Archive for October, 2016
“I would prefer not to”
How does DH change people fundamentally? Answering this question feels a bit like defining DH, because it’s an attempt to define the people. I will make an attempt at this, even though I would prefer not to give a definition, just as the scholars in these examples expressed: “I don’t, I just do it. –Nick Mirzoeff” (Selected […]
Defining Digital Humanities
Defining Digital Humanities has been an issue for those involved with it and those eager to study it. The first group want to label the field as logical and solid, while the second group want to understand it and search it, so it is very important for both groups to have a certain definition, one they […]
Why all the squabbling? Anxiety erupting from change; resistance and definitions
Definitions are important because they provide a frame of reference. They also dictate inclusivity, and that seems to be a fundamental issue with DH studies. There seems to be some amount of anxiety about whether or not people are “doing it” and whether or not that changes/challenges their identity as humanities scholars. Based on the […]
You Got Computer Science in my Humanities
Eric Forcier comment about DH “as an ephemeral, seemingly idiosyncratic curiosity that either attracts or repels people, and often changes them fundamentally” (297). This statement reflects how DH mixes disciplines. To dive deep into DH, you have usually have to skim at least the surface of programming. I’m going to extend Forcier’s analogy about DH being […]
Response to Cody’s Prompt
The digital humanities do change people fundamentally. This is in ways of learning, and growing with the ever changing world into a machine of forward digital movement. Of course this would either attract or repel people, and this, as always, relies on age and experience. Digital humanities can propel projects to be done faster, people […]
Definitions: Does Not and Cannot Exist.
Digital humanities can be defined differently for each individual. This is what we learned while reading chapter twenty and twenty-one. I think that if digital humanities were to have a solid definition, the humanities would fall into a slippery slope of conceptions and fundamentals that are needed for us to use, work, and understand humanities […]
Defining Digital Humanities
To start off with, I do not believe that Digital Humanities changes *people* fundamentally. DH may attract a certain kind of people who are more open to change but the field itself does not take people who were fundamentally one way and make them another. Most of the definitions surrounding DH revolve around methodology and […]
Fundamental Change Response
If you were to ask any twenty random people, who at some level knew what digital humanities was, you would get twenty different definitions. Digital humanities is a rather broad subject, and maybe that is why there will never be a definitive definition. People can speculate all they want about what the DH should be. […]
DH – Fundamentally Changing us All
Digital Humanities is changing us all, or at least the people who are studying the humanities. I think it’s a little bit of a reach to suggest that DH is going to change people fundamentally to the core and completely change our way of thinking and life, but it’s definitely going to change us somehow, […]
Defining DH: Blog post 10/10
DH can change people fundamentally, in that DH might force scholars to change their worldview on humanities. For a scholar to fully be enveloped in the DH field, they have to do some reimagining of how to do their scholarship. The reimagining comes easy for some, not so easy for others. For a scholar to […]
