Mullen/Sample Response
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 1 On the one end of the spectrum are the Digital Humanists who, on a basic level, are using technology within their scholarship. In “Digital Humanities is a Spectrum or ‘We’re All Digital Humanists Now’” Lincoln Mullen describes, “…one historian keeps notes and transcribed documents in MS word documents so that they can be searched…A graduate student in a hurry uses Amazon’s ‘Look Inside’ feature to verify a footnote. A history department circulates papers for a workshop via email” (Mullen 237). According to Mullen, these people are Digital Humanists themselves, although they aren’t all necessarily calling themselves such, because their level of involvement within DH isn’t as active, if you will. He argues that, “Moving from these practices to the digital humanities is a difference of degree, not of kind” (237). Although they are doing, on a very basic level, the same kind of work as those who proudly proclaim themselves Digital Humanists, they aren’t doing this in the same way or to the same extent. Those who are simply using digital elements throughout their daily humanist work could be referred to as users. The training that users would go through would be very minimal, and relatively surface level in comparison to those at the opposite end of the spectrum. They would know how to use basic technology and use it in a such a way as detailed above by Mullen, like using MS word, and circulating papers via email. These users aren’t doing any building, nor are they creating either. Instead, they are simply using.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 In the middle of the spectrum exists another group of Digital Humanists. This is where the most collaboration and sharing appears to be happening, a higher degree of work being done than that of the users. The scholars in this group are far beyond using, but they aren’t necessarily building. They are beyond using because at this point on the spectrum, these people are creating, but again they aren’t building. Perhaps they’re unable due to lack of training, or perhaps it is because they’d rather collaborate and share for the sake of inclusiveness. This isn’t to say that the idea of inclusiveness and collaboration can’t or doesn’t exist on the other ends of the spectrum, but instead, that is exists better here. Lisa Spiro in “This Is Why We Fight” argues, “Instead of working on a project alone, a digital humanist will typically participate as part of a team, learning from others and contributing to an ongoing dialogue. By bringing together people with diverse expertise, collaboration opens up new approaches to tackling a problem, as statistical computing is applied to the study of literature or geospatial tools are used to understand historical data” (Spiro 1). Because these people are creating, but aren’t building, there is room for those who can do what they can’t to exist here as well. They need and rely on those who can build, but who perhaps can’t, or simply don’t (for whatever reason), create. The training and practices of these Digital Humanists is obviously different than that of users. They are beyond simply using digital elements in their work and are creating and sharing digital elements, collaborating with those who are beyond them as far as building goes. This group of Digital Humanists on the spectrum could be referred to as creators and/or collaborators.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 1 At the opposite end of the spectrum is yet another group of Digital Humanists. These scholars are doing what Steven Ramsey is calling for in his MLA presentation “Who’s In and Who’s Out”; they are building, not simply using or creating. These are the people who are coding themselves, building and making things daily. Ramsey asks, “Do you have to know how to code?” and responds, “I’m a tenured professor of digital humanities and I say ‘yes’” (Ramsey 240). Ramsey continues to argue for this, saying “Personally, I think Digital Humanities is about building things” (241). Those who have a solid grasp of what is they are doing, so much so that they are able to navigate the technology they’re using on a very advanced level, with little collaboration. This isn’t to say that collaboration can’t exist on this end of the spectrum but instead, perhaps, that it isn’t as necessary in terms of building. If these kinds of Digital Humanists are able to code, the process of the making and creating is much more individual for the most part. To borrow language from Ramsey, the group of Digital Humanists at this end of the spectrum could be referred to as builders. These builders, like Stephen Ramsey and Jerome McGann (because of NINES), would have extensive and in depth training, respectively. In order to build, an intimate knowledge of how the Digital works and operates is absolutely critical and must be put into practice each time they are building something. This is the highest degree of Digital Humanist work because they use, create and build.
You seem to be arguing for a basic, entry-level knowledge of technology / digital tools here, and I like your reliance on the term “user,” which works for me. The word “user,” though, connotes a kind of passive relationship to the technology / tools in question. Are you saying that DHers operating at this level are simply passively engaging with the tools, or passively “using” them in the construction of their desired objects / products? What might they have to do in order to graduate from that kind of passive activity?