Response to Melissa Terras
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 2 In Melissa Terras’s article “Disciplined: Using Educational Studies to Analyse ‘Humanities Computing’, she compiles an essay which discusses, evaluates, and investigates the inner workings of the coined name “Humanities Computing”. At first, I couldn’t tell if I was learning a new concept, as I had never heard of humanities computing. It takes Terras a while but soon enough she reminds readers that this is just another phrase for digital humanities. Throughout her article, Terras scrutinizes–but not in a completely negative way–how the world can come to think of this study. She asks questions such as: Is it a study? Is it a theory, group of people, club, etc.? And after all of her key points, I’m not exactly sure what to think.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 The most relevant quote that explains the first half of Terras’s essay is in part three, “Being part of a discipline gives a scholar a sense of belonging, identity, and kudos” (72). This is true. Sure, humanities computing is a subject looked inspected and interpreted by many figures in both the humanities and computer sciences. But is that all it is, a subject? It wasn’t until I signed up for English 428 Digital Humanities that I ever thought that the science behind writing and reading had an actual name. Of course there needs to be studies and classes and essays made that focus on this subject, but is it just as Terras says, “a core set of skills’ (73)? I now begin to question so.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 2 I’m thinking back to the beginning of the joining of literary sources and digital sources, and who exactly “claimed” this study. Terras says “Disciplines have identifiable idols in their subject” (73) and yes, is it true that these people who spend all of their time in the field just need something to be apart of, just like the Blue Pen Club? In the bar graph provided, it is clear that the U.S. and Canada dominate the ACH/ALLC conference. This says that these two countries are the biggest contributors and researchers in the field, and this is no surprise being that we seem to be one step ahead when it comes to technology–even Japan, where Asia is usually a close second, is in the middle with less than five percent of presenters. Could it be that the U.S. and Canada are making a bigger “deal” out of this concept than it deserves? I’m not too sure, and am excited to learn more about the field in the rest of the semester in the class. The humanities computing field is definitely growing, and rightly so, because it does deserve to be examined and presented, because fields outside of Library Sciences, English, and Computing (as Table 4.2 shows) aren’t completely honing in on the fact that these two fields are quickly merging, and for good cause.
Perhaps you aren’t exactly sure what to think because her approach is different from humanities scholars? Her more scientific approach can take some getting used to for us as humanities people. I know it had been a while since I had read or wrote anything like she did, and that was probably in a high school science class or freshman year of college biology. Different styles of writing do take time to get used to.
Lloyd’s onto something here re: the discussion of Terras’ approach and writing style. Though, keep in mind: Terras wrote this essay in 2005. “Humanities Computing” wasn’t exactly new, even 15 years ago, and in fact preceded the formal field known as the “Digital Humanities” (which updated the terminology to emphasize the humanities as subjects, not the use of computers as method).