I listened to his final product, and it is really striking to hear the words of this soldier through sonification. It really brings his words to life and created an emotional response in me. I think that sonification is a very significant way in which to allow for greater interpretation of texts, especially historical ones.

I like that sonification allows for both distant and close readings of texts. Many tools, such as text analysis tools, seem to focus on distant readings which are only possible through technology, but being able to actually hear the words which stick out from the norm could greatly impact the way in which the text is analysed.

I think the ability to turn data into sound is really fascinating, as it creates a way in which the data can almost come to life and truly influence the way it's perceived. I think that being able to hear relationships between words in a text can really shape the way in which the data is understood.

I can see how word clouds can limit the way in which data is understood. Relying solely on text analysis could potentially harm one's understanding of their data. I think that using multiple types of analysis would allow for a greater understanding of a text and/or data, which would benefit those within the discipline. Collaborative work seems to general produce more rounded interpretations, which consider the data through multiple lenses.

I completely agree that reshaping data allows for one to gain a new understanding of it. Sound is such a powerful sense, that it seems foolish not to explore the ways in which our hearing can interpret data rather than our sight.

It won't let me select anything under 'places', could this be why my map doesn't show up?

It seems that a lot of work with texts within digital humanities focuses more on utilizing technology for distant readings. I think the way in which close readings can be improved through the use of different tools like Beals is doing can help to expand the ways in which digital historians interact with text and data.

For some reason this only worked for me when I removed sudo from the command

I think it's important to note that the information gained through text mining needs to be compared to that found through a close reading, not simply used on its own. Yes text mining is a valuable way to analyze large quantities of data, but without a combination with close readings, it's always possible to miss something. Topic modeling is a good way to help understand the data gained through text mining, as it offers a new way of interpreting it.

This is actually super helpful, especially when it comes to analyzing historical documents with outdated words or spellings as the program could otherwise miss out on important information that the researchers wouldn't necessarily find. Having a program be able to analyze such a large collection of writing is really amazing and allows for greater possibilities when it comes to historical research. I am really excited by the doors this avenue of work can open in the field.

I agree that the canon within the fields of the humanities has largely remained the same, thereby maintaining the social hierarchies. There has been more of an awareness more recently for the need to expand the canon, which is occurring very slowly as academics argue over which texts to keep and which to add.

As someone currently in a humanities program, I completely agree with this. Since deciding on my program of study I have been told countless times that I will have difficulty finding a job with a humanities degree. Even when reassured that my degree offers me many job options, people seem to dismiss the importance of the humanities in contrast to 'more secure' programs. There definitely needs to be a change to remove the belief that the humanities are becoming irrelevant within today's economic environment.

Fitzpatrick shows a great awareness of the lenses through which her words may be perceived. I think it's very smart that she is able to acknowledge that the issues she is addressing may seem insignificant to some people, while arguing for their importance. In studying the humanities, I completely agree that the they have the potential to help in countless ways, but only if people in the discipline are willing to change things.

Being able to actually recognize the argument of a piece of writing is something which is not commonly taught, especially in high school. Fortunately, I've had a professor who emphasized the importance of identifying the argument and helped our class learn how to do so step by step. I've found it to be especially useful when reading as it makes you engage more thoroughly with the text.

This aspect of open notebooks is what really appeals to me, I love the concept of being able to share ideas with people worldwide to receive honest, positively constructive feedback.

I'm very interested to see how having digital open source notebooks would influence the way we practice history. I think it would lead to greater collaboration but could also present a challenge when it comes to identifying authorship. If anyone can access your work at every stage, what's to stop them from using it as their own? I think there's still a lot to figure out, which makes it so exciting as it is very new and evolving before our eyes.

Moravec is very mindful of the benefits of open access, the level of focus she pays to ensuring her work is accessible truly shows her approval of the changes taking place within history scholarship.

I think the idea of removing the isolation found within writing for academic purposes very motivating. Quite often, people are afraid of sharing work that is unfinished or 'imperfect' . Digital history allows people to create a community, which facilitates collaboration and a greater ability to learn from and accept mistakes. In acknowledging the benefits of making writing public, Moravec shows the ways in which digital history can change the academic landscape.

I think that having this sort of source transparency through online access could really change the way any scholar within the humanities operates. I opens up so many possibilities for gaining a greater understanding of research and methods used to reach a certain conclusion. I think it's really fascinating that digital humanities open up so many new possibilities to expand our definition of humanities.

This is very important, as there is an endless amount of information available online which makes it seem impossible to determine the data which is relevant.

This is something important to remember, that the fact that the data is digital does not make it any different or truer that other data.

I find it very interesting that DH has evolved so quickly as technology evolves, and is continually evolving. It is neat to see a discipline which is always in motion in comparison to more static traditional humanities.

I briefly learned about Father Busa this past year, he worked on the earliest computers to analyse the work of Thomas Aquinas.

These tips are should be applied to any and every discipline, not just DH. They are easy steps to follow to ensure that DH becomes diverse and allows for a greater range of ideas within the discipline.

In excluding all but one perspective, the discipline is effectively limiting itself when it comes to collaboration and the ability to evolve.

I really like that she outright addresses the issue, calling out the lack of diversity within DH.

Interesting that there is a "DH identity" collectively held by scholars within the discipline.

It's very interesting that these topics were focused on the most, as they are all topics which are taught in the intro digital humanities courses I've taken.

This is an interesting break down of topics being discussed in DH, further showing the ways in which the discipline is lacking in certain areas of study.

Further showing the need for diversity within DH, as less voices being included means less opportunity for collaborations and the ability to develop new avenues of research.

Distant reading is something I find really interesting, the few times I've encountered it I've found that the literary application to texts allows for a new understanding of the work to be seen.

The way in which data can be made into visualizations which help to organize and make clear patterns is very interesting to me. The fact that the visualizations are sometimes only used as a way of making sense of big data rather than as part of the argument, greatly appeals to me as I am someone who learns visually.

I feel that DH is facilitating diversity more than other more static non-digital disciplines, as the constant evolution of DH allows for greater collaboration and the ability to recognize faults within the discipline in order to change them. This is very refreshing, as the discipline is allowing itself to change for the better from the inside, rather than resisting the change.

I think this is really important, as removing any barriers makes it a lot easier for people to share ideas. I think this is especially important when it comes the barriers between academics in the digital humanities and non-digital humanities, as the disciplines could gain significant knowledge in working together.

I think this is very important, as acknowledging and removing any biases one has makes it infinitely easier to see the truth of something.

I really like that digital history, and digital humanities as a whole, is a discipline which is constantly evolving to reflect changing technologies and people's understandings of ways in which to approach the humanities.

Knowing that there's no exact recipe for 'doing' digital history is very comforting to me, as it means I am able to define and practice digital history according to my own interests to create something meaningful to me.

https://github.com/rachel-johnson http://alongthedaisiedpath.ca/

This will definitely come in handy, I can easily see myself using this for all my future courses!

I have read and agree to abide by the Code of Conduct