Interdisciplining Digital Humanities

Interdisciplining Digital Humanities Interdisciplining Digital Humanities Boundary Work in an Emerging Field Julie Thompson Klein University of Michigan Press Ann Arbor Copyright © by the University of Michigan 2015 Some rights reserved This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial- No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- nc- nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. Published in the United States of America by the University of Michigan Press Manufactured in the United States of America c Printed on acid- free paper 2018 2017 2016 2015 4 3 2 1 A CIP catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/dh.12869322.0001.001 ISBN 978- 0- 472- 07254- 5 (hardcover : alk. paper) ISBN 978- 0- 472- 05254- 7 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN 978- 0- 472- 12093- 2 (e- book) Gail Ryder, who created the cover art, is a graduate of the Master’s in Interdisciplinary Studies program at Wayne State University and an Associate Professor of Humanities at Siena Heights University where she teaches liberal arts courses and composition—online. Bringing her classroom to the virtual world has given her the opportunity to merge a strong interest in the visual arts with her passion for curriculum development. Her newest creation is a course on the Harlem Renaissance. In her spare time, she works on collages, multi-media journals, and one-act plays about the locker room at the local YMCA. We are by now well into a phase of civilization when the terrain to be mapped, explored, and annexed is information space, and what’s mapped is not conti- nents, regions, or acres but disciplines, ontologies, and concepts. — John Unsworth, “What is Humanities Computing and What is Not?” 2002, http://computerphilologie.uni-muenchen.de/ jg02/unsworth.html 2RPP Foreword Cathy N. Davidson Julie Thompson Klein has written a capaciously definitional book. By that I mean, at this crucial moment in the formation of the many fields that, together, intertwine to be called “digital humanities,” Klein provides an invaluable guidebook that resists the temptation to restrict and, instead, invites exploration. Interdisciplining Digital Humanities: Boundary Work in an Emerging Field challenges the reader to not only visit the intellectual bounty across, around, and in and about digital humanities, but also helps us to explain its evolution. How did we get here? Where are we now? How far can we go? For an emerging field to become an established field, this work marks a necessary and vital contribution at the right moment. This book will have many audiences at once and is the rare publication that actually keeps those multiple audiences in mind. Whereas most books that have this level of sophistication do not explain their founding principles, Klein patiently (and provocatively) explicates the basics— keywords, disciplinary inheritances, historical legacies, originating voices. We are never left to feel as if there is a conversation happening and we are not part of it. Rather, by analyzing the deepest assumptions and principles of the field, Klein also brings the reader up to speed, allowing us to run along when she makes her most demanding and expansive case for the way interdisciplinarity forms digital humanities and the way the digital humanities offer a new formation to classic accounts of interdisciplinarity. This book should be required reading for anyone interested in the digital humanities, beginning student or founding figure. Its appreciations are 2RPP viii / Foreword wide and original. That means Klein makes the best case for the impor- tance of the field and shows us how some of its most seminal debates, arguments, differences, and disjunctions have, over the last decades now, helped to form its vibrancy, relevance, scope, and impact in the academy and in the more public intellectual work of museums, libraries, and other civic spaces. To my mind, one of the most important audiences for this book sits on academic committees that judge the quality of work produced within it. Especially for those who make hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions, Interdisciplining Digital Humanities is indispensable. In the academy, we are often called upon to judge the integrity of research outside our own field of expertise. We often rely upon peers we trust for judgment and those peers may or may not carry our own prejudices and predilections as part of their judgments. When a disciplinary boundary is traversed, it can sometimes look, to the more clearly defined disciplinary peer, as if it has been violated, ignored, or, in the case of junior colleagues, not yet been mastered. Klein helps those who do not understand the digital humanities to see how they, in fact, can both contribute vitally to central disciplines and also work through the assumptions at the heart of those disciplines, including methodologically. Digital humanities do so not out of naïveté but out of the interdiscipline’s own generic needs. A literary professor do- ing a close reading of one novel, for example, may not need to know how to use or design algorithms for network analysis; a digital humanist understanding word clustering in 200 nineteenth- century British novels most certainly does. The outcome of this second kind of work may well also be a critical interpretation of texts, but that final analysis is by no means the only part of the process that is of intellectual significance. In the man- ner of many fields in the quantitative social sciences, the process on the way to the analysis is itself something that needs to be carefully, clearly documented and, in the end, is something also to be evaluated by those determining scholarly contribution. Klein defines the contours of several fields— from computation to data- driven or “Big Data” analysis to visualization on the “digital” or technology side and to the full array of the humanities and interpretive social sciences. More importantly, she shows how, in the digital humanities, it is often the combination of and interplay between and across fields that results in the most exciting work—including work that requires a “meta analysis” of the fields themselves. 2RPP Foreword / ix For example, in addressing the formidable contribution of the jour- nal Vectors, including its summer programs where scholars and designers worked together to learn about one another’s respective fields in order to learn how to collaborate, Klein shows the merging of different media, different vocabularies, different expertise, and even different ways of “seeing” the world that are key to the digital humanities. Klein notes that what emerged in the Vectors seminars were “bottom- up . conversations about how scholarship might be reimagined in a dynamic digital vernacular. The outcome is not a pre- determined tool for delivery.” She notes that the result of the Vectors seminars is not just an exploratory, multimodal publication but a cadre of trained interdisciplinary collaborators plus an array of tools (the middleware package, the Dynamic Backend Generator) that allow those collaborators to work together in a digital environment. In walking us through examples with such patience, Klein shows how interdisciplinary is this field of digital humanities in its practices, its tools, its methods, and its publications. She also shows how all of those things— practices, tools, methodology, publication— are the object of study of the digital humanities. Vectors is not just a major scholarly publication, in other words, but an entire process that helps us to think about what we mean by “major scholarly publication.” The published article, in other words, is by no means the only finished product of the research. The development of the middleware itself is part of the research, an outcome, a tangible asset, and needs to be judged as part of the scholarly productivity of the digital humanists who created it. Appointment, promotion, and tenure committees are accustomed to understanding such outcomes in the portfolios of engineers but rarely of literary scholars, art historians, classics scholars, and other humanists. Klein shows us why our evaluation of “what counts” within digital humanities as a performed interdiscipline must change from the standard idea of “what counts” in most humanities fields. By the precision of her analysis, and her strong citation of individual exemplars, Klein provides those evaluating digital humanities with a new way of looking not just at the outcomes of scholarship (such as a single- author monograph as the gold standard in many humanities fields) but at the process leading to scholarship. She makes us understand why that process itself is a scholarly outcome. The classic scholarly monograph can report on digital humanities but it does not duplicate its actual, full, interactive, iterative, collabora- tive outcome. 2RPP x / Foreword Thus, in order to judge a digital humanist, if one judges solely by the production of a scholarly monograph, one is setting the bar too low. You do not win the DARPA Grand Challenge from a blueprint of a self- driving car. You win it for building the car that actually navigates down an actual road. That is my analogy, not Klein’s. But through her astonishing breadth of knowledge, her generous assessment of so many areas of the field, Klein walks us through all of the reasons for making such a distinction as we evaluate the worth and contribution of the digital humanities. Beyond that, Klein is suggesting, I believe, that we have entered an important moment in higher education where many of the disciplinary boundaries are not just being crossed but are being interwoven in exciting new ways.

Load more