Digital Humanities

Terras: The Social Science DHer

¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 2 The differences between Terras’ approach and those of the other notable players in the Digital Humanities field (or at least those we read) are pretty apparent. Most notably, her methodology, the writing style related to this methodology, and some of her assumptions about scholarship and the academic discipline stand out. In keeping with Terras’ highly structured and transparent writing style, I’ll discuss each of these briefly in turn.

¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 1 Terras’ methodology stands out from other DH scholars in its social-scientific, rather than literary studies, approach. The differences in academic training certainly stand out here. Instead of positing a problem or general question and then pursuing that problem or question through a primarily discursive mode, Terras outlines each component of her paper, partitioning and framing each aspect, and then taking them each in turn. Even McGann’s essay, which was structured in much the same way that Terras’ is, uses its parts as a looser organizing strategy; the numbered sections still seem free to expand and more around within their limitations. Terras’ sections feel more pre-meditated and circumscribed. Furthermore, she’s much more transparent in her application of a certain lens—Education theory—as the analytical tool here, where the other authors seem to employ a more implicit approach. Overall, her methodology is one that is easily placed in the field of the social sciences. It lays everything out on the table and then proceeds to walk the reader through it.

¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 2 Secondly, here writing style feels altogether different than what we’ve seen so far. Even the format of the paper—APA—impacts the feel and rhythm of the sentences. But more than that, there’s a directness to the prose that, as it moves along, is carving out its path. She explicitly marks points where he line of thought is avoiding a particular avenue, or is preparing to move forward. “Let us not discuss here the history of Humanities Computing,” she says neatly, “as it has been covered elsewhere” (69). And she follows this with not one or two, but three citations where the reader can find that information in APA style. Thankfully, while APA style and the social sciences more generally can lead an author toward passive and just plain boring sentences, Terras’ prose feels lively and conversational—an accomplishment that is well-hidden between the lines.

¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 2 Thirdly, and most interestingly, I think, are the assumptions Terras makes about her work here. There are very few places—and only one that really stands out—where she does not readily admit the assumptions inherent in her own approach, but where it happens is noteworthy and revealing of her scholarly beliefs and training. In Section 5, she returns to claims she made in previous sections: “It has been suggested in Section 2 that academic fields can be ‘measured’ by their number of publications, associations, conferences, etc…this section aims to ratify these claims by briefly attempting to measure the Humanities Computing community” (81). And indeed, she goes on to apply the metrics of measurement previously discussed to the DH community, but she does not actually unpack what it means to measure, though she does seem to nod towards the loaded nature of that word by putting it in quotes. Still, this act of measuring reveals a deep assumption about both the ability and value of counting. For example, even though some 100 scholars subscribe to one of the two major journals of the DH field, how exactly does that contribute to our understanding of DH as a discipline, especially without any frame of reference from a more established discipline? Moreover, why should a field’s publications—especially the number of times a particular word appears—be a measure of its activity or seriousness? These questions are largely left unanswered, and while the data Terras provides is certainly interesting and helpful in providing the curious reader with a more detailed and informed view of the DH as a discipline—or whatever it is—we’re still not exactly sure what to take away from the information these measurements provide. To be fair, Terras admits that these measurements simply add to our view, and are not attempting to do much more, but it seems like investigating even the basic assumptions about the importance and value of measuring should be a fundamental part of our discussion here.

This entry is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any comments on this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.