I have many problems with the article Neoliberal Tools (and Archives): A Political History of Digital Humanities. But I am going to pick out a few quotes and insert my commentary on them, seeing as if I did a full review of this article it would be well over a few pages.

“It (Digital Humanities) is, instead, about the promotion of project-based learning and lab-based research over reading and writing,”

Oh yes, because all my time is spent on lab-based research.

No reading whatsoever.

See? I’m on my computer, definitely not reading for my research.

Books and traditional humanities research will always be around, we are not trying to replace it but rather expand the field and become more opening and accepting of those who do not work well or do not prefer traditional research methods.

“Digital Humanities instead aims to archive materials, produce data, and develop software, while bracketing off the work of interpretation to a later moment or leaving it to other scholars”

I can see why one would think that with all of the scans and data I’ve been collecting, it seems like I’m just collecting everything and putting it together. Well, I am. Because to interpret research and data, one needs to have data in the first place. Please find me a second-hand source that does not have citations or data.

““Look, not everyone committed to Digital Humanities is a white man.” “Look, there are Digital Humanities projects committed to politically engaged scholarly methods and questions.” We are not negating the value of these exceptions when we ask: What is the dominant current supported even by the invocation of these exceptions?”

White men were the only force in Humanities for centuries up until the last one. Digital humanities is a relatively new field that started from two fields that are both dominated by white men, so is it such a surprise that the first Digital Humanists are white males?  The demographics of fields change, it just takes time and willingness of the field to be accepting. I look to go into the field of military history and theory, it is overwhelmingly dominated by white men and I realize that it is going to be hard even though there are women who have succeeded in it before me. The goal is not to conform to the dominant current but rather critique it and give room for expansion of the field to make it better. Which is what Digital Humanities is trying to do. It is trying to expand the field and make it more available to the world, not trying to destroy or minimize the importance of traditional Humanities.

According to Standford, “The humanities can be described as the study of how people process and document the human experience.”

This article takes a false high-ground in humanities, creating an elitism that should not be there. Every human can do humanities because it is about our shared experience in this world, not because you have a higher education level, have read more books, or written more papers. The entire purpose of Humanities is to find what connects us, not how to divide us. Not everyone has the access to great archives or collections, but in this digital age, most people have connection to the internet. Digital Humanities is not replacing traditional Humanities, just expanding and diversifying it. This article is saying Humanities for the humanists, I’m saying Humanities for humans.

-Julia

It was a welcoming change to have an afternoon session that did not focus on digital humanities. The 3 D printing lab was very interesting to both witness and experience. However, we learned that the 3D printers were very temperamental. It took Lauren and me three tries to print out our names. After I successfully printed out my name I decided to print out something more complicated. I settled on the Doctors famous TARDIS. I crossed my finger and hoped that the base layers would go down smoothly and they did. For a solid 30 minutes, the TARDIS was coming into form. Then something terrible happened, the TARDIS moved and was out of line. It was more than half way done and in one split second, it was ruined. I was crushed. Discouraged, I decided to print out smaller and low-risk objects.

When R.C returned to the lab I told him about my half TARDIS. He then reminded me that failure is okay. I realized that failure allows for creativity. If you fail at something once try something else. As we have discussed before, much of digital humanities is trial and error. If something doesn’t work out the first time, try it again or try something different. I will try to keep this lesson of failure in the back of my mind as I continue to create my digital project.

This Tuesday I had the pleasure of meeting Barbara Holley, the woman who I am basing my project on. Barbara Holley donated a personal collection of scrapbooks to Special Collections. These scrapbooks document the years she attended Gettysburg College (1950-1954). It was interesting to hear what could not be gathered from her scrapbooks, personal stories, and thoughts. We chatted about the college customs freshmen had to follow. She told me that the customs lasted the whole first semester. One thing she distinctly remembers is not daring to walk on the grass, even though the upperclassmen would try to trick the freshmen into stepping on the grass. I asked her what she thought of the freshmen customs. I thought she would tell me that she thought they were unnecessary but she actually replied that they were a lot of fun.

 

We also talked about the changing geography of the college. Most of her classes were in Glatfelter Hall since there were not as many buildings on campus. Huber Hall served as the student’s dining hall. Ms. Holley then went on to tell us how awful the food was and how their one saving grace was the neighborhood food truck that came around to deliver sandwiches. This is a little bit different from today’s love of Servo.

I am happy to have met Ms. Holley and hope to see more of her in the future.

When reading Daniel Allington, Sarah Brouillette,  and David Golumbia’s critique of the digital humanities, I initially found myself feeling alarmed, especially upon reading the early line, “digital humanities has played a leading role in the corporatist restructuring of the humanities.”  Speaking as someone who is wary of corporations, (to say the least), the thought that I could be contributing to their reconfiguration of the humanities was terrifying. However, as I continued to read the article, I found myself refuting nearly every argument the authors made with the experiences I’ve had this summer. Contrary to Allington, Brouilette, and Golumbia’s assertions, I have found the digital humanities to be a field that highlights individual passions within a community of creators, rather than an inauthentic corporate enterprise.

 

My conclusion about the digital humanities is largely sourced in the people that make up the field. The article focused on the institutional side of digital humanities–where the funding comes from, why they are fostered by college administration, and the corporations that benefit from the field. However, Allington, Brouillette, and Golumbia fail to give proper credit to those individuals who truly constitute the digital humanities–those whose interest in and passion for a subject drive them to make an individualized project that transforms the material they are working with to educate or even inspire a user.

 

There were two lines I took particular issue with as I was reading the article, the first being “Digital Humanities is pushed far more strongly by university administrators than it is by scholars and students, who increasingly find themselves pressured to redirect their work toward Digital Humanities.” As I’ve become more acquainted with the domain, my perception has been that the digital humanities is more of a grassroots field, which is particularly evidenced by the number of projects that are motivated by the creator’s personal interest in the subject as well as the format of DH conferences, which is determined by all those in attendance.

 

Secondly, I took issue with the authors’ assertion the the digital humanities are “about the promotion of project-based learning and lab-based research over reading and writing…and the redefinition of technical expertise as a form (indeed, the superior form) of humanist knowledge.” The quote reminded me of a venn diagram R.C. had showed me of two separate circles, one being “students interested in English and literature” and the other, “Students interested in advanced computers and technology and programming”. Despite the number of portrayals of the digital humanities as being completely distinct from the traditional humanities, my experience has been that it encompasses and integrates both areas. One cannot be sustained without the other; consequently, one does not have importance over the other.
On the whole, I felt that this article was written by people who were distanced from the core of the digital humanities field–the people who are truly committed to the individual and open creation of projects and communities.

Daniel Allington, Sarah Brouillette, and David Golumbia seem to have a lot to say about Digital Humanities. In the article, “Neoliberal Tools (and Archives): A Political History of Digital Humanities”, these three professors have expressed their thoughts and views about Digital Humanities. Normally, I can always see the other side of the argument when reading an opinionated article. But I only saw the views of the authors in this particular article as being biased and extremely narrow. I perceived the overall tone of the article as being belittling and (for lack of a better word) “snobbish”.

The first line of the article already had me annoyed. “Advocates position Digital Humanities as a corrective to the “traditional” and outmoded approaches to literary study that supposedly plague English departments”(Neoliberal Tools (and Archives): A Political History of Digital Humanities). There are many things wrong with this statement in my own humble opinion. First, of all the Digital Humanities texts we have read none had ever mentioned “correcting” the traditional approaches to literary study. From what I have learned as a DSSF Fellow is that Digital Humanities does not seek to abolish the traditional standards of academic research but hopes to widen the horizons of research. Writing papers will never go out of style as much as we might like them to. Digital Humanities only strives to allow another platform in which research can be displayed to the public. It also allows for people who are not professors or scholars to publish their work to the public.

Secondly, I found that their arguments were largely focused on the just the English and literary side of the humanities. It seems that they forgot the other sects of academia the word humanities encompasses. The authors only provide examples of how digital humanities is corrupting English departments. If you are going to make an argument for or against digital humanities, you should probably give arguments that highlight different disciplines that the humanities encompasses, not just one. Although I think that the authors should have looked deeper into other subjects that fall under the umbrella of “humanities”, two of the three authors are English professors and therefore wrote about their own discipline. However, this only makes for a bias and narrow argument.

Another point that left me flabbergasted and dumbfounded was their remarks to funding. I will admit, I know absolutely nothing about how funding works but the conclusions that these authors are making  are extremely farfetched. They claim that the funding of digital humanities is largely based on the need to justify student research to those who do not have site-based research needs. They also claim that this way of thinking has led people to believe that in order to get a grant they need to use some sort of digital tool. The authors then go on to stress again how this mold of funding only develops funding for new models of intellectual work thus accelerating the devaluation of older models of literary study. Again, digital humanities does not seek to devalue older models of research. Also, I don’t see why there should be a problem with funding new ways of researching. Technology will always keep evolving, we should try to find and experience news ways in which to share scholarly writing and research.

Another quote that I was appalled at was, “…major research institutions, from the University of Virginia to University College London, have invested in Digital Humanities precisely in order to consolidate their grip on available research funding, and are about as likely to renounce their market dominance as are Facebook, Amazon, or Google”. Really? Are you arguing that colleges are investing in Digital Humanities just to hoard grant money? Again, I do not claim to know how funding works, but I seriously doubt that the thought of holding a grip on money goes through their minds when applying for funding.

This article is an example of a misinformed interpretation of Digital Humanities. Much to the dismay of the authors, Digital Humanities is a force to be reckoned with and is here to stay.

Working with Scalar this week has brought me back to my childhood. As a child, I loved building things with Lego bricks. In some ways, Scalar is the digital form of Legos. You can build and create something with both Scalar and Legos. The difference is that instead of building a three-dimensional house, I am building a digital book. I have been building various paths on Scalar to mimic the idea of how I want my user experience to be. The task has proven harder that I originally thought it would. I am constantly trying to figure out the most logical way to organize my chapters and paths. Does it make sense to start out with the interactive map or should I introduce Barbara Holley to the users first? Where should I put Greek Life? Under student clubs and activities or have it as a separate path? I am excited to see my digital “house” taking form. So far Scalar has been a great tool to work with and I am excited to see how my project will look like as a finished house.

I have spent the better part of my afternoons in Special Collections. Most of these trips to Special Collections were spent looking at the College Catalogue, G-Book, and Barbara Holley’s Scrapbook Collection. This week I decided to take a look at the Oral Histories in Special Collections. I was surprised to read and learn new things about college social life and culture that I would have not otherwise known. Facts, numbers, pictures, and books can only give you a wide range of information, but Oral Histories find the narrative and the voice of the people. I hope I will be able to use the voices I found reading the oral histories in my digital project to add another layer of depth to the narrative of women.