Terras Response
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 In Melissa Terras’ essay, “Disciplined: Using Educational Studies to Analyse ‘Humanities Computing'”, the author provides an assessment based on findings drawn from her interviews within the Digital Humanities community and the number of presenters at the ACH/ALLC Conference, in addition to other supplemental research on how ‘Humanities Computing’ is viewed as a ‘discipline’ and how it is implemented in four schools of higher education. As a representative of both the Digital Humanities and engineering communities, Terras’ essay is a stark (though not completely alien) contrast to the essays put forth by other colleagues in the DH community.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 2 From the outset, Terras’ writing style is visibly different from the other DH writers such as Ramsay, McGann, etc. Terras’ style employs and emphasizes facts, as opposed to working with anecdotes or flowery prose in a manner that some Humanities essay authors employ. Terras presents both sides of the arguments in favor of and against the reasoning behind defining DH as a discipline/department in an effort to appear unbiased; in addition, Terras veers away from stating her opinion of whether or not she believes Digital Humanities/Humanities Computing should be considered its own department within an institution, though she does seem to take stance on its status as a discipline. As Terras posits, “the fact that such a community clearly exists would suggest that there is enough academic activity being undertaken to identify this as a separate field in its own right, confirming the ‘disciplinary’ status” (Terras 88). However, despite this stance, Terras seems unable, if not unwilling, to come to a conclusion on how to personally define the realm of Digitial Humanities.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 2 By and large, Terras remains unbiased in her work, yet her essay shares some similarity between other Humanities writers, such as Spiro. In her conclusion’s final thoughts, Terras echoes a call to action reminiscent of that which we have read and discussed in Spiro. As Terras states, “Humanities Computing is an emergent discipline which may or may not flourish into an emergent academic subject if the community does not work to extend its focus, scope, and relevance” (Terras 91). Spiro touches on this type of statement throughout her essay, particularly in phrases such as “one way to reach out is to articulate core values that those both inside and outside the community might understand and embrace” (Spiro). Although it seems there are some similarities between Humanities-leaning DH writers and the Engineering-leaning writers (like Terras), such as broadening the reach of the community as well as its relevance, as Spiro and Terras point out, the Humanities ‘side’ seems concerned with defining the field of Digital Humanities as discipline/department/etc. whereas Engineering writers like Terras focus on the hard facts of the department, such as the community size and influence (posited by the inclusion of Terras’ graphs).
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0
¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 Terras, Nyhan, Vanhoutte, eds. Defining Digital Humanities: A Reader. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2013. 67-96. Print.
¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 Spiro (concluding paragraph) – <http://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/13>
Terras’ emphasis on facts is one of the first things I noticed about her writing. Personally, I thought that this made it easier to follow along with her main points. In her effort to remain unbiased, Terras states that the lack of definition for the digital humanities is what allows it to change and form into something new. She also seems to make a call to all disciplines to come together and form an interdisciplinary link so that the digital humanities can be defined in order to move forward. I agree with her when she says that the digital humanities has earned a “‘disciplinary’ status”, but I believe she is not without reason for withholding a definition of the digital humanities. Terras’ attempted to use textual analysis of conference abstracts in order to gain some understanding of exactly what the digital humanities are. In doing so, she concluded that the subject was mainly about “computational analysis of data”. It seems that Terras’ is putting forth an effort to find the answer to this complex question, but since she only concerns herself with facts, will not provide a concrete definition for the digital humanities unless it is universally agreed upon.
I disagree with Matt’s comment (above) that Terras relies exclusively on “facts” in this essay. This is a common fallacy associated with research carried out in the social sciences, which many view as being “factually based” (as opposed to humanities research, which is based on absolute nonsense, so far as many are concerned). And I do agree with your point that Terras appears “unwilling” in this essay to “come to a conclusion” about how to define DH. But keep in mind that she states from the outset that it is not her intention to do so; she says she wants to “avoid” defining the discipline of Humanities Computing for the very reason that too many people have already done so. Yet, in debating DH’s status as a “discipline,” she is nevertheless gesturing towards a definition, and towards a somewhat biased understanding of the stakes that structure such definitions in the first place.