The choice to include the Google Earth Studio animation was really cool! I will for sure keep this idea in mind for any future projects! I think it was successful in conveying the necessary geographical context for each school, which only strengthened the later discussions made based on this . It was also aesthetically pleasing and easy to understand!

I was thinking the same thing during my own use of Voyant! I also think it would be cool to perhaps run one's own writing into Voyant as a while of looking deeper into writing style and word choice. Doing so might give one clarity into word choices and pairings that they would otherwise be unaware about.

I think this was an interesting and insightful project. This statement in your closing remarks did get me thinking about how the information presented here could be dug into further to examine the treatment and nature of changing gender notions on campuses. This could encompass questions pertaining to school's treatments fo trans and gender non-binary folx as well as overall expectations based in gender and gender rights. There is a lot that can be further looked at within this topic, and this project does a good job at bringing attention to this through a more general approach. What I mean is that the research is specific enough to make an impactful statement while broad enough to get the viewer thinking about further questions.

I was having this same issues with the OCR app I was using. I would suggests opening the original doc you are using and seeing if a PDF version of it exist fir download/ if you can convert it into PDF. Afterwards, you should be able to open it, "copy all", and paste it into Voyant. If you want to clean it up you can paste into a text doc and edit it manually. It's a little more time consuming but I found it to be more accurate than OCR.

By "terms" and "trends" I assume you are referring to word choice and Voyant textual analysis. If this is the case I'd like to propose a question that I've been considering in my own research: How do you figure out what you are looking for? Are the trends in questions based off of documents outside of the school publications? Or are they random? For me for example, I choose a handful of words associated with my topic and looked at how often they showed up in my publications in question, only to then realize that it may be more accurate to look at a few articles and publications about the topic (but outside of the school archives) and seeing what words show up the most there, then looking for those words in the school publications.

I don't know if this would count as one of the sources we should be using, but perhaps you could also look into what schools offer on-campus gender affirming health care. Overall, I think the project pitch is well thought out and organized, with a good plan of action put in place. The research question is specific enough to produce intriguing result (that are not general) as well as may make it easier to know what to search for when it comes to sources.

I like the topic you have chosen, as I have just recently picked up a book that touches on this as well. It's called ""Keep the Damned Women Out": The Struggle for Coeducation" By: Nancy Weiss Malkiel, and may be of use in this project. As for your presentation, perhaps one of our graphs could be one in which you use Voyant to graph how frequently certain words are used in your sources in comparison to the sources' date of publication. For example, maybe the word "feminism" starts to show up more after 1969, which would lead one to believe that as schools became co-ed, ideas of gender equality grew on these campuses.

Your choice in maps caught my eye because it seemed very similiar to my choices. I specifically chose maps that also focused on the United States because I wanted to play around with them and see how three different topics (marriage, poverty, and taking of land) might compare to one another through the lens of geographical location. However, I completely forgot to take into account time as a factor, brought to my attention my your claim that the maps you choose focused on giving attention to specific time periods, as to be used by historians. I don't think the maps I looked at do this (except maybe the invasions one) yet I can't help but think about how when comparing the three maps that I looked at, time is variable that can change the data on both maps so heavily that comparing the three without taking into account wouldn't really be a valid comparison.

Is the argument then that not just the context behind the data itself should be questioned, but the visualization of the data as well? As an audience to the data, must we consider the aesthetic choices behind the presentation of data? I don't think this is quite what JD is getting at but it does raise a good point: when looking at/ working with data, to what extent should one consider the context and background of what is being presented and how? Does it cal for full transparency? Down to the specific model of computer and application used to analyze and quantify data into a visualizations? Such is a practice seen in some scientific research papers, but how necessary is it? Where is the line drawn between informative and over-analysis?

Such as was discussed a few weeks ago when talking about context of data collection and how it informs the use of said data.

Since this is an online source, were professors/academics who have studied Van Gogh also asked to collaborate after the initial publication? I think it would make sense for online collections such as these to be open to edits (for information that has been verified of course) in order to provide a "live" type of presentation of the data at hand.

From all the readings this week, I am getting to the conclusion that metadata is just as good as the main data it is meant to describe. This is because metadata itself can be used as data on its own. For example, if the metadata for a collection of artwork is presented, and I were to sort the artworks by genre and then compare the dates of creation in order to find trends, the metadata would be the "main data" being used. This is to say that when it comes to using data, one has to think outside of the box/ be creative in how they use it and what parts of it they use. It's like molding clay, many possibilities.

Similar to a technique I've practiced in my english class. Understanding the context of a novel by the historical and geological happenings when it was written, the author's life, and even the definitions of words (that may differ from our modern definition).

Noooo

I very much agree with this point, as I made a similar note in my blog post as well. Although the objects presented in these collections are incredibly valuable, that value falls flat when the context behind the object is not given. Background information tells us why the object is significant, and allows for us to extract meaning from it.

This connects directly to the point about maternity made in the first chapter. However, this line got me thinking about how knowledge and the data we choose to collect are interconnected. If we as a society are taught and believe that there are differences between races within the medical field, then the questions we ask (the data we choose to collect) will be influenced by this knowledge. For example, doctors who believe that certain races feel less pain than others would not be as likely to ask patients of these races about their pain levels. On a similar note, it wasn't until people realized that maternity rates were lower amongst black women that people started to take this data into account and actually collect it. If what is known to us directly effects the data we decide to collect, it is important to very much think "outside of the box" when it comes to the question we ask (as I started to touch on in my earlier comment) and the data we collect. Creativity here is very valuable.

Sometimes you don't realize the existence of something until you are asked about it. Knowing what questions to asks is really important (like in investigating or interviewing, or science research even).

Although this comment may be very off topic, this quote immediately reminded me of a conversation I had earlier with a friend. We were talking about how in same cases, individuals need ways of interacting and engaging with materials in order to better understand said material/ understand it a better extent (one that allows for them to make personal connections to the information at hand). The concept of using a game to present a collection of information very much fits with this idea, as it's a way of interacting with a data set that encourages new ways of thinking about the information being presented. Furthermore, it may even be beneficial by allowing younger individuals to better engage with concepts that may otherwise not seem relevant or seem difficult to grasp.

This reminds me of the point made in chapter 1 about there being a lack of data surrounding maternal/birth data. It raises the question, "what data should we be recording?" and "when should we start recording data?". On one hand, one may argue that we should start collecting data as soon as it becomes significant, that is, there is a pattern to be seen. However, not all data can be treated in such a way. Perhaps yes, if you rolled a die that kept landing on 6, after the 4th time you may decide to collect data on how many times the die lands on 6 as there seems to be a pattern of it happening. You can't use the same logic when it comes to the example the is presented in the first paragraph of this chapter, that is, a number of black children being killed by white drivers at a very specific spot. At which point does one decide to start collecting data, and does it imply that the first few children killed were not important enough to start taking data then?<br /> It is something I hadn't much considered before these chapters, the idea that with humanities based data there is a vaguenesses as to how to deal with the data, because in many cases the data reflects real human lives. This then opens the door to another question I'll have to keep in mind as I go through this class, "what are the ethics of the digital humanities?".

I thought this was a significant detail to bring up, as I had originally assumed that the discrepancies in health care were linked to income level. My initial assumption was that due to systemic racism, a larger majority of black woman have less access to quality health care providers due to socio-economic standing and area where they live as a result. However, it is known that individuals with a college degree are expected to make more financially than those without one, therefore it can be assumed that black women with college degrees would be making more than white women without college degrees. For data to then show that this is not the case, and that in this scenario black women still experience medical malpractice implies that the actual problem lies within the medical field itself. This is disturbing but not surprising, as even medical training does not take into account black people. However, this is a great example of how important such data is, because I can only imagine that like me, there are people who assume the medical disparities are a direct result of systemic racism when it comes to socio-economic place, when in reality it is a direct existence of racism within the medical field. The latter meaning that the path towards solving this is not just dealing with the discrepancies in socio-economic standing but actual medical education.

This consideration of title got me thinking about the connotations surrounding the word "humanities". There's a good point brought up by the fact that "humanities computing" carries with it a sense of needing to know computer science in order to understand it, due to the term "computing". "Digitized" sounds like physical archives were photographed and uploaded online somewhere, which is an understatement as Miriam Posner's "How Did They Make That?" shows that the field is not simply about digitizing information, but instead using digital tools to present qualitative information in new and interesting ways. It reminds me of two years ago when I took LACOL's data science class, but with more of a focus on other things that I hadn't considered before.

When watching the LACOL DH introduction videos, I made a Slack comment on what I thought humanities meant to me and stated that I wasn't sure but cited literature and music amongst the first things that came to mind when I heard the word. "Humanities" carries a connotation associated mainly with the arts and history. I don't know if this is strictly personal and based off of both the culture and education system I grew up in prior to college, but "arts and history" feels like an understatement as well. The humanities looks not just at things, but the science behind those things. Take writing for example, when I initially started my creative writing minor I expected the classes to simply be writing drills and the occasional analysis of classical literature. However, it is instead the in depth look at what makes literature the way it is, hence why writing is called "a craft". Much like the research I do for my neuroscience major, my humanities minor pushes me to study different parts of a whole and see how they work together to form a finished product.

Therefore, although the title "Digital Humanities" stuck, is there not still a connotation that this title carries? Much like how use of the word "computing" would appeal more to those with more computing skill and "digitized" would imply simple digitization of already existing material, "digital humanities" carries its own implications. Fitzpatrick touches on this, yet, although the name has already stuck, and it would be confusing to change it now, I do wonder both what connotations the name holds for a variety of people and how that could be changed.