More Ramblings of a DH Novice

Does anybody know what Digital Humanities really is?

(Words highlighted in red are keywords within this piece.)

Looking at Digital Humanities from an outsider’s perspective is quite a daunting experience. There is a fundamental lack of a comprehensive, all inclusive definition for this movement, which cannot be ignored. The Digital Humanities novice faces a clear challenge in trying to navigate such a scholarly movement, without a proper road map for classification. Alan Liu supports this argument:

The Digital Humanities, clearly, are in a state of rapid expansion. But giving an account of that state of expansion without relying on anecdote is difficult. Empirical evidence of the field’s growth is uneven due to uncertainty about what exactly should be counted (programs, jobs, conferences, publications, projects, funding competitions, usages of the phrase ‘digital humanities’?) (The State of the Digital Humanities, 1).

The mapping of Digital Humanities is essential to its fruition as a contender for the ‘Humanities 2.0’. The first part of this process is to reach a level of agreement in terms of Defining DH. Perhaps this seems rather simplistic, but in actual fact it is quite a complicated wish for this discipline, as it contains so many different fields of thought, with conflicting approaches. The question remains as to how we can govern an interdisciplinary system, when there are different standards for the various different skill sets within this? This piece will examine the idea of whether the Humanities and I.T. can truly combine their scholarly ethics to create an answer to the waning influence of the Humanities in the Modern world.

Fusion is an interesting word to use when describing the Digital Humanities. It evokes both mechanical and artistic connotations, which in a sense is what DH is all about. In Digital Humanities we merge the digital with the artistic, literary, cultural, and scholarly world. This movement is about accessibility as opposed to exclusivity. It combines the traditions and skills of so many different areas within the arts, under the umbrella of I.T. Arguably, the Humanities have been looking for a new home for quite some time now, which they have found in the increasing manipulation of technology. The process by which this is occurring is one of skill sharing and co-operation. Perhaps this co-operation may seem slightly forced to begin with, but as time progresses it is hoped that it will become more fluid.  The rewards of the knowledge sharing economy are undeniable. It is how we use this ‘economy’ that will make the immediate difference in expanding the horizons of the arts.

There is always the fear that I.T. will overtake the Humanities as opposed to aiding its renewal. This fear requires dispelling through the further efforts of Digital Humanists to marry the two overarching fields. Unification is essential in ensuring the future of the Humanities. James O’ Sullivan has argued that:

 Digital humanities is more than the use of technology to display research findings in electronic form. Rather, it resides at the juncture between complex or novel uses of new media and traditional humanities research and artistic endeavour. It is concerned with the use of technology to reproblematise humanist questions, or oftentimes, the exploration of technology from humanist perspectives (What makes Digital Humanities, Digital?).

 It is important to mention some of the essential elements of this merge. For the text specialists there is TEI, the use of HTML and XML to digitise the body of text, and expand its parameters for interpretation. For the historians, the use of the database is a valuable way to interpret historical data for research. Graphic design is well catered for in this movement, for those artistically inclined. These are just a few brief examples of ‘new ways of doing things’ using technology. The visual element of data is now of equal import to the physical data, in analysing, interpreting and displaying research and development within this sector.

Virtual learning is fast becoming a central principle within DH. Digital Pedagogy absorbs traditional teaching methods and then transforms them in an online environment. Conceivably, this type of e-learning could revolutionise the way we teach and learn for the next generation. Arguably, if the humanities are to survive in this Modern, technology saturated era, the classroom or lecture hall, will have to move online. This is not to say that the physical act of teaching should be abolished. Rather, further digital learning facilities are needed to aid the rapid expansions in technologies which are impacting our education systems. Conceivably, this could be viewed as a lifeline for Humanities teaching and learning. It could also lead to further innovation within these fields and within pedagogy in general.

Page to stage is a concept which resonates within the Digital Humanities hymnbook. In this sense the humanities is moving from a closed book mentality to the stage of the world, through its usage of the internet as a central means for communication and publication. Jerome McGann has argued that we need to “reform the text through computer assistance to provide new insights” (A Companion to Digital Humanities, np). Limitation is something which could hinder the humanities cause. The internet provides the freedom which this sector has needed for quite some time in order to adapt to the ever changing needs of society. However the online world has rules too. It is not a completely free space by any means. The availability of information needs close regulation and strict observations of copyright laws. Credit has to be given where credit is due in order for success to be achievable. Perhaps what the humanities needs is a little help from its friends. Communities of practice provide new methods and new tools for analysis.

 There can only be further benefits to come from working with others to strengthen this movement. This can be determined as the quintessential core of the development of Digital Humanities. A solution was needed to the problem of the future of the Humanities. Although Humanities Computing has existed for decades before it was renamed in this vain, DH expands the parameters of possibilities which using digital aids for Humanities research can provide. It is encouraging innovative thinking and pure creativity in the use of technology to transform the Humanities.

Works Cited

Liu, Alan. "The State of the Digital Humanities: A Report and a Critique". Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 11.1(2012): 1-34. Print. 

McGann, Jerome. A Companion to Digital Humanities. Ed. Susan Schriebman, Ray Siemens, John Unsworth. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. Web. 

O' Sullivan, James. What Makes Digital Humanities, Digital? josullivan.org. Web. 

Reading in F and it's challenges to literature online

Have you ever thought about the structure of the page? No? Neither had I until recently. Many people take the page for granted, not recognising the centuries of work which have gone into its creation. The digital page,  if it can even be called that, is no different. The main contrast between the two can be argued as the rapid development of the digital space of the page. I am becoming increasingly interested in how the digitised world is changing many of the constructs which we do not give much thought to within the Humanities.

With these rapid developments come problems. Jakob Nielsen has changed my views upon the digital page. He argues that people do not read an online page, for example a website, in the complete fashion in which we read a page from a book. We now read in an"F shape". Examples of this F shape can be seen below.

Christi O'Connell summarises this idea in her article Eye Tracking and Wesbite Design:

Nielsen’s (2006) eye tracking research has demonstrated that users read web content in an F-shaped pattern. The F-shape reading pattern refers to the viewing order: users start by reading across the top line and then look down the page a little and read across again and then continue down the left side.

Rather than taking in every piece of information, we now scan the page for what we perceive to be relevant, giving little attention to particular data on the page, such as information on the right hand side, corners and the bottom of the page. My concerns for this type of reading, which I myself am guilty of, are its impact upon digitised literature in particular. Will we absorb a book that we read on the web in the same fashion as we scan a web page, simply picking out what is relevant? Although it is necessary to filter information when using the web, so as not to become overwhelmed by information, could this be detrimental to how we analyse the text of a literary work? 

As the internet progresses, I perceive that eventually it will be more common and feasible for many people to do most of their reading online. However, coming from an English literature background in which the physical book is sacred, it upsets me slightly to imagine this. However, this generates many problems for the effectiveness of close textual analysis, if we continue to develop these habits of overlooking the full structure of 'the page'. This threatens the very core of literary analysis. Therefore, I challenge you all to break this habit, to some degree, myself included, and see how much more resourceful we can make our readings on the web.After all, you wouldn't read a physical book in this fashion, so why would you read a digital page like this? On a side note, I do take into account that some pages often require us to overlook information or we would be there for hours. But in an academic context, we could stand to gain from taking a closer look at the digital page.

My second concern for the page is that we will lose our sense of the identity of the physical page through increasing digitisation. Although I believe that this is the only way forward in terms of making knowledge more accessible to the masses, I fear that the structure of out traditional page will soon be forgotten. Even as a I write this I am aware that I am using a digital tool, the blog, a relatively new form of displaying text, to voice these concerns. My only hope is that the reader does not scan this blog in the 'F shape' which Nielsen speaks of.

These are just some of my own concerns for increasing digitisation of the aforementioned page. However, the 'pros' definitely outweigh the 'cons' in terms of research prospects and the increasing availability of valuable knowledge in this global space. It is up to the global online community to read in a more attentive manner, and to truly value the space of the page which is put in front of us all.

HTML?

Just a few sites which I have found useful in my quest to learn html:

• http://www.w3schools.com/ -This is quite an obvious one for anyone starting off in anything to do with computer science. They provide easy to follow online tutorials which let you practice every step as you work your way through the site, building up your html confidence as you progress.

• http://thenewboston.org/ - This rivals W3Schools as one of the best online tutorial based computer science sites. Any of my I.T. friends that I asked for recommendations directed me to this site over W3, so if that's anything to go by then it must be good.

• http://www.pagetutor.com/index.html - This site promises 'plain English' guidance in explaining the ins and outs of HTML.

• http://www.html.net/- Another good one for easy to follow, succinct explanations for the novice in the world of computer science.

I hope that this selection of html tutorial site offerings helps anyone who is having trouble with understanding html or further down the line, xml. I know that they have helped me a lot in the last few days, I'm not saying that I am now an expert, but I'm slowly but surely gaining confidence in my own ability to understand what is going on 'under the hood'!

 If all else fails, I recommend befriending someone who is studying Computer Science!

Dabbling in Digital Humanities

This blog post will discuss the challenges which face us when we attempt to both define Digital Humanities, and dabble in this emerging field.
The inspiration for this stems from the first class of my MA in Digital Arts and Humanities, in which we discussed The Digital Humanities Manifesto 2.0, among other works.

Although this Manifesto of sorts was quite spliced together and lacking a central focus, it was interesting to observe the many different voices which can create such a work. There is an obvious element of resistance and controversy evident in the labeling and defining of the field of Digital Humanities. Even in this Manifesto, the meaning of 'DH' becomes quite skewed due to the reluctance of many aspects of its construction to properly define its mission. As a novice within this area, I find it quite strange that there is such a compelling resistance to explaining the nature of what Digital Humanities stands for and wishes to achieve.

In terms of its layout, the Manifesto appears to be quite archaic in its use of images scattered incoherently throughout the text. However, it does provide a fusion between visionary and textual elements, which is an area that Digital Humanities is heavily associated with. In this sense the piece stays true to the merging of worlds using digital means, however they could have put more effort into sourcing better images. It struck me as a very reflective piece of literature. Every time I read it I was reminded of the various Modernist and Postmodernist Manifesto's which emerged in the twentieth century. For example Ezra Pound's Imagism Manifesto,  A Few Dont's by an Imagiste, which strikes me as just as vague and incoherent as this piece. Pound describes the image as "that which presents an intellectual and emotional complex in an instant of time" (Manifesto, 356). His work assembles the same sort of definition without defining at the start of the Manifesto, which aids no one.

A piece within the Manifesto which I found 'perspective changing' was the arguments made about Wikipedia. The authors provides an interesting take on Wikipedia, which sees it advocated as "the most siginificant Web 2.0 creation to harness a mass audience in knowledge production and dissemination"(The Digital Humanities Manifesto 2.0, 6). This was quite a different take upon a database which throughout my time in University has been demonized. However, it highlighted the fact that Wikipedia is in fact an important community of reference, which is managed by everyone for everyone. Regardless of the fact that this site can oftentimes harbor factually inaccurate information, it is none the less a significant example of the power of contribution and co-ordination which Digital Humanities strives for.

Looking at some of the other pieces we discussed in class, I found Pedro Hernandez-Ramos's debates upon private and public spaces for blogging to be quite a beneficial analogy for the difficult task of extracting useful information from a mass of useless overtly personal blog spaces on the internet. "A complementary goal was to encourage students to see both blogs and discussion forums as valid and effective tools for professional development and lifelong learning" (Ramos, 3).  It is my opinion that the blog is lacking validation as an important arena for up to date research. Ramos's context makes clear that work that appears to be in a private spectrum, such as the blog, can be just as valuable for research purposes and other professional usage. This piece adds to the call for the validation of the blog as a legitimate tool for research, which can provide peer review and critique at a fast pace.

The article by Paula M. Krebs entitled Next Time, Fail Better was something that I could really relate to as a former Masters student in the English literature faculty. Krebs's article addresses the taboo within the Humanities of the negative connotations of failure. This is very much frowned upon amongst peers, whereas in faculties such as Computer Science and Science in general, failure is a normal part of the process of learning. I think I will try to adopt Krebs's approach this year to some degree throughout this MA in Digital Arts and Humanities. This piece also discussed the notion of "workshopping as a pedagogy" which I thought fit quite aptly into the concept of the digital sphere (Krebs). Take for instance the comments which are attached to this piece. This in itself is a workshop, in which the 'Fail better' piece is assessed and new items are contributed by both strangers, and I'm sure, peers of Krebs. The internet can be shown from this piece to be opening up into its very own tool for teaching and learning within every field.

I'll end this piece with a quote from Jerome McGann, which argues that we need "to reform the text through computer assistance to provide new insights" (A Companion to Digital Humanities, np). This is what I strive to do as I begin to dabble in digital humanities. I hope that my knowledge of the space of the text, which I have gathered through my studies of English and History, can be transformed into new progressive models through the use of digital tools.I am particularly interested in the transformation of the solid archive of the library into a digital archive, which can be accessed all over the world, without the issue of trawling through limited archival catalogues contained within the physical library to gain limited resources for research. Rather, research needs to expand, by making information available in a direct and speedy manner.

So this video is slightly cheesy and quite brief, however kitkatkale makes some useful arguments as a fellow dabbler in digital humanities.

Works Cited

Caws, Mary Ann. Manifesto: A Century of Isms. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2001. Print. 

Schriebman, Susan, et al. A Companion to Digital Humanities. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007. Print.