Below you'll find my response to the prompt for this week in EN 595. I've underlined the main points of each of the selected authors and done a summative slide devoted to understanding where they're coming at all of this from in terms of emphasis and values. I've also inserted my own working definition of the digital humanities influenced by both Svensson and Scheinfeldt as well as the conversations in the classroom as we work together to understand the field of the digital humanities. I was unable to embed my PowerPoint so I have taken a screen shot of each slide. I hope you enjoy my presentation as much as I enjoyed making it.
Lucy,
ReplyDeleteI found the points you addressed and your comparison between the two texts interesting and insightful. I think this diverse conversation and needs of the scholarship reinforce the legitimacy of DH as a field of study. Your definition, seeming to be in line with Svensson's work, encourages the inclusive and open-minded nature that puts all methods and theories into a continuous working relationship with one another. In other texts, it appears, though, that the theory or critical dies of DH is often cast to the side. Do you think, then, that scholarly definitions of DH need to address this issue directly, or do you think that an all-inclusive definition assumes and implies it?
Lucy,
ReplyDeleteBravo for distilling the main points from Svensson and Scheinfeldt. I thought that you did a great job throughout the slides elaborating on the "so what?" question for all of the main points as well as the articles as a whole. I agree with Lacy, though, about how prickly notions of inclusion and openness can get in terms of defining projects in the digital humanities. On the one hand, these sorts of terms seem pretty foundational and self-evident in the thrust of what constitutes the digital humanities. On the other hand, I might see some value in asking those who engage in projects in the digital humanities to more specifically define what they mean by these terms and how these definitions impact the tools, methodologies, ethics, etc. of the content that emerges from this work. While, on the surface, that might be tedious and overwrought, these definitions ultimately serve as the sort of frame that surrounds projects in the digital humanities. My question is as follows: Should definitions of terms like "inclusion" and "openness" be matters of assumption for all projects or those of great deliberation in mapping out individual projects? Thank you so much for sharing.
Mark
Lucy,
ReplyDeleteYou do a good job of moving between Svensson and Scheindfeldt-- although they share some views, we can see that their touch points differ. I am intrigued by your last slide--emphasizing the interlacing of theory, practice and method-- btw I don't think either author would disagree--so the question is, how do we achieve this? Is it project by project? If so does that leave new, young scholars (as you seem to suggest) more vulnerable? As we saw in this weeks readings, there is more at stake in the making and playing depending on ones position.