Terras Response
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 2 One of the big questions Terras asks is if digital humanities is a real discipline and in a department all by itself. People in all academic departments use digital technology. Digital humanities is just a fancy way of saying that people use technology to further their research. Terras says “That the amount of academic activity detailed above does classify this as a discipline, rather than just a ‘community of practice'” (p. 75). Some people would say that the digital humanities is only a tool to help your skills grow in our own department. Others refute that by saying that because digital humanities has been around so long and is so integrated within the academics, it can be classified as its own discipline. When applying digital humanities to traditional humanities, it’s a step up. But in order for digital humanities to have that step up they must rely on the traditional humanities. It can be understood that digital humanities will always fall under traditional humanities (p. 76).
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Terras expands on what the digital humanities is as a discipline and doesn’t limit herself to literary studies. She goes beyond that and has a list of several departments listed on page 86 that are involved in the digital humanities. A few of the previous authors to have written about digital humanities have stayed well within the borders of the English department and literary studies. They focus on the library and how people are using computers and its software to further their education in both computer technology and literary studies.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 1 As Terras, herself, is an engineer, she has made it a point that the digital humanities doesn’t belong to just one academic department. It can be integrated into every department. Each department may not use the same tools and skills, but those tools and skills are the subdividers of a continuously growing field. Because the digital humanities is so wide spread throughout universities and other institutions, we could say that the digital humanities can be its own department. For those who do not agree, they might use the argument that the digital humanities is only based off of traditional humanities. Digital humanities in and of itself is not a true study. Merely a tool to help further the education and understanding of already existing studies.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 2 From what I have read so far on this topic, my own opinion would be to side with those who are against the digital humanities as a department. It seems that the digital humanities only help us grow our knowledge on our traditional studies. After all, the digital humanities will always exist because the traditional humanities exist.
I think a distinction can be made between the way all departments use digital technology and what we are calling Digital Humanities. Everyone on campus uses email, and people in the geography department use GIS software, but those don’t qualify as Digital Humanities resources as we have been discussing. You’ve mentioned “department”, “discipline”, and “community of practice”, which of these do you think is most appropriate? Does DH fit into multiple categories?
Nick asks some very useful questions in his response to your writing here, and I think he’s onto something: “discipline” seems to be a loaded word (and Terras resists categorizing DH as such). But all this talk about “disciplinarity,” to me, begs the question: who cares? What are the stakes associated with the debate over being a “discipline” vs. simply being called a “centre,” “institute,” etc? Why do these questions matter so much to Terras (and to other scholars like her)?