Category: Week 9

Week  nine was so crazy! I was so stressed about my project and getting everything done. But its so interesting to look back and see what we have created. My goal was to have everything done by the end of week nine. Although it was unrealistic, I think it would have made week ten a lot easier!

The book Digital_Humanities has been used for this program extensively. It was the first book I received on the subject, and it has helped to frame my thinking about DH. So, for one of the last blog posts this summer, I return to this book to look at a larger issue- where does DH, my project specifically, fit within traditional scholarship?

Digital_Humanities is of the opinion that DH is opposed to traditional scholarship in many ways. Where traditional scholarship is done by mainly one person, DH is collaborative. Where journals and books are out of reach to some audiences, DH is accessible to anyone with internet connection. In a way, the two are separate fields, serving different audiences. Traditional Scholarship is often self contained, while DH exists in the realm of the digital for all to see.

In creating my project, I steered away from traditional scholarship thinking and embraced some aspects of DH wholeheartedly. My project is not written to be used by other scholars or kept behind a paywall where it has limited use. It is open to the public online to be used by anyone who wants to learn more about the streets of Gettysburg. It is meant to provide a service to the public. That is not to say that scholars cannot use my work either. I have documented my research to be used by anyone, and I am open to critique by and collaboration with other scholars. That is, after all, an aspect of DH.

I did not, however, abandon traditional methods.  I used typical research techniques. I relied on the archives at the Adams County Historical Society and those who work there to help me find information. I dove deep into research to create solid interpretation, but had a wide scope to consider the history of Gettysburg with. According to Digital_Humanities, I acted like a Hedgefox. That is the book’s metaphor for a Humanist who is both traditional and open to DH. They advocate for a hybridization, where scholars embrace the best of both worlds. Like the fox, scholars should be curious and have a wide scope. Like the hedgehog, scholars should burrow and research in depth.

I certainly embrace this point of view. It is important to acknowledge new technologies and opportunities, but older methods should not be abandoned outright for their age. There is a reason why good research methods have endured. However, I think the problem falls to the issue of what is considered legitimate scholarship. Traditionally, something is known as legitimate scholarship because it has been published, peer reviewed, and is full of qualifications. DH cannot always have that because it is not always given its due. The book gives the example of Wikipedia as a DH project that is not readily embraced as scholarship despite its potential as a source of information.

That is where DH is most directly opposed to the traditional. DH puts power in the hands of many to decide what is important and should be written about, it is a decolonizing force. People are empowered to partake in this collaborative process. Most of all, DH is social and public. People can interact with it. That social aspect is what I strove for in my audio tour, as I felt it was most important that I connect with a larger audience.

These aspects may not be present in all Traditional Scholarship, but that does not mean it should be abandoned. The hybrid that Digital_Humanities described should be a model to strive for. However, to fully allow Digital Scholarship and Traditional Scholarship to coexist, the methods used to validate scholarship must be opened. Then, DH can have a place within scholarship.

 

Emma Lewis

Shameless Hamilton callback?

Look at us! We did it! We made it to week 10! Home stretch! Hooray!

This summer has been one of the more interesting summers I’ve had. I’ll give this program that. It was a similar emotional roller coaster to what I dealt with during the school year, because you can never have too many hills on that. But I’m getting off the ride, and I’m looking forward to continuing my own self improvement.

I’ve gained a lot of knowledge from this program. I’m grateful for that, because I think that knowledge will help me more than I thought it would at the beginning of the summer. Not only was this a study of art and humanities and academia, but it was a study of myself as well, and focusing on how to improve the problems I’ve been helplessly self-aware of and unsure how to fix. This summer was a good kick in the pants to get that taken care of.

I once said humanities is a documentation of the human experience. We all have our emotional outlets, and it’s good to look at the way other people from the past put their problems into pen and paper. Hopefully we can all do that and be not only healthier, but happier.

I hope that for everyone honestly.

Make good choices,

-Britt

I’ve got no song for this, so we’re going for peak Mountain Goats

Back with another verbose rant about where my project fits in the grand scheme of things; my first one is right here.

I want people to first and foremost pay attention to the language and terminology they choose to use when describing actions in DH. Particularly, I was concerned about the use of the word “decolonization.” I see that as a poorly executed, disruptive, and failed attempt at rectifying years of problems that only ended up creating more problems. Decolonization is a poor choice of words, because when it’s been executed it has only ended with more infighting. This is because of how when the West decolonized, lines were drawn without speaking to the people who were being decolonized, and those lines merged old cultures that didn’t go together and wouldn’t acknowledge traditional lands. Basically, setting up for land disputes and war. I’m worried the use of this word in this setting will minimize the effects of this method.

How does that translate into DH? I worry that academia is going to eventually acquiesce to allowing DH to be a valid method of research, but it’ll only be for certain projects and certain types and certain fields. Those lines in the sand might not translate well into what seems to be the recurring themes and values of DH and the revolutionary writers we’ve been reading. Something major is going to get left out of what they want, and the community won’t like it. As I said before, the DH writers we’ve read have indicated a very utopian mindset that wants it all and wants it NOW, ALL AT ONCE, and honestly can get stubbornly uncompromising about those demands. I sympathize with them, but that mindset about it is extremely toxic and dangerous. That means there will be letdown, because there will always, always, always be a problem to solve. There is no such thing as anything or anyone who is perfect or unproblematic. That’s why we’re all here- to learn, because we came together about our love of learning.

I just read this article on Vox about the online revolutionary communities that took the form of the alt-right and what is described as the Tumblr left, which has a point of view that can get to “one mistake, one disagreement, and you’re out.” Don’t let DH turn into that utopian bubble, and don’t let academia turn DH into that mindset. Learning is about the diversity of ideas, and closing ourselves off can turn into a hypocrisy on our own values of accessibility.

As for my own project and how it will affect the community as a whole? I’m not sure. It wouldn’t surprise me if someone said interactive exhibits have been done better. It’s my first rodeo. I’m keeping my expectations low and hoping to get something done that I can be proud of. I didn’t really invite anyone to the presentations- mainly because I want it to be my own. It’s important to stand on your own two feet because I don’t give a shit what the academic community says. I don’t know them, and they don’t know me. That’s okay. Make our own good projects.

Make good choices,

-Britt

The end of this fellowship is fast approaching, which means a lot of work for the Fellows. Instead of a regular microblog post this week, I thought I’d share some interpretation I’m doing and possibly get feedback. These versions of my interpretation have been edited a few times and looked over by Lauren, but fresh eyes are always welcome. Let me know of any notes or questions the interpretation provokes.

 

GETTYSBURG TROLLEY ROUTE: Culture

In the late 1800s, the streets of this town would have looked quite different from today – unpaved, devoid of cars, and (on this stretch of Baltimore Street) shared by a trolley.  In those days, travel options were limited. Trains brought people into Gettysburg, but getting out to the battlefield was harder. Cars did not exist to drive people around the battlefield, and so horses and carriages had to be rented if you didn’t want to walk- until this trolley came around.

Built by Gettysburg Electric Railway Inc in 1893, the trolley filled a need for transportation and made plenty of money off those who flocked to see the legendary battlefield landscape. This ease of travel meant more tourists came, some for only a day, taking advantage of both trains and trolleys to facilitate their travel. The sheer number of visitors was overwhelming!

The trolley did service townspeople, after the Borough government prompted the company to do so, making a regular loop through town. Most of its resources were dedicated to tourists, however. All the cars were named after generals, and most were made to withstand only summer weather, when most visitors would be around. This tourism culture did not last forever, and the service to both residents and tourists came to an end. On September 16, 1916, the trolley ran its last trip. When the World Wars came, the tracks were torn out for scrap metal. Now, visitors do not need trolleys to see the battlefield. Cars, buses, and roads provide the necessary transportation.

 

 

Emma Lewis