Feb

22

you got your digital in my traditional!

writing

I don’t think I’ve mentioned explicitly that this blog, in its current form, is the substance of my senior thesis project.

Yes, I’m blogging the cumulative work of my undergraduate career.

If that seems a little weird to you, too, then you may be a traditional scholar, like I’ve been.

When I thought “senior thesis” in the past, I thought: 30-40 page paper. I thought: research, write, edit, write, edit, (etc), submit. I thought of one form of writing and one form of publishing only. Traditional or bust, amirite?

Except, no. My project is on Digital Humanities, and if I’m going to be investigating a highly digital, highly experimental, emergent field of study, well then I better be digital and experimental and emergent myself. My background, however, is not in this area. My degree, when I graduate this spring (gulp!), will be in English Language, Literature, and Writing from what is arguably a pretty traditional English program. Branching out from what I’m used to has been exciting, and complicated, and one hell of a learning experience.

I didn’t know it would happen in exactly this way, but I am, as we speak, restructuring my own ideas about what it means to do academic work.

I’ll tell you a little secret: I don’t know what I’m doing. You’re not supposed to admit this in Academia, I don’t think. At least, not all out in the open where anyone can hear you. But I’m pretty sure it’s true more often, and for more of us, than we would have each other believe. And I don’t think it’s a bad thing. In fact, not knowing what I’m doing is a big part of the reason I chose to do this project in this particular way from the very beginning. I like things that are new, that are experimental. I like to look underneath rocks and see what I can do with whatever I happen to find. I like to explore.

However. Liking =/= easy.

It’s tricky, this opening up of my assumptions and expectations of scholarship. There are lots of questions that I don’t have answers for. Not fully formed answers, at least.

To wit: how do I measure what I am doing? This is not a traditional paper or project, so what is it supposed to look like? Is there a certain post count that is equivalent to 40 pages of linear argument? Do I count words? Paragraphs? Do I set a goal for a certain number of posts, and when I’ve reached that, I’m done? Do I copy and paste my posts into Word to keep track of length? When do I stop? How do I turn it in? Etc.?

To all of these: yes, no, and maybe, we’ll see. Yes, there are parameters. I couldn’t write three posts and call it a day. There are equivalency expectations put forth by the Honors College, and for good reason. A cumulative project has to have some degree of substance to be worth a damn, after all.

But, no, the measurements are not the same. First of all, plugging everything into word and calling it good when I reach 35 pages just wouldn’t fit in with the point of this project. It also wouldn’t take into account the different aspects of digital writing that traditional papers don’t incorporate. For instance: If I link to, say, 25 outside sources (or 60, or 200), and my readers follow those links, what then? Does that hold the same value as a reader looking up a cited reference in a bibliography? I don’t think so. For one thing, the ease of access to outside sources is sure to change the reading experience. A person could read half of my blog post, follow a link, be gone for half an hour, and come back to read the rest. Authorship and citation are interwoven with one another here on the Interwebs. What does that mean for the substance of my writing?

Then, too, is the publishing method. These posts are not edited by anyone but me. They don’t get reviewed by one or two or five people before I put them out into the blogoverse. With a traditional thesis, there are layers of writing and editing that happen by not only the author, but their advisor(s). Of course, I generally don’t hit “publish” as soon as I’m done writing; I let posts sit for hours or days, and re-read/edit them before I make them public. But no one else is responsible for the quality of my work except for myself, which means that my thesis will never be “polished” in the same way that a traditional paper would be, for the simple fact that there is only one of me.

The most fascinating question that I have yet to answer is that of the end point. This is a blog. More importantly, it’s a blog that I created for purposes other than my thesis. Which is to say, this project is not self-contained. When the time comes that I am “done” with my thesis work, I will still be writing here. There’s a good chance that I will still be writing here about the same subjects that I am writing about currently. I have no intention of abandoning the field of Digital Humanities and the question of traditional-meets-digital once I’m finished with my undergraduate degree. How do I incorporate the ongoing and never-quite-finished aspect of my work into something that I must turn in at the end of the semester?

The more I think and read and write, the more questions arise. None of this is simple, or easy. It’s kind of messy, it’s a little strange, and it’s certainly not going to be resolved in this one post. But these are questions that are important, not only to me, but to the myriad of students and scholars out there who will turn to digital creation more and more as time goes on. It may not be traditional, but it sure is fascinating.

(word count: 1,005 – 3 pages, double spaced)

Posted by | 0 comments
Feb

14

this is dh: part 3, the point

writing

[part 1, part 2.1, part 2.2, part 2.3 , interlude]

Investigating the Digital Humanities programs at Loyola, UCL, and Alberta has been educational, and in some ways challenging to what my previous ideas of DH were.

My original intent was to pinpoint what separates DH from traditional Humanities. I questioned in the beginning the importance of labels. I wondered if in calling something “Digital Humanities,” we were being redundant, or drawing too hard a line between things that are far more gray than not. I wondered how we know when we are practicing a standalone H or an H paired with a D. After looking into how one goes about becoming a bona fide Digital Humanist, I’ve discovered that there is, indeed, a line.

Both Loyola and UCL‘s programs aim to train professional Digital Humanists, without focus on moving further up in Academia. Alberta is a bit of an outlier in that their program is both professionally and academically minded, which leads to a greater leaning toward the theoretical. However, what they all have in common is this: the emphasis is on the technical. The emphasis is on the tools, not the Humanities.

This is demonstrated especially in the fact that not one of these programs defines for their students what “Humanities” is. There are a broad range of specialization options and the freedom to work in whichever Humanistic field the students choose. These are not Digital English programs or Digital History programs or Digital Arts programs, they are Digital Humanities programs. There is incredible range that exists inside of that word, spanning a vast array of scholarship and authorship. Although students of these DH programs choose the field(s) in which they are most interested in working, that path is not set for them by the department, and certainly not in the courses that exist at their foundation. The important thing is not which area a person works in, but how they work in them.

The programs are highly technical. The foundational courses teach students digital tools: what they are, why they’re important, and how to use them. They are skill based; they revolve around digitized methods of operation. Where traditional Humanities programs may introduce their students to these concepts, and perhaps provide them with introductory skill-building opportunities, DH programs center on the digital.

When I started out I would have defined DH as such: Humanities work done with digital tools. This isn’t quite right, I’ve discovered. This definition puts the digital tools in the background, and sets the Humanities on center stage. It should be the other way around. Digital Humanities is capital-d Digitization applied to Humanistic work. Although I think the term “Digital Humanities” implies that it is simply an extension of traditional scholarship, it is really the technical skills that are at the foundation of DH. These are digital professionals using their skills for work in the Humanities.

So, the question of “where do we draw the line?” becomes defunct. The line is there. Yes, both traditional H and DH center around certain fields, and have certain things in common. In the content of investigative interest, they’re quite similar. But in method and skill set, they are different. Although one may borrow from the other, they are effectively doing two different things, two different ways (or many different things, many different ways). Certainly that’s not to say that they contrast as wildly as, say, performance art and electrical engineering. It is to say, however, that there is more separation than I previously thought. I expected two sides of the same coin, and walked away with two different coins of the same monetary system. Both exciting, both useful, both valuable in their own right. But each with their own individual place in the universe. Or wallet, as the metaphor goes.

Posted by | 1 comments
Feb

11

this is dh: part 2.3, Alberta

writing

[part 1, part 2.1, part 2.2]

Required courses for the University of Alberta Humanities Computing degree are: Survey of Humanities Computing, Theoretical Issues, Technical Concepts and Approaches, and Project Design and Management. The foundation of this program is rooted more in the theoretical than the previous programs I’ve looked at. Both the Survey course and the Theoretical course focus on evaluation, analysis, and give students a deeper look at the history and theory behind HC. In both Technical Concepts and Project Design, students move more toward the technical skills needed to produce digital work, although assessment rather than creation still seems to be highly valued.

In addition to the required classes, students choose five additional courses: at least two from the list of Humanities Computing options, and two from their home (I assume this means Humanities) department. The optional HC classes include Electronic Texts, online information systems, Multimedia, Posthumanism, and Research Methods. Again, most of these courses seem to focus more on traditional theoretical work, rather than technological skill-building. There is a final thesis, although there is no information on the expected format.

Although the Humanities Computing degree is set up as a professional program, it’s important to note that unlike Loyola and UCL, Alberta does mention that they also prepare their students for further work in a PhD program. This seems to be the most academically oriented program of the bunch. It  was created more than a decade before the other two, and I imagine that at the time of its inception, Humanities Computing was neither well-known nor set up as a professional career option for many people.

Alberta’s faculty members come from a wide range of backgrounds. There are professors of Philosophy, Classics, Literature, Information Science, and Theatre. Most of the professors are based in the Humanities, which is in keeping with Alberta’s heavier focus on the “Humanities” side of HC. Their research explores a diverse and intriguing array of topics  including public dictionary crowdsourcing, play/film script analysis, alternative browsing designs, and Canadian history.

Up Next: So… what?

Posted by | 3 comments
Feb

10

this is dh: part 2.2, UCL

writing

[part 1, part 2.1]

The foundation for UCL’s MA/MSc program in Digital Humanities consists of four required modules. Digital Resources in the Humanities is an introductory course, with a focus on teaching students what types of resources exist, how to evaluate and manage them, and to some degree, how to create them. Internet Technologies centers around creating a foundational understanding of markup languages, with a heavier emphasis on the creation of digital texts. XML focuses specifically on, well, XML. Finally, Database Systems provides a more advanced education on the intricacies of databases by requiring the students to create a working system themselves over the course of the term.

The most interesting part of this particular program is the incredible range of specialization possibilities. Students are required to choose an additional four modules from a list of almost thirty options. The subject areas range from Anthropology to Design to Linguistics to Archaeology to History to Multimedia and on and on and on. Students also have the choice to take one module of “pure humanities” from an outside department. UCL provides a tech-heavy foundational basis for their students, as well as giving them the ability to focus in on whatever specific area they choose. They are able to tailor their education to exactly what is right for their future goals.

The final project of the degree is a an applied placement (which I take to be the same thing as an internship in the States), and a dissertation. Much like Loyola, UCL is a heavily applied program, focusing on giving their students the technical skills they need to work in their field, as well as the experience necessary to succeed once they graduate. For students who are interested in the education they offer but not in pursuing a degree, the College offers Short Courses in XML, Internet Tech, and Digital Resources. Students of these individual modules can apply the credit they earn to a MA or MSc in DH in the future, if they choose.

The faculty (or “Team” as they’re called) at the Centre for DH is mostly comprised of tech-centered professors, in fields like Electronic Communication, Virtual Environments, and Information Studies. They have an impressive and broad listing of research, although they note that it’s not only projects being undertaken by members of UCL, but affiliated members as well.  One of my personal favorites is Qrator, which seeks to create a more interactive environment for museum-goers, including what sounds like a Yelp-esque communication forum. Very, very neat.

Up Next: Alberta

Posted by | 4 comments
Feb

08

this is dh: part 2.1, Loyola

writing

[part 1]

I started off my comparative look at three different DH programs by giving a general overview of  how each one is set up and the type of degree they offer. Now let’s take a closer look at how students in each of the programs get there, who they’re working with, and what the institution as a whole is doing.

Loyola requires six foundational courses, including a capstone thesis project. There are two elective requirements, to be chosen from whichever courses happen to be offered that particular year that fit the student’s individual academic goals. Examples include “Social and Ethical Issues in Computing,” “Media and Culture,” and “Archives and Records Management.” Additionally, the program is split up into two different tracks, so that a student whose background is in Humanities is required to take an Intro to Computing course, and a student with a CS background would take a graduate-level Humanities course in their chosen field.

The six base courses for the degree are: Intro to Digital Humanities Research, Textual Studies and Scholarly Editing, Markup Languages: Electronic Editions, HCI Design, Instructional Design and e-Learning, and the Directed Electronic Thesis.

The focus of all of the courses, of course (ha), is the use of digital tools in the evaluation and creation of texts. They look at ethical issues, social implications, and historical factors of digital work, teach technical skills and educational tools, and culminate in an “innovative electronic project” that is meant to function as a real-world practical application of DH principles and theories. The coursework seems to be heavily tech-based, instilling its students not only with a theoretical understanding Digital Humanities, but a real working knowledge of how to function in the field.

The faculty at the Center for Textual Studies and Digital Humanities is composed mostly of CS and English professors, however the Steering Committee and Advisory Board include a wide range of people from different fields including History, Communication, Bioinformatics, Fine Arts, and IT. As expected, this is a heavily interdisciplinary consortium.

The research at CTSDH is a bit more narrow in its scope, composed mostly of work in the field of English. It’s important to note, I think, that CTSDH is a new Centre, having only started in 2009, and the MA program will launch this September. I imagine as the program grows, their areas of research will expand and broaden. These things take time, after all.

Up Next: UCL

Posted by | 4 comments
Feb

07

this is dh: part 1, an introduction

writing

In my last post, I asked the question, “Where do we draw the line between what constitutes DH and what is simply plain old Humanities?” I thought I’d take a stab at answering that question, specifically by looking at the people and institutions that very clearly claim the title Digital Humanities. What better place to start, then, but the programs that are training the DHers of the future?

I picked three programs to dissect and compare: Loyola University Chicago, University College London, and the University of Alberta. All three offer an MA in Digital Humanities, or in the case of Alberta, Humanities Computing. Certainly, these are not the only Masters programs in the field (and there are plenty of PhD programs, as well), but they do have the distinction of being part of a select few that specifically use the DH title. They’re also in three different countries, which I thought would lend itself nicely to getting a broader view of how DH works.

My questions are these: How does each program define what they’re doing? What does their coursework and research look like? Are they professional degrees, or do they expect their students to continue further in Academia? What about the three programs is similar? Different? Are there contradictions?  How do all of these things differ from what I know about traditional Humanities programs?

 

A General Overview:

Loyola’s program resides in the Center for Textual Studies and Digital Humanities in the College of Arts and Sciences. The program is brand spanking new, in fact the very first set of students will not start until this coming fall. They describe this degree as professional:

The Digital Humanities program combines theoretical and practical courses, but its aims are ultimately practical and professional, training new digital specialists for the growing knowledge and information economy. Because the nature of Digital Humanities work is applied and project-based, students in the M.A. program will be given hands-on training in workshop or seminar-based classes, training in text editing and text encoding, electronic publishing, programming, interface design, and archive construction.

The program requires 30 hours of work, and has two separate tracks, depending on if the student’s background is in Computer Science or the Humanities. Students’ work culminates in a final electronic thesis.

The Centre for Digital Humanities at UCL has also only just started offering their MA/MSc program as of this coming fall. Their website states that there is an incredible amount of interest in the program, and encourages students to apply ASAP. Again, the coursework leads up to a dissertation. Although they don’t use the phrase “professional degree”, they do note that “…students will work on a practical application of digital humanities… ,” and that during the writing of their dissertation they will “…undertake a placement at a related institution where they can apply taught aspects of the programme.”

Alberta’s MA in Humanities Computing is offered through the Faculty of Arts. Again, this is effectively a professional program, although they note that their students will also be prepared to continue on to a PhD program, if they so choose:

Graduates of the program are well positioned for leadership in important emerging areas such as digital libraries, electronic publishing, electronic museum archives, and distance learning. … Through its emphasis on graduate-level study in one of the participating humanities departments, the program also prepares students for the option of continuing graduate work at the Ph.D. level in their field of specialization.

From poking around on Google, it appears as though this program started all the way back in 2001 (see Sean Gouglas’s description here), which makes it incredibly established compared to the other two (and quite possibly ahead of its time, back then).

 

Up Next: A closer look at each of the programs’ coursework, faculty, and research.

Posted by | 5 comments
© Copyright Erin Stratos - Theme by Pexeto