Terras’s Response
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 2 Apparently, Terras’s approach in “Disciplined: Using Educational Studies to Analyse ‘Humanities Computing’ is based on outcomes and results coming from a research she conducted, and on information from ACH/ALLC 2005 conference. All of her effort was done to “analyze, measure, and define the field” through the use of “educational theory” (68) The perspective she adopted in order to highlight the existence of Humanities Computing is very objective. The different types of evidence she used after every claim she makes, made her claims sound very trustworthy, in other words, it gave her article a reliable outlook by saying this is my claim and this is an evidence to prove it. Personally, I liked her style of writing because it was very clear, and it doesn’t bear any interpretations from the readers side. It was that obvious.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 4 Unlike most of the authors we’ve read so far, her style and the structure of her argument was organized and had a flow associated with it. As a non-native speaker of English, I didn’t have any difficulties following and understanding her argument. And after knowing that she was originally an engineer, and not a humanist, I started to wonder whether or not humanists are making their writings more condense because this is their way for conveying their knowledge, and making their points? Or are they just used to analyze texts to the point where they don’t realize anymore they are complicating things? Although, many humanist readers might find her style to be too scientific, I believe that many actually enjoyed reading her article because it’s something different from what they read daily. At least I know, I did.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 1 As we discussed in class that Terras didn’t address the controversy surrounding Digital Humanities, as what previous authors have done. I think she didn’t discuss it because she didn’t want to judge those who are involved and interested in the field, and also because she didn’t want to open a can of warms by investigating the matter, she wanted to leave it to those who have probably more expertise in the field than she does. Plus, I believe it could be her ultimate confidence in the work she has done to confirm the field’s discipline status. To elaborate, I think her insistence on discovering whether or not Humanities Computing is a discipline comes from her belief that “being a part of a discipline gives a scholar a sense of belonging, identity, and kudos” (72) and it also comes from the Humanities Computing longing for recognition and respect from traditional humanists and researchers, who view it as “‘a help disk’ rather than a research field in its own right” (80)
I hope it strikes you as ironic that a humanities / literature PhD would be praising an engineer for “clear” writing, and for adopting a style that doesn’t require the reader to offer additional “interpretation.” Interpretation is, after all, our business as literature scholars and students. Does your praise for Terras’ writing have anything to do with the subject that’s she’s writing about? In other words, are you more likely to praise “clarity” of this kind when the subject is something like the Digital Humanities (vs., I don’t know, a work of literature, or Shakespeare, or something like that)?
I think the reason I liked her writings is because she is talking about Digital Humanities in specific, as I am new to this humanistic approach, and I believe that I had not read about it before taking this course; therefore, I appreciated the clarity she wrote with. However, I am not very sure about my reaction towards this style of writing if it is used in a literary piece, or in a literary critique; I might or might not like it, I don’t know.