Totally agree. This will mean radically changing our approaches to pedagogy in some quarters. Easier said than done, and not done at all without proper time, support, and resources. I'm thinking a lot about how we can give educators what they need to do this work well.

Reminds me of Robin DeRosa's call in her POD conference keynote to "stop letting the problem tell us what the problem is"!

It's worth noting here that when the printing press first emerged onto the scene, its critics worried about the possibility that people would no longer memorize, since anything they need might be easily accessed in print. They weren't wrong--it's just that what we lost in the transaction paled in comparison to what we gained. I think we're dealing with something similar here. All the hand-wringing in the world won't change the fact that digitization offers some major advantages. But that's not to say we shouldn't also discuss and attempt to adjust for the more regrettable ramifications of the movement to digital.

I think one of the problems here is that religious or theological movements, as you, Lake, and Pincus note, can't simply be reduced to economic, social, or political struggles, but they can't really be separated from those struggles either. Religion is not simply about economics or social power, but it can't be adequately studied without taking those factors into account. Religion, economics, and politics are all hopelessly intertwined.

Conversations about fascism are far more relevant than I want them to be.

It's worth noting here that when the printing press first emerged onto the scene, its critics worried about the possibility that people would no longer memorize, since anything they need might be easily accessed in print. They weren't wrong--it's just that what we lost in the transaction paled in comparison to what we gained. I think we're dealing with something similar here. All the hand-wringing in the world won't change the fact that digitization offers some major advantages. But that's not to say we shouldn't also discuss and attempt to adjust for the more regrettable ramifications of the movement to digital.

I think one of the problems here is that religious or theological movements, as you, Lake, and Pincus note, can't simply be reduced to economic, social, or political struggles, but they can't really be separated from those struggles either. Religion is not simply about economics or social power, but it can't be adequately studied without taking those factors into account. Religion, economics, and politics are all hopelessly intertwined.

"Collaboration" seems to be one of the key words in Liu's Theses and in digital humanities at large. Obviously, DH projects present many opportunities for collaborative work, but we don't seem well-equipped for such work as a field. Or perhaps we are just unaccustomed to it. Either way, I wonder about how we, as humanities scholars, might learn collaborative techniques and begin to encourage/incentivize more collaboration amongst ourselves. Perhaps even collaboration on projects that are not necessarily digital. In any case, making more and better use of collaborative digital tools, like the one I am now using, seems like a good place to start.