Apr

03

bound vs. unbound: a preface, afterwards

writing

This is an experiment.

It is a thesis, a research project, a survey of Digital Humanities.

Also: a blog, a digital archive of thoughts.

It will be a printed PDF, and a bound book.

What happens when you take something meant to be traditional, something that fits neatly inside of the Academic Box, and execute it on a different platform? What happens when you smash together old-school and new media? Where do you end up when you play with the limitations and possibilities of bound forms of scholarship and unbound mediums of production?

Because I am writing on a field that is intersectional – digital + humanities – it seemed only fitting to work the digital into my humanities project. Working within a medium that we are studying allows us to understand it better, to get a deeper feel for how things play out in practical application. Blogging is only one small aspect of the digital world, but it can shed insight into what differences exist between writing a conventional essay versus writing piecemeal for the public eye.

For ENGL328 last year, where the seeds of this project were born, we read Anne Frances Wysocki’s awaywithwords: On the possibilities in unavailable designs (2005)*. She starts her essay by asking: “Under what conditions would you accept a [graduate research] paper handwritten in crayon on colored construction paper?” (I rendered a part of the subsequent assignment for that class in crayon, of course.) Wysocki ends, in part, with the following:

As we analyze and produce communications, we need to be asking not only what is expected by a particular audience in a particular context but also what they might not expect, what they might not be prepared to see. It is in the apparently unavailable designs … that we can see what beliefs and constraints are held within readily available, conventional design. (59)

Blogging, of course, has constraints – every method of authorship does. But these constraints are different from a traditional essay. The reading experience, too, is different when we choose alternate platforms. Different is something I’ve sought to highlight throughout the project. Our expectations of a word like “thesis” come apart when we choose these unavailable designs, when we try something new. It is with these ideas in mind that I have presented my thesis on my blog, in hopes that doing something different may lead us to question what we’ve been doing all along.

Enjoy.

*Wysocki’s lack of spacing in her title is intentional and meant to get her reader to question the constraint of word spacing and what effect it has on our reading experience. When I typed this out the first time, I accidentally put the spaces in – apparently my reading of it is “away with words.”

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

12

this is dh: interlude

photo / writing

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

Because I love Wordle, I present for your viewing pleasure a number* of highly scientific visual mashups of Loyola, UCL, and Alberta’s DH programs.

Course Descriptions:

Faculty:

Research:

(click to embiggen)

*3

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
Jan

30

questions: the necessity (or not) of a label

writing

In his introductory essay to The New Media Reader, Lev Manovich questions the necessity of identifying New Media Art as a field of its own. He makes an interesting case:

If all artists now, regardless of their preferred media, also routinely use digital computers to create, modify, and produce works, do we need to have a special field of new media art? As digital and network media rapidly become an omnipresent in our society, and as most artists came to routinely use these new media, the field is facing a danger of becoming a ghetto whose participants would be united by their fetishism of latest computer technology, rather than by any deeper conceptual, ideological or aesthetic issues – a kind of local club for photo enthusiasts. I personally do not think that the existence of a separate new media field now and in the future makes very good sense, but it does require a justification – something that I hope the rest of this text, by taking up more theoretical questions, will help provide. (14-15)

I’ve thought about this same question myself in regards to Digital Humanities. Where do we draw the line between what constitutes DH and what is simply plain old Humanities? Are there specific qualifications one needs in order to add the D before the title of Humanist? If we are moving in the direction of digitization in general, will this eventually be a redundant title? In my own work in the English department of EMU, a non-digital program (or a program not defined by the digital, at least), I’ve had plenty of opportunities to interact digitally within traditional courses. Professors have made blog posts, wiki entries, digital reading, etc. a part of regular course requirements. But these are not labeled DH classes; they are simply taking advantage of what the digital world has to offer. So, do they count? Would they count as DH if they defined themselves as such? How much digital needs to be injected into the scholarship before it earns the title? How do we know when we are practicing upper-case Digital Humanities and when we are only practicing Humanities digitally? And, most importantly, how much does that distinction matter?

Posted by | 4 comments
Jan

23

creativity is the new black

writing

http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf

(dear embedded video: if i have to clink a link to you, you’re not actually embedded. sincerely, frustrated geek.)

so, i realize that I’m a little behind the times on this one, given that robinson gave this talk in 2006. but it is, hands down, my favorite ted talk of all time. i’ve watched it a time or two (or three or four), and each time it inspires new ideas about education and society and a renewed passion for reconnecting with my own creative spirit.

my most recent thoughts:

the squandering of creativity in schools leads to generations of adults that are out of touch with their original purpose. your original purpose(s) can only be fulfilled if you are allowed to explore it, yes? and if traditional education is stifling the creative nature of many children, then those children grow into adults that have never been able to connect to what is real and true for them. the lucky ones – those of us that are aware that creativity is ingrained in us and that our path must include creative endeavors – have to fight like hell to get back in touch with these things. sure, there are a) people for whom this particular brand of creativity is unnecessary, and b) people who are fortunate enough not to have their spirits watered down. however, i agree with robinson’s premise generally – that many of us have been un-taught creativity in school. in simple terms, this makes me sad.

what makes me happy, however, is my next thought bubble: the tech industry is exciting to me because it seems to bridge this sad gap that we’ve created. science, meet play. the tech community, generally, believes in creating new things, in exploring, in playing. “let’s make up some stuff and see what happens,” it says. in many ways the basic values of tech are very similar to the basic values of the arts. the difference, though, is that technology is valued in a way that the arts are not.

certainly technology is not the only creative field, but it is a field that people pay attention to. it’s a field that is revered as legitimate, as necessary. it’s not viewed as frivolous or secondary the way that the arts often are. this means, necessarily, that people are paying attention to creativity in a way that they weren’t before, whether or not they are aware of it. the implications of this are potentially tremendous. if society is viewing a creative, playful field as vital to our culture, it could open up the door for the awareness that other fields of similar construction deserve the same respect and admiration.

what is also exciting are the places where the creative nature of technology is being injected into oft-neglected fields. i am thinking specifically of digital humanities. the humanities, as a whole, are an area that are being snipped away. funding cut, significance tossed aside. literature, history, language, art, theatre, philosophy, etc., are simply not valued the way that science, math, engineering, medicine, and technology are. but now, there is a new medium emerging, one that melts together the undervalued and the valued. a way of interacting with and studying what is looked at by some as dusty and old in ways that are decidedly not. two fields that in many ways center on the creative nature of human beings merging into something that is by its very nature a creative structure.

this is very, very cool.

i don’t know what the outcome will be, of course. will the playfulness of technology really open up people’s eyes to the importance of creativity? will people start to pay attention to the connections between fields they see as important and ones that have been neglected? will the inventiveness of technology spill over into our culture at large? will the owl ever stop biting the tootsie pop before he gets to four licks? the world may never know. what i know, however, is that robinson is right – creativity is being squashed. but i also know that in some ways, we’re finding it again. and that makes me very, very happy.

Posted by | 1 comments
© Copyright Erin Stratos - Theme by Pexeto