Digital Humanities

Yes. Or, rather, she says she’s not interested in defining what the Digital Humanities are, though I would argue that, in working towards conclusions about DH’s status as a “discipline,” she is doing precisely that — defining the Digital Humanities as a field (just like everyone else).

I’d like to see you offer more of an opinion / interpretation throughout this section of your post. You survey Terras’ rhetorical moves, but you don’t interpret the efficacy of those moves.

Hold up: let’s pay attention to how we’re using language here. Terras isn’t a “PhD in engineering,” she possesses a “PhD in engineering,” meaning she has already earned that degree.

Also: is the “concision” that you describe here necessarily a good thing? Keep in mind that Terras’ goal in this essay is to prove whether or not DH itself is a “discipline.” But words like “discipline” are subject to interpretation and additional scrutiny, and take on different meanings given differing parameters and contexts. So is a “concise,” scientific approach really the best where issues of interpretation are concerned? What do you think?

I think her style of writing due to her Engineering background works interestingly in this sense. That because we don’t see the more argumentative, charged, emotional language here, perhaps we receive her message differently. What do you think? I think when we’re used to expecting certain things in what we read, and it’s sometimes difficult, or least requires some meta-thinking, to come out of it and look at it differently, in terms of her background and the way she’s learned to write. Her style is obviously intended and geared toward the scientific, so when she writes in a way intended for a different discipline, but discussed elements of a different disciple, its an interesting thing.

I noticed this as well, and I agree that it’s something to think about. Since Terras spends the entirety of her article attempting to prove that DH does existit indeed begs the question of whether or not her concerns are the same.

I wonder if this “new outlook” that you mention is in fact “new”.  To me, it seems as though shes focusing on something that the other literary scholars have already been grappling with, and have since moved past, focusing on more pressing issues regarding its existence.  I wonder then what this says about Terras’ involvement within DH?  If shes behind, if you will, on what the current issues are, does that suggest a different level of investment?  Although I think her investment in DH is equal given the research she’s done and presented, is it necessarily centered around the same concerns?

It was interesting to read something about DH in a completely different style and format, wasn’t it? It was a bit difficult at first because I wasn’t expecting it. I didn’t know that her background was in Engineering while reading her essay, but it was clear that something was different from those we’ve read previously.