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”.<\/p>\n
The first line of the article already had me annoyed. “Advocates position Digital Humanities as a corrective to the \u201ctraditional\u201d 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\u00a0texts we have read none had ever mentioned “correcting” the traditional\u00a0approaches to literary study. From what I have learned as a DSSF Fellow is that Digital Humanities\u00a0does 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.<\/p>\n
Secondly, I found that their arguments were largely\u00a0focused 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,\u00a0<\/strong>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.<\/p>\n 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 \u00a0are 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\u00a0accelerating 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n This article is an example of a misinformed interpretation\u00a0of Digital Humanities. Much to the dismay of the authors, Digital Humanities is a force to be reckoned with and is here to stay.<\/p>\n 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 … Continue reading ““The Main Goal of Digital Humanities is to…. Stomp Out All Traces of Traditional Approaches to Just Literary Study.””<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-554","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-week-6"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dssf.musselmanlibrary.org\/2016\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/554","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dssf.musselmanlibrary.org\/2016\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dssf.musselmanlibrary.org\/2016\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dssf.musselmanlibrary.org\/2016\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dssf.musselmanlibrary.org\/2016\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=554"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/dssf.musselmanlibrary.org\/2016\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/554\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":555,"href":"https:\/\/dssf.musselmanlibrary.org\/2016\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/554\/revisions\/555"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dssf.musselmanlibrary.org\/2016\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=554"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dssf.musselmanlibrary.org\/2016\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=554"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dssf.musselmanlibrary.org\/2016\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}<\/h1>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"