Response to Golumbia
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 2 Though the article gave a factual history of DH, it did so with the bias in mind that DH is doomed and that it won’t become an actual academic work. It seems that it doesn’t fully commit to their statement that DH “as proved itself so useful to university administrators and to funding bodies”. The essay states, that DH is not just about quantitative research methodologies in the humanities, but “about the promotion of project-based learning and lab-based research over reading and writing” (Allington 2). This sounds great right? But then the essay takes a negative turn and it seems like the authors don’t want to support DH full on.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Yes, they might be right that DH can never truly become what we once hoped it would be, a true scholarship within the humanities. The reason for this is because the humanities community can’t agree on DH, which is also warranted because of it being so broad and vague, but that doesn’t have to mean that DH should be completely feared.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 I think it reflects DH really accurately because it covers all the bases of what DH could potentially be, what it was in the past and what it is currently doing. It discusses DH in it’s spectrum from McGann and his ideas of DH being a scholarship where computer science and humanities intermix to build something, to the visualization and organization of data to the discussion of DH as a theory.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 1 I think the only thing that it doesn’t do very well is describe digital humanists. The essay states that the “Digital Humanities scholar seems to require that one stake one’s claim as a builder and maker, become adept at the management and visualization of data, and conceive of the study of literature as now fundamentally about the promotion of new technologies” and after all the discussions in class, digital humanists don’t need to require all of these tasks and talents. The great thing about DH, as the essay describes, is that DH is universal and it’s impact is on a global scale. This description, stating that the only way for digital humanists to be taken seriously, is to accomplish all of these tasks, is really discouraging to the public and to the future digital humanist.
How does arguing that DH is “doomed” as you put it constitute a “bias”?
All arguments, after all, are biased in one way or another, because they stem from interpretations of textual evidence, and those interpretations are always going to be subjective. So why does “bias” even matter here?
“project-based learning and lab-based research over reading and writing” does not sound great if you are a humanist who has been trained to appreciate the value of textual interpretation.
Why do these propositions sound great to you, then? Aren’t you a humanist (or a student of humanities scholarship)? What’s so great about lab work, and why is it superior to reading?