Tag Archives: Understanding Digital Humanities

feedback loops transforming the humanities traditions

“Disciplinary traditions are in active interplay with the technologies even as the technologies are transforming the traditions, so it is more accurate to say that the tectonic shifts currently underway are technologically enabled and catalysed rather than technologically driven, operating in recursive feedback loops rather than linear determinations. In broad view, the impact of these feedback loops is not confined to the humanities alone, reaching outward to redefine institutional categories, reform pedagogical practices, and re-envision the relation of higher education to local communities and global conversations.” (N. Katherine Hayles, How We Think: Transforming Power and Digital Technologies, In D. M. Berry (Ed.), Understanding Digital Humanities, p.60)

authorship credit in digital humanities collaboration

“Precedents worked out for scientific laboratories may not be appropriate for the digital humanities. While the lead scientist customarily receives authorship credit for all publications emerging from his laboratory, the digital humanities, with a stronger tradition of single authorship, may choose to craft very different kind of protocols for deciding authorship credit, including giving authorship credit (as opposed to acknowledgement) for the creative work of paid technical staff.” (N. Katherine Hayles, How We Think: Transforming Power and Digital Technologies, In D. M. Berry (Ed.), Understanding Digital Humanities, pp. 53-54)

text mining and close reading

“Rather than the reading of a few texts, text mining and computational analysis can extend the scope of an analysis of texts theoretically into the thousands, and with this provide a more complete analysis of an area or theme. In short, text mining can aid hermeneutic analysis – not replace it. Here, the qualitative approach of the digital humanities is laid bare. The text itself is treated to a hermeneutic analysis with the advantage of digital tools that uncover patterns, themes, and information that a close reading might miss or that would be outside of the scope of a traditional reading.” (L. Evans, S. Rees, An Interpretation of Digital Humanities, In D. M. Berry (Ed.), Understanding Digital Humanities, p.30)