The Chronicle Blog Network, a digital salon sponsored by The Chronicle of Higher Education, features leading bloggers from all corners of academe. Content is not edited, solicited, or necessarily endorsed by The Chronicle.
Last week I mentioned a tweet on critical pedagogy that stuck with me. Here is another item from 2014 that really got me thinking.
Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.
A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.
Last week I mentioned a tweet on critical pedagogy that stuck with me. Here is another item from 2014 that really got me thinking.
This was from an ARL meeting on the future of scholarly monographs. I blogged about it back in October 2014 but I wanted to go deeper. I spoke with Laura Mandell (Professor of English & Director of the Initiative for Digital Humanities, Media, and Culture at Texas A&M) just before winter break. Here are some highlights from that conversation:
Print Humanities
The humanities as we know them should be called the print humanities. They began with the rise of print materials and the practices and methodologies associated with them are bound to that format. Right now we have print humanities and digital humanities but eventually all humanities will be digital humanities. We’re in an evolutionary stage.
While many people feel an emotional attachment to print materials, Laura argues that it represents a sense of authority. In her forthcoming book she explores how we credit authority and the ways in which print books preserve prestige.
The 20th century signified an era of truth and authority for big name literary critics. What we’re seeing now is a shift from something being true because someone said so, to a system in which ideas are testable and reproducible. These new methods are challenging the established order. Historical claims by literary critics and theorists need to be scrutinized. This change is far greater than just format (eBooks) and is apparently challenging institutionalized beliefs.
In the past, when literary scholars or historians made claims, they could substantiate it with individual cases, but today you need to consider thousands of cases and potentially millions of pieces of information in order to present an argument or insight.
Digital Humanities is not a format—it’s a field
We spoke a bit about text-mining and data. Small data is looking at one text at a time. Big data is looking at multiple texts simultaneously. In the humanities and history this includes reading across thousands of texts at once time.
Scholars are discovering things that were previously impossible such as lost works, outliers, anomalies, new correlations, false or incorrect claims, and other phenomenon that could only emerge from this wider perspective.
The major theme that Laura emphasized is that scholars should feel comfortable moving data around. Just as there are print books and articles, and tools such as index cards and post-it notes, researchers benefit by being just as fluent using spreadsheets, building databases, and writing code. Her work includes helping others gain this experience: Programming for Humanists. It is also interesting to see tech support and communities designed specifically for this discipline: Python for Humanists, TEI & Icon for Humanists, Drupal for Humanists, and so on.
The scholarly questions being considered today require a digital environment and complementary toolkit. It would seem the conversation is no longer about “print vs. electronic” materials– the questions being examined and the research that needs to be done can only be accomplished across a gigantic scale.
Some people are struggling with this shift in the discipline. Laura mentioned that when she has these conversations it helps to ask scholars: what is holding you back? What processes are bothersome? What questions can’t you answer? Tools exist that could help, or if not, they could be invented. She emphasized that scholars should be comfortable moving across the entire spectrum of sources (print and digital) and that contemporary approaches require a multitude of tools and platforms. Her advice for librarians is to get faculty excited about how they can apply new formats to explore new areas of research.
Here is an example illustrating the application of text analysis:
Now Analyze That: Comparing the discourse on race
Impact on Graduate Students
Having experience with these tools is not only desirable but also becoming essential for job prospects. There is a danger of being left behind if scholars are not fluent with new methodologies. Departments aspiring to do cutting edge research need graduate students and postdocs with these skills.
New Forms of Scholarly Participation
In the future, a scholar will come to a publication-- read it-- and then do something to impact it: post a comment, contribute data or content, alter the parameters to make a new argument, or test an assumption. In the end, the reader-participant will receive some form of credit for their effort.
The Emotion of Print Books
Laura and I also spoke about our relationships with print books. She mentioned that during an office flood it wasn’t her laptop that she rescued but an edition of Stanley Cavell’s The Senses of Walden—it was the type of paper, the printing, and the entire package that made it beautiful and worth saving. But her emotional connection is separate from her professional practices.
The key takeaway for me is that this is not about reading preferences but about using the appropriate tools for advancing scholarly inquiry.
My closing thoughts: We obviously still have a ways to go with the migration to digital collections—particularly with usability and licensing—but hearing firsthand from a researcher on how the discipline is changing was insightful. It clarified some of the directions where the humanities are heading and possible ways for libraries and librarians to support their work.
Consider also: Libraries as Problem Shapers: some thoughts sparked by Brian Croxall (five things that we mean when we say digital humanities)
