Digital Humanities

Good connection here (between McGann’s discussion of the scholarly publishing situation and our use of the Debates in the Digital Humanities volume). I would be curious to see how many print copies of the Debates volume sold vs. how many times the site has been accessed, commented on, used, etc.

Perhaps we’ll return to this topic later in the semester.

Good summary of McGann’s methodological objectives here, though I’m wondering (like Emmy) what you mean by “multidimensional” — what are those other “dimensions”?

Also, you hit on McGann’s point about learning the “languages” of technology. Did you get a sense (based on his essay) which languages, in particular, he’s talking about? So far as computer coding languages are concerned, there are hundreds to learn and hundreds to master, so does McGann help point us towards any in particular, so far as you see it?

“Multidimensional” – nice word! Are “integrating digital technology …” and “… restore textual and bibliographical work …” the two dimensions you are referring to? Are there more? And if these are not what you mean, what are the dimensions exactly?

How is McGann’s approach different from other scholars who may have less dimensions to their approach?

I’m intrigued by your statement “The nature of scholarly publishing is itself closed,” which plays off of McGann’s comparison of the scholarly and general publishing markets on page 55. I believe the basic point here is that scholarly publishing is “closed” because it is only open to scholars, whereas general publishing is “open” because it is open to anyone, not just scholars.

However, there is a second reason we might call the scholarly publishing market “closed”: because scholars are still only allowed to publish in print books, not e-books (as we discussed in class today). Print books are more “closed” because you cannot do peer review, commentary, discussion, and collaboration as easily as you can with e-books (which you mention later in the paragraph). You say that “the nature of scholarly publishing is itself closed,” but does that mean it is fixed and will never change? Do you think that e-books could actually “open” the scholarly publishing market? If not, what would? Is it better for the market to remain closed?

I like that you mention the idea of the “closed” market for scholarly publishing, as we discussed that quite a bit in class today. You make great points here about how accessibility, collaboration, and discussion can be greatly enhanced if we use digital tools with the books published through this closed process. To add on to this with what we discussed in class today – how do we get administrators, professionals, and scholars to understand our point of view? How do we convince them that publishing in formats that are easier to use (e-books) will not make us lazier but actually enable us to carry out more scholarship? If we must use our tools/objects to convince them of this, how good do these tools need to be, and who will work on them? Is McGann’s tool effective or ineffective in this regard? Again, I like your points here, and I think adding some details from our discussion from class today could make your argument even better.