Digital Humanities

Lots of great questions here, Hal. In particular, I like this discussion of “balance”; after all, humanities fields have experienced various forms of methodological change and revolution in the past. The “theory” revolution of the 80s / 90s, for instance, changed the way that scholarly work was being done in the humanities, but it didn’t do so by advocating for an abandonment of older methods. In fact, one could argue that theory insisted on the kind of “balance” that you are describing here. Is the same true of DH?

You seem to be relying on some pretty hefty assumptions here, though. Certain digital humanities practitioners would be completely fine if, in the future, people, in particular, ceased “to analyze Poe and Dickinson” and instead let computers do this work for them. So what makes you so sure that these practices — which, as we’ve discussed in class, are historically contingent anyway — are truly here to stay in light of the changes that DH is making to the field of the humanities?

I definitely believe that the Digital Humanities is changing the way we think and learn. I don’t think that it would change us fundamentally at all, but rather create a variety of categories in which we can use to our advantage moving forward. Balance is a very good key in order to thrive (especially in an education system or society that we live in today) but what will happen when this balance loses its hold? When it starts tipping? Will it be for better or for worse? Will we persevere or will we sink?

I definitely believe that these people are still part of the English field (they just might not be as advanced as those). We still need people to write papers and analyze texts with paper and pencils. If everyone were to go digital, where would the jobs be? The creativity? The uniqueness?

Do you think the broad tools that are being incorporated today influence the education or our perspective of English? For example, do people take us more seriously now that we can creatively make websites or blog posts compared to the text notes and papers we used to create? When do we differentiate between an English scholar and a humanist? Or do we?

I definitely agree that access to these opinions and ideas are becoming easier and easier. I think one problem that could be faced with the idea of a digital world would be the concept of too many of the same opinions and paper. How will we be able to differentiate a scholar (one in which studies someone like Poe for a living) to someone who just believes that their idea should be heard. Where should we limit the activity of the outsiders looking in?

I definitely agree that people are still going to analyze authors like Poe and Dickinson. I think something to ponder is how the digital humanities has changed the research methods of these authors.

I definitely believe that the Digital Humanities could change and form an individuals point of view. How would you define change? Change the ways that the Humanities are taught or perceived?