DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly
2019
Volume 13 Number 1
Volume 13 Number 1
DH2018: A Space to Build Bridges
Abstract
In June 2018, the Digital Humanities annual conference (DH2018) was held in the Global South for the first time. This conference report offers perspectives from two graduate students who attended the conference.
Introduction
In June 2018, the Digital Humanities annual conference (DH2018) was held in the
Global South for the first time. The hosts of the conference, the Red de
Humanidades Digitales (RedHD), La Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM)
and El Colegio de México (Colmex), created an event that was refreshingly
diverse in languages and perspectives that reflected the cultural richness of
the conference’s location. Its theme, “Puentes / Bridges”, emphasized a
reexamination of ongoing trends in archival work and academic work, with the
hope of moving digital humanities a step toward inclusivity, accountability, and
decolonization. DH2018 was the first time, as well, that the international DH
conference featured keynote addresses delivered by two women of color working in
the Global South: Janet Chávez Santiago and Schuyler K. Esprit, an indigenous
language activist, engaged primarily beyond the academy, and a scholar of
Caribbean studies, respectively. Chávez Santiago’s opening keynote addressed the
conference’s themes by using digital humanities to bridge the gap between the
documentation of modern languages and indigenous languages, particularly
Zapotec. She noted how “being digital means being tied
to an ancestral world”
[Santiago 2018]. This strongly depicts what most of the conference’s programming aimed to
address when highlighting minority-centered digital projects and decolonizing
digital spaces over the course of its four days (please see the conference
program for more details). In her closing keynote, Esprit echoed these themes,
talking about how digital humanists can collaborate with their communities to
confront global narratives about climate change, and its locally-experienced
effects, using methods of “technological disobedience” and community-sourced narratives [Esprit 2018].
Other journals in the humanities have published conference reviews that attempt
to amalgamate the work represented at meetings in those journals’ fields. ESQ, for example, publishes an annual “The Year in Conferences” feature, in which 19th-century
scholars of American Literature and Culture who attended the year’s meetings
come together to relate an overview their happenings [Ach et al. 2018].
In the weeks leading up to the DH2018 conference, Northeastern University
Professors Élika Ortega and Ryan Cordell secured funding from the NULab for
Texts, Maps, and Networks at Northeastern University to support a similar effort
for Digital Humanities Quarterly. Two graduate students were funded to attend
DH2018, document their experiences, and write a report under Ortega and
Cordell’s mentorship. [Editors’ note: DHQ welcomes proposals for reports on
other conferences in digital humanities; please contact the editors at
editors@digitalhumanities.org.]
Writing as the two graduate students who attended the conference, we hope to
reflect on the conference’s events in order to narrate and analyze notable
trends in the concepts and techniques that emerged. We come from the History and
English departments at Northeastern University and are second-year and
fourth-year PhD students, respectively. Having been involved with the NULab’s
Graduate Certificate Program in Digital Humanities and various digital projects
on campus, we offer different perspectives from these standpoints in the
University’s digital humanities community. We engage in personal reflection and
evaluation, as well as journalistic reporting and synthesis to determine where
the field seems to be headed and where it may need improvement.
Molly Nebiolo
As a historian of the early modern Atlantic world, I was constantly impressed by
the incorporation of Latin American and non-western cultures into the conference
program. No other conference that I have attended thus far in my academic career
was structured like this. From the mixed language panels in English and Spanish,
to completely non-English panels, I had the experience of being challenged with
my knowledge of Spanish to understand and converse in what is, for me, a second
language. I kept reflecting on the constant inclusivity of these panels to
non-Spanish speakers: the encouragement to whisper to one another for
translation, the motivation to speak up if something needed to be repeated or
reworded. These moments left me thinking back to any other conference I have
attended and how inclusivity of multiple languages for presenting academic work
had never been present at the conference or presentation level for non-English
speakers. It is commonly assumed that English is the only language to be used at
an international academic conference. DH2018 directly challenged that (all
presenters were encouraged to use the Translation Toolkit), humbling me as
someone who never had to confront this truth before.
In the English language panels, the themes that repeatedly appeared were those
of decolonization, indigeneity, and sustainability of projects. For my own work
both as a historian and my work for the digital humanities program at NU, I
gravitated towards panels on mapping and discussing the archive as a form of
representation, like “Maps, Networks and Data”,
“Mapas y Territorios”, and “Bridging Divides, Colonial Archives”. My reflections on these panels
cover only a small segment of themes that were discussed as a whole at DH2018.
In one of the earlier panels I attended, “Bridging Cultures
through Mapping Practices: Space and Power in Asia and America”,
there was constant confrontation of the idea of creating a spatial temporal
narrative, one that GIS tools could help define with georeferenced layers of
data on a location placed over areas of geographical space. The panel covered
mostly spatial understandings of Shanghai and Korean geographies that underlined
the difficulties of defining space in a digital manner. There are discrepancies
in what is present on a map, how things are defined, and whether or not these
two rhetorics are explicit with keeping the integrity of diverse places. By
noting the challenges and realities of creating digital maps, Cecile Armand,
Christian Henriot, and Sora Kim in particular created discussion with their
presentations, instead of solely presenting on aesthetically pleasing maps and
data [Armand et al. 2018].
Other mapping panels, like “Mapas y Territorios”,
continued to ask this kind of question, as well. How can a digital snapshot of a
place or space best represent the cultural layers, struggles, and interactions
of boundaries and the people who made them? How important are boundaries in the
construction of a digital archive around mapping? How can we make the
understanding of boundaries more accurate to the complicated histories that they
hold? These inquiries ran deep into the decolonizing panels, like “Bridging Divides, Colonial Archives”, because there was
this repetitive reflection on how to be more representative of non-white
histories, voices and stories.
The panelists over the course of the conference tried to grapple with their own
projects to better understand how digital humanities tools (mapping tools,
archive creating sites, network analyses) can be harnessed to incorporate
decolonized voices, particularly in “Bridging Divides,
Colonial Archives” and “Social Justice, Data
Curation, and Latin American & Caribbean Studies”. As someone who
is routinely confronting the white history of the early Americas and struggles
to find a comparable indigenous perspective, I was comforted that these spaces
were made at DH2018 to discuss these decolonizing questions. However, the sheer
size of the conference created many compressed panel sessions that made it
difficult to digest and participate fully in such discussions. Commonly with
four or even five presentations condensed into an hour and a half slot, many of
these rich presentations felt more like flash-talks and less like a fully formed
action plan or set of ideas to answer the questions they raised. There were so
many people vying for time to present and make their voices heard that I left
the conference full of thought-provoking questions, than real clarity on how the
field could build bridges to fix the problem of the colonized archive and the
digitization of white narrative.
There were some spaces that were able to cultivate these discusses outside of
the presentation spaces. On the first night, there was a lively reception after
the keynote speech that was a space for many introductions and discussions
around upcoming panels, and a similar event abutted the end of the conference
for last minute exchange of emails, questions, and networking. However, the
poster session and the mid-week fiesta were the two instances where networking
and conversation seemed richest. Two conference rooms were sandwiched with
posters and presenters, which created a labyrinth-like environment for
participants to weave through and absorb. I found that many of the
posters[1] focused on early-career and early-stage
projects that were aiming to produce databases or markup languages for
underrepresented cultures and languages in the digital humanities field, like
“Hispanic 18th Connect”, “Codicological Study of pre High Tang Documents from Dunhuang: An Approach
using Scientific Analysis Data”, and “Devochdelia: el Diccionario Etimolójico de las Voces Chilenas Derivadas de
Lenguas Indíjenas Americanas de Rodolfo Lenz en versión digital” (all
from session 1). Another major theme was the fact that most of these
graduate-student led presentations strongly pointed out ways they were hoping to
extend and sustain their projects. In a Digital History class at Northeastern
University led by Ben Schmidt, we ended the course grappling with this issue of
sustainability of an adolescent digital humanities project on the web. How this
situation is addressed is a part of how the field of digital humanities
progresses into the future. It was great to see these conversations proliferate
elsewhere. The fiesta was another space in which these conversations seemed to
expound. Situated in the plaza of the Universidad del Claustro de Sor Juana, the
event reverberated with the hum of conversations about the field, the torrential
rain of a passing storm, toasts over tequila shots, and music from the mariachi
band. While the conference presentations were the backbone to DH2018, it was the
spaces for networking and conversation, like those of the poster session,
keynote reception and fiesta, that fleshed out this experience for participants.
There is significance in hosting the first Global South digital humanities
conference in Mexico City. The clashing and blending of cultures to create a
stratum of various ethnicities and traditions over centuries has pushed the
urgency of decolonizing academic, digital perspectives at the conference. The
various language presentations, the emphasis of getting comfortable in these
uncomfortable non-English spaces, and the Mexican culture that permeated the
conference were necessary to make this conference as successful as it was. As a
historian, I appreciated the integration of the commonly marginalized voices- as
presenters, actors in the digital projects, and with their languages being
digitally standardized. As a student just entering the world of digital
humanities, the conference left me with hope that the field is progressing
quickly in these aspects. There seemed to be plenty of participants,
particularly those early in their careers, that will hold the annual conference
accountable to make these themes sustainable in the future. The crowded schedule
of many of the panels I sat in on did result in hurried and cramped
presentations. In future conferences, it would be interesting to see if the
conference could diversify the types of panels that are held, so there could be
more room for discussion during the conference itself. For example, the History
of Science Society’s annual conference offers a selection of one-hour long
discussion round-tables around midday, lunchtime talks, and evening graduate
student-led colloquia on field-specific pedagogy in addition to poster panels,
classic presentations, and keynote receptions. This allowed for more
opportunities for presenters to speak outside of the classic presentation style,
and varied the schedule for many of the attendees, as well. Overall, I found
DH2018 to be a promising turning point for how I understood and experienced
digital humanities and academic conferences.
Gregory Palermo
As a digital humanist working in the US-based field of writing and rhetoric, I
came to DH2018’s emphasis on bridging communities with certain disciplinary
histories in mind. My research at the time, while writing my comprehensive exams, was on the
rhetoric of disciplinarity: specifically, how members of fields reshape the
stories[2] they tell about themselves by whom and how
they cite in the same space. Both digital humanities and writing studies have long
traditions of using digital tools and methods for research and pedagogy, while
attending to their processes and ethics. The two fields, however, have remained
largely insulated from one another, despite their resonant work and common
values [Ridolfo and Hart-Davidson 2015]
[Palermo 2017]. The exclusion of writing studies until fairly
recently from “big tent DH” has inspired some hard feelings
in the former, along with an accompanying impulse to draw boundaries around
areas of research and claim these academic “territories”
[Carter et al. 2015].
Since DH2018 was the first international digital humanities conference to be
held in the Global South, the conference’s planning materials drew particular
critical attention to the borders dividing and constructing geopolitical territories. This frame
for the conference was further amplified by its location, in Mexico City, and
timing, just after news broke about the separation and detention of families at
the US/Mexico border. As local conference organizer Isabel Galina noted in her
opening address, now is the time to build bridges rather than walls, and our
field can and should apply digital methods to impact international events.
Conference attendees had the opportunity to intervene in the incident as part of
two hackathons — held by Alex Gil and Roopika Risam and generously supported,
with food and time, by the HASTAC community[3]
— that contributed to an early version of the Separados / Torn Apart
project.[4] The
project’s initial visualization of the infrastructural and financial footprints
of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement was the product of volunteer[5]
rapid-response prototyping, work undertaken the week or so immediately
preceededing the conference. The project's visualizations and accompanying
reflections narrate this team’s numerous rhetorical and ethical decisions: choices surrounding the
access, curation, and reontologization of data, as well as its representation
for multiple audiences and purposes.
While these hackathons were not a central or initially scheduled part of DH2018,
I begin my discussion of the conference by mentioning them because they
epitomize the conference’s focus on boundary-drawing and -crossing in all its
forms: to quote the conference web site, of borders “cultural, technological, political, and ideological”.[6] The coming together
of project's collaborators to work on a matter of emergent concern exemplifies a
focus on local intervention that we increasingly value. This type of
intervention requires literacies that draw from multiple experiences and
backgrounds. Building a bridge, to invoke a term used in decolonial theory, “enunciates” the communities being bridged, rather than
obscuring their difference under a totalizing tent. The choice of
bridge-building by the conference organizers as a metaphor also — even more
importantly, to my mind — calls our attention to the practical concerns of
that work. If there were a single defining feature of the papers given and
discussions happening across DH2018’s concurrent sessions, it was a focus on how
academics might responsibly use digital methods to redraw boundaries.
A panel on “Cultural Representation” in digital work
(PS-04) grappled with the role of researchers in serving the people with whom we
are collaborating or whom we are studying. Presenters on their work with Somali,
Haitian, Filipinx, and Latinx communities called attention to the time- and
labor-intensive efforts to build a rapport and trust with them, in light of the
context-dependent, multidirectional power differentials between the academy and
the public. As Anelise H. Shrout put it succinctly on the conference’s Twitter
backchannel, a common sentiment was that digital humanists “are beholden to the communities we work with”
[Shrout 2018]. A panel on “Digital
Decolonizations” convened by Allison Margaret Bigelow emphasized a
need for “data sovereignty” in scholarship involving
indigenous communities, asking who on the ground controls access to data and the
purposes to which it is put (PS-24). In PS-04, Mahnke noted that some data
should simply not be digitally accessible, a reality with which digital
humanists should make peace despite our culture of openness [Mahnke 2018]. It was promising to see her draw, at a digital
humanities conference, from rhetoric’s body of reflective scholarship on
community-engaged research;[7]
her discussion of her work with a Filipinx community, sustaining their stories
in digital spaces, signals a new generation of work that bridges rhetoric with
DH.
Other conversations reflected on how we are beholden to our communities of
colleagues and students. Deb Verhoeven, in her talk about using network analysis
techniques to locate “Gender Offenders” in Australian digital research
funding networks (Panel LP-13), termed a shift in digital research from mere
“counting” to “accountability”. For Verhoeven, the value of digital (and especially
quantitative) methods is “diagnostic”: to address and
change the academic landscape in front of us as we describe its
crises of representation and access [Verhoeven et al. 2018]. Brandon T.
Locke, in a panel on undergraduate digital pedagogy (SP-05), broadened our usual
understanding of access — e.g., to platforms and infrastructures — to include
access to critical data literacy. Locke argued that it is not enough to make
data available or point students to it without also teaching them about how to
understand and manipulate its structures. Adding to Taylor Elise Mills’ numerous
and lucid recommendations for supporting undergraduate research in the classroom
[Mills 2018], Locke related his decision to give his students
uncleaned data, exposing them in the classroom to the “messy
labor” we know to go into data visualization and analysis. Locke’s
poster on his effort to promote “Civic Data Literacy”
with an “Endangered Data Week” joined multiple
posters, in the conference’s two poster sessions, on related topics, such as
data ontologies and linked open data (Locke). Data sustainability was a topic,
as well, on a panel about “Project Afterlives” and
“Research Data for Pedagogical Use” (PS-32).
Presenter Megan Finn Senseney lamented the scarcity of raw data in a field with
so much curated data — her pedagogical solution is to “salt” the data she uses with her students [Posner 2018].
Still other conversations stressed the modes by which local interventions can
create larger change in the academy. Danica Savonick and Lisa Tagliaferri, as
part of a panel on “Sustainability and Institutions”
(SP-18), used text analysis techniques to reveal patterns in the purposes for
higher education that universities currently articulate in their mission
statements [Savonic and Tagliaferri 2018]; their own stated purpose was to
provide fodder for “advancing institutional
change”.[8] In a panel addressing Institutional Infrastructures (LP-02),
James W. Malazita brought science and technology studies’ understanding of
“knowledge structures” and “epistemic structures”, along with Michel de Certeau’s distinction
between “strategies” and “tactics”
[Certeau 2011, xix], to attend to Matthew Kirschenbaum’s
portrayal of “digital humanities” as a “tactical term”
[Kirschenbaum 2012]
[Malazita, 2018]. A panel on “Precarious
Labor” convened by Arianna Ciula (PS-22) generated discussion on how
we might tactically encourage and support the scholarship of those in job roles
supporting others’ work — roles that universities too often impel us to
casualize second to a narrow of production. A particularly productive panel
discussion on project management in digital humanities (PS-14) covered the labor
and turnover of projects’ largely contingent staff; Micki Kaufman led the
charge, there, of providing pragmatic advice for project managers (many of whom
are graduate students) and those who employ them. Lisa Rhody and her team’s
poster on the “The Digital Humanities Research
Institute” at CUNY offered similar infrastructural support, modeling
an opportunity for bringing digital humanities education to one’s home campus
[Rhody et al. 2018]. Matthew Gold et al. were as focused on getting a
sense of people’s ongoing needs for their publishing platform Manifold as they
were with presenting its current possibilities [Gold et al. 2018]. Paige
C. Morgan reminded us, however, that unbridled openness is not always a virtue
within the academy either, drawing attention to the work that goes into data
curation and from which others benefit; she conspicuously supports scholars,
especially in precarious positions, who choose to keep their datasets initially
private while working on them, in order to avoid being digital humanities’
version of “scooped”
[Morgan 2018].
Counterpoints like these surfaced an ongoing tension in digital humanities
around questions of openness and access: between the productive opportunities
that access can bring and our recognition of the differential impact of that
access on others. This tension is further complicated when the productive
opportunity is, in fact, an opportunity for bridge-building. For example, Jin
Gao offered to share her subtanital dataset when presenting on her team’s work
using analyses of citation and social networks for broadly “Visualizing the DH Community” (LP-20; Gao et al. 2018). Others
present at that panel, including Ciula, pointed out that this body of literature
from journals published primarily in English represented only a subset of the
community [Ciula 2018]. Panel presenter Fabio Ciotti pointed to
Domenico Fiormonte’s work [Fiormonte 2017] on the geopolitics of
knowledge in digital humanities, using it to critique the North
American-centrism of the field’s received disciplinary historiography [Ciotti2018]. Open data, here, could be used in our continual
efforts de-center English-speaking digital humanities, as long as we attend to
whose prerogative it is to assemble, use, and share the data.
The disproportionate space, especially digital, afforded to English-speaking
conference attendees is one that Ernesto Priego quantified in his exploratory
analysis of DH2018 tweets [Priego 2018].[9] Some live tweeters devoted their efforts to translating panel
presentations, in addition to providing the synthesis and talkback common to
digital humanities conferences (see Ross, et al.). This digital intervention
complemented the in-person “whisper[ed]” translation that
Molly Nebiolo has noted above among panel attendees. It constituted an effort to
somewhat temper the dominance of English in the conference’s archival
record,[10] especially for members of the digital humanities community
who could not make it physically to the conference. The ACH bolstered the
existing, remotely organized initiatives to facilitate conference attendance:
adding to ADHO’s graduate student travel bursaries so more young scholars to
travel to experience the conference first-hand, while offering formalized
mentorship programs like the Newcomer’s Dinners that pair conference
“veterans” with “newbies”. That said,
we can continue to use our digital expertises to pluralize the conference’s
digital spaces as well as its physical ones — spaces, like this conference
review genre, that I hope will provide the means for a more inclusive future for
the conference and the field.
Notes
[1] For a full list of posters, see the conference program's
listings of session 1 posters and session 2 posters.
[2] Chávez Santiago’s keynote highlighted a Spanish-language pun
that portrays storytelling as a mode of “wefting”
about a textile’s warp, alternatively translated as “plotting” (7:17).
[5] In
addition to Gil and Risam, this initial team included Manan Amed, Moacir P.
de Sá Pereira, Sylvia A. Fernández, Merisa Martinez, and Linda Rodriguez.
For more information see the project site: http://xpmethod.plaintext.in/torn-apart/credits.html.
[6] See the
conference site at https://dh2018.adho.org/en/acerca-de/.
[7] See, e.g., [Cushman and Monberg 1998].
[8] See a Twitter thread by Aaron R. Hanlon for how
university mission statements could be useful for tenured faculty when
advocating for their contingent colleagues [Hanlon 2018].
[9] Since it is
substantially more difficult and expensive to query the historical Twitter
API than collecting tweets at their moment of publication, Priego has
promised to publish the dataset he collected once he has anonymized
it.
[10] One can access DH2018’s twitter backchannel by searching
Twitter for “#DH2018” along with the hashtag of a conference panel (e.g.,
#LP20).
Works Cited
Ach et al. 2018 Ach, Jada, et al. "The Year in
Conferences—2017." ESQ: A Journal of Nineteenth-Century
American Literature and Culture, vol. 64 no. 1, 2018, pp. 133-197.
doi:10.1353/esq.2018.0003
Armand et al. 2018 Armand, Cecile, Henriot,
Christian, and Sora Kim. “Bridging Cultures Through Mapping Practices: Space and
Power in Asia and America.” DH2018. Sheraton Maria Isabel, Mexico City, 27 June
2018. Conference Presentation.
Carter et al. 2015 Carter, Shannon, et al. “Beyond
Territorial Disputes: Toward a ‘Disciplined Interdisciplinarity’ in the Digital
Humanities.” Rhetoric and the Digital Humanities,
edited by Jim Ridolfo and William Hart-Davidson, University of Chicago Press,
2015, pp. 33–48.
Certeau 2011 Certeau, Michel de. The Practice of
Everyday Life. 1984. Translated by Steven F. Rendall, 3 edition, University of
California Press, 2011.
Ciotti2018 Ciotti, Fabio. “Dall’Informatica
umanistica alle Digital Humanities. Per una storia concettuale delle DH in
Italia.” DH2018. Sheraton Maria Isabel, Mexico City, 29 Jun. 2018.
Ciula 2018 Ciula, Arianna. @ariciula. “It's great
but let's remember that's one DH landscape pls - i.e. the one represented by
those selected 3 journals in English #DH2018 #LP20.” Twitter, 29 Jun. 2018, 3:47
p.m., https://twitter.com/ariciula/status/1012784706109177856.
Cushman and Monberg 1998 Cushman, Ellen, and
Terese Guinsatao Monberg. “Re-Centering Authority: Social Reflexivity and
Re-Positioning in Composition Research.” Under
Construction: Working at the Intersections of Composition Theory, Research,
and Practice, edited by Christine Farris and Chris M. Anson, Utah
State University Press, 1998. doi:10.2307/j.ctt46nrqf.
Esprit 2018 Esprit, Schuyler K. “Ponencia de
clausura: Experimentación Digital, Ciudadanía Valiente y Futurismo Caribeño /
Closing Keynote: Digital Experimentation, Courageous Citizenship and Carribean
Futurism.” DH 2018. Sheraton Maria Isabel, Mexico City, 26 Jun. 2018. Keynote
Address. YouTube, ElClaustro TV, 1 Aug. 2018, https://youtu.be/K812bBfBUAI.
Fiormonte 2017 Fiormonte, Domenico. “Digital
Humanities and the Geopolitics of Knowledge.” Digital
Studies/Le Champ Numérique, vol. 7, no. 1, Oct. 2017. http://www.digitalstudies.org,
doi:10.16995/dscn.274.
Gao et al. 2018 Gao, Jin et al. “Visualising the
Digital Humanities Community: A Comparison Study Between Citation Network and
Social Network.” DH2018. Sheraton Maria Isabel, Mexico City, 29 Jun. 2018.
Conference Presentation. https://dh2018.adho.org/visualising-the-digital-humanities-community-a-comparison-study-between-citation-network-and-social-network/.
Gold et al. 2018 Gold, Matthew, et al. “Manifold
Scholarship: Hybrid Publishing in a Print/Digital Era.” DH2018. Sheraton Maria
Isabel, Mexico City, 27 Jun. 2018. Conference Poster.
Hanlon 2018 Hanlon, Aaron. @AaronRHanlon. “3)
Bring out your university’s mission statement and US News write-up. Ask why the
people on the front lines of achieving those lofty ambitions are treated as
disposable or undeserving of benefits and salary.” Twitter, 11 Sep. 2018, 3:38
a.m., https://twitter.com/AaronRHanlon/status/1039417894684319745.
Kirschenbaum 2012 Kirschenbaum, Matthew.
“Digital Humanities As/Is a Tactical Term.” Debates in the
Digital Humanities, edited by Matthew K. Gold, University Of
Minnesota Press, 2012, pp. 415–28.
Locke 2018a Locke, Brandon T. “Critical Data
Literacy in the Humanities Classroom.” DH2018. Sheraton Maria Isabel, Mexico
City, 27 Jun. 2018. Conference Presentation.
Locke 2018b Locke, Brandon T. “Endangered Data
Week: Digital Humanities and Civic Data Literacy.” DH2018. Sheraton Maria
Isabel, Mexico City, 27 Jun. 2018. Conference Poster.
Mahnke 2018 Mahnke, Stephanie. “The Collective in
the Individual: Digital Collaboration and the Filipinx Community.” DH2018.
Sheraton Maria Isabel, Mexico City, 27 Jun. 2018. Conference
Presentation.
Malazita, 2018 Malazita, James W. “Epistemic
Infrastructures: Digital Humanities in/as Instrumentalist Context.”DH2018.
Sheraton Maria Isabel, Mexico City, 27 Jun. 2018. Conference
Presentation.
Mills 2018 Mills, Taylor E. “Next Generation
Digital humanities: A Response to the Need for Empowering Undergraduate
Researchers.” DH2018. Sheraton Maria Isabel, Mexico City, 27 Jun. 2018.
Conference Presentation.
Morgan 2018 Morgan, Paige. @paigecmorgan. “For
what it's worth, I understand people wanting to work with other folks' datasets,
but I also fully support people, esp. grad students & other folks in
precarious positions, hanging on to their data for a while to work with it
before sharing it. #DH2018.” Twitter, 29 Jun. 2018, 3:54 p.m., https://twitter.com/paigecmorgan/status/1012786393205141504.
Palermo 2017 Palermo, Gregory. “Transforming
Text: Four Valences of a Digital Humanities Informed Writing Analytics.” Journal of Writing Analytics, vol. 1, Sept. 2017. https://journals.colostate.edu/analytics/article/view/135.
Posner 2018 Posner, Miriam. @miriamkp. “One
solution: “salting” datasets so they have inconsistencies (I’ve done this too!)
#DH2018 #DH_PS32.” Twitter, 29 Jun. 2018, 5:57 p.m., https://twitter.com/miriamkp/status/1012817265081880578.
Priego 2018 Priego, Ernesto. “Tweets per user_lang
in a #DH2018 archive.” Everything is Connected. June 30, 2018. https://epriego.blog/2018/06/30/tweets-per-user_lang-in-a-dh018-archive/.
Rhody et al. 2018 Rhody, Lisa, et al. “Expanding
Communities of Practice: The Digital Humanities Research Institute Model.”
DH2018. Sheraton Maria Isabel, Mexico City, 27 Jun. 2018. Conference
Poster.
Ridolfo and Hart-Davidson 2015 Ridolfo, Jim, and
William Hart-Davidson, eds. “Introduction.” Rhetoric and
the Digital Humanities. University of Chicago Press, 2015, pp.
1-12.
Ross et al. 2011 Ross, Claire, et al. "Enabled
backchannel: Conference Twitter use by digital humanists." Journal of Documentation 67.2 (2011): 214-237.
Santiago 2018 Santiago, Janet Chávez. “Tramando
La Palabra / Weaving the World.” DH 2018. Sheraton Maria Isabel, Mexico City, 26
Jun. 2018. Keynote Address. YouTube, ElClaustro TV, 1 Aug. 2018, https://youtu.be/mQzyDlTB070.
Savonic and Tagliaferri 2018 Savonick, Danica
and Lisa Tagliaferri. “The Purpose of Education: A Large-Scale Text Analysis of
University Mission Statements.” DH2018. Sheraton Maria Isabel, Mexico City, 29
Jun. 2018. Conference Presentation.
Shrout 2018 Shrout, Anelise. @AneliseHShrout.
“Another #DH2018 theme is the obligation of researchers to the people they
study/work with/are supported by. We are beholden to the communities we work
with. #DH2018.” Twitter, 28 Jun. 2018, 5:50 p.m., https://twitter.com/AneliseHShrout/status/1012455596359061504
Verhoeven et al. 2018 Verhoeven, Deb, et al.
“Solving the Problem of the ‘Gender Offenders’: Using Criminal Network Analysis
to Optimize Openness in Male Dominated Collaborative Networks.” DH2018. Sheraton
Maria Isabel, Mexico City, 28 Jun. 2018. Conference Presentation.