Mullen & Sample: DH Spectrum

September 26, 2016

¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 The spectrum Mullen proposes seems problematic. I just have too many questions. For the sake of the blog post, I’ll do my darnedest to make one up, but let me pontificate for just a brief moment:

¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 1
What does a non digital humanist look like? Mullen says, “working as a digital humanist is not one side of a binary, the other side of which is working as a traditional scholar” [237]. But what even is a “traditional scholar” today? Mullen argues most scholars use digital tools no matter what, so how useful is it to define ourselves against something that has a questionable existence? Are traditional scholars extinct?
Is the so called “unremarkable” part of the spectrum? [unremarkable, like using a find and search feature in MS Word, pg. 237] Or is that just something we can accept as a part of methodology and we don’t need to worry about it on the DH Spectrum. Sample might want to include it.
If someone builds something but is not a humanist, they only got paid to build the tools by a humanist, are the a part of our club?
In naming our categories, are we excited about this spectrum? Are we skeptical of it? If on one end [of a two dimensional line, binary in nature] is “builder” and the other is “share-er”… are they really sharing? Or is appropriation of the DH terms? You can only share something you’ve made, otherwise it’s just, well, taking.
Taking is fine! That’s why we make things, I just don’t know how much “taking” belongs on the spectrum.
Maybe it’s all about participation?
Oh well. I’ll try my best.

¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0

¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 1 Builders
On one end, we have the builders. Stephen Ramsay is all about these people. I might argue that building doesn’t have to claim stakes in DH. Creators and humanists can hire a computer scientist to code with them, that Com Scientist is a builder.

¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 Creators
Creators are close to Builders on the spectrum. They might have some technical skills, but they don’t do a lot of the coding, network management, whatever. They think of the ideas, they communicate the ideas, they curate them when things have a foundation. Creators play a big role in devising a way to make the tools and content of DH shareable and spreadable. The maker of CommentPress system didn’t build CommentPress herself, but she was a Creator.

¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 User
I’m using this in very similar ways to any other tech platform. Just like websites or software, DH has users. Users can contribute suggestions, report usage data and error reports, or can have only minimal interaction with the project. Sample makes the suggestion to revolutionize academic publishing by just, publishing academic articles like you would any other self-published work. Go to Amazon. Go to Google. This would be a “user”. Literally Amazon would call you a user or customer, the same set of responsibilities apply here. The user does not break new ground, but successfully interacts with the infrastructure already in place.

¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 2 Appropriator / Beneficiary
There are two names for this group, depending on if you are someone like Sample, Mullen, or Ramsay, you might prefer a different connotation. Pick yours The Appropriator uses DH tools, claims the DH label, but does not contribute. They benefit from the work of others. For instance, they might go to a digitally published work or progress and “engage” in that scholarship only in the base way, to cite it in their own work. This group goes to the library, but the digital aspects are left largely unappreciated. [Some might argue, most undergraduates would fit into this category.]

This entry is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any comments on this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.

sliming October 3, 2016 at 6:04 pm

Great questions here. Especially the first: what does a “non-digital humanist” look like? Does such a figure even exist anymore? Can it even exist, given the ubiquity of digital technologies in even the most mundane, most traditional-seeming realms of scholarship?

Log in to Reply

0 Comments on paragraph 3

1 Comment on paragraph 4

ALiffrig September 28, 2016 at 2:18 pm

I agree with this point here but Ramsay would argue that a Digital Humanist is a better DH if they can create/build/code. Ramsay seems to want a hierarchy almost where Digital Humanists with experience in Computer Science are superior to “traditional” humanists. That doesn’t seem entirely unfounded because, while I can certainly hire someone to create my idea for me with my extensive oversight, the final product would probably be more authentic to my original vision if I created it myself. (This is with the assumption that I am good at Computer Science).

However, if we apply this idea to another area of building, civil engineers don’t often create their own designs, construction experts do. In fact, to expand the metaphor, constructing a bridge is a collaboration of many different specialized professions, it’s not just the construction worker and the engineer. An engineer who actually helps make bridges is not better an engineer than the one who just designs them; because those are different jobs are don’t reflect on each other (also maybe because the physical making of something is considered to be lower, or less important, than the conceptual making of something). Therefore, practical use of the idea would suggest that specialization is not a negative thing and, in fact, encourages collaboration.

Log in to Reply

ALiffrig September 28, 2016 at 2:24 pm

Is this really on the spectrum of people who are Digital Humanists? Many of the authors we’ve read so far have defined sharing, collaboration, and community as the core values of DH. If they do not contribute to Digital Humanities, I would argue, then, that they are not Digital Humanists. However, citing a source in your paper is indeed interacting with the Digital Humanities because you can be furthering the conversation or even just continuing a certain method. These contributions should not be under-estimated. Once a field is no longer cited often in papers, its influence is diminished and the field begins to die.

Log in to Reply
ALiffrig September 28, 2016 at 2:26 pm

While I do agree with this statement to an extent, this comment makes me wonder who else you think fits into this category. Also, your tone has a slight elitist note to it; how exactly do you define the different characteristics of under-grads and grads?

Log in to Reply

Cancel

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Digital Humanities