Author: Lauren White

Being Present

In her latest blog post, Teaching Teachers in the Age of Trump, Roopika Risam writes the following: “look at who is in front of you, identify their needs, teach accordingly.”

This mandate is especially important in the digital humanities, which is a developing field and thus has the potential to teach in a more inclusive and revolutionary way. Obviously, this is not an easy task, as an event as big as the election affects students and teachers alike. But, as Risam points out in her blog post, we have to actually go teach, even if that’s difficult. Teachers are sources of leadership–their students look up to and rely on them. If we do not make ourselves present and available in difficult times, the student loses that locus of support and guidance. Leading in this context also means allowing time and space for students to express their emotions. To distance or try to separate what is happening in a student’s life from their expectations in the classroom is impossible. Teaching holistically means acknowledging the lived experiences of students and recognizing the impact their lives have on their scholarship. Even though devoting time to emotions may seem like a waste of time, allowing room for processing can help to enhance a student’s scholarship by making sure that their personal investment in a project or course is channeled healthily.

It is also especially important that digital scholarship devote time to integrative and intersectional projects that explore and give attention and space to a variety of identities. Documenting the lived experiences of people of color, LGBT+ individuals, immigrants and their families, people without class privilege, or other people who are at risk for worsened marginalization is especially important now. We also have to make sure that the digital humanities expand to those to aren’t literally in front of us–in other words, it is easy to look at DH through the lens of a small, predominantly white liberal arts institutions, but what are we doing to include community colleges, historically black colleges, or tribal colleges? Those colleges may have populations even more affected by recent changes caused by the election. As such, it is critical that they are given the tools so they can take advantage of their education to the fullest extent possible and express their experience.

Our boss, R.C., asked us to finish this blog post by reflecting on what has been valuable about our experience this semester both as students, and peer mentor/teachers. First, I want to re-emphasize the importance of the digital scholarship cohort. On the morning following the election, I was lucky to be surrounded by people who were willing to offer support and discussion about everything that had taken place. The cohort also helped to create What We Did Here, a project meant to document activism at Gettysburg and give every student a voice. In general, this semester helped me realize the need for change, and I am thankful that I have been able to bring it about in some regards, especially through What We Did Here, and in emphasizing the need for the dissemination and sharing of knowledge to the students I’ve worked with.

Digital Tool Review: Google Tour Builder

What are the key features of this digital tool? How is this digital tool distinct from other ones similar to it?

Google Tour Builder uses Google Earth to allow people to chart their own journeys, or the journeys of others. Similar to StoryMap JS, Tour Builder uses a powerpoint-esque layout where each location and event is the equivalent of a slide. Events are connected linearly so that the user follows a line that connects the first event to the second, the second to the third, and so on.

What kinds of research questions might this digital tool help you answer?

This tool is most useful in complementing a journey with narrative. The “slides” provide ample space to contextualize each location and explain its significance.

What kind of documentation is available for this tool?

The site provides the user with an about page that answers many frequently asked questions about Tour Builder. There is also a gallery of previously made projects, and a place where users can submit feedback about their experience.

Is the digital tool free, or is there a cost to use it?

Google Tour Builder is free.

What kinds of data/input does the tool require?

The three main data concerns for Tour Builder are a location, and text and media that pertain to that location. One of the benefits of the tool is that a user can include up to twenty five photos or videos per slide. Tour Builder also allows the user to use google image search within the program, and any photos results are labelled commercial for reuse.

Are there any privacy concerns?

To use Google Tour Builder, a user has to sign in with their google account.

How difficult will this tool be to master? Does it require an outside expert or special technical skills, or can it be learned with practice?

Learning Tour Builder is easy to do and something that someone can learn without consulting an expert. The program itself provides some help for people who have not made a map before.

Could you use this digital tool for your project? Why or why not?

This sees like a good tool for more casual projects. However, if a project involved a high number of locations, or locations that were not connected linearly, Tour Builder may not be the best way to represent that data.

Thoughts on Bucknell

People love to sort things into binaries. Digital is traditionally the opposite of the humanities, failure the opposite of success, and student the opposite of professor. At the Bucknell University Digital Scholarship conference, whose theme was “Negotiating Borders Through Digital Collaboration”, I witnessed the dissolution and blending of all of these binaries.

Throughout the summer, we discussed the ways that digital tools can be used to present traditional humanities materials in new ways, and that this started to dissolve the binary between the two. This conference continued to bring the two closer to one another  in my mind because I was able to see how digital tools can also be used to inform the humanities. A number of projects presented at the conference used some form of crowdsourcing to gather information, form narratives, and complement or enhance humanities materials that already existed. Dr. Safiya Noble’s keynote was especially important in recognizing the way that search engines influence our perceptions of humanity and reinforce hegemonic narratives. Much as people may like to think of them as being two separate spheres, it is clear that digital tools, including those that are common knowledge, are continually influencing the material that influences the humanities.

Similar to the way that the conference showed digital and humanities as being complements to one another, failure and success were also posited as being congruent. A number of panels discussed the struggles they encountered with regard to their work, but each used it as an opportunity to reevaluate their projects and methods or shift their focus. The conference emphasized that failure allows for greater discovery; it is not an endpoint, but rather a beginning.

Most striking to me though was the erasure of a student/faculty binary at the conference. In the beginning of the digital scholarship summer fellowship in May, the conference seemed like a very abstract concept. To me, conferences always seemed like lofty places, reserved for a select group of scholars that I could hope to accompany,and only become after years of education and having published a substantial amount of published material. Bucknell smashed this expectation to pieces. Not only was my and my cohort’s undergraduate research regarded as being significant, but the conference affirmed and included the work of scholars at all levels, and proved that the people doing work on the digital humanities aren’t on a binary, but really function as a community of practice, where students, professors, librarians, educators, and technologists all rely on and influence one another. The implicit task after this conference seems to be to expand the community of practice even further. As dictated in Dr. Tressie McMillan Cottom’s keynote, it is incredibly important to introduce and establish the digital humanities at those institutions, such as community colleges, tribal colleges, and historically black colleges, that have often and unjustly been left at the margins of academic communities. The community of practice cannot function if it only features the voices of an elite some, while denying access to the voices of an inclusive many.

On Being a Digital Scholarship (not Summer) Fellow

In the first few weeks of the semester, I had the opportunity to work with Dr. Kay Etheridge on a wordpress blog for her comparative physiology class. I loved the premise–she wanted to use the blog as a tool to teach her class how to write about comparative physiology and science in general for general audiences with varying levels of scientific understanding. To me, this project was a great example of how the digital humanities are not limited to traditional humanities materials–they can include STEM fields as well. Creating an open facing blog meant to pique the interest of and educate a broad array of people about relevant science is just as much a part of the digital humanities as a timeline of student social justice movements.

Most rewarding though has been seeing the fulfillment of our summer plans. For the duration of the summer, we talked about how beneficial the digital humanities could be for classrooms, but it was often in a very hypothetical sense. Our blog posts talked about what potential DH could have in a classroom if  a student or professor decided to use it in their scholarship. To see the actual positive implementation of digital tools and a digital humanities frame of thinking in a classroom setting has been extremely rewarding. It’s also been rewarding to have people come to us with project proposals and questions because it shows that knowledge of the digital humanities at Gettysburg is spreading.

 

One thing that makes digital scholarship blogs different from traditional classroom projects is that they are inevitable more public facing and as such interact with copyright and copyright laws more directly. Conveying this to both students and professors, and helping them to understand their own rights and responsibilities as creators, has been a challenge.
My sense has been that many students and professors think that the cost and energy investment of learning how to use digital tools outweighs the benefits. We, as students, act as examples of people who put in the time to use digital tools to give form to our passions, and we have more than reaped the benefits. That being said, we can also apply our own experience as students to alter the scope of a project, and plan something that is feasible for a classroom project. Also, dialogue between students helps to increase the diversity of projects and how they’re presented because it encourages more creativity in its implementation than a straightforward paper would.

Great Work This Summer, But What’s Next?

“The DSSF working group taught me that this support system is rooted in trust–I trust that the working group, my fellows, and the larger DH community will critique, guide, inform and inspire my work as they have done in the past”.

The above quote is from a blog post I wrote towards the very end of the 2016 Digital Scholarship Summer Fellowship reflecting on the community of practice I had experienced as a fellow at Musselman Library. Now that the school year has begun and I have been asked to give guidance for digital projects, I realize that my position has developed so that I don’t only have to trust others, but people have to feel like they can trust me. It’s through that trust that I will be able to expand the DH community of practice, especially at Gettysburg College.

When presented with a new field, or a new way of thinking, it is easy to be skeptical of how you will be able to integrate it into your life. I know this is how I felt at the beginning of the summer–my experience with digital tools was limited, my project seemed formidable, I had barely any idea what the field of digital scholarship was, and my summer seemingly included a steep learning curve. Yet, through the community of practice I found in the Musselman Library, Lafayette College, the DH community on twitter, and my fellow fellows, I was able to succeed. Therefore, I think that the most effective strategy I can use when promoting the field of digital scholarship to students or professors is to share my own experience. The effort and time that I put into learning how to use digital tools and immersing myself into the DH community of practice was completely worth it. Not only have digital tools helped to transform the way I think about and communicate knowledge, but I also feel like I can collaborate more effectively to create a dynamic project.  All of these values would enhance students’ experiences and challenge them to think in new and exciting ways. The process of introducing DH could begin with sharing my story.

I’m excited to spend the semester bringing more people into the community of practice, and becoming more involved in the community of practice myself, especially on a student level. Sharing my research with other students at Bucknell and learning about their projects is particularly exciting to me because we get to interact on the level of being peers–young people who have the potential to be the future of the digital humanities. Given that everyone will be driven by their own passions and ideas, I have no doubt that my experience will be cross-disciplinary and engaging. The conference will become part of my DH narrative, and I can’t wait to share my experience with Gettysburg.

 

Becoming Part of the Narrative

Upon rereading my first blog post, I think that the line that stood out to me the most was “the sharing of ideas and knowledge from people at all levels of experience is crucial to the success of a digital humanities project.” As these ten weeks come to a conclusion, the aspect of DH that has proved most striking to me is the collaboration that occurs within the field.
Throughout the summer, we as fellows have not only collaborated with the working group, but have also been introduced to the wider DH community, especially through our sessions, twitters, and our day spent at Lafayette College. DH’s uniqueness is borne out of the interactions that happen between scholars in the field. Each person’s vision, interests, and knowledge contribute to and advance the humanities–not to destroy them, but to transform them. Projects are made possible by entire support groups who each bring their skill set to the table. For example, an individual’s level of technological expertise or research ability is not critical so long as the person has a desire to learn and be a scholar who is engaged and involved.
It is my opinion that my project highlights this kind of collaboration. It is the result of multiple people’s input and help, as well as my own passion. With the assistance of the working group and my fellows, I was able to create a project that presented the humanities in a new and dynamic way. Collaboration also extends past those people who have experience in the digital humanities to those who make up the narratives documented in the humanities. As such, I make an active effort on my site to bring more people into my project and expand it by providing users with a survey.
I am tremendously excited to see what next year’s fellows will create. Another aspect of the digital humanities I have come to appreciate is that it is about the advancement of knowledge. Knowledge is dynamic, not static, and subsists on new ideas. My advice to the incoming fellows is this: Let your passions drive your projects. Do not approach them with fear. More so than they are intimidating, they are exciting and will return all the love and care you put into them ten fold.
Do not be afraid to fail–this is something that was hard for us to grasp. But failure is productive; it moves you forward instead of setting you back. Everything is at your fingertips, and there is a whole community of people waiting and wanting for you to succeed. I hope that this summer inspires you to fall in love with digital humanities, just as this summer has done for me.

On Coworking

For the past few weeks of the fellowship, our cohort has been very focused on coworking. When the library is open, we sit together at a table on the second floor, surrounded by windows. After hours, we move to a basement room in Glatfelter.
This style of working has a number of benefits. Personally, it has been one of the most prominent ways I have experienced the communal nature of the digital humanities. When we work together, we are in support of one another, have the opportunity to bounce ideas off of each other, and, perhaps most notably, can vent about the frustrations we feel towards our projects. Coworking also helps to keep us motivated. Our individual feelings of determination feed into one another so that our workplace is focused.
All of this being said, sharing a workspace also leads to a lot of stress relief. While we realize and value the importance of working hard, we also know that we have to stay positive and not burn ourselves out. The best work happens when we approach our task enthusiastically and with support.

A Mosaic of People

In a small town in Slovenia, Ana Ros co-owns a world-renown restaurant with her husband. While discussing her success as a chef, she stated that, “when one is loved, she can create better.” As a Digital Scholarship Summer Fellow, I experienced this type of productive love by being a member of the Digital Humanities community of practice.

A community of practice is a group of people in a profession who are oriented towards a similar goal. The similarities that tie the people to one another create a support system within the group itself and encourage the further development of the digital humanities. The DSSF working group taught me that this support system is rooted in trust–I trust that the working group, my fellows, and the larger DH community will critique, guide, inform and inspire my work as they have done in the past.

Had I entered the program and been left to my own devices, I (and my project) would have been misguided and dysfunctional. The only person I could have had trust in was  myself, which would have been terrifying and impossible because I didn’t have any experience in the field of digital humanities and hardly any in the realm of technology. In our very first week of the fellowship, we were introduced to the definition of DH through various pieces of dialogue and critique. Examining and discussing multiple people’s opinions proved that the only way to truly carry out the digital humanities was to become immersed in the community of practice.

Connecting with various members of the DH community this summer emphasized to me that projects are driven by passion. Consequently, people apply the same passion to the DH field more generally and help build the foundation of trust by sharing, working on, and analysing other people’s work. By devoting the same level of enthusiasm to another person’s project that one would devote to their own, the community of practice makes clear that they are devoted continuing the development of DH and spreading it to various communities.
The idea that DH is a community of practice implies that it is self reliant. The main support for the field comes from within, rather than from exterior or corporate entities. This gives members of the community greater autonomy and the possibility for new and innovative ways of creativity and learning. The community is made up of a mosaic of people, who each have the opportunity to contribute their own work and ideas to advance and promote DH.

How to Be Interesting in 30 Seconds or Less

Last week, we discussed “elevator speeches”, which contain introductions to a person’s project and appeals for people to be involved–all in 30 seconds or less. The goal is that the information contained in the speech is compelling and clear so that the listener is intrigued and not confused.

The sample speech that I’ll write below is meant for a student or alumni audience. As I’ve continued to do work on my project, I’ve realized that I will need to appeal to current students and alums to build on the research I’ve done this summer.  Without further ado, here is one version of my elevator speech.

“Hey guys, my name is Lauren White, and I have been researching and learning about digital tools this summer as a Digital Scholarship Summer Fellow in Musselman Library. Based on what I’ve learned about digital scholarship, I have created an interactive website using Scalar and Timeline JS. By using these kinds of digital tools, we can make the humanities more public facing and inviting.

Specifically, my project places instances of social justice at Gettysburg from 1980-1990 on a digital timeline. I hope to expand the date range in the coming school year. Many of you have supported my involvement in this project, thank you so much for doing so! I’d love to collect more stories to build on my project. In order for this to happen, I hope you’ll share your experiences and tell others about the timeline. By doing this, we can document and encourage student activism at the college.

I know that this is a lot of information. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask!

In Defense of Digital Humanities

Matthew Kirschenbaum’s “Am I a Digital Humanist? Confessions of a Neoliberal Tool” and Roopika Risam’s “Digital Humanities in Other Contexts” affirms my personal feelings towards and experiences with the digital humanities.


Far from focusing on the supposed corporate devils that were waiting to consume my soul as I practiced the digital humanities,  Kirschenbaum and Risam focused on the individuals that make up the DH community. In his piece, Kirschenbaum writes that

“the people most drawn to the early humanities computing centers at UVA were the book nerds. Far from seeing computers as an abandonment or repudiation of books, archives, and the material remains of culture and society, the new technologies were understood to be extensions of those preoccupations.” I can apply this quote to all the people I’ve worked with this summer without hesitance. Everyone at the Musselman Library, or in other DH circles, work to expand the humanities by presenting their passions in a digital space. Not one person has refuted the importance of the physical humanities. Risam also heralds “a digital humanities of the students, by the students, and for the students”, which I have undeniably experienced at Musselman this summer. The library fosters an environment where we, as undergraduate scholars, can immerse ourselves in our projects and work to be mentors to the next future digital humanists. Risam aslo notes that “institutions like [her’s] – whether regional comprehensives like Salem State, access universities, or community colleges  – are left out from trenchant critiques of digital humanities” even though they “serve the vast majority of students receiving post-secondary education, often the most diverse groups of students”. In my mind, this quote emphasizes the idea that the digital humanities are for everyone; they are built by diverse and often unrecognized people–not popular and wealthy corporations.  Perhaps this concept is best summarized by Kirschenbaum, who writes, “It’s hard to avoid naming names in these paragraphs since the individuals were so much a part of what was happening”. The digital humanities could not thrive or be the robust field it is today without the people who make it up.

In my mind, the number of individuals who contribute to DH and their personal investment in the field cause the impassioned debates surrounding the topic. As Kirschenbaum so eloquently states, “what we do, what we choose to work on and who we choose to work with emerges out of a complex skein of personal history, personally held values, circumstances, encounters, and all the other agents of chance, privilege, and socialization.” Because each person experiences the digital humanities in their own way, and develop projects out out their own passions, it makes sense that people are quick to be defensive of the way their experiences and interpretations. However, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the digital humanities primarily relies on community, and can only exist if people listen to each other and think critically about other people’s stances.