Response to Terras: Thou shalt not fear numbers
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 1 When I first read the essay by Melissa Terras, I was not aware that her degree is in engineering, rather than English or another humanities subject. This revelation helps me understand why her essay is so much different than the other essays we have read so far.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 1 The first striking difference is that Terras uses numbers frequently throughout the essay, which I see as a strength. She uses charts and statistics, but even her sections are designated by numbers: “1 Introduction” (68), “2 What is Humanities Computing” (69), etc. This creates a clear organizational format and makes it easier to read; English majors and professionals need not be so afraid of numbers.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 Terras’s essay also stands out from the other essays we’ve read because it functions as a scientific experiment rather than an argumentative essay. She observes that Humanities Computing is stuck between two labels: a “discipline” and a university subject. The bulk of the essay is her research in determining which of the two labels Humanities Computing truly falls under. “The aim of this article is to apply the definitions and measures from education to the Humanities Computing community, to ascertain whether it exists as an academic subject” (71). Terras makes it clear that she is investigating, not arguing; in contrast, the other essays we’ve read typically state an argument and defend it. This type of essay is typical in the field of English, but Terras’s engineering background enables her to create an essay that stands out from the rest.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 2 Although I did not initially know that Terras had a degree outside the humanities, the essay did give me the impression that she does not belong to the Digital Humanities “clique”. This clique is a close-knit group of educators and professionals who do great work in the field and stay active through conferences, essays, and online communities; unfortunately, a group such as this can sometimes inhibit the ideas of professionals that are not in the “in-crowd”, stifling creativity and innovation that could benefit the field. Terras’s use of numbers and the scientific method were my first clues that she does not belong to the Digital Humanities clique, but she has statements in the essay that also make this clear. In the abstract, she notes “Most introspection regarding the role, meaning, and focus of ‘Humanities Computing’ has come from a practical and pragmatic perspective from scholars and educators within the field itself. This article provides an alternative, externalized, viewpoint” (68). Although this statement does not specifically tell me that she comes from a scientific background, it does suggest that she does not possess the typical English or Library Science background. This ‘outsider’ essay is effective because it comes to a real conclusion at the end: “Humanities Computing exists as an academic discipline” (90). Digital Humanities scholars can solve problems in their field if they look outside themsleves and start incorporating Terras’s practical methods and solutions.
To be fair: I wasn’t initially aware of her background / disciplinary bias, either. I learned it from reading the Contributor Notes section (at the beginning of the Defining DH volume).