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.

At the end of Week 5, I set myself to the grand task of compiling what battles the cadets fought at and where they were together. I did this using the information I compiled from Cullum’s Register (I honestly cannot say how much I love George Cullum, he is a godsend).

So I made a board.

And then I made a map.

The Army Markers are for Graduation and Training/Defense of DC

The Green Markers are the battles of the Manassas Campaign

The Pink Markers are for battles in the Southern Theater that were not a part of the Atlanta Campaign.

The Blue Markers are for battles in the Western Theater

The Yellow Markers are for the battles of the Peninsula Campaign

The Light Blue Markers are for the battles of the Maryland Campign

The White Markers are for the battles of the Rappahanock Campaign

The Red Markers are for the battles of the Pennsylvania Campaign

The Green Tree Markers are for the battles in Virginia 1864 and onward

The Red Flame Markers are for the battles of Sherman’s Atlanta and Carolinas Campaigns

And the White Flag Marker is for the battles around Appomattox.

There are 74 battle locations that I included in the map, not counting skirmishes or the arsenals that they were also posted at. I got the places and dates that I wanted compiled but I’m not sure if Tour Builder is for me because the presentation style is a bit of a mess, especially with this many markers.

-Julia

 

The end of Week Four of DSSF left off at an interesting place. Leaving me to go to the annual Civil War Conference hosted by the Civil War Institute here at Gettysburg. It was amazing and I had the time of my life going to lectures about Reconstruction, probably the least talked about period in Civil War Era history.

I was born and raised in Atlanta, Georgia and to a very deep-rooted Southern family that can trace back heritage to the 1600s. A family that not only served in the Confederate Army but that also owned slaves as planters in Louisiana. So growing up I just heard of Reconstruction in passing as the worst thing since Sherman and how those “darn Yankees” ruined the southern way of life. (Honestly it’s a miracle that I’m not a lost causer considering my background) It was honestly refreshing to get a new view of reconstruction and to debunk some myths that had been pounded into my head ever since I was old enough to watch Gone With the Wind.

So often historians of the Civil War get carried away with tactics, generals, weapons, and battles that we forget why it was fought and how it impacted us as a nation. But by placing the focus of the conference on the topic of Reconstruction the CWI made me remember that the war was not just how many men died at Gettysburg but rather what they died for: not just that “that nation might live” but to also redefine that nation and give it “a new birth of freedom”.

(The title comes from a quote by my dear friend Thomas)

-Julia

The project is called Lesbians, Feminism, and Social Change, OH MY!, it is a part of The Student Timelines of Women’s Studies 101 at Wheaton College in Norton, MA (Fall 2013) collection. The topics are Art, Beauty, Civil Rights, Health & Reproduction, Film, Labor, LGBTQ, Music, Political Inclusion, and Human Trafficking. The project was created by Ray Souza, Kimberly Belgrave, and Dani Dickinson. The project was created to give a brief overview of the history of lesbians around the world and feminist involvement in American LGBTQ movements and the progress that has been made through them.
The audiences of this project are women, people who are interested in the history of the LGBTQ movement with a focus on lesbians, and people who just want brief information/synopsis/breakdown of the LGBTQ movement. It is not for particular hard-core academic use, but rather for the public to give them an insight into the history of the LGBTQ movement and progress of lesbians.
This timeline covers moments in the American LGBT movement and international progress of lesbians in politics and media. The thesis of the project is trying to prove that progress has been made through these events and movements perpetuated by lesbians and women.
The project is minimalistic and only has a couple of pictures for illustrative purposes, with that said because it is minimalistic it is very easy to navigate through options and not have to look through another page to get to the one that the user is looking for. The homepage has a very organized block of subjects and the user clicks on one to discover a timeline on that subject.
The writing is clear and succinct but it is simplistic. The project is really only a synopsis on LGBTQ and lesbian movements rather than a drawn out analysis of a scholarly paper. Most of the text of the project is less than two paragraphs, very brief and only giving a summary rather than going into details.
Is there an About page, or other information page? Is there any technical information about the creation of the project?
There is an about page on the main page of the project, but not about the LGBTQ project specifically. In this about page there is mention of the use of TimelineJS, which was used for all of the projects.
Only pictures and text are included in the timeline. Minimal metadata is available, only the source of the photograph and the title are provided.
TimelineJS was the basis of the project; actually the entire project was just one Timeline. TimelineJS was chosen to exhibit the changes and progress over time and the history of the movement.
Because this project is only a brief history of lesbians and the LGBTQ movement it just gives a cut summary of the events. It gives less information quicker and covers more ground faster than a traditional research paper could, giving the user a baseline knowledge of the history of lesbianism and feminism in the American LGBTQ movement and progress of lesbians around the world.

-Julia

On Friday, I was surprised and alarmed to learn that the United Kingdom had voted to leave the European Union, especially because of the xenophobic implications this vote had. As the morning continued and voter demographics were released, I was dismayed to learn that a majority of young voters had voted that the UK should remain in the EU–and their voice had been silenced by older generations.

This event, in my opinion, highlights exactly why social justice movements in college campuses are so important. When college students stand together for a cause they believe in, it is in an attempt to shape the world that they will inherit,often in a way that makes the world more equitable and just. College protests allow for students’ voices to be heard, even if they are not represented in elections.

The last couple of weeks have been kind of nuts, with a couple of Digital Humanities/Scholarship conferences more or less back to back (Oberlin Digital Scholarship Conference and Keystone Digital Humanities Conference). The Oberlin conference had its first meeting, Keystone DH its second. Both were smaller conferences, something I tend to appreciate more, with some friendly faces to hang out with and eat meals alongside. Oberlin was library-focused, and Keystone had a wide variety of participants, many from outside Pennsylvania. A common theme throughout both, though, was the idea of DH work as something that can be used to bring social justice and equality to the academic world, at least, if we let it.

DH, with its ideas of openness and extensibility, really forces us to look at our values as people who work in higher education and see if we are putting them into practice. Are we publishing our data and methods? Are we making sure our research is available to the widest possible audience? Are we using ethical student labor to assist with developing and implementing projects? Are we being sensitive to cultural meaning given to various artifacts we place on the public web? Are we making our code and technology available to the wider community, and also documenting it in meaningful ways?

We talk a lot about technology at DH conferences, we show a lot of cool projects and discuss research findings. But we also talk a lot about why we do this work in the first place and why we should keep doing it, why we keep fighting for money and time and recognition from the people who hold the account lines, the authority, the privilege and power. We fuss a lot about if we are doing things as well as our peer institutions; there’s almost a competitive attitude to see who is doing the most with the least, while we dream for bigger things and think that every other institution has it better off than ours. We think of the cities on the hill, like Hamilton College and other small liberal arts schools with dedicated DH centers, and think we want to be them.

The reality is, nearly all of us who are doing DH are in similar straits; we have limited institutional support, a small core group of faculty who support the work, people waiting in the wings to learn about DH, and a lot of people on the outside who are looking in with interest and curiosity, but for whatever reason, are unwilling or uninterested to get involved. We’re doing things ad hoc, piecing them together as we best know how, and dreaming about the future, a future where we have this DH thing figured out and have found our own city on the hill.

In many ways, having a dedicated DH center/institute alleviates some of these issues, yet brings even more administrative things to deal with, and with it, a loss of control. What I can appreciate about doing DH in a more non-centralized way is the ability to be nimble and responsive, and be more measured in the types of projects we support and get more deeply involved with students and faculty willing to undertake the work of DH. I get to work with a lot of people cross-departmentally/divisionally, and I also get to meet a lot of interesting people who are doing similar things. Our apprehensions about the future of DH at our institutions draws us together, and we can support each other and let each other know we’re doing it the best way we know how for our students and faculty.

So, yes, I dream for more, but I’m also ok where we are (for now) … and we can keep moving forward.