Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Voices from the Field
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Voices from the Field

295
views

Published on

Presentation based on fieldwork research conducted at digital humanities institutions in Europe and the USA; delivered at Click on Knowledge conference in Copenhagen …

Presentation based on fieldwork research conducted at digital humanities institutions in Europe and the USA; delivered at Click on Knowledge conference in Copenhagen (http://engerom.ku.dk/clickonknowledge/)

Published in: Technology, Education

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
295
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Methods: case studies, site visits, in-depth interviews, focus groups, log file analyses. Participants: 86 informants (researchers, developers, funders, policy makers, students)
  • Transcript

    • 1. Voices from the Field
      Practices, Challenges, & Directions in Digital Humanities Scholarship
      TITLE
      Smiljana Antonijević & Monica Bulger
    • 2. Research
      Two projects: Alfalab and Humanities Information Practices
      Timeframe: April-October, 2010
    • 3. Site visits (32 participants)
    • 4. Case studies (54 participants)
    • 5. Transformations
      Epistemological and methodological challenges
    • 6.
      Old Bailey Online hasn’t replaced anything for me or displaced anything for me, but it is part of this general transformation of how I do what I do.
    • 7.
      The amount of time I now spend doing the very mechanical, laborious, time-consuming work is much smaller.You can now do things in 5 seconds which it took you 3 months to do a few years ago.
    • 8.
      20 years ago,I would have gone into the British Library and done it with the actual paper in front of me.Now I sit at home and I do a keyword search.
    • 9.
      It’s a huge change. You cando things much more quickly, read much more widely, find connections…it’s very, very important.
    • 10.
      I get pretty much everything I need by way of primary sources now from the web.For primary sources, I’ve now got more material than I will need probably for the rest of my lifetime.
    • 11.
      Asking new questions?
    • 12.
      I’m not sure all of this raises the quality of anybody’s work. I think it would be quite daft to pretend that all of this makes us better scholars, or makes our books or papers of higher quality. I don’t know if that is true by any means, but it certainly makes it easier and I suppose makes the quantity of stuff that you can produce greater.
    • 13.
      It makes the nature of your research differentbecause it allows you to get quantitative information much more quickly,which then allows you to maybe think about how you might use that information differently, because you’ve got so much more time.
    • 14.
      My greatest frustration in life is that we can now answer all the questions we had in 1980 faster, much, much faster. And we can get around to publishing them much, much more quickly. But what we haven’t yet done is develop the new questions and the new paradigms that should be possible, and that we as imaginative scholars should be able to imagine.
    • 15. From big data to interpretation
    • 16.
      We have now digitized a lot of resources, we have those silos of information, so trying to manage the delusion of data is a priority. There is a lot of ways that big data can really change scholarship, for the better. But, having said that, I think we always need to be cautious not to see it as a replacement; it is not an either/or, it is a both/end scenario.
    • 17. Respecting research practices
    • 18.
      For example, I do not use Zotero, my students do. I don’t know why. A lot of it is just habit. I am so busy, I just focus on what needs to be done.
    • 19. Going beyond “Ah” experience
    • 20.
      It was as if the scales dropped from our eyes, as we had seen the future. …
      We’ve gotten much more familiarwith these kinds of technologies and possibilities, so it’s no longer as though we are seeing the sunrise in all its brilliance every single day, because now the sun is up and we work in sunlight. So, we do not have that sort of ‘ah’ experience every day.
    • 21. Establishing evaluation criteria
    • 22.
      We need for big professional groups to be able to have a set of criteria that say—just as when they look in a regular print publication— what is the intellectual value here, what is contributing to the field, where is the new knowledge, what are the research methods, are they sound.
    • 23. Reconfiguring Resources
    • 24.
      In those days [10 years ago] computer scientists at your own university wouldn’t even want to talk to you. Even now when we work with them what computer science recognizes as research and what digital humanities recognize as research are different things. So you have to find a common set of research goals.
    • 25.
      Unless humanists take seriously two things, firstly the value of their own contributions to the migration of cultural legacy into the digital environment, and secondly, the really central value of the humanistic perspective on knowledge, then these environments will be built without the humanists, and that would be a huge mistake.
    • 26.
      We made a fairly conscious decision in developing the Townsend Lab to concentrate on those tools that would be of use to the broadest possible spectrum of humanists. In part because my ambition has been to build a site that would not increase the ghettoization of digital humanities, but really bring it as much as possible into the mainstream.
    • 27.
      What that brings to mind for me is a massive problem of the last couple of decades of building these ‘one size fits all’ sort of solutions, which does not work either. Apps—it’s a different generation in software development…with apps, you let the community define what works.
    • 28.
      One of the things our reviewers look for is the notion that the project is looking outside of itself. … We do not want to keep funding the same types of projects over and over. If something works, we want it to be shared and repurposed or reused.
    • 29. Recommendations & future directions
    • 30.
      Break down boundaries between text, artifact, and image.
    • 31.
      If you just take something like the Old Bailey in isolation, it only gives you a partial story of London life, but if you combine itwith other records, which is what they’re trying to do on London Lives, then you could build a wonderful picture of a society in a way that we find quite difficult to do.