Interdisciplinary Digital Humanities
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 2 Terras comes at the topic of Digital Humanities from a different perspective than the other authors we’ve read, like Spiro and McGann. She bluntly states in the beginning of her essay that she intends to evaluate Digital Humanities from the perspective of Education theory, which had not been done yet in other literature on the field itself. In using the Education theory, Terras differs dramatically from her fellow scholars’ writing styles. Spiro and McGann wrote their articles like English majors tend to write essays. McGann, for example, uses multiple block quotes and includes anecdotes to both extend his point and connect with the reader. Terras utilizes parts of the scientific method and her paper does indeed read like a research report on an experiment. She defines the means used, conducts her experiment (noting limitations), then makes conclusions based on the data. While this scientific approach may seem at adds with the humanities aspect of Digital Humanities, using quantifiable data to evaluate literature is one of the goals of the Digital Humanities. Therefore, Terras is, in a sense, using the goals of the field itself to evaluate the field.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 2 Terras differs from her fellow DH scholars in that her paper has a different purpose in addition to a different method and style. Instead of seeking to define or defend the field through personal means, Terras evaluates the field using the scientific method to discover the limits and strengths of the field, and decide whether it is a discipline. Instead of starting out with a strong pro-DH stance, Terras’ paper gives off a more neutral stance (because any experiment led under bias is a false one). While her results seem inconclusive about whether DH is a discipline, the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses is an invaluable asset to the field as it tries to improve moving forward. Terras’ main goal then, is not to define the field although that is a subtopic of her paper, but to enhance the field for the future. The English-based scholars may have had that same goal in the back of their mind but their idea for improvement seemed centered around the idea of unity whereas Terras made multiple suggestions.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 1 The difference in style, content, and purpose between Terras and the English-based scholars reveals that DH is indeed an interdisciplinary field and also that it is an asset to the field to have scholars who think differently. All the scholars we’ve read so far have had something valuable to add to the conversation so the diversity of the field is a wonderful thing that can deepen understanding. While there are differences between Terras’ systemized goals and the unity goals of the English scholars, they all want the DH to grow and become a stronger field, whether you’re looking from the outside or working within its limits. However, Terras is right in that the DH need to re-establish relations with both the Humanities and Computer Sciences because although diversity of thinking is a benefit, diversity can also divide the field if it continues to alienate itself. There is still a lot of work to be done within the community.
I agree with you that Terras’s style in writing the paper is so much different than what we’ve read so far, but was it easier to read through? since it was “read like a research report on an experiment”? Or was it more difficult to read through? because it “seem at adds with the humanities aspect of DH?
I don’t know about the two of you, but I was irked by Terras’ willingness to “bluntly” assert her use of Education Theory. Primarily, this was because Terras fails to specify which kind of Education Theory (as though there is only one “theory” of anything in life!). Her engagement with the theoretical texts that she relies on in this essay is likewise, to me, insufficient. But these are the standards of another field that we’re talking about, where accepted practice dictates that you formulate a brief “literature review” / survey of critical opinions and then dispense with that material once you move onto discussing your own study and findings. Personally, I felt unconvinced by Terras’ attempts to apply Education Theory to the study of DH, because her use of that theory came off as vague, quick, and somewhat insincere.