Author: Ivana Lopez Espinosa

I cannot emphasize how drastic my perspective of digital humanities changed over the course of the program.  The first sentence of my summer reflections is: 

“Before our conversations on the definition of digital humanities, I thought DH was a collection of information given to a person and turned into several digital format. ”

In other reflections I expand on the importance of individualizing digital humanities projects to increase learning outcomes and improve digital literacy. However, as I sit and reflect on my experience in digital humanities, I can say that I understand the discourse on properly defining DH better than I understand DH myself. That isn’t to say that I do not have a definition for DH, but I am working on creating a clear definition to encompass the contradicting aspects of DH. Cordell addresses the issue of DH being defined as a singular thing by reaffirming that it multi-faceted and unique to institutional needs. From the undergraduate perspective of DH, programs like this one appear to hand pick individual research projects that relate to Gettysburg College or can benefit a specific community on campus – which is understandable. However, the DSSF program is formatted differently from UPenn and Swathmore; these institutions assign students with pre-existing DH assignments needed by a faculty member on campus. Here I see a relationship between DH in communities near by and the DH Cordell describes in his piece.

It appears that my understanding of digital humanities went from the two extremes – independent DH is better and more beneficial to assigned DH makes the most sense. It was one or the other. I am leaving the program with a literal definition of digital humanities, but I cannot say that I have a solid definition of the practice of DH and the community. Each institution tackles the concept differently according to their needs – small liberal art schools are focused on fostering creative independent researchers through supporting outstanding projects while larger schools focus on creating competitive environments for students to strengthen skills they are already good at.

Goals sent by the committee influenced my understanding of DH greatly because I experienced the program as an independent researcher where I had few limitations. This project was imagined and created by me. However, the Bryn Mawr conference changed my perception because students presented on projects assigned to them. I can understand the benefits of assigned projects; students’ concern shifts to creating the vision of someone else but their level of involvement is the same, but I can’t confidently say this since my DH experience was significantly different.

This program taught me about DH and the complexities, but the most important thing I leave the program with the ability to adjust definitions and be accepting of the fact that I will have to edit what I know. We subconsciously have this skill but the awareness adds another layer of growth students often lack.

Digital humanities continues to unfold itself during this process. I have collected many definitions and seen various projects which have have led me to a state of confusion. My experience at Bryn Mawr is a good example as to why I am 1.) confused and 2.) accepting the malleable definition of DH. The digital part of DH is clear and makes sense, but this week I began questioning the digital background of digital humanists – is a background in computer science essential to make your project more valuable? I had light banter with another student at the conference about this “requirement” – their response was vastly different than mine. They argued that it added a layer of complexity and individuality to the project than someone who used a “create your own website” tool. I spent several summers learning different languages (i.e. Python, C++, Java) and I expected to major in Computer Science because I grew fond of coding – I understand the sense of accomplishment, but I never thought of starting from nothing. Unfortunately, I am also aware of the annoyance and difficult time people have looking for a self-coded website. Gettysburg College offers a platform to store the students’ websites until they graduate unless they have different plans. This platform offers a customized link that is shareable and functions. Apart from offering a site to host our projects, we have are not forced to follow a website theme. We are allowed to customize any part of out website as long as we have basic HTML skills; if we don’t, Google really helps with our questions.

Before the program began, I was well aware of the research focused project that I would turn digitally. The committee/ librarian partners emphasized the importance of research, working collaboratively, fostering our creativity, raising our confidence, and learning new tools to use during the process – which are great values. They reflect the values of an opportunity offered to students that will greatly shape them, however, our values conflict with those at other institutions. We are focused on creating an environment where we control all aspects of our project – research, website, presentation. Fellow undergraduate digital humanist are not in the same position we are. This past conference I was able to see and understand what R.C. meant by the fact that we have a unique program and that others have assignments. These students have literal assignments – from the research aspect to the contribution to the digital aspect. The projects can be described as individually collaborative. Our focus on a well-rounded program tainted my perception of digital humanities -I wish all DH programs could be as open and complete as the Gettysburg/Bucknell model. The definition of DH varies from individual to individual – I remember how controversial the definition is – at week 7, I finally understand how abstract the definition will be.

From my understanding, the main purpose of digital humanities is to create an open access understanding of topics that are 1.) uncommon or 2.) costly. As the weeks go on and I look for tools to incorporate into my project the more I realize that I have to go without some tools or settle with a free, semi-functional tool.  Creating my website logo opened my eyes to this aspect of digital humanities; many websites state that their tools are “free” however they are not. Users have free access to the tool, but the product has to be bought or abandoned. The sites usually cost over $10 a month – no options to pay for one day use.

Last week was another revealing week in terms of the limitation that accompanies digital humanities – honestly, my bias and direct access to the tools bought by the college really limited my understanding of “free” access.  During lunches, the cohort is reminded of our Sites pages, but it did not hit me right away that I have access because I am a college student here at Gettysburg. After reading the article and reading more on neo-liberalism, I began searching these tools without connecting to any Gettysburg account. WordPress is not free (https://wordpress.com/pricing/?sgmt=gb&utm_source=adwords&utm_campaign=Google_WPcom_Search_Brand_Desktop_US_en&utm_medium=cpc&keyword=wordpress&creative=277412335400&campaignid=998785131&adgroupid=53026924047&matchtype=e&device=c&network=g&targetid=kwd-295456403946&locationid=9006728&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI_I7qtYKS3AIVSj0MCh0S1gkSEAAYASADEgIKAvD_BwE). To have a nice, functioning website the starting price is $48 a year – users can choose to update their plan which only increases the price. The plan includes domains without wordpress.com  after a unique site name.

Deresiewicz argues that colleges sell their soul to the market – which makes sense. I cannot image it is possible for an institution to not join the market. Both, public and private colleges and universities, cost large sums of money that contribute to: maintenance; access to online and in-person texts and tools; income of employees; and whatever else institutions use money on. After searching the internet myself for these tools, I have realized that colleges have no option other than to join the market. Open access rarely exists outside of institutions in education and/or business. Public libraries are around, but library card do not provide users with access to tools like WordPress or Sites; a library card only grants access to print and online materials in the library’s possession.

Academics are able to build or pay to have someone build an online presence because funding is typically part of the process. I hope to go on to graduate school and into a position as a college administrator which will – hopefully – continue to give me access to these tools. Individuals will have a harder time joining the digital humanities without proper funding or access to some tools. I can confidently say that without funding from DSSF I  would not be able to complete my project. Not only are costs for the tools and sites I am using out of my price range, but I would also have to consider the time that I am spending creating a project. Time is money – as a low income student, I cannot afford to waste my time lollygagging. Digital humanities fits into my life right now because I am an undergraduate student with funding to complete a project I am passionate about. If I had paid more attention to the benefits of DSSF, I would have joined last year because I am learning more and gaining access to tools that I might not have by next May.

Institutions continue benefit from exploitation. As much as we want to believe it , nothing is ever free or benefits those that need it the most.

Gettysburg College: A Diversity Story is a public history project highlighting the diversification and efforts of inclusion within the student body, faculty, administration, and governance. The project itself is transformative because I am “uncovering” a part of the college history that some campus members know about. I recently had a conversation with someone where they told me that my project was going to cause issues that no one would be interested in learning about this perspective. Naturally, I was perplexed – why would someone say this. I really thought about this conversation because it was one I knew I would hear, but I was not sure when it would come or how it would be phrased. The authors in the article elaborate on the dominating community within DH and unfortunately everything else. I completely understand that Gettysburg College has some members that are against diversity, but this project is not to convince people that diversity at the college is great or to diminish the experience of others. My project is for those that plan to come to Gettysburg College, for those that feel like they didn’t have a place here. This conversation is so important – in a sense, we are still at the beginning of diversifying the institution. Diversity may look good when we look at statistics, but we are not diverse. Our friend groups and classes remain segregated -people do not understand the efforts of those who strive to diversify the college… some understand, but most do not, at all.  It can be transformative by giving others a voice to efforts that we are not aware about. It is transformative by making others aware of these efforts – to this day, community members remain in the shadows.

Digital Humanities as a program is fairly new at the institution, but we committee is listening to the needs of the cohort and changes are being made when we voice the transformation we, the cohort, think we need. The article mentions the difficulties minorities face when becoming digital humanists – I have a different perspective on this conversation. I agree that minorities have a difficult time fighting for their position in the world of DH, but I do not think that being a minority increases the level of difficulty when learning about the tools. Before starting the program, the committee emphasized that we did not need prior experience with digital tools to be successful in this program. Does digital humanities need to be transformed – yes, of course, but doesn’t every field need to be transformed? So many fields are dominated by White, Christian men that are well off socio-economically – the narrative is changing, but minorities will continue to fight for their voice, regardless of the field. I came in with a narrow perspective on digital humanities and it has now expanded. I acknowledge that digital humanities is more than a research question – it is creating a research project that is attractive, which is something students don’t get when writing a research paper. My level of creativity has increased exponentially because I am in control of my entire project. Having a supportive cohort and committee make the experience better, I can see how DH can be difficult without the support. Fortunately, I have the support and tools I need, which puts me in a different position.

We spent the first two weeks looking at different projects to help us better understand tool that are available. Each example of a digital humanities project has been unique – a diverse display of projects within the DH community. I don’t know how far my project will go, but I know it will serve as an example for future DSSF cohorts. As we learn more and more about DH we are reassured that our work is valuable to the larger community. Digital humanist are interested in the work of undergraduates because they are a small part of the larger DH community.
Collaborating with the DSSF cohort has shaped my understanding of my project. From the beginning, we agreed that constant feedback and sharing of information are essential to the success of our projects. Not only have we gained information for our projects, but we are also learning to talk about them for people that are not familiar with our projects. I am researching the history of Gettysburg College; although the other fellows do not have a similar research question, we have all found information that benefits the work of one another.
The trip to Bucknell was not what I was expecting. Our time there was dedicated to learning Omeka. Learning to add metadata and creating exhibits felt independent and not a community practice, however, my table felt comfortable asking each other for help when needed. Unfortunately, we did not spend time working with each other as cohorts, but rather as individuals. The DH community covers different aspects academia. The trip to Bucknell taught me that unity within a practice is essential to understand what we are doing. No one person understands fully comprehends all the tools available to the cohort; sharing the skills can help improve someone’s project and you can have fun while doing so.

This week we learned about several tools we have access to and can incorporate into our websites. For this week’s reflection I would like to focus on Timeline JS – a tool I will become very familiar with by the end of the eight-weeks. Timeline JS is an open source tool developed by Knight Lab at Northwestern University. This digital tool is beneficial to projects that require a display of chronological information. After the user enters information into Google Sheets, the timeline created, and is ready to be embedded into the webpage.

Several assumptions are made by the developers like access to a Google account, understanding of Google Sheets, comprehension of the English language, and ability to add videos, images, external links, and social media. The tool can be used to present multi-faceted stories; however, it is up to the creators to pick the information which can lead to biased presentation of research. Timeline slides can be changed by using the mouse to click on the left/right buttons on the timeline or the left/right buttons on a computer keyboard. Although the tool appears to be unbiased, it allows for information to be presented from biased perceptions.

Key features of the tool focus on the adaptability and wider variety of media that can be added to the timeline. We have seen examples timelines with tweets, videos, images, documents, external links, and text. Timeline JS is different from current styles of timelines. Many organizations are leaning towards vertical displays of information (see ILE Project Charter for examples) – however, user interaction consists of scrolling down the page. I have not found a vertical timeline with external links; I have not had the time to properly interact will a wide range of timelines to understand the programs used, but I do know that creating the timeline within the page allows for HTML modification.

Basic use of the tool is not difficult because the downloadable Google spreadsheet provides several examples of the information needed to create a clear display. Something I recently learned was that the information does not need to be entered in chronological order Timeline JS to display it as such. (Neat, right?) Knowing this feature exist is great because I will often check the spreadsheets for missing information because I sometimes misarrange dates, but a mistake like this will not cause my timeline to be out of order. Timeline JS requires the user to have a Google account with access to the Google Drive – this permits Timeline JS to collect and display the information chosen by the user. The data of the timeline is owned by the publisher or location of information; I have to make sure I correctly cite the information I use in case someone else is interested in finding the same information.

Questions regarding Timeline JS must be sent to those working at Knight Lab – the website clearly states that the request can only be processed if they are in English. Due to the lack of tech support, questions might not be answered in a prompt manner. Unfortunately, I was not able to find anything with a schedule or time frame for tool updates. Modifications can be done to the timeline, but they require some understanding of CSS/HTML. Sometimes I forget the code for some changes, but a quick Google search helps with code. I am looking forward to working in Timeline JS, I believe it is user friendly and with a few code modification, I can design the timeline to reflect my vision.

Before our conversations on the definition of digital humanities, I thought DH was a collection of information given to a person and turned into several digital format. Over the span of the week, my definition changed drastically. After discussing possible definitions of digital humanities with the other fellows and librarian partners, my definition has changed into something more multidimensional. My current definition of digital humanities revolves heavily on the process rather than the rapid process creating digital forms of information passed and not researched. Digital humanities is focused on the research and goal of public education through digital formats like websites.

I recall a conversation where we discussed the importance of research during the process in digital humanities. During this conversation, I was shocked at the authors interpretation of digital humanities. Research is probably the most important aspect of digital humanities because it guides the project. If the end goal of a digital humanities project is to teach and educate, the researcher must be well versed in their project. My definition of digital humanities changed after that conversation because I began to see my misunderstanding of digital humanities. My original definition of digital humanities incorporated a small amount of the academic side, but I ignored the importance of a complete understanding of the research project.

Another aspect of digital humanities that I have encountered is the justification for the decisions I will make. This is something I am having a difficult time with. This week I struggled with a slight shift in my main idea – I have collected a lot of good information and I keep finding more, but I reached a point where I could not justify the grouping of my information. We then had a workshop on user experience and target audiences which was relieving. Instead of looking at the project as the creator, I was able to look at it through possible personas interacting with my work. I benefited from the workshop because I was given permission to step away from the project and I had to think of it as someone that has never heard my project.

Digital humanities, to me, is about research of the chosen topic to create accessibility and understanding for those that might not have direct access resources. My favorite aspect of digital humanities is the possibility of failure without a number or letter assigned to my final product. As a college student, we are able to explore areas that we are interested with limitations. We have to make sure that our products do not significantly affect our class grade and we have to cater to the professor. My goal is to cater to more than one person which is nice because the feedback becomes more of an average rather than something that is pointed. I am sure my definition of digital humanities will change as I learn more, but I am happy with my current definition and I am open to having the definition change over time.