Today’s topics

Jillana

Themes:

DH as Lens-light-way of thinking parry 431, 436 R&R 79,

Digital as object of study vs. set of tolls for humanistic inquiry Parry 433

DH to expalnd digital tech to interpretational procedures

DH relationship between tools and theory

New textual methodology requires redeployment of textual analysis models

Building/hacking/interpretation issues (i.e. can one interpret DH without making the tools)

Building/hacking/creation as theory

Sorting, access, dissemination vs. interpretation, self evident reflection central to Humanities

How do computers allow Humanities ambiguity and incommensurability?

Culture studies model–high/low culture divide through interpretation and coding?

Break down saying and doing/ praxis & theory

Humanities/post-humanities, human (435-6) 437 Drucker 87 (dismisses) humanists not problematizing DH.

Social integrations/ inclusion such as metaphors for labor vs. feminized humanities offering race/gender/class critiques through DH (Bianco 98, 99) Liu, Chapin, Cecire

BREAK OUT:

LEGITIMACY–professional, academic, intellectual Inclusion: is everything digitial enhanced DH.

Does a DH text online make a text “richer” than a pdf? Further exploration of above topics addressed or overlooked

Kramer’s Capsule Reading Reviews

Michael J. Kramer

Ch. 5, Ramsay and Rockwell, “Developing Things”

“building as a distinct form of scholarly endeavor” (77)…”a prototype is a theory.” – Manovich (77)…”theories thus become instruments” – William James (79)…”The question, rather, is whether the manipulation of features, objects, and states of interest using the language of coding or programming (however abstracted by graphical systems) constitutes theorizing” (83)…”so we may substitute ‘What happens when building takes the place of writing?’ as a replacement for ‘Is building scholarship?'” (82-83)

Ch. 6, Drucker, “Humanistic Theory and Digital Scholarship”

“Have the humanities had any impact on the digital environment? Can we create graphical interfaces and digital platforms from humanistic methods?” (85)…”we have rarely imagined creating computational protocols grounded in humanistic theory and methods” (86)…spatial and temporal modeling (90-94)…replacing “what is?” with “what if?” (92)…”flexible metrics, variable, discontinuous, and multi-dimensional” (94)

Ch. 7, Bianco, “This Digital Humanities Which is Not One”

“Does the digital humanities need an ethology or an ethical turn? Simply put, yes.” (97)…”This is a rant against the wielding of computation and code as instrumental, socially neutral or benevolent, and theoretically and politically transparent…” (100)…”composing creative critical media” (102)…”rather than aesthetics rationally locating the innate beauty of a thing, aesthetics works procedurally in the organization of perception as an affective and embodied process. It designs and executes that which can be experienced as synaesthetically (aurally, visibly, and tacitly) legible. To intervene or critique social or political relations means to create work that offers a critical redistribution of the senses. Representational criticism, such as interpretive analysis, does not address work at the level of ontology, the body, the affective, and the sensible. In order to get to sensation and perception, a more materially robust mode of critique is necessary” (105)…”assemblage theory” (106)…”compositionism” not as a “critique of critique” but “a reuse of critique” – Latour (107)…”Critique’s primary action is that of exposure, and if informatic technologies have altered one aspect of politics and culture it would be a reconfiguration of what is exposed and exposable and what remains illegibly layered–not veiled. The Internet and digital technologies provide a set of platforms and affordances for exposing human actions and older, analog, informative archives (alphabetic documentation, legal records, etc.) superbly.” (108)…”We live exposed. Might we begin to experiment with ways to shift or move out of the utopian ideal of unveiling the already unveiled, executed through acts of destructive creation, to take up the troubling disjuncture between what is felt and what is real and to move from interrogative readings to interactive, critical ‘reuse’ compositions through what Latour terms a ‘progressivism’ that is predicated on immanence and upon what I would argue are nontrivially changed material conditions?” (108)….”Digital and computational modes are embedded, object oriented, networked, enacted, and relational. The digital humanities is one subset of computational and digitally mediated practices, though its current discursive regime articulates itself as an iteration of the one world, a world both felt and real.” (109)…”work in computation and digital media is, in fact, a radically heterogeneous and a multimodally layered—read, not visible—set of practices, constraints, and codifications that operate below the level of user interaction. In this layered invisibility lies our critical work” (109).

Ch. 8, McCarty, “A Telescope for the Mind?”

what is computing in and of the humanities for? Are we for drudgery? If not, with regards to the humanities, what are we for? (120)

Blog posts, Scheinfeldt, “Sunset for Ideology, Sunrise for Methodology?”; Hall, “Has Critical Theory Run Out of Time for Data-Driven Scholarship?”; Hall, “There Are No Digital Humanities”

method vs. theory

Ch. 24, Parry, “The Digital Humanities or a Digital Humanism”

My hope is that DH can be something more than text analysis done more quickly (434)…use of Benjamin’s method, rather than ask is photography art? ask what does having the photograph do to our conception of art? (435)…”ontology” (436)…”The digital changes what it means to be human and by extension what it means to study the humanities” (436)…”digital humanities is an understanding of new modes of scholarship, as a change not only in tools and objects but in scholarship itself” (436)

Ch. 29, Liu, “Where Is Cultural Criticism in the Digital Humanities?”

“How the digital humanities advances, channels, or resists today’s great postindustrial, neoliberal, corporate, and global flows of information-cum-capital is thus a question rarely heard in the digital humanities…” (491)…from one poem to “the archive, corpus, or network” (494)…from block quotations to graphs and charts (494)…”the insecurity of the digital humanities about instrumentalism” (499)…”rethink the idea of instrumentality” (501)

Some brief thoughts on Cultural Criticism and Digital Humanities

Juliana Seroa Da Motta Lugao

Hi all, long time no see. i’m looking forward to the discussion ina few hours. One of the chapters we are reading for this second meeting is Alan Liu’s “Where is cultural criticism in the digital humanities?”. Some great points abouthaving to think not only how to reach society, but the impacts in the new modes of life and discourse were very well put, but I think we could elaborate on that in the discussion. Again, as in many texts, the question of someone having to be able to code to be considered a digital humanist arises (in this text in form of an anecdote). I’m still undecided about this. i like to think of myself as a humanist that has a huge interest on the digital impact in my field of study, which is certainly changing, and therefore i have take part on discussions on digital humanities. If I am going digital? Well, who isn’t? (even though Blackboard is not the best platform ever created…).
And now, for the digital humanists that can code: could a critical, analytical scholarly work come in digital form? (not Pdfs etc), really use tha tools to enhance the knowledge being presented. My question, besides of coming from the readings for this session, has been in my mind for a while now. I’m in the process of creating a magazine/ journal in my Home Dep. And we’ve had three meetings and can not come to a conclusion if a innovative digital form taht brings academic knowledge will be as seriously-taken as a old-fashioned journal (open-access, thank god, was unanimous).

A few questions for NUDHL Meeting #2

Emily

I’d just like to offer a few scattered thoughts and questions about the readings for this week, to note the ideas I found most interesting. These are in no particular order, so please forgive the untidiness.

In our first meeting, Jillana declared that if our enterprise wasn’t going to offer her a new kind of theory or a fresh critical lens, she wasn’t interested in pursuing it. I found this remark ringing in my ears as I worked my way through the set of readings for this week, since many of the authors gesture toward the same dilemma. In outlining some of the arguments made for digital artifacts as scholarship or argument, Ramsay and Rockwell describe Margaret Masterman’s framing of digital tools as “‘telescopes for the mind’ that show us something in a new light” (79). McCarty also picks up on this conception of the digital, to ask, “What can the digital humanities do for the humanities as a whole that helps these disciplines improve the well-being of us all?” (119).  I’m interested in learning more about how other group members envision the digital transforming their scholarship in a way that is more than just quantitative. As an historian, how can the digital change the kinds of questions I can ask, not just with respect to scale and scope of my work? That’s part of the reason I was excited to join in this year-long discussion. I want to figure out how this can transform the way I understand and approach scholarship. (To be quite honest, I’m also interested in the way digital tools can increase my productivity and research efficiency, but I think that’s worth leaving aside for right now.)

Similarly, I’m interested in the idea (posited by Ramsay and Rockwell) that a researcher must understand the mechanics of the digital tool they’re using (its composition, function, etc.) in order for that tool to be considered a form of scholarship or argument (80-1). How does this demand for precise understanding of a digital tool interact with McCarty’s question about whether DH is just for gruntwork (“drudgery”) or for something more?

The idea of legitimacy (professional, academic, and intellectual) was another prominent theme in our last meeting, and resurfaces this week. I found one of Hall’s questions intriguing: “Is the turn toward computing just the latest manifestation of and response to this crisis of confidence in the humanities?” (134). How does everyone feel about this way of framing the computational turn?

I found Scheinfeldt’s distinction between ideas and “organizing activities” intriguing (125). I wonder if this is a problematic distinction, especially following the Ramsey/Rockwell piece, which grapples explicitly with the idea of digital artifacts as argument/theory/scholarship.

Finally, how does materiality factor into the debate about whether digital projects count as scholarship/argument, or whether DH is a legitimate field of scholarship?

These are just a few points I thought might be worth pursuing. I’m looking forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts on the material and debates at hand.

A Gentle Introduction to Digital Text Analysis, 11/14

Michael J. Kramer

Subject: A Gentle Introduction to Digital Text Analysis – SRTS event Nov 14th

 

Please join us for the last Scholarly Resources & Technology Series event of the fall quarter:

 

A Gentle Introduction to Digital Text Analysis

 

Date: Wednesday, Nov 14th

Time:  5:00pm to 6:00pm

 

Using computers to analyze and visualize literary texts is a practice with a long history in the digital humanities. This presentation outlines that history and also explores a few of the latest digital tools enabling scholars to use computational methods to analyze individual texts and corpora. The presentation will use Jade Werner’s work on the revision history of Lady Morgan’s Luxima,The Prophetess (1859). No programming experience required.

 

Presenters: 

Jade Werner, Doctoral Student, English Department

Josh Honn, Digital Scholarship Fellow, Center for Scholarly Communication & Digital Curation

 

Registration not required. 

 

—————-

Also a reminder for this Friday’s event at noon in the Library Forum Room

 

Professor Owen encourages you to bring your iPad to follow along.

 

 

Sincerely,

Scholarly Resources & Technology Series team

 

 

X-Post: Notes on McGann’s Radiant Textuality

Michael J. Kramer

X-posted from Issues in Digital History.

I am going to write a longer commentary on Jerome McGann’s Radiant Textuality: Literature After the World Wide Web (Palgrave, 2001) in an upcoming post, but a few sections of his preface and introduction (“Beginning Again: Humanities and Digital Culture, 1993-2000) are striking for how relevant they remain over ten years after he wrote the book:

McGann organizes his book around two main arguments:

The first is that understanding the structure of digital space requires a disciplined aesthetic intelligence. Because our most developed models for that kind of intelligence are textual models, we would be foolish indeed not to study those models in the closest possible ways. Our minds think in textual codes. Because the most advanced forms of textual codings are what we call ‘poetical,’ the study and application of digital codings summons us to new investigations into our textual inheritance (xi).

McGann’s second argument is as follows:

Digital technology used by humanities scholars has focused almost exclusively on methods of sorting, accessing, and disseminating large bodies of materials, and on certain specialized problems in computational stylistics and linguistics. In this respect the work rarely engages those questions about interpretation and self-aware reflection that are the central concerns for most humanities scholars and educators. Digital technology has remained instrumental in serving the technical and precritical occupations of librarians and archivists and editors. But the general field of humanities education and scholarship will not take the use of digital technology seriously until one demonstrates how its tools improve the ways we explore and explain aesthetic works—until, that is, they expand our interpretational procedures [italics in original] (xi-xii).

Here is McGann asking 11 years ago that we not view the computer in opposition to the book, but as a continuation of the history of the book. Perhaps more crucially, he argues that we should fit what would become known, a few short years later, as the digital humanities (not yet a popular term for the field in 2001) into the critical traditions of inquiry that are the precinct of modern humanities scholars:

We have to break away from questions like ‘will the computer replace the book?’ So much more interesting are the intellectual opportunities that open at a revelatory historical moment such as we are passing through. These opportunities come with special privileges for certain key disciplines—now, for engineering, for the sciences, for certain areas of philosophy (studies in logic), and the social sciences (cognitive modeling). But unapparent as it may at first seem, scholarship devoted to aesthetic materials has never been more needed than at this historical moment (xii).

To the end of developing “scholarship devoted to aesthetic materials,” McGann posits the following imagined debate between a pro-digital humanities scholar and an anti-digital humanities scholar:

Computational systems…are designed to negotiate disambiguated, fully commensurable signifying structures.

‘Indeed! And so why should machines of that kind hold any positive interest for humanities scholars, whose attention is always focused on human ambiguities and incommensurables?’

‘Indeed! But why not also ask: How shall these machines be made to operate in a world that functions through such ambiguities and incommensurable?’ (xiv).

Finally, McGann notices how the digital humanities potentially reunites what Nietzsche divided into the “Lower Criticism” of philology with the “Higher Criticism” of historicism and aesthetic inquiry. The digital does not reduce the critical insights of “Higher Criticism,” McGann believes; rather, it asks, perhaps even demands, that humanities scholars reimagine the higher levels of advanced critical inquiry in relation to the fundamentally transformed foundations of “Lower Criticism” when those foundations of text, source, evidence, archive are placed into the digital medium:

In our day the authority of this Nietzschean break has greatly diminished. Modern computational tools are extremely apt to execute one of the two permanent functions of scholarly criticism—the editorial and the archival function, the remembrance of things past. So great is their aptitude in this foundational area that we stand on the edge of a period that will see the complete editorial transformation of our inherited cultural archive. That event is neither a possibility nor a likelihood; it is a certainty. As it emerges around us, it exposes our need for critical tools of the same material and formal order that can execute our other permanent scholarly function: to imagine what we don’t know in a disciplined and deliberated fashion. How can digital tools be made into prothetic extensions of that demand for critical reflection? (18).

Performing and Deforming the Humanities?

Michael J. Kramer

During our first meeting, we did not get to discuss the additional readings from Mark Sample and Tom Scheinfeldt fully. Perhaps we can use our blog to do so?

So much emerging talk of digital humanities scholarship is focused on the line between the humanities and the sciences/math through “big data,” data-mining, and macro-scale analysis of corpora or large bodies of text or information. But these articles bring us to that other, often fraught boundary: the one between the humanities and the arts.

What do you think of Sample’s call for a “deformed humanities,” with all the possibilities it opens up and the problems it raises? What do you think of Scheinfeldt’s interest in a “performance humanities” pursued through digital technology?

HASTAC Scholars @ NUDHL

Michael J. Kramer

We are delighted to welcome our 11 (!) HASTAC Scholars @ NUDHL. The HASTAC Scholars come from a wide range of fields across the humanities and will be contributing to both the NUDHL blog and the HASTAC (Humanities, Arts, Sciences, and Technology Advanced Collaboratory) forums this academic year. The HASTAC Scholars @ NUDHL are:

  • Emily Vanburen, History
  • Aaron Greenberg, English
  • Amanda Kleintop, History
  • Kendall Krawchuk, Slavic Languages & Literatures
  • Sarah Roth, English
  • Beth Corzo-Duchardt, Screen Cultures
  • Lisa Kelly, Theatre and Drama
  • Kevin Baker, History
  • Raff Donelson, Philosophy
  • Juliana Serôa da Motta Lugão, Spanish and Portuguese
  • Jade Werner, English

Digital Humanities 2013 (“Freedom to Explore”) – Call for Papers Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations

Michael J. Kramer

Reminder: Deadline Upcoming!

 

Digital Humanities 2013 (“Freedom to Explore”) – Call for Papers Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations Hosted by the University of Nebraska

16-19 July 2013

http://dh2013.unl.edu/

 

Paper/Poster/Panel deadline: 1 November 2012 Workshop proposal deadline: 15 February 2013

 

Call for Papers

 

I. General Information

 

The Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations (ADHO) invites submissions of abstracts for its annual conference, on any aspect of the digital humanities. This includes but is not limited to:

 

* humanities research enabled through digital media, data mining, software studies, or information design and modeling;

* computer applications in literary, linguistic, cultural, and historical studies, including electronic literature, public humanities, and interdisciplinary aspects of modern scholarship;

* the digital arts, architecture, music, film, theatre, new media, digital games, and related areas;

* the creation and curation of humanities digital resources;

* social, institutional, global, multilingual, and multicultural aspects of digital humanities;

* and the role of digital humanities in pedagogy and academic curricula.

 

We particularly welcome submissions on interdisciplinary work and new developments in the field, and encourage proposals relating to the theme of the conference.

 

Presentations may include:

* posters (abstract max of 750 words);

* short papers (abstract max of 1500 words);

* long papers (abstract max of 1500 words);

* multiple paper sessions, including panels (regular abstracts + approximately 500-word overview);

* and pre-conference workshops and tutorials (proposal max of 1500 words)

 

The deadline for submitting poster, short paper, long paper, and sessions proposals to the international Program Committee is midnight GMT, 1 November 2012. Presenters will be notified of acceptance by 1 February 2013. Workshop and pre-conference tutorial proposals are due at midnight GMT on 15 February 2013, with notice of acceptance by 15 March 2013. An electronic submission form will be available on the conference site at the beginning of October 2012: http://dh2013.unl.edu/ Previous DH conference participants and reviewers should use their existing accounts rather than setting up new ones. If you have forgotten your user name or password, please contact Program Committee chair Bethany Nowviskie at bethany@virginia.edu.

 

II. Types of Proposals

 

Proposals may be of five types: (1) poster presentations; (2) short paper presentations; (3) long papers; (4) three-paper or full panel sessions; and (5) proposals for pre-conference workshops and tutorials. Based on peer review and its mandate to create a balanced and varied program, the Program Committee may offer acceptance in a different category from the one initially proposed, and will normally not accept multiple submissions from the same author or group of authors. Papers and posters may be given in English, French, German, Italian, or Spanish.

 

1) Poster Presentations

 

Poster proposals (500 to 750 words) may describe work on any topic of the call for papers or offer project and software demonstrations. Posters and demonstrations are intended to be interactive, with the opportunity to exchange ideas one-on-one with attendees. In addition to a dedicated session, when presenters will explain their work and answer questions, posters will be on display at various times during the conference.

 

2) Short Papers

 

Short paper proposals (750 to 1500 words) are appropriate for reporting on experiments or work in progress, or for describing newly conceived tools or software in early stages of development. This category of presentation allows for up to five short papers in a single session, with the length held to a strict 10 minutes each in order to allow time for questions.

 

3) Long Papers

 

Proposals for long papers (750 to 1500 words) are appropriate for: substantial, completed, and previously unpublished research; reports on the development of significant new methodologies or digital resources; and/or rigorous theoretical, speculative, or critical discussions. Individual papers will be allocated 20 minutes for presentation and 10 minutes for questions.

 

Proposals about the development of new computing methodologies or digital resources should indicate how the methods are applied to research and/or teaching in the humanities, what their impact has been in formulating and addressing research questions, and should include critical assessment of their application in the humanities. Papers that concentrate on a particular tool or digital resource in the humanities should cite traditional as well as computer-based approaches to the problem and should include critical assessments of the computing methodologies used. All proposals should include relevant citations to sources in the literature.

 

4) Multiple Paper Sessions

 

These consist of one 90-minute panel of four to six speakers, or three long papers on a single theme. Panel organizers should submit an abstract of 750 to 1500 words describing the panel topic, how it will be organized, the names of all the speakers, and an indication that each speaker is willing to participate in the session. Paper session organizers should submit a statement of approximately 500 words describing the session topic, include abstracts of 750 to 1500 words for each paper, and indicate that each author is willing to participate in the session. Papers that are submitted as part of a special session may not be submitted individually for consideration in another category.

 

5) Pre-Conference Workshops and Tutorials

 

Participants in pre-conference workshops or tutorials will be expected to register for the full conference as well as pay a small additional fee.

 

Proposals should provide the following information:

 

* a title and brief description of the content or topic and its relevance to the DH community (not more than 1500 words);

* full contact information for all tutorial instructors or workshop leaders, including a one-paragraph statement of their research interests and areas of expertise;

* a description of target audience and expected number of participants (based, if possible, on past experience);

* and any special requirements for technical support.

 

Additionally, tutorial proposals should include:

 

* a brief outline showing that the core content can be covered in a half day (approximately 3 hours, plus breaks). In exceptional cases, full-day tutorials may be supported as well.

 

And workshop proposals must include:

 

* the intended length and format of the workshop (minimum half-day; maximum one and a half days);

* a proposed budget (as DH workshops are expected to be self-financing);

* and, if the workshop is to have its own CFP, a deadline and date for notification of acceptances, and a list of individuals who have agreed to be part of the workshop’s program committee.

 

III. Information about the Conference Venue and Theme

 

DH 2013 (“Freedom to Explore”) will take place in Lincoln, Nebraska, a capitol city of 258,000 people on the Great Plains of the United States. Lincoln is known for its artistic treasures, live music scene, fabulous trails, and friendly Midwestern attitude. It is also the home of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, chartered in 1869 as both a land-grant and a research university. UNL’s approximately 25,000 students come from about 120 different countries. Among its many degree offerings is an interdisciplinary graduate certificate in digital humanities. The Center for Digital Research in the Humanities is this year’s local organizer: http://cdrh.unl.edu

 

IV. Bursaries for young scholars

 

The Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations will offer a limited number of bursaries for early-career scholars presenting at the conference. Application guidelines will appear on the ADHO website later this year: http://www.digitalhumanities.org

 

V. International Program Committee

 

Craig Bellamy (ACH)

John Bradley (ALLC)

Paul Caton (ACH)

Carolyn Guertain (CSDH/SCHN)

Ian Johnson (aaDH)

Bethany Nowviskie (ACH, chair)

Sarah Potvin (cN)

Jon Saklofske (CSDH/SCHN)

Sydney Shep (aaDH)

Melissa Terras (ALLC, vice-chair)

Tomoji Tabata (ALLC)

Deb Verhoeven (aaDH)

Ethan Watrall (cN)

 

[Please circulate widely!]

 

 

 

 

_________________________________________

 

Notecards & Cowboy Hats

Michael J. Kramer

How do we not only take notes, but also take note of the ways that the digital transforms the research process?

At the tail-end of our first meeting, Justin Joyce brought up the question of how he might apply the digital to his collection of notecards that attempt to codify whether the good and bad guys indeed wore white or black hats in classic Western films.

At first, we pondered how computational power might not be very adept at addressing the difficult questions of judging the good guys from the bad (not that people are that skilled at this task all the time either!). This is, of course, one of the key questions about thinking through algorithmic analysis. But then we began to talk about more than just how the digital is not some kind of positivistic fantasy of attaining definitive analysis. We also broached the question of wether new modes of presenting research in digital form might provide fresh possibilities for the ways that argument look, feel, and what they ultimately mean. Could Justin do something interesting merely by scanning his original notecards and presenting his findings in the digital medium in ways that might produce new perspectives on his research question?

This part of our conversation came back to mind for me when I recently browsed a few blog posts by Rachel Leow (thanks to Josh Honn for the link), Matthew Kirshenbaum, Sasha Hoffman, and Thomas Riley. These posts all relate efforts to use both analog and digital modes of note taking in their research. Tools used: DevonThink, Scrivener, Zotero, Evernote, among others. I share these musings with graduate students, librarians, and tech folks among us as potentially useful explorations of what we might call “the question of the digital note.” It strikes me that this is not only a practical issue of managing research, but also a question of how the structure of the research process in the digital medium might inspire new ideas, approaches, questions—in short the research process, transferred into the digital in more consciously developed ways, might lead to new kinds of findings.