
adopted when the Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities (IATH) at
University of Virginia was started. Alan Batson, Department of Computer Science at
UVA, argued that trying to involve everyone (distribute resources evenly) would be to
replicate 30 years of failure; providing IT resources to people who are not
interested in them or do not want to explore them does not work.
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.
[McGann 2001, 9]
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”
[
McCarty 2005, 120]. This focus on methodology and associated tools is common in humanities
computing, and arguably part of the epistemic commitments of the field that
fundamentally shape the way humanities computing relate to the rest of the humanities
and to other work in the humanities and information technology.
Approaching the Digital Humanities
As we noted earlier “humanities computing” has been a strong common denotation
for much of the work and community described above. In his
Humanities Computing, Willard McCarty describes the development from
“computers and the humanities” via “computing in the humanities” to
“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) [
McCarty 2005, 3]. I
have argued elsewhere [
Humanist 17.111] that juxtaposition (as in the
first stage) does not necessarily have to indicate separated entities and that
“humanities computing” has an instrumental ring to it. Also, “humanities
computing” does 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
digital
humanities. Prominent examples of use of the new identifier include the
relabeled ALLC/ACH conference (from 2006 onwards entitled “Digital Humanities”), a new book series called “Topics
in Digital Humanities,” a new comprehensive website
http://www.digitalhumanities.org
sponsored by the major humanities computing associations, the peer-reviewed journal
Digital Humanities Quarterly, the massive, edited
volume
A Companion to Digital Humanities
[
Schreibman, Siemens & Unsworth 2004], and the recent renaming of the Candian Consortium
for Computers in the Humanities into The Society for Digital Humanities. The
denotation has certainly been used before (at University of Virginia among other
places), but it seems to be employed more broadly now and in a more official and
premeditated fashion. An important indication of the spread of the term and
institutionalization of the field can be seen in the establishment of the Office of
Digital Humanities by the National Endowment for the Humanities (US) in 2008. A
broader analysis of different varieties of digital humanities will be returned to in
the second article in this series.
Looking at issues 1-20 of the
Humanist
[10] and instances of
humanities
computing versus
digital humanities, the following figures
emerge: 304/2 (1997-1998), 343/3 (2000-2001), 566/16 (2001-2002), 283/15 (2002-2003),
280/19 (2003-2004), 363/45 (2004-2005), 130/44 (2005-2006) and 110/90 (2006-2007).
The first instances of
digital humanities in issues 11 and 14 (1997-1998
and 2000-2001 respectively) refer to nominal constructions such as
digital
humanities object and
digital humanities environment. While we
should be careful about how to interpret crude quantitative data like these, it is
fairly clear that
humanities computing for a long time was the
predominant term and still is frequent, but that we are moving towards an increased
use of
digital humanities (relative to
humanities
computing). The retained and frequent use of the older term points to a
discrepancy between the over-the-board institutional renaming of the field described
above and the community’s use of the term as evidenced in the
Humanist material.
This discrepancy or co-existence
[11] is also evident if you look at the Blackwell's
A
Companion to Digital Humanities from 2004. There are about twice as many
instances of
humanities computing as
digital humanities
(139/68). The internal distribution of the terms is more interesting and can easily
be explored using the online version of the companion. For instance,
humanities
computing is predominantly used in the section where the contributors are
described, while
digital humanities is much more common than
humanities computing in the introduction (called “The Humanities Computing and the Digital Humanities: An Introduction”).
These two texts represent very different genres. The Notes on Contributors section is
largely a venue for self representation and presentation. The introduction is where
the (new) field of digital humanities is being described and advocated (by the
editors of the volume). In the history section (12 chapters in total) it is clearly
the history of humanities computing that is told (58 instances of
humanities
computing versus 1 instance of
digital humanities). The
section on principles (7 chapters) is primarily humanities computing-focused (23/4)
as the main topics are text analysis, encoding, classification and modelling. The
final two sections – on applications and production, dissemination, archiving –
contain fewer instances of either term. One possible reason may be because these
sections are more grounded in actual practice. Also, it is clear that individual
preference plays an important role. Again, we are concerned with simple, quantitative
measurements, but there is definitely a picture emerging.
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
“Topics in the Digital Humanities” indicate an ongoing
change:
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.
[Humanist 19.052]
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
digital humanities, as used by the humanities computing community,
often serves as an overarching denotation in book and journal titles, etc., while
humanities computing is often used in the actual narrative.
The territory of the term is being defined and negotiated by institutional entities
such as the journal
Digital Humanities Quarterly. The
following text, which also suggests ongoing change, comes from the very first
editorial of DHQ in the inaugural issue:
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.
[Flanders et al 2007]
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 digital
humanities. Indeed, not even everyone associated with the enterprises being
subsumed under the label digital humanities might be comfortable with that
categorization.
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.
[12] And as
we have seen in this analysis, there are many examples of humanities computing as
digital humanities claiming a larger territory.
Humanities Computing as Digital Humanities
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
Digital Humanities, Susan Hockey says that this is not the
place to define humanities computing, and continues, “[s]uffice it to say that we are
concerned with the
applications of computing to research and
teaching within the subjects that are loosely defined as ‘the humanities,’
or in British English, ‘the arts’
”
[
Hockey 2004, 3] (italics added). Hockey’s description is indicative of a paradigm in which
information technology is typically not seen as an object of study, an exploratory
laboratory, an expressive medium or an activist venue. Rather, technology has this
basic and epistemically grounded role as a tool and much of humanities computing is
about using these tools, helping others to use them and, to some extent, developing
new tools (and methodologies). Many of these tools, such as concordance programs,
have a rather long and distinguished history, and there has not necessarily been a
great deal of radical change over time (see [
McCarty 1996]). It could
be argued that the focus of traditional humanities computing is not innovating new
tools, but rather using and developing existing ones. Also a fair proportion of the
development seems to occur on a structural or meta-data level. Examples include text
encoding and markup systems. Of course work on this level has fundamental
implications for the development and use of tools.
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”
[
de Smedt 2002, 95].
[13] Classifications such as the major Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)
involve very basic theoretical and methodological challenges [
McGann 2006] and there have also been calls for the development of more
innovative tools based on these and other schemas [
Rockwell 2003].
Rockwell stresses the importance of moving beyond existing personal tools, making
community and server based tools more available, allowing for playful exploration and
encouraging critical discussion of tools. Clearly there is a need for such a
development, and while there are some exemplary projects there is a need for further
development, discussion of best practice and further critical analysis. For instance,
it would be interesting to see more integration with web 2.0 thinking and
platforms.
[14] work in interaction and
participatory design as well as methodologies such as rapid prototyping. An
interesting, current example of methodological innovation is Rockwell’s and
Sinclair’s work on extreme text analysis.
[15]
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”
[
Kirschenbaum 2004, 532]. McGann asserts that “[d]igital instruments are only as good
as the interfaces by which we think through them”
[
McGann 2006, 156–7]. There have also been calls for tools with more far-reaching and radical scope
than the ones that humanities computing typically provides. Drucker and Nowviskie
point out that “[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”
[
Drucker & Nowviskie 2004, 432].
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.
[16] In an interesting and
provocative paper, [
Juola 2008, 83] argues that the emerging
discipline of “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”
[
Rockwell 2003, 210]. Juola’s analysis shows that citation scores for humanities computing journals
are very low and he also points out that the American Ivy League universities are
sparsely represented in humanities computing publications and at humanities computing
conferences. It could be argued, however, that the lack of citations is partly due to
the fact that humanities scholars who use humanities computing tools might not be
inclined to cite the creators of these tools. This is especially true if no written
work on associated methodology (or theories) has been employed in the research.
A relevant question, of course, is whether humanities computing wants and needs to
reach out to the humanities disciplines.
[17] This relates to the earlier discussion of autonomy and discipline
or not. There seems, however, to be rather strong support for expanding the territory
and for achieving a higher degree of penetration. Furthermore, if the methodology and
tools are central to the enterprise it seems counter-intuitive to disassociate
yourself from many of the potential users (and co-creators) of the tools. It is
evident from his discussion of possible high-profile “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
[18] and possibly more tools and applications with a rich, combined
theoretical, experiential and empirical foundation.
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”
[
Terras 2006, 236]. While this is true, there has certainly been an increased interest in
multimedia and non-textual representation. This interest may, for instance, be
manifested in the form of metadata schemes for visual material or, increasingly, the
interest in using geographical information systems in humanities computing. Reference
is sometimes made to different technologies and methods (3D-modeling, GIS, animation,
virtual reality etc.) but these are not necessarily integrated in practice. For
instance, Jessop says that “the research potential of working with
digital tools for handling spatial data has been explored in only very limited
contexts”
[
Jessop 2007, 4]. There are many exceptions and prolific scholars with a strong commitment to
these issues but this cannot be said to be true of most of humanities computing.
There is also a risk that other media are handled much in the same way as text (e.g.
another object type to encode) or merely subservient to text following a very strong
epistemic commitment to text as object. Here follows a rather text-focused discussion
of images in relation to the history (and future) of humanities computing:
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 [Kiernan 1991], the
images could be manipulated and enhanced in some way. Interesting research has
been carried out on linking images to text, down to the level of the word [Zweig 1998]. When most of this can be done automatically we will
be in a position to reconceptualize some aspects of manuscript studies. The
potential of other forms of multimedia is now well recognized, but the use of
this is only really feasible with high-speed access and the future may well lie
in a gradual convergence with television.
[Hockey 2004, 15]
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”
[19] or research on
multimodal representation does not seem to have had a large impact on humanities
computing. One reason is probably because there is little interaction between these
communities and because it is difficult to conceptualize and develop tools for these
kinds of framework. More generally, there seems to be an increasing interest in
non-textual and mixed media in the Humanities and elsewhere (see for instance
research on remediation, trans- or crossmedia texts, digital art and the current
interest in “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.
[20] Furthermore, there is clearly a need for
people with expert competence and interest in structuring, annotating and managing
data. It is exciting to see that interest in non-textual representation and analysis
seems to be growing in humanities computing. It seems worthwhile to support this
development – at least if the vision is an expansive and inclusive humanities
computing/digital humanities. Such a development would not have to preclude a
retained textual focus, of course.
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 [
McCarty 2005, 136]. It is characteristic of the model that the source materials and
approaches of the disciplines are reduced these four data types and a “finite (but not fixed) set of tools for
manipulating them”.
[21] This touches on a tendency to subscribe to formal and science-driven
models of knowledge production in humanities computing (where text is the principal
object of study):
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
interdisciplinarity, but by its very nature, humanities
computing has had to embrace “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.
[Hockey 2004]
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?
[22] How can machinima films be tagged and related to the cultural
artefacts to which they reference? How do we systemize and contextualize email
archives?
[23] Can social software platforms be adapted to humanities computing
needs? Can multimodal and multi-channel communication be tracked, tagged,
interrelated and made searchable in any consistent way?
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.
[Rockwell 2004]
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).
[24]
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.
Multiple Identities and Risk Taking
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 “Engineering Cultural
Studies: The postdisciplinary adventures of mindplayers, fools, and
others.” More specifically she relates the story, tensions and context of
the program in science, technology, and culture offered in the School of Literature,
Communication and Culture (LCC) at Georgia Tech. Partly this is done through the work
of cyberpunk science fiction writer Pat Cadigan.
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.
[Balsamo 2000, 268]
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.
[Balsamo 2000, 271]
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.
Acknowledgements
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.
Works Cited
Balsamo 2000 Balsamo, Anne. 2000.
“Engineering Cultural Studies: The postdisciplinary adventures
of mindplayers, fools, and others.” In Reid, Roddey and Sharon Traweek
(eds.), Doing Science + Culture, 259-274. Routledge: New
York.
Busa 2004 Busa, R. (2004). “Foreword.” In Schreibman, et al (eds.), A Companion to Digital Humanities 2004, xvi-xxi.
Drucker & Nowviskie 2004 Drucker, Johanna and Bethany Nowviskie. 2004. “Speculative
Computing: Aesthetic provocations in Humanities Computing.” In Schreibman,
et al (eds.), A Companion to Digital Humanities 2004,
431-447.
Flanders & Unsworth 2002 Flanders, Julia and John Unsworth. 2002. “The Evolution of
Humanities Computing Centers.”
Computers and the Humanities 36: 379–380.
Flanders et al 2007 Editorial,
Digital Humanities Quarterly, 2007, 1:1.
Hockey 2004 Hockey, Susan. 2004.
“History of humanities computing.” In Schreibman, et al
(eds.), A Companion to Digital Humanities 2004,
1-19.
Jessop 2007 Jessop, Martyn. 2007.
“The Inhibition of Geographical Information in Digital
Humanities Scholarship.”
Literary and Linguistic Computing, Advance Access
published on November 20, 2007
Juola 2008 Juola, Patrick. 2008. “Killer applications in digital humanities.”
Literary and Linguistic Computing, 23(1):73-83.
Kiernan 1991 Kiernan, K. S. 1991.
“Digital Image Processing and the Beowulf Manuscript”.
Literary and Linguistic Computing 6: 20–7.
Kirschenbaum 2004 Kirschenbaum, Matthew. 2004. “Interface, aesthetics, and
usability.” In Schreibman, et al (eds.), A Companion
to Digital Humanities 2005, 523-542.
Klein 1996 Klein, Julie Thomson. 1996.
Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and
Interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia
Press.
Knorr Cetina 1999 Knorr Cetina, Karin.
1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make
Knowledge. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
McCarty & Kirschenbaum 2003 McCarty, Willard and Matthew Kirschenbaum. “Institutional models
for humanities computing.”
http://www.allc.org/imhc/
McCarty 1996 McCarty, Willard.
1996. “Introduction to concording and text-analysis: history,
theory, and methodology.” In Hockey, Susan wand Willard McCarty (eds.),
CETH Summer Seminar. Princeton, NJ: CETH, Section 5.
McCarty 2005 McCarty, Willard.
2005. Humanities Computing. Palgrave: New York.
McGann 2001 McGann, Jerome. 2001.
Radiant Textuality: Literature after the world wide
web. Palgrave Macmillan: New York.
McGann 2004a McGann, Jerome. 2004.
“Marking texts of many dimensions.” In Schreibman, et
al (eds.), A Companion to Digital Humanities 2004,
198-217.
McGann 2006 McGann, Jerome. 2006.
The Scholar’s Art: Literary Studies in a Managed
World. Chicago University Press: Chicago.
Ratto 2006 Ratto, Matthew. 2006. “Epistemic commitments and archaeological representation.” In
Oosterbeek L, Raposo J (eds) XV Congrès de l’Union Internationale des Sciences
Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques. Livre des Résumés, vol 1, p. 60.
http://www.uispp.ipt.pt/uisppprogfin/livro2.pdf
Renear 2004 Renear, Allen H. 2004.
“Text encoding.” In Schreibman, et al (eds.), A Companion to Digital Humanities 2004, 218-239.
Rockwell 2003 Rockwell, Geoffrey.
2003. “What is text analysis, really?”
Literary and Linguistic Computing, Vol. 18, No.
2.
Schreibman, Siemens & Unsworth 2004 Schreibman, Susan, Ray Siemens and John Unsworth (eds.). 2004.
A Companion to Digital Humanities. Blackwell: Malden,
MA.
Sterne 2006 Sterne, Jonathan. 2006.
“The historiography of cyberculture,” in Silver, David
and Adrienne Massanari (eds.), Critical Cyberculture
Studies. New York University Press: New York.
Terras 2006 Terras, Melissa. 2006.
“Disciplined: Using educational studies to analyse
‘Humanities Computing’.”
Literary and Linguistic Computing, Vol 21, No. 2.
Witmore 2006 Witmore, Christopher.
2006. “Vision, Media, Noise, and the Percolation of Time.”
Journal of Material Culture. Vol. 11 (3),
267-292.
Zweig 1998 Zweig, R. W. 1998. “Lessons from the Palestine Post Project.”
Literary and Linguistic Computing 13: 89–97.
de Smedt 2002 de Smedt, Koenraad.
2002. “Some reflections on studies in humanities
computing.”
Journal of Linguistic and Literary Computing, 17,
89-101.