159 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2019
    1. Given that many of my fellow Chefs are likely to focus on the scientific article, I’m going to highlight some of the exciting trends in the humanities

      useful insights here re: scholarly publishing in the humanities

  2. Jan 2019
    1. For clearly it applies not only to rhetoric, but to all teachmgof tne arts and letters, to everything we call the humanities.

      Why don't we ask this question in STEM? If rhetoric is applicable in every sphere, then surely there must be something worth examining on that level. Could this have to do with the different ways in which we approach epistemology in STEM versus the humanities, or is there something more to this lack of discourse?

  3. Dec 2018
  4. Jun 2018
    1. arguments scholars make about The Making of Americans are based on limited knowledge of the text’s underlying structure because the underlying patterns are difficult to discern with close reading.

      Human eye/analysis is limited. Technology enhances visibility.

    2. The first part introduces what Marjorie Perloff calls “differential reading,” which positions close and distant reading practices as both subjective and objective methodologies.

      Is New Historicism close or distant reading? The latter, right? But nonetheless deeply human, perhaps more so than "close reading" criticized as privileging text over lived reality.

  5. May 2018
    1. in search of a guiding philosophy

      Is it "in search of" or in avoidance of?

    2. Philosophers and others in the field of the humanities who helped shape previous concepts of world order tend to be disadvantaged, lacking knowledge of AI’s mechanisms or being overawed by its capacities.

      They are also disadvantaged because their fields are undervalued and underappreciated.

  6. Apr 2018
    1. Rather than shun the "tyranny of relevance" — a concept within the liberal-arts community that refers to the need to demonstrate tangible benefits of humanities-research funding — we should embrace it.

      Yes!

    2. The need to understand the human dimensions and impacts of those advances, as well as the basis for making many of the ethical decisions that should guide their use, has never been greater.

      In fact, this is a very specific aspect of humanistic studies: technology studies and any and all related fields.

  7. Mar 2018
    1. accelerated growth of undergraduate classes that explicitly engage with digital humanities methods.

      This is important! I think that many classes are starting to use digital tools to asses and accelerate learning in their classrooms and it would be important to take a class in digital humanities in order to get a background into the different tools/methods presented.

  8. Feb 2018
    1. "First, we need to know more about how graduates with humanities degrees are doing in the workplace. Second, we need to know more about how the skills the humanities seek to impart -- critical thinking and communication skills, for instance -- actually matter in the workplace. And third, we need to be willing to adjust our views about which humanities aptitudes are significant (or not) in the extraordinarily dynamic workplace of the coming decades. Along the way, we’re also going to have to get a better grip on just how well we’re doing in fostering the capabilities we deem most relevant to work readiness and success."

      This is an argument the Humanities will always lose.

  9. Oct 2017
    1. My hope is to position our work—the work of the digital humanities (DH) community that has nurtured me with kindness for some 18 years—less as it is lately figured (that is, less as a fragmenting set of methodological interventions in the contemporary, disciplinary agon of humanities scholarship) and more as one cohesive and improbably hopeful possibility.

      I think the scope of what the author wants to do in positioning the work of the DH community as 'one cohesive and improbably hopeful possibility' is idealistic. The reason I say this is that as a new student to DH, I am still trying to define what DH actually is and the many areas of scholarship it can be applied to. I do believe that it is very fragmented and to be honest cannot see at this stage how the author could possibly position DH cohesively.

    1. While one could manually “count” references across a novel or ouvre, or attempt to estimate relative occurrence, a text analysis tool like Voyant can more easily provide textual evidence necessary to support an essay’s claim, or, if the evidence proves the writer “wrong,” help the writer re-evaluate her argument accordingly.

      Just a tool of efficiency or for noticing unrecognized patterns through a different means of analysis. Both, IMO.

    1. Network graphs that connect characters are fun to explore for a similar reason.
    2. One of the main ways computers are changing the textual humanities is by mediating new connections to social science. The statistical models that help sociologists understand social stratification and social change haven’t in the past contributed much to the humanities, because it’s been difficult to connect quantitative models to the richer, looser sort of evidence provided by written documents.

      DH as moving English more toward the statistical...

    1. I recognize that much of what provoked me to turn to literature in the first place—vital, daring, and meditative expressions of human experience—is there. It is there in the naked lyric of a blog post celebrating or mourning some personal or public event. It is there in the classical drama of a brawling, controversial Wikipedia article whose behind-the-scenes “talk” page stages the chorus of the “rule of many” or “wisdom of crowds.”16 And it is there in the epic of all the social-news, shared-bookmark, or similar sites that build a portrait of collective life from constantly reshuffled excerpts, links, and tags from that life akin to Homeric formulae. Above all, as a literature professor, I recognize that—viral YouTube videos aside—the vast preponderance of Web 2.0 is an up-close and personal experience of language.

      Great explanation, for me, of the turn to DH.

    1. In the words of rhetorician Richard Lanham, we will learn to look both "at" and "through" digital tools.

      This is great: digital as means but also object of study.

    1. a tool and our central object of study.

      Love this too. Learning to use the technology, but also reflecting on its significance.

    2. continually rethink both the process and products of the graduate seminar

      I love the process and products here. New research methods and new method of publication.

  10. Jun 2017
    1. Nowadays, it would be hard to find a humanist who doesn't use a com- puter in some aspect of his work. The computing humanist has evolved into a scholar who not only uses the computer in his work, but also engages with the methodological and theoretical aspects of computer use in humanities disciplines. The ways in which technology is used by humanists has diversi- fied to span everything from word processor use and web page creation to the development and use of complex software systems for analysis of a broad range of data types, including not only literary and historical texts but also databases of humanities information, images, and sound. As a result, in recent years CHum has come to serve an increasingly wide array of disci- plines and research areas - English, History, New Media, Music, Corpus Linguistics, Comlutational Linguistics, and many others - and received top- notch submissions in all of them. For most of its history, the diversity of disciplines and methodologies represented in CHum's articles enabled cross- fertilization of ideas which was highly valued by the community. However, as computer use in the humanities has come to span an increasingly broad range of activities, and as computational methodologies evolve and become more sophisticated and specialized, it has become more and more difficult to retain that diversity and at the same time provide enough articles relevant to a particular area of interest. It seems, then, that the time has come to narrow the journal's focus in order to best serve its readers

      On the narrowing of COmputing and the Humanities

    1. Advocates position Digital Humanities as a corrective to the “traditional” and outmoded approaches to literary study that supposedly plague English departments. Like much of the rhetoric surrounding Silicon Valley today, this discourse sees technological innovation as an end in itself and equates the development of disruptive business models with political progress.

      From this start, this article doesn't seem based in the same reality I've been observing.

      1) I don't see/or hear DH as a "corrective" so much as an "alternative."

      2) DH seems pretty self-conscious about Silicon Valley utopianism. In fact, I'd argue that it's voices from DH that have been most savvy about deconstructing that rhetoric.

    1. literature became data

      Doesn't this obfuscate the process? Literature became digital. Digital enables a wide range of futther activity to take place on top of literature, including, perhaps, it's datafication.

    1. Don’t we have to actually read the books, before saying what the patterns discovered in them mean?

      Yes, of course. But it's ironic that this three post tirade begins with a rather distant reading of the MLA program.

    2. But does the data point inescapably in that direction?

      In the above performance of close reading, is the evidence more "inescapable"? Isn't is always in the fullness of the argumentation no matter where the data comes from?

    3. The direction of my inferences is critical: first the interpretive hypothesis and then the formal pattern, which attains the status of noticeability only because an interpretation already in place is picking it out.

      Is this really how it played/plays out? I have an idea about something that I then confirm in the facts?

    1. The humanities and the arts are being cut away, in both primary/secondary and college/uni­versity education, in virtually every nation of the world.
    1. Traditionalists argue that emphasizing professional skills would betray the humanities' responsibility to honor the great monuments of culture for their own sake.

      I continue to think this binary is false. Perhaps historically the liberal arts was established and viewed as an oasis. But in my experience there was always a connection between my academic work, from grade school to grad school, and the "real world." The connection might not always have been as direct and explicit to be vocational, but nonetheless is was there and it was felt.

    1. When the going gets tough, the tough take accounting. When the job market worsens, many students figure they can’t indulge in an English or a history major. They have to study something that will lead directly to a job.

      LOL. I was in the middle of a dissertation when this was published: not just an English major, but a doctoral candidate.

    1. I will not be attending the Modern Language Association meeting in Seattle (Jan. 5-8), but I have read through the program to see what’s going on and what’s no longer going on in literary studies.

      Isn't this a little like a movie reviewer saying, "I haven't seen this movie, but here's the problem with it"?

  11. Apr 2017
    1. p. 12 at the time she was writing, many respondents said they were the only members of their HSS departments with a computer and an internet connection.

    2. p. 2

      Originally wanted to study HSS and STEM but scientists didn't qulify. See chapter III

    1. Srigley explores a couple of points that I touched on in my article, but didn’t fully understand. This first is what I’ve referred to as the “bullshit factor,” or the ability that my English major friends and I believed we possessed to “bamboozle” our professors with our sparkling prose and strikingly original analysis. It took me into my fourth year to realize that, in my arrogance, I hadn’t realized who was playing who. The professors saw right through our bullshit, but for various reasons were unwilling to call us on it. Instead they coddled us, encouraged us, praised us – and awarded us grades we didn’t deserve.

      The Bullshit factor! Interesting argument that the faculty realise but don't call the students on it. But I wonder. It can also be a question of effort: if you want to bullshit your way through college, who am I to stop you? As a rule, I'm generally not interested in those students, as opposed to either the ones who are doing great work or poor work but are not BSers.

  12. Mar 2017
    1. y. Writing and talking are not merely tools of our trade; they are our product and our raw material and the subjects of our investiga- Patrick W. Conner is Professor of English at West Virginia University where he teaches and researches Anglo-Saxon language and literature. He is the author of Anglo-Saxon Exeter (Boydell and Brewer, 1992) and the editor of The Abingdon Chronicle, volume 12 in the Collaborative Edi- tion of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (forthcoming). He is also creator of The Beowulf Workstation, a HyperCard application to aid students in studying Beowulf. tion

      On the work of the humanist

    1. One of the earliest nonscience scholarly uses of this technology was the listHumanist,

      Humanist claimed as one of the earliest uses of Listserv for nonscience scholarly work

    1. university president public years center research million national latimes san executive major project board humanities

      The word humanities appears in this third-largest topic of the model. It is an institutional topic, with words about organizations, officers, governing structures, development and resources.

    1. The very scientific ideals of an "imper-!;CUJ,\~ sonal'' terminology can contribute ironically to ~tv., such disaster: for it is but a step from treating I · o· ,~. inanimate nature as mere "things" to treating ani-(.M,"J" t4"'\~ mals, and then enemy peoples, as mere things

      This also reminds me of common appeals to the humanities: we need the humanities because we don't want science to get out of control and forget the very human consequences of advancements and experiments, such as war technology.

  13. Feb 2017
    1. This Armillary Sphere was made of laser cut particle board.  We debated whether we should build the model out of wood, metal, or 3D print it, but we settled on cutting it from wood.  Once we settled on a material and method of building, we then went through several different images and models to decide how to build it.  The design we went with worked best with a solid stand that would allow the meridian to rotate between the horizon.  Next, we used Adobe Illustrator to create the rings and print the cardinal directions and degrees, which was then cut or etched into the wood by the laser cutter.  The pieces were fit together, and two nails were used to allow the globe and its parts to rotate.  The Earth is a Styrofoam ball suspended by a wooden dowel.  Once the pieces were cut, it was a matter of putting them together and making sure that the zodiac was in the correct orientation.

      This is a fantastic example of what humanities students can do in a maker space.

  14. Jan 2017
    1. affairs

      It's interesting that rhetoric started as this practical system for ancient Greek society, but then comes Bloom and other people Lanham talks about whose interpretation of humanism, rhetoric and the university is super apolitical, with the humanities in the university separate from society.

    1. puremotiveswhichhumanismatthepresentdayisusuallythoughttorequire.Ifyouvoteforthecloister,thenyoucannolongerpretend

      I am curious if in some ways this piece is a little outdated (I think it was published in 93?). Does the university view humanities/humanism in this way? But mostly, the piece refers a lot to separation of the disciplines and separation of rhetoric and action, and I wonder if that has changed recently. For example, WGS departments are on the rise, and they often discuss the world outside of academia or even have an activism/volunteer component to their courses, and of course they are very interdisciplinary. I'm just curious what a super recent response to this piece would look like in light of how interdisciplinary the humanities are.

  15. Nov 2016
    1. The 1620 agreement (first called the Mayflower Compact in 1793) was a legal instrument that bound the Pilgrims together when they arrived in New England. The core members of the Pilgrims' immigrant group were Separatists, members of a Puritan sect that had split from the Church of England, the only legal church in England at that time. Others in the group, however, had remained part of the Church of England, so not all of the Pilgrims shared the same religion.

      The Mayflower compact was a signature sheet that would be used for the signers to go to America for religious freedom.

    1. the initiative

      The College of Arts & Letters is home to the Digital Humanities program, which includes an undergraduate minor and a graduate certificate. Rather than establishing Critical Diversity in a Digital Age as an independent initiative, we might perhaps better understand it as the very method through in which we practice digital humanities at MSU.

      If DH@MSU is animated by a critical diversity approach, we will develop a curriculum that refines our focus on critical diversity in a digital age.

      By focusing on diversifying the DH curriculum, we should be able to attract a more diverse group of strong undergraduates and to recruit a cohort of innovative faculty and graduate students from traditionally underrepresented groups.

    2. As we develop the Critical Diversity in a Digital Age initiative, we invite annotations and comments here on Hypothes.is.

      Please use the #MSUCDDA tag to help us curate engagement with the initiative here on Hypothes.is.

  16. Oct 2016
    1. In general, humanities scholars have neglected editorial work because the reward structures in the academy have not favored editing but instead literary and cultural theory. Many academics fail to recognize the theoretical sophistication, historical knowledge, and analytical strengths necessary to produce a sound text or texts and the appropriate scholarly apparatus for a first-rate edition.

      Reasons why scholarly editions aren't valued in the academy (c 2008)

  17. Sep 2016
    1. As many universities are being queried by the federal government on how they spend their endowment money, and enrollment decreases among all institutions nationally, traditional campuses will need to look at these partnerships as a sign of where education is likely going in the future, and what the federal government may be willing to finance with its student loan programs going ahead.

      To me, the most interesting about this program is that it sounds like it’s targeting post-secondary institutions. There are multiple programs to “teach kids to code”. Compulsory education (primary and secondary) can provide a great context for these, in part because the type of learning involved is so broad and pedagogical skills are so recognized. In post-secondary contexts, however, there’s a strong tendency to limit coding to very specific contexts, including Computer Science or individual programs. We probably take for granted that people who need broad coding skills can develop them outside of their college and university programs. In a way, this isn’t that surprising if we’re to compare coding to very basic skills, like typing. Though there are probably many universities and colleges where students can get trained in typing, it’s very separate from the curriculum. It might be “college prep”, but it’s not really a college prerequisite. And there isn’t that much support in post-secondary education. Of course, there are many programs, in any discipline, giving a lot of weight to coding skills. For instance, learners in Digital Humanities probably hone in their ability to code, at some point in their career. And it’s probably hard for most digital arts programs to avoid at least some training in programming languages. It’s just that these “general” programs in coding tend to focus almost exclusively on so-called “K–12 Education”. That this program focuses on diversity is also interesting. Not surprising, as many such initiatives have to do with inequalities, real or perceived. But it might be where something so general can have an impact in Higher Education. It’s also interesting to notice that there isn’t much in terms of branding or otherwise which explicitly connects this initiative with colleges and universities. Pictures on the site show (diverse) adults, presumably registered students at universities and colleges where “education partners” are to be found. But it sounds like the idea of a “school” is purposefully left quite broad or even ambiguous. Of course, these programs might also benefit adult learners who aren’t registered at a formal institution of higher learning. Which would make it closer to “para-educational” programs. In fact, there might something of a lesson for the future of universities and colleges.

    2. As many universities are being queried by the federal government on how they spend their endowment money, and enrollment decreases among all institutions nationally, traditional campuses will need to look at these partnerships as a sign of where education is likely going in the future, and what the federal government may be willing to finance with its student loan programs going ahead.

      To me, the most interesting about this program is that it sounds like it’s targeting post-secondary institutions. There are multiple programs to “teach kids to code”. Compulsory education (primary and secondary) can provide a great context for these, in part because the type of learning involved is so broad and pedagogical skills are so recognized. In post-secondary contexts, however, there’s a strong tendency to limit coding to very specific contexts, including Computer Science or individual programs. We probably take for granted that people who need broad coding skills can develop them outside of their college and university programs. In a way, this isn’t that surprising if we’re to compare coding to very basic skills, like typing. Though there are probably many universities and colleges where students can get trained in typing, it’s very separate from the curriculum. It might be “college prep”, but it’s not really a college prerequisite. And there isn’t that much support in post-secondary education. Of course, there are many programs, in any discipline, giving a lot of weight to coding skills. For instance, learners in Digital Humanities probably hone in their ability to code, at some point in their career. And it’s probably hard for most digital arts programs to avoid at least some training in programming languages. It’s just that these “general” programs in coding tend to focus almost exclusively on so-called “K–12 Education”. That this program focuses on diversity is also interesting. Not surprising, as many such initiatives have to do with inequalities, real or perceived. But it might be where something so general can have an impact in Higher Education. It’s also interesting to notice that there isn’t much in terms of branding or otherwise which explicitly connects this initiative with colleges and universities. Pictures on the site show (diverse) adults, presumably registered students at universities and colleges where “education partners” are to be found. But it sounds like the idea of a “school” is purposefully left quite broad or even ambiguous. Of course, these programs might also benefit adult learners who aren’t registered at a formal institution of higher learning. Which would make it closer to “para-educational” programs. In fact, there might something of a lesson for the future of universities and colleges.

    1. Some people define DH as divided into “hack” -- those who code and make digital things -- and “yack” -- those who critique and analyze “the digital.” I’m also interested in “stack” -- how do the structures of organizations and institutions enable or inhibit what we want to do? The people who “hack” and “yack” can’t work without the people in the “stack” (or without the people in the library stacks).
  18. Aug 2016
    1. Page 8

      Jockers talking about the old approach in the 1990s to anecdotal evidence:

      … in the 1990s, gathering literary evidence meant reading books, noting "things" (a phallic symbol here, a bibliographical reference there, a stylistic flourish, an allusion, and so on) and then interpreting: making sense and arguments out of those observations. Today, in the age of digital libraries and large-scale book-digitization projects, the nature of the "evidence" available to us has changed, radically. Which is not to say that we should no longer read books looking for, or noting, random "things," but rather to emphasize that massive digital corpora offer is unprecedented access to literally record an invite, even demand, a new type of evidence gathering and meaning making. The literary scholar of the 21st-century can no longer be content with anecdotal evidence, with random "things" gathered from a few, even "representative," text. We must strive to understand the things we find interesting in the context of everything else, including a massive possibly "uninteresting" text.

    2. Pages 7 and 8

      Jockers is talking here about Ian Watt’s method in Rise of the Novel

      What are we to do with the other three to five thousand works of fiction published in the eighteenth century? What of the works that Watt did not observe and account for with his methodology, and how are we to now account for works not penned by Defoe, by Richardson, or by Fielding? Might other novelists tell a different story? Can we, in good conscience, even believe that Defoe, Richardson, and Fielding are representative writers? Watt’s sampling was not random; it was quite the opposite. But perhaps we only need to believe that these three (male) authors are representative of the trend towards "realism" that flourished in the nineteenth century. Accepting this premise makes Watts magnificent synthesis into no more than a self-fulfilling project, a project in which the books are stacked in advance. No matter what we think of the sample, we must question whether in fact realism really did flourish. Even before that, we really ought to define what it means "to flourish" in the first place. Flourishing certainly seems to be the sort of thing that could, and ought, to be measured. Watt had no yardstick against which to make such a measurement. He had only a few hundred texts that he had read. Today things are different. The larger literary record can no longer be ignored: it is here, and much of it is now accessible.

    3. Jockers, Matthew L. 2013. Macroanalysis: Digital Methods and Literary History. Topics in the Digital Humanities. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

  19. Jul 2016
    1. Page 220

      Humanistic research takes place in a rich milieu that incorporates the cultural context of artifacts. Electronic text and models change the nature of scholarship in subtle and important ways, which have been discussed at great length since the humanities first began to contemplate the scholarly application of computing.

    2. Page 217

      Methods for organizing information in the humanities follow from their research practices. Humanists fo not rely on subject indexing to locate material to the extent that the social sciences or sciences do. They are more likely to be searching for new interpretations that are not easily described in advance; the journey through texts, libraries, and archives often is the research.

    3. Page 213

      Humanities scholarship is even more difficult to characterize than are the sciences and social sciences. Generally speaking, the humanities are more interpretative than data driven, but some humanists conduct qualitative studies using social sciences methods, and others employ quantitative methods. Digital humanities scholarship often reflects sophisticated computational expertise. Humanists value new interpretations, perspectives, and sources of data to examine age-old questions of art and culture.

    4. Page 223

      Borgman is discussing here the difference in the way humanists handle data in comparison to the way that scientists and social scientist:

      When generating their own data such as interviews or observations, human efforts to describe and represent data are comparable to that of scholars and other disciplines. Often humanists are working with materials already described by the originator or holder of the records, such as libraries, archives, government agencies, or other entities. Whether or not the desired content already is described as data, scholars need to explain its evidentiary value in your own words. That report often becomes part of the final product. While scholarly publications in all fields set data within a context, the context and interpretation are scholarship in the humanities.

    5. Pages 220-221

      Digital Humanities projects result in two general types of products. Digital libraries arise from scholarly collaborations and the initiatives of cultural heritage institutions to digitize their sources. These collections are popular for research and education. … The other general category of digital humanities products consist of assemblages of digitized cultural objects with associated analyses and interpretations. These are the equivalent of digital books in that they present an integrated research story, but they are much more, as they often include interactive components and direct links to the original sources on which the scholarship is based. … Projects that integrate digital records for widely scattered objects are a mix of a digital library and an assemblage.

    6. Page 219

      In the humanities, it is difficult to separate artifacts from practices or publications from data.

    7. Page 219

      Humanities scholars integrate and aggregate data from many sources. They need tools and services to analyze digital data, as others do the sciences and social sciences, but also tools that assist them interpretation and contemplation.

    8. Page 215

      What seems a clear line between publications and data in the sciences and social sciences is a decidedly fuzzy one in the humanities. Publications and other documents are central sources of data to humanists. … Data sources for the humanities are innumerable. Almost any document, physical artifact, or record of human activity can be used to study culture. Humanities scholars value new approaches, and recognizing something as a source of data (e.g., high school yearbooks, cookbooks, or wear patterns in the floor of public places) can be an act of scholarship. Discovering heretofore unknown treasures buried in the world's archives is particularly newsworthy. … It is impossible to inventory, much less digitize, all the data that might be useful scholarship communities. Also distinctive about humanities data is their dispersion and separation from context. Cultural artifacts are bought and sold, looted in wars, and relocated to museums and private collections. International agreements on the repatriation of cultural objects now prevent many items from being exported, but items that were exported decades or centuries ago are unlikely to return to their original site. … Digitizing cultural records and artifacts make them more malleable and mutable, which creates interesting possibilities for analyzing, contextualizing, and recombining objects. Yet digitizing objects separates them from the origins, exacerbating humanists’ problems in maintaining the context. Removing text from its physical embodiment in a fixed object may delete features that are important to researchers, such as line and page breaks, fonts, illustrations, choices of paper, bindings, and marginalia. Scholars frequently would like to compare such features in multiple additions or copies.

    9. Page 214

      Literature in the Humanities goes out-of-print long before it goes out of date, so efforts to make older, out-of-copyright books available greatly benefit these fields.

    10. Page 214

      Borgman notes that the bibliographic coverage of journal literature is shallow in the humanities. The ISI Arts and humanity citation Index only goes back to 1975. In Sciences it goes back to 1900. In the social sciences it goes back to 1956. Also SCOPUS does not include the humanities.

      What is interesting about this is that the humanities are the least cumulative of all the disciplines in the sense that they do not build on previous knowledge so much as we examine previous thought.

    11. Page 214

      Borgman on information artifacts and communities:

      Artifacts in the humanities differ from those of the sciences and social sciences in several respects. Humanist use the largest array of information sources, and as a consequence, the station between documents and data is the least clear. They also have a greater number of audiences for the data and the products of the research. Whereas scientific findings usually must be translated for a general audience, humanities findings often are directly accessible and of immediate interest to the general public.

    12. Borgman, Christine L. 2007. Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

      My notes

    13. Page 147

      Borgman on the challenges facing the humanities in the age of Big Data:

      Text and data mining offer similar Grand challenges in the humanities and social sciences. Gregory crane provide some answers to the question what do you do with a million books? Two obvious answers include the extraction of information about people, places, and events, and machine translation between languages. As digital libraries of books grow through scanning avert such as Google print, the open content Alliance, million books project, and comparable projects in Europe and China, and as more books are published in digital form technical advances in data description, and now it says, and verification are essential. These large collections differ from earlier, smaller after it's on several Dimensions. They are much larger in scale, the content is more heterogenous in topic and language, the granularity creases when individual words can be tagged and they were noisy then there well curated predecessors, and their audiences more diverse, reaching the general public in addition to the scholarly community. Computer scientists are working jointly with humanist, language, and other demands specialist to pars tax, extract named entities in places, I meant optical character recognition techniques counter and Advance the state of art of information retrieval.

    14. Page 63

      A discussion of fraud in the humanities involving a book on gun ownership

      In one case, allegations of inadequate, and accurate, and unverifiable data to support much-publicized conclusions about the historical rates of gun ownership led to the revocation of a major book prize and the loss of the author's University position.

      The book is called arming America. The Astorian is Michael Bellesaies

    15. p. 6

      Retrieval methods designed for small databases decline rapidly in effectiveness as collections grow...

      This is an interesting point that is missed in the Distant reading controversies: its all very well to say that you prefer close reading, but close reading doesn't scale--or rather the methodologies used to decide what to close read were developed when big data didn't exist. How to you combine that when you can read everything. I.e. You close read Dickins because he's what survived the 19th C as being worth reading. But now, if we could recover everything from the 19th C how do you justify methodologically not looking more widely?

    1. But the passage from de man does disservice to the discussion of close reading in one important respect. It makes it sound as though all you need is a negative disci-pline, a refusal to leap to the kind of paraphrases one has been led to expect, so that effective close reading requires no technique or training, only an avoidance of bad or dubious training. The suggestion seems to be that if one strips away these bad habits and simply encounters the text, without preconceptions, close reading will occur. If, as de man puts it, you are “attentive” and “honest,” close reading “cannot fail to respond to structures of language” that most literary education strives “to keep hidden.” atten-tion is important but not, alas, enough. Readers can always fail to respond—though then de man might not want to dignify the practice with the name of reading.

      Discussion of the methodological difficulties involved in close reading: i.e. there is no such thing as "just reading."

    2. Culler, Jonathan. 2010. “The Closeness of Close Reading.” ADE Bulletin, 20–25. doi:10.1632/ade.149.20.

    1. Page 16

      One benefit of traditional hermeneutical practices such as close reading is that the trained reader need not install anything, run any software, wrestle with settings, or wait for results. The experienced reader can just enjoy iteratively reading, thinking, and rereading. Similarly the reader of another person's interpretation, if the book being interpreted is at hand, can just pick it up, follow the references, and recapitulate the reading. To be as effective as close reading, analytical methods have to be significantly easier to apply and understand. They have to be like reading, or, better yet, a part of reading. Those invested in the use of digital analytics need to think differently about what is shown and what is hidden: the rhetorical presentation of analytics matters. Further, literary readers of interpretive works want to learn about the interpretation. Much of the literature in journals devoted to humanities computing suffers from being mostly about the computing; it is hard to find scholarship that is addressed to literary scholars and is based in computing practices.

    2. Page 15

      Rockwell and Sinclair on the importance of staying up-to-date on commercial developments in text mining and text-handling:

      we are practicing thinking in the humanities while the way people read, the tools of reading, and information privacy and organization are shifting around us. These shifts matter. If we continue to treat textuality as a subject, we need to understand how text can be mined.

    3. Page 15

      Rockwell and Sinclair call for

      a new kind of literacy that allows us to continue our pursuits as humanities scholars in the changing world we find ourselves in.

    4. Page 14

      Rockwell and Sinclair note that corporations are mining text including our email; as they say here:

      more and more of our private textual correspondence is available for large-scale analysis and interpretation. We need to learn more about these methods to be able to think through the ethical, social, and political consequences. The humanities have traditions of engaging with issues of literacy, and big data should be not an exception. How to analyze interpret, and exploit big data are big problems for the humanities.

    5. Page 6

      Computer-assisted research in the humanities, by contrast to the Cartesian story and traditional humanities practices, has almost always been collaborative. This is due to the variety of skills needed to implement digital humanities projects. It is also linked to the relationship between the practices of interpretation in the development of the tools of interpretation, be the tools for analyzing text or digital editions. Anyone who has used tools forged by another person is in collaboration, even if one isn't personally influencing the provider of the tools. The need to collaborate, though acknowledged in various ways, has been a professional hindrance, as anyone who submits a curriculum vitae for promotion listing nothing but co-authored papers knows.

    6. Pages 6-7

      Collaboration is not always good. It separates the interpreter/scholar from the designer/programmer who implements the scholarly methods. Willard McCarthy notes that the introduction of software "separated the conception of the problems (domain of the scholar) from the computational means of working them out (baliwick of the programmer) and so came at a significant cost.” As computing is introduced into research, it separates consumption, implementation, and interpretation in ways that can be overcome only through dialogue and collaboration across very different fields. Typically, humanities scholars know little about programming and software engineering, and programmers know little about humanities scholarship. Going it alone is an option only for the few who have time to master both. The rest of us and up depending on others.

    7. Pages 1-2

      … Practices are changing. Older forms of communal inquiry are being remixed into modern research. We have come to recognize how intellectual work is participatory even when it includes moments of solitary meditation. Internet conferencing tools allow us to remediate dialogical practices, collaborative communities such as Wikipedia and Twitter depend on contributions by a large group of users, and the communal research cultures of the arts collective or engineering lab are influencing the humanities. Accessible computing, data availability, and new media opportunities have provoked textual disciplines to think again about our practices and methods as we build digital libraries, process millions of books, and imagine research cyber-infrastructure that can support the next generation of scholars. We have recently begun imagining large-scale humanities-based projects that require a variety of skills for implementation – skills rarely found in a solitary scholar/programmer, let alone in a Cartesian humanist. We find ourselves working in teams, reflecting on how to best organize them and then reflecting on what it means to think through with others. This inevitably turns to methodological reflection that takes new media into account as we try to balance our traditional Cartesian values with the opportunities of open and communal work.

    1. p. 141

      Initially, the digital humanities consisted of the curation and analysis of data that were born digital, and the digitisation and archiving projects that sought to render analogue texts and material objects into digital forms that could be organised and searched and be subjects to basic forms of overarching, automated or guided analysis, such as summary visualisations of content or connections between documents, people or places. Subsequently, its advocates have argued that the field has evolved to provide more sophisticated tools for handling, searching, linking, sharing and analysing data that seek to complement and augment existing humanities methods, and facilitate traditional forms of interpretation and theory building, rather than replacing traditional methods or providing an empiricist or positivistic approach to humanities scholarship.

      summary of history of digital humanities

  20. current.ischool.utoronto.ca current.ischool.utoronto.ca
    1. A gentle introduction to studying digital humanities, and into the digital humanities community in general, was the beginner workshop group entitled “Digitization Fundamentals and Their Application.” The focus of this workshop was to develop a functional knowledge of different methods of acquiring, refining, processing, and utilizing information pertaining to artefacts, aural or visual, static or animated. The course outlined how to plan successful digitization projects, develop an organizational structure to manage large caches of data, select appropriate devices and formats for input, and create platforms for display and dissemination of output. Each day was dedicated to a specific element of digitization - usually a medium, such as audio or video, but occasionally on a form of output, such as how to host digitization projects on the web. The mornings were generally spent acquiring the foundational knowledge needed to plan and implement a digitization project in that day’s medium, and in the afternoons participants were given free access to a wide range of equipment to help put the morning’s fundamentals into practice. This workshop allowed participants to practice digitization both in the lab and in the wild, as they were able to choose to work within one of the University of Victoria’s well-appointed computer labs or take equipment to a nearby site of their choice, such as the University of Victoria’s McPherson Library and its rare book room.

      Structure of the fundamentals class

    2. ese courses are the core of the DHSI curriculum, offering students the opportunity to learn in small, collegial groups at the beginner, intermediate, and advanced levels - and indeed offering faculty the opportunity to be students again for a week. That levelling spirit is reinforced by other aspects of the Institute which bring the various courses together. At the beginning and end of each day, all DHSI participants attend plenary lectures by leading practitioners in the field, which brings all participants together in the same room to consider questions that all digital humanists face (such as the nature of the academic job market, or lessons to be learned from particular projects). In recent years the morning lectures have showcased short presentations by graduate students in the field, a symptom of how student-driven the field has become even during the seven years since the DHSI began.

      The structure of the camp

    3. eek-long event that has run every spring since 2004, the DHSI combines the best aspects of a skills workshop, international conference, and summer camp. Participants spend five days attending plenary lectures and pursuing their own projects in courses on topics such

      description of DHSI

    4. The Digital Humanities Summer Institute and Extra- Institutional Modes of Engagement

      Bialkowski, Voytek, Rebecca Niles, and Alan Galey. 2011. “The Digital Humanities Summer Institute and Extra-Institutional Modes of Engagement.” Faculty of Information Quarterly 3 (3): 19–29. http://current.ischool.utoronto.ca/system/files/pages/publications/fiq_3-3.pdf#page=19.

  21. www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de
    1. On Close and Distant Reading in Digital Humanities:A Survey and Future Challenges

      Jänicke, S., G. Franzini, M. F. Cheema, and G. Scheuermann. n.d. “On Close and Distant Reading in Digital Humanities: A Survey and Future Challenges.”

  22. Jun 2016
    1. T he Future of Publications in the Humanities

      Fuchs, Milena Žic. 2014. “The Future of Publications in the Humanities: Possible Impacts of Research Assessment.” In New Publication Cultures in the Humanities: Exploring the Paradigm Shift, edited by Péter Dávidházi, 147–71. Amsterdam University Press. http://books.google.ca/books/about/New_Publication_Cultures_in_the_Humaniti.html?hl=&id=4ffcoAEACAAJ.

  23. content.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.alu.talonline.ca content.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.alu.talonline.ca
    1. DARIAH the challenge involved conducting, analysing and understandingresearch practices of arts and humanities researchers, a largely ill-definedcommunity encompassing a wide spectrum of disciplines. Each of them dealswith a variety of objects employing an extensive number of methods. In thecontext of EHRI, the challenge is slightly different, due to the involvementof a better-defined research community. Holocaust researchers share well-identified objects, common ground on methods, and handle similar setbacks. In

      Really interesting idea: do an analysis of humanities researchers in general (DARIAH) and Holocaust researchers in specific (EHRI). One is very heterogeneous, the other very homogeneous (at least in terms of working conditions and, broadly speaking, data sources).

    2. argely ill-definedcommunity encompassing a wide spectrum of disciplines.

      description of "arts and humanities researchers"

    3. AN APPROACH TO ANALYSING WORKING PRACTICES OFRESEARCH COMMUNITIES IN THE HUMANITIE

      Benardou, Agiatis, Panos Constantopoulos, and Costis Dallas. 2013. “An Approach to Analyzing Working Practices of Research Communities in the Humanities.” International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 7 (1–2): 105–27. doi:10.3366/ijhac.2013.0084.

    1. p. 53

      Discussion of collaboration in DH:

      Collaboration is not, however, without its own problems and challenges, as scientific research practices have demonstrated. Aside from questions about how collaborative work will be reviewed for tenure and promotion, internal procedures for distributing authority, making editorial decisions, and apportioning credit (an especially crucial issue for graduate students and junior faculty) are typically worked out on a case-by-case basis with digital humanities projects.... Precedents worked out for scientific laboratories may not be appropriate for the digital humanities. While the lead scientist customarily receives authorship credit for all publications emerging from his laboratory, the digital humanities, with a stronger tradition of single authorship, may choose to craft very different kinds of protocols for deciding authorship credit, including giving <pb n="54"/>authorship credit (as opposed to acknowledgement) for the creative work of paid technical staff.

    1. he case for more collaborative work can be made. Indeed, most of us do it already, to some degree. We tend to discuss our ideas with colleagues and seek trusted opinions. We present talks at conferences and seminars, and use the feedback to develop ideas before publication. We solicit comments on drafts. Colleagues share a research environment that, if it is effective, contributes to the quality of all output. Yet when the work appears, the standard model is still sole ownership. A colleague could have given a lot of input, discussing ideas or providing comments on early drafts, yet their accepted reward is only to appear in the list of acknowledgements. This seems a paltry return on what can be a considerable amount of effort, an effort that is obviously a degree of collaboration. Perhaps one tries to mitigate the paltry reward by extracting a reciprocal amount of uncredited assistance in return.

      Bout how actual contributions to authorship of humanities work goes uncredited, except in acknowledgements

    2. Typically, authors can write something better together than they could have produced alone.

      Great justification for collaborative authorship!

    3. Combination acts

      Mumford, Stephen. 2012. “Combination Acts.” Times Higher Education (THE). February 16. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/combination-acts/419019.article.

    1. But “digital humanities” in the guise of “humanities computing,” “big data,” “topic modelling,” “object oriented ontology” is not going to save the humanities from the chopping block.

      Can the humanistic bent in DH counteract the `self-hating human” part of technocracy?

    1. I have Serious Rant-y Thoughts on requiring that students inhabit public spaces in professional contexts, and I do wonder how much a class hashtag is useful beyond self-promotion of the course and its amazing instructor.

      You may consult input from amazing people like @GoogleGuacamole and @actualham who have very intentionally integrated (not just mentioning or requiring) Twitter use in their courses and implicated its value in students' connections with their professional network.

  24. May 2016
    1. relying on painstaking individual scholarship

      This strikes me as one of the more politically regressive parts of their argument and it is foundational. One of the key interventions of DH, broadly defined, is to turn a bright light on the conditions of academic labor and production. Anyone who has written a monograph—even an essay—knows that it was not done by individual scholarship. It is almost always the product of the labor and institutional support of a large number of people. There is a fantasy, a destructive fantasy, of the sole scholar working silently at a desk needing nothing more than a stack of books or papers and time to produce a work of scholarship. In fact, every author depends on a greater or lesser support network that includes librarians and archivists, peers and grad students, editors and (yes) tech support, to give an incomplete list (often the very most important support is given by life partners who labor to free time for the writer). The individually-credited monograph hides all of that labor or pretends that labor was merely incidental and unconnected to the intellectual work that appears in print. The "project-based learning" in DH (as described by the authors below) tend to make that labor visible and, in the best of cases, credited. This phrase encourages me to think that the authors' "progressive politics" is abstract, divorced from material conditions of production and reproduction. People without the ability to mobilize the requisite networks of support labor—parenting scholars, adjuncts, non-professionals—are demonstrably damaged by the fetish for "painstaking individual scholarship." The burden is especially borne heavily by women. It is not what I recognize as progressive, but is rather deeply conservative.

    2. Advocates position

      If this was in a peer-reviewed journal, the reviewers would hit this very first sentence with a demand for extensive citation. In the spirit of generosity, I assume the authors have references. But the problem with starting this piece, in this venue, this way is that now everyone who thinks of themselves as having a stake in this DH thing is invited to see themselves as this "advocate" they invoke. In the vast majority of cases, they will not recognize the second half of the sentence as something that they have ever, or would ever, advocate. This may be intended as a polemic that will spark serious conversation, but with the very first words a lot of the audience that would be interested in engaging this piece sees a straw man and a misrepresentation. With that, the essay only reaches those who are inclined to agree with it in the first place. That now makes me wonder, in a less generous spirit, is this an effort to engage in a debate, or is this clickbait?

    3. the unparalleled level of material support that Digital Humanities has received

      I'm sure it feels unparalleled to the authors. But this is precisely the kind of claim that even a humanist shouldn't make without providing data. It may be true, but they aren't giving me any reason to not read the phrase in this edited form: "the unparalleled level of material support that it feels like Digital Humanities has received." Without doubt, when a student makes a statement like this in a paper written for my history classes, I lower their grade if they fail to provide evidence. Why should I make an exception for these experienced professionals?

    4. pushing the discipline toward post-interpretative, non-suspicious, technocratic, conservative, managerial, lab-based practice.

      I just view the DH movement as fundamentally different:

      ...pushing the tech industry toward a more interpretative, suspicious, less technocratic, conservative, managerial, <del>lab-based</del> practice.

    5. unavoidable

      Is it?

    6. a space free from all the messiness of questions of identity and politics.

      I'd be more interested in an article that began with observing this possible lacuna in DH and explored ways that DH has or might address questions of "identity and politics."

    7. Thus,

      ?

    8. reconfigured on the model of the tech startup, with public, private, and charitable funding in place of Silicon Valley venture capital.

      Seems like a pretty big difference.

    9. Why these funders chose to do this remains something of a mystery. To find precise explanations, we would need to have access to private conversations and communications, though it is remarkable that such an epoch-making shift can be so lacking in explicit justification.

      Really? There's not research to be done here? I find that hard to believe. Why not simply ask Don Waters or Brett Bobley?

    10. fetishizing

      Et tu?

    11. The implication is that in Digital Humanities, computer use is an end in itself.

      Lots of dependence on "implications" in this argument. I've never heard a DH scholar even vaguely make a statement like this. In fact, it's converse is probably most often used to signal that such work is necessary beyond whatever project or tool is being showcased.

    12. a declaration would entail that the workers in IT departments of corporations such as Elsevier and Google are engaged in humanities scholarship.

      And why not? The authors present such a narrow and traditional notion of the humanities that work against their claim to be returning politics to literary study.

    13. It is telling that Digital Humanities, like Hirsch, and like Bowers, has found an institutional home at the University of Virginia.

      That was a lot of background/build-up on UVA literary critical history for such a vague association.

    14. Hirsch’s argument was foundational for the Common Core educational program favored by the political right.

      Interesting, but I'd like to see a citation here.

      Also, not sure it's fair to say that the Common Core was/is favored by the Right.

    15. producing forms of knowledge with less immediate economic application.

      Okay, maybe I'm just a neoliberal by this definition.

    16. It unavoidably also suggests that other approaches in the humanities fit less well into the contemporary university, because the implied measure of success is economic.

      This framework is repeated throughout: because of the success of B, A no longer has value. I don't see how that's true in terms of the structure of English departments/university priorities or digital humanities rhetoric.

    17. SSHRC’s model of funding therefore complements the development of new models of intellectual work within the neoliberal university — accelerating the devaluation of older models of literary study.

      So the problem is that someone besides a traditional independent academic researchers is getting paid to do "humanities" work? Expanding the definition of scholarly labor to include such positions seems far more radical, both politically and economically, than anything outlined here.

    18. rebranding of insecure campus employment as an empowering “alt-ac” career choice,

      Got a better idea?

    1. “In fact, our undergraduate and graduate students are our only rationale for doing digital humanities,” Risam wrote. “We couldn’t be farther from the cartoonish fantasy of digital humanities that circulates in the clickbait du jour.”
  25. Apr 2016
  26. Mar 2016
    1. Often you will need to work closely with technical experts on your campus, not simply as resources, but as co-creators. Take advantage of opportunities to collaborate with staff and faculty across the disciplines in different ways, experimenting and brainstorming in the new vocabulary of DH that accommodates insights and approaches from all fields.

      co-creators

    1. This is important. All abstractions can be grounded in some concrete event or situation. However, the practice of starting with theory often ignores this and students struggle to grasp abstractions that are suspended in space. Given that all abstractions have origins, it should be easy to situate instruction in something concrete.

  27. Feb 2016
  28. Jan 2016
    1. Democracy demands wisdom and vision in its citizens. It must therefore foster and support a form of education, and access to the arts and the humanities, designed to make people of all backgrounds and wherever located masters of their technology and not its unthinking servants.

      Originally intended as upholding the virtues of the humanities in opposition to science and technology, I'd like to co-opt the argument for the humanities within, mainly, technology. We need more humanists in tech!

    1. Meanwhile, in almost exactly the same decades that the Internet arose and eventually evolved social computing, literary scholarship followed similar principles of decentralization to evolve cultural criticism.7

      Wow. This is the most interesting statement that I've read in a while. Wish I could pin an annotation...

      Really helps me justify my career arc, turning from literary criticism as a career to software "development."

  29. Dec 2015
    1. Commentary as a practice of annotation that not only helps readers comprehend a text but also facilitates its critical evaluation elucidates the relevance of the text for a particular readership and establishes or promotes specific interpretations.

      I think like we're working with a very limited (even if acknowledged) definition of commentary/annotation. We're really just talking about expert analysis laid over a text, which is nothing new, though as pointed out below this tradition can achieve a new dynamism in the online environment.

      What I think is more interesting about annotation and the digital humanities is the potential for readers themselves to become truly active contributors to the knowledge surrounding the texts--not simply served explanation for their relatively passive comprehension.

    1. recover within them, with fresh force, a broader repertoire of historical literary functions than modern literary studies usually needs to attend to.

      anew vs recover

    1. same messiness and doubt that make the complexities of concepts like race, gender, class, and culture most immediately relevant also remind us that the products of our technologies, our devices, always fall short of our perceived notions of the real or the authentic.

      Good line.

    2. “there was never clear separation between past and present, traditional and digital, or other bounded concepts” and that “[m]any of the researchers interviewed for this study assiduously avoided making such distinctions” (10).

      Good quote re false binary of new and old technologies of interpretation, etc.

    3. binary between “old” (i.e., human) versus “new” (i.e., computational) practices

      A binary worthy of breaking down...

    4. understanding why a pattern occurs and determining whether it is one that offers insight into a text requires technologies of self-reflective inquiry.

      Computer assisted practices never completely divorced from the human.

    5. self-consciousness, access, and collaboration in humanist inquiry as technologies.

      Demystifying (and conflating) "technology" by applying it to the most humanist of practices.

    1. “distant reading”: understanding literature not by studying particular texts, but by aggregating and analyzing massive amounts of data.

      Nothing against this, but it's not the game I'm in.

      Question is, though, can the same tool be used to do both distant reading and close reading?

  30. Oct 2015
    1. follow the lead of the sciences

      Again, I don't get all the anti-science rhetoric and anti-intellectualism when it comes to talking about teaching. Was active learning invented in science classes? No. Was John Dewey a scientist? No. Either way, does any of that mean that we should reject something because it was done in the sciences or said by a scientist?

      There are whole journals devoted to research on teaching humanities topics: history, philosophy, writing, literature, etc. All ignored in this article.

  31. Sep 2015
  32. Aug 2015
  33. Jul 2015
  34. May 2015
  35. Mar 2015
    1. reading might be described as the continual redisposition of levels of address in this manner

      Another useful (and cool) definition

    2. Physical texts were already massively addressable before they were ever digitized, and this variation in address was and is registered at the level of the page, chapter, the binding of quires, and the like.

      Always like seeing acknowledgement that scholarly primitives haven't changed, just our means for doing them. Stephen Ramsay's Reading Machines is a good, quick read about this in terms of digital humanities algorithmic criticism.

    3. massive flexibility in levels of address

      The ability to fluently read/react with a text at a given level of address be treated as a literacy.

    4. The book or physical instance, then, is one of many levels of address.

      Definition for manifestations of the text. Maybe useful in discussing interface as the encountered work?

    5. Now, we are discussing ideal objects here: addressability implies different levels of abstraction (character, word, phrase, line, etc) which are stipulative or nominal: such levels are not material properties of texts or Pythagorean ideals; they are, rather, conventions.

      Might be useful in thinking about what an “edition” is—must it include all items most editions currently include, or are those conventions or manifestations of values, and not necessary values themselves?

    6. Because a text can be queried at the level of single words and then related to other texts at the same level of abstraction: the table of all possible words could be defined as the aggregate of points of address at a given level of abstraction (the word, as in Google’s new n-gram corpus).

      I like this idea of defining a level of text and than comparing across texts—would like to see more of this at the level of code and interface design and tool design decisions (e.g. how do different digital archives deal with making sure visitors see more than the alphabetically or chronologically first few items in the collection? how do different DH sites allow people to comment? what is the difference among moderation or voting systems?).

    7. a text is a text because it is massively addressable at different levels of scale

      I think this is my favorite definition of “text” (as humanities scholars use the term) that I’ve encountered.

    8. What does it mean to be an “item” or “computational object” within this collection? What is such a collection?

      This is a great example of the type of critical thinking involved in scholarly digital building—often such projects include hard thinking about the exact nature of scholarly objects. Patrick Murray-John has a fantastic article that further discusses “where the theory is” when scholars design and build (Theory, Digital Humanities, and Noticing). The penultimate paragraph in particular lists some of the critical questions that arise out of designing for an “item” in a digital archives platform.

    9. New experiments provide opportunities for thought that precede the results.

      And even if we don’t yet have a way to run and experiment and/or gather results, we can use “speculative experiments” to learn about digital objects (such as a digital edition) by imagining and designing for a hypothetical and/or future circumstance.

  36. Dec 2014