Terras Response
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 1 Melissa Terras’ writing within “Disciplined: Using Educational Studies to Analyse ‘Humanities Computing” is noticeably different from the writing-of Stephan Ramsey, Lisa Spiro, Matt Kirschenbaum, and Jerome McGann. Although upon initially reading Terras’ article I didn’t know she was an Engineer, there was certainly something about her writing and its format that stood out. It doesn’t take long to notice that her article is written in APA format, much different than the MLA format that is typical of the humanities. Her article is written and formatted in numbered sections, each discussing a different aspect of her argument. The footnotes at the end of the pages and the graphs included throughout one section are also noticeable differences, among others, that exist between her use of APA and the MLA formatting used by the other scholars.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 2 In part, I believe, to the APA format used, Terras’ tone is much different than those of Ramsey, Spiro, Kirschenbaum, and McGann. Comparatively, her analysis and tone seem less involved within her research, and this could be due to differences in the way she conducts research and then presents it. Additionally, the kinds of evidence she’s using are less personal, and are instead being conducted at a distance and quantitatively. She doesn’t appear talk to anyone within the DH field, nor is she discussing any kind of first-hand experiences. Terras mentions using textual analysis in reviewing DH conference abstracts, however she conducts said textual analysis much differently than one would within the Humanities. Although it is performed differently, it functions similarly within her argument, noting patterns and similar topics among the topics that were being discussed at the conference. Terras is certainly presenting an argument, however, her writing isn’t nearly as argumentative in nature as that of any of the aforementioned literary scholars.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 1 Terras begins her discussion and frames it around defending and proving the existence of DH, something the others aren’t doing in their writing. Their discussions regarding DH don’t dwell on whether or not it exists, instead they begin as if there is no question regarding its existence. Rather, neither Ramsey, Spiro, Kirschenbaum, nor McGann spend time defending DH, but instead acknowledge its existence, and discuss ways in which it would work better. However, despite stylistic differences, Terras enters into the ongoing debate regarding Digital Humanities tackling similar topics to those that Lisa Spiro mentions. Attempting to define Digital Humanities and in analyzing whether it can be constituted as an academic field, Terras says “…if the subject cannot define a set of core theories and techniques to be taught, is it really a subject at all?” (Terras 70), echoing Spiro’s call for a core set of values within DH in her article “‘This Is Why We Fight’: Defining the Values of the Digital Humanities”. Both scholars, regardless of educational background, are acknowledging the need for something characteristically DH; something that says: this who we are, this is what we believe in, and this is how we do what we do. Terras also calls for interdisciplinarity, collaboration and transparency, aspects also noted by others such as Kirschenbaum and McGann, saying “The field may only flourish as an academic subject if it becomes less insular and interacts both with Computer Science and those Humanities Computing scholars who are less willing to accept computing as a part of their research tools…Humanities Computing is an emergent discipline which may or may not flourish into an emergent academic subject if the community does not work to extend its focus, scope, and relevance” (Terras 90-91). Then suggesting that Terras does share similar concerns to those within the Humanities, and that her investment in DH is equal, despite being discussed differently. Her science based educational background does give her away as an outsider in some sense (certainly within her writing style), she does indeed fit in as a Digital Humanist. Despite the way she writes about her concerns, she wants the same things for DH as those Digital Humanists within operating within the Humanities.
Yes. Though, to be fair, the entire Defining volume is formatted / arranged according to APA style guidelines. And, of course, Terras is one of the volume’s editors. What do things like style preferences and formatting tell us about disciplinary biases in these kinds of instances?