7 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2018
    1. radical transparency

      I like the author's use of the word radical. I think few people realize that history making is a political act, and that transparency/open access is ~democratizing~ power in an interesting way.

    1. gendered the topical landscape of DH still is, and to the significant barriers to diversity still present among digital humanists

      The issue of diversity in DH is definitely one that can be assessed through the lens of gender, although class, race/place-of origin would also be interesting to consider. How do we bring in more people into the ~digital revolution~? This is where DH can start to interact with other disciplines. For instance, what happens to a nation's DH when it's been enduring a war that has destroyed its national archives? How does globalization create/define the boundaries of what it means to participate in the project of ~history making~? This can go on and on.

    1. each of these readings, seems to reinforce a larger story

      I like the idea of mixing multiple databases & ways of thinking about research to come to new conclusions!

    2. Until we get around to including the non-cannonical, the non-Western, the non-textual and the non-elite, we are unlikely to be very surprised.

      This is what I am most curious about, in all honesty. While reading the intro/workbook of the course, I was excited about the fact that I might be able to create a final project surrounding some interests of mine (IE the history of Congolese music). However, there are no online databases that I know of fitting the spreadsheet/whatever-else-is-used model for digital history research. The reason I've called my blog "cracks in the net" is because I'm more interested in the parts of history that are lost/not studied in this new wave of historical research (clever, I know!).

    1. The third was more interesting and led me to spend some time figuring out why this might be.

      I am pleased to see that access to these patterns did not only confirm what he had already known, but also provided with new research questions.