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.