We’re all on the spectrum
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 2 Ramsy takes a restrictive approach to digital humanities. With his essay “Who’s In and Who’s Out”, he states the in order to be a digital humanist you need to be able to code. I find this notion confusing. I you have an idea on why type of program you need in order to do your research, but no idea how to do it, then perhaps coding it yourself is a possibility. However, this is something that could easily be farmed out to a young computer science student looking for opportunities to get some real world coding experience and some to put on their resume. Even if they don’t have access to computer science students, i’m sure there are other options to get the needed program built. Other disciplines don’t require that researchers build their tools themselves, why should digital humanities be any different?
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 1 McGann sees the importance in tools in a digital humanists arsenal, but he doesn’t expect them to developed by hand by every humanist when there are plenty of tools already available. Differences between Ramsy and McGann are the similar to the fashionistas arguring that a “off the rack” suit isn’t something a well dressed man should be wearing, if he cares about fashion, the he has to go with bespoke. I think this is a fair argument. You don’t hear programming arguing that if you are serious about computer science, you develop your own programming language, yet that is what it feels like Ramsy is saying.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 1 Mullen takes McGann’s ideas a step further. He states by using any digital tool you are a digital humanist. I tend to agree with this statement. When you are taking advantage of the medium to get work done, you are already doing more than what could be imagined thirty years ago. It takes very little training, if any if you are young to be able to accomplish what Mullen considers a digital humanist.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 2 I think people like Ramsy can’t see the forrest for the trees. They’re used to seeing all these digital tools already available and dismiss them cause they are new, or build from scrap. Part of the beauty of digital tools is that many of them can be repurposed for things other than what they are intended for.
I think this is a good point, why does DH, or perhaps more appropriately, people within DH such as Ramsey, ask that these researches be able to build? I wonder if perhaps this is due to the word “Digital”. In the humanities, researchers aren’t required to build as you note, but those within DH are sometimes asked/expected to be able to do so. The difference I’m seeing then is the word digital. Why does this word seem to change the expectations so greatly for those like Ramsey? This is really interesting to think about.
Ramsay: don’t forget to pay attention to detail here.