Author: Shukirti Khadka

As the scholarly world moves increasingly into a new era of digital humanities, it takes on new challenges, issues, and questions. New forms of increased digital connectedness usher in “openness” at a maximum by increasing accessibility for gaining new knowledge, but also for forming knowledge. In open access areas such as the vast web, anyone can speak and anyone can “publish”. On the one hand, this provides opportunities for so many informed individuals out there who have not had the chance to be affiliated and published through institutions of higher learning (which can be quite exclusive and long-term). However, this also creates the problem of credibility. How do we know that this work is legitimate if it has been “published” by someone who has not even undergone credentialing through the hands of some credible institution? 

Meanings of what the word “publishing” is and what it speaks of have undergone a great change in recent years. Burdick et. al state, “To publish” is to make something public, to place it within a sphere for broad scrutiny, critical engagement, and community debate” (86). When thinking of publishing, we normally envision a book being printed out and picked up by groups of people interested in a certain genre or field. However, in the digital world such “publishing” would be through the web, not in paper, and the “public” the work is being distributed to would be exponentially larger. Accessibility to the larger public is at an all time high, making it so that almost anyone can “publish” anything. 

The breakdown of the rigid lines between who the author is and who the reader is has been blurred, and the bar to enter the publishing world of the web is extremely low, allowing almost anyone to act as an author regardless of the status of their credentials. Blog posts from mothers are so popular nowadays that if one Googles anything about problems their young children are going through, they even beat websites that provide actual medical advice on the way up to the top of the searches. The opportunity to “publish” in this new way though can give opportunities for so many out there. A quick example of this can be Anna Todd’s “After” series that started out as a Harry Styles fanfiction on an open-to-all site called Wattpad. The digital book series was a massive hit on the site/app, raking in well over 100 million views. The books were even published in print, have become bestsellers, and have even been turned into movies. This success story epitomizes the potential of open authorship. 

Despite all of its potential for greatness though, open authorship can be quite dangerous, especially as it breaches upon subjects covered in academic scholarship. When anyone can write anything on the internet and pose it as a researched fact, misinformation and lies can be spread in a rampant manner, and can actually be believed by others, causing many complications. For decades, institutions of higher education have acted as the hands that ensure the credibility of not only the authors but also of the work that has been published. Institutions only publish and promote works that have been authored by well-decorated (and learned) professionals that have been vetted out, and have been peer-reviewed by equally competent professionals. In doing so, they ensure legitimacy but become extremely exclusive, allowing opportunities to only a certain few. 

For decades, knowledge credentialing has been controlled solely by institutions of higher learning, and they have taken monopoly of knowledge production. However, as Digital Humanities (and almost every other field of scholarship) is entering the digital world, it is experiencing vast changes that it never had to deal with before. In an age where the aforementioned monopoly is only decreasing, how can legitimacy be improved? The problem is extremely large-scale and seemingly neverending. However, I believe some of the power lies in us readers and writers of scholarship. In an age where misinformation persists, it is our job to be responsible readers and authors, and equip others with the knowledge to also bear that responsibility. 

Written by Shukirti Khadka, Gettysburg College Class of 2024, and part of the DSSF 2021 Cohort.  

Over the past three weeks, it is undeniable that we (the cohort and the mentors) have built a great sense of community. We have collaborated, supported and opened up to each other for help. Collaborating on the Albert Chance Overseas Micro project has provided us a great opportunity to act as a collaborative community of practice, and our collaborative efforts have brought results that we are proud to showcase.

The cohort has been a place of openness, collaboration, and collegiality from the first day. Since the very beginning, each of us in the cohort have demonstrated openness to listen to other’s ideas, have recognized each person’s competency, and have respected and trusted their judgments in following a “divide and conquer” strategy. We have respected each other and trusted the choices that the other has made with regards to the project. Our collaboration is centered on mutual respect and collegiality. We each operate by acknowledging our responsibility to the group.  Our mutual respect to one another has also allowed the cohort to be a safe space to ask questions without fearing any ridicule.

Openness to listen to other people and their opinions is essential in any group project, especially in one as based on collaboration as our micro project is. The cohort is always open to consider various ideas and opinions. In fact, we find it essential to ask others’ opinions on the work that we have completed personally, and we almost always seek feedback from the cohort. My thoughts, ideas, evaluations, and feedback have all been taken very well by the cohort, and I certainly feel that my thoughts are given value, respect, and weight by my peers.

Despite being miles apart from one another, we have managed to collaborate in this group project successfully. I do believe we owe a huge part of this to Zoom’s ‘Share Screen’ feature though. We have navigated new tools and created projects together with this feature. Whether it is WordPress, Scalar, a Timeline made through TimelineJS or a map made in StoryMapJS, we have shared our screens and jointly explored the tools’ features, never forgetting to applaud proudly when we figure out how to use a particularly confusing feature.

Working this closely with the cohort for our micro-project will definitely act as a great learning experience as I continue on and now take upon the challenge of completing my own project. Not only has this micro-project reminded me of the importance of feedback and the value of other people’s ideas and interpretations, but it has also taught me that it is completely okay to ask for help. Navigating the several digital humanities tools together with the cohort has equipped me with greater technical knowledge about these tools than I would have had if I had explored these tools only by myself. There were times when few of us understood a tool better than others, and other times another few understood another tool better. Working together strengthened our understanding of each of the tools, and we are now better equipped at using these tools ourselves for our own projects. As I now go forward with my project, I do so armed with all that I have learnt while working with the cohort these past weeks.

Working together with the DSSF 2021 cohort has certainly removed my general dislike for group work, and I am now much more open to collaboration. As we come to the end of this micro-project, I would like to show my appreciation to the cohort for being supportive, respectful, competent, understanding and for strengthening my work with their helpful input.

Written by Shukirti Khadka, Gettysburg College Class of 2024, and part of the DSSF 2021 Cohort.