dhq_ digital humanities quarterly_ humanities computing as digital humanities

Upload: bellow

Post on 08-Oct-2015

32 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Digital humanities Quarterly

TRANSCRIPT

  • 12/6/2014 DHQ:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly:HumanitiesComputingasDigitalHumanities

    http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/3/000065/000065.html 1/17

    1

    2

    3

    4

    DHQ:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly2009Volume3Number3

    HumanitiesComputingasDigitalHumanitiesPatrikSvensson,UmeUniversity

    AbstractThisarticlepresentsanexaminationofhowdigitalhumanities iscurrentlyconceivedanddescribed,andexaminesthediscursiveshiftfromhumanitiescomputingtodigitalhumanities. It is argued that this renaming of humanities computing as digitalhumanities carries with it a set of epistemic commitments that are not necessarilycompatiblewithabroadandinclusivenotionofthedigitalhumanities.Inparticular,theauthorsuggeststhattensionsarisefromtheinstrumental, textualandmethodologicalfocus of humanities computing as well as its relative lack of engagement with the"digital"asastudyobject.Thisarticleisthefirstinaseriesoffourarticlesattemptingtodescribe and analyze the field of digital humanities and digital humanities as atransformativepractice.

    IntroductionThehumanitiesareundergoingasetofchangeswhichrelatetoresearchpractices,fundingstructures,therole of creative expression, infrastructural basis, reward systems, interdisciplinary sentiment and theemergence of a deeply networked humanities both in relation to knowledge production processes andproducts. An important aspect of this ongoing transformation of the humanities is humanities scholarsincreasinguseandexplorationof information technologyasbothascholastic toolandaculturalobject inneedofanalysis.Currently,thereisacumulativesetofexperiences,practicesandmodelsflourishinginwhatmay be called digital humanities. The research presented here explores the scope and direction of thisemergingfieldaswellastheroleofhumanitiescomputinginthisenterprise.

    Inthisarticle,thefirstinafourpartseries,Iexplorethediscursiveshiftfromhumanitiescomputingtowhatisnow being termed the digital humanities, examining how this naming is related to shifts in institutional,disciplinary, and social organization. Materials such as the Humanist email list, journals, conferencematerials,principaltexts,professionalblogsandinstitutionalwebsitesprovideanimportantempiricalbasisfor the analysis. Academic fields are partly produced, represented, reinforced, changed and negotiatedthrough these modes of discourse. As will be evident from the analysis, the renaming of humanitiescomputing to digital humanities brings with it a set of epistemic commitments that are not necessarilycongruentwithabroadandinclusivenotionofthedigitalhumanities.Isuggestthatinterestingtensionsarisefromtheinstrumental,textualandmethodologicalfocusofhumanitiescomputingaswellasitsrelativelackofengagementwiththe"digital"asastudyobject.

    Inthesecondarticle,Iexplorethebroaderlandscapeofthedigitalhumanitiesthroughadiscussionofdigitalhumanities and digital humanists, associated traditions, personal encounters and importantly, through asuggestedsetofparadigmaticmodesofengagementbetweenthehumanitiesandinformationtechnology:informationtechnologyasatool,anobjectofstudy,anexploratorylaboratory,anexpressivemediumandanactivistvenue.

    The third article discusses cyberinfrastructure for the humanities more broadly and for the digitalhumanitiesinparticularinrelationtothecurrentdiscourseofcyberinfrastructure,modelsofimplementationand possible directions. The article also presents a fairly extensive case study of HUMlab a digitalhumanities center at Ume University. Finally, tentative advice as to implementing and strategizinghumanitiescyberinfrastructureisoffered.

  • 12/6/2014 DHQ:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly:HumanitiesComputingasDigitalHumanities

    http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/3/000065/000065.html 2/17

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    Inthefourtharticle,Iexplorethemultiplewaysinwhichthedigitalhumanitieshavebeenenvisionedandhowthedigitalhumanitiescanoftenbecomealaboratoryandvehicleforthinkingaboutthestateandfutureofthehumanitiesatlarge.Somefoundationalissues,includingtheroleofthehumanitiesandchangingknowledgeproductionsystems,arediscussedandrelatedtothedevelopmentofthedigitalhumanities.Furthermore,atentativevisionofthedigitalhumanitiesispresented.Thisvisionisgroundedinthearticleseriesasawholeaswellasintheimportantcollaborativepossibilitiesandchallengesthatlieaheadofus.

    Together these four articles constitute an attempt to outline and critically discuss how the humanitiesinterrelates with information technology in multiple ways, to understand the historical, conceptual, anddisciplinaryaspectsofthisinterrelation,andtopresentanexpansivemodelforthedigitalhumanities.

    BackgroundOne of things that has fascinated me for a long time is the range of origins, approaches and traditionsassociatedwithdifferentvarietiesofdigitalhumanities,rangingfromtextualanalysisofmedieval textsandestablishmentofmetadataschemestotheproductionofalternativecomputergamesandartisticreadingsofnanotechnology. An important rationale for this article series is to facilitate a discussion across variousinitiativesanddisciplinesand tomakeconnections.Therearemanyhumanitiesscholars involved inwhatmaybecalleddigitalhumanitieswhohavenoorlittleknowledgeofhumanitiescomputing,andviceversa,manyhumanitiescomputingrepresentativeswhodonotengagemuchwithcurrent"newmedia"studiesofmatterssuchasplatformstudies,transmediaperspectivesordatabaseaesthetics.Fewpeoplewillengageinactivitiesacrosstheboard,ofcourse,butitisimportanttohaveasenseofthegrowingdisciplinarylandscape,associatedmethodologicalandtheoreticalpositions,andemergingcollaborativepossibilities.Tome,thisisanintegralpartofdigitalhumanitiesasaproject.

    Thereareseveralgoodreasons forgivinghumanitiescomputing theparticularattention it receives in thisarticle:itsrichheritage,historicalandcurrentaccomplishments,thesheernumberofpeopleinvolved,andtheapparentdiscursivetransitionto"digitalhumanities."Furthermore,anyattemptatmappinganemergingfieldpresupposes a discussion of disciplinary territory and ambitions, and humanities computing provides aparticularlygoodstartingpointasitisrelativelyestablishedandwelldefined.Andaswewillsee,manyoftheissues, considerations and parameters relevant to humanities computing are also relevant to digitalhumanitiesmoregenerally.

    Inthefollowing,wewillstartoutfromaparticularexampleofhumanitiescomputingasdigitalhumanitiesandassociated epistemic commitments. Some of these commitments are traced in the subsequent historical,institutional and contextual description of humanities computing. We will then move on to look at therenaming of humanities computing to digital humanities,which in turnwill lead to a critical discussion ofhumanities computing with a particular focus on some points of tension between traditional humanitiescomputingandanexpansivenotionofdigitalhumanities.Inconclusion,humanitiescomputingwillbebrieflyjuxtaposedwithaverydifferentkindofdigitalhumanitiestradition.

    SettingtheStageTheCallforProposalsforDigitalHumanities2009,theprincipalhumanitiescomputingconference,providesanillustrativeexampleofhowthedisciplinaryterritoryofdigitalhumanitiesisbeingdefinedinrelationtothetraditionofhumanitiescomputingandhowepistemiccommitmentscanbemanifesteddiscursively.

    Epistemic cultures, as defined by [Knorr Cetina 1999, 1], are "those amalgams of arrangements andmechanismsbondedthroughaffinity,necessity,andhistoricalcoincidencewhich,inagivenfield,makeuphowweknowwhatweknow"(originalemphasis).Wearethusconcernedwithwaysinwhichknowledgeiscreated, representedanddefended.Epistemicculturesareconstructedandmaintained through,amongotherthings,theepistemiccommitmentsofparticipatingscientistsaspartofthemeansbywhichalignmentsaremadebetweenacademicdisciplines,thefieldsofenquirythattheyrepresent,andsharednotionsaboutwhat constitutes valid research [Ratto 2006]. In the following, the epistemic commitments of humanitiescomputinganddigitalhumanitiesaremainly tracedthrough lookingatdifferentmodesofdiscourse.Whilethesemodesmayhavedifferentfunctionsandintendedaudiences,theycollectivelyaddtotheanalysis.

  • 12/6/2014 DHQ:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly:HumanitiesComputingasDigitalHumanities

    http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/3/000065/000065.html 3/17

    12

    13

    14

    15

    TheDigitalHumanities2009Call isdivided into threeparts.The firstpartprovidesabroadand relativelyopendefinitionofthedigitalhumanities.

    TheinternationalProgrammeCommitteeinvitessubmissionsofabstractsofbetween750and1500wordsonanyaspectofdigitalhumanities,broadlydefinedtoencompassthecommongroundbetween information technologyandproblems inhumanities researchandteaching.

    As always, we welcome submissions in any area of the humanities, particularlyinterdisciplinarywork.Weespeciallyencouragesubmissionsonthecurrentstateof theart in digital humanities, and on recent new developments and expected futuredevelopmentsinthefield.

    Theinvitationrelatesto"anyaspectofdigitalhumanities"which is looselydefinedasthecommongroundbetween information technology and problems in humanities research and teaching. Interdisciplinarycontributionsareparticularlyencouraged.Asexpected,thesecondpartprovidesahigherlevelofspecificity.

    Suitablesubjectsforproposalsinclude,forexample,

    Herewearepresentedwithanarrowingdownofwhatwasdescribed in the firstpart.This iscommon inconferencecallsasawayofindicatingtheparticularfocusoftheconference,ofcourse,althoughitisdifficulttodiscernanyclearthematicdelimitationinthisparticularcase.Wearethusconcernedwithafairlybroadrangeofpossibletopics.However,theorderingandphrasingofthesetopicssuggestaspecifictraditionorframework, and an associated set of epistemic commitments. For instance, it is not by accident that textanalysiscomesfirstandthatphrasessuchas"computerbasedresearch"and"useofcomputation"areused.Evensoitcouldbearguedthatmuchofwhatbeincludedinabroadnotionofdigitalhumanitiescouldbesubsumedunderthesetopics,andthatparticularlythesixthtopicresearchissuesopensupthescopetoareassuchasnewmediastudies.Buttheplacement,exactwording(e.g."theculturalimpactofnewmedia")and the broader context may not make these potential conference participants feel targeted unless theyalreadyhavearelationtothecommunityandhumanitiescomputing.

    In the thirdpart of the call for proposals followsamuchmoreprecisedefinitionof digital humanitiesandassociatedtopics:

    Therangeoftopicscoveredbydigitalhumanitiescanalsobeconsultedinthejournaloftheassociations:LiteraryandLinguisticComputing(LLC),OxfordUniversityPress.

    ThejournalLiteraryandLinguisticComputinghasbeenakeypublicationforhumanitiescomputingforalongtime.However,definingdigitalhumanitiesthroughthetopicspresentedinLLCclearlyexcludesmanyotherinitiativesanddevelopmentsintheintersectionofthehumanitiesandinformationtechnologyandsuggestsavery particular tradition, institutional grounding and epistemic culture.[1] Moreover, this level of narrowingdownisclearlynotcongruentwiththedescriptionofdigitalhumanitiesgiveninthefirstpartofthecall,whichmaybesaidtobelessobviouslysituatedinthetraditionofhumanitiescomputingandassociatedepistemic

    text analysis, corpora, corpus linguistics, language processing, languagelearninglibraries,archivesandthecreation,delivery,managementandpreservationofhumanitiesdigitalresourcescomputerbased researchandcomputingapplications inallareasof literary,linguistic, cultural, and historical studies, including electronic literature andinterdisciplinaryaspectsofmodernscholarshipuseofcomputationinsuchareasasthearts,architecture,music,film,theatre,newmedia,andotherareasreflectingourculturalheritageresearchissuessuchas:informationdesignandmodellingtheculturalimpactofthenewmediasoftwarestudiesHumanComputerinteractiontheroleofdigitalhumanitiesinacademiccurriculadigitalhumanitiesanddiversity

  • 12/6/2014 DHQ:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly:HumanitiesComputingasDigitalHumanities

    http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/3/000065/000065.html 4/17

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    commitments.

    HistoryandParadigmThepartialinstitutionalizationofhumanitiescomputinghasresultedinacademicdepartmentsorunits,annualconferences,journals,educationalprogramsandaratherstrongsenseofcommunalidentity.Theseareallqualities thatare typicallyassociatedwith theestablishmentofanewdiscipline (cf. [Klein1996, 57]). Thefollowing excerpt from a description of a 1999 panel organized by the Association for Computing theHumanitiesseemstoconfirmthisanalysis:

    Empirically,humanitiescomputingiseasilyrecognizedasaparticularacademicdomainandcommunity.Wehaveourprofessionalorganizations,regularconferences, journals,andanumberof centers, departments, andotherorganizational units.Asense for thesubstanceofthefieldisalsofairlyeasytocomeby:onecanexaminetheproceedingsofACH/ALLCconferences,issuesofCHumandJALLC,thediscussionsonHUMANIST,thecontentsofmanybooksandanthologieswhichrepresentthemselvesaspresentingworkin humanities computing, and the academic curricula and research programs athumanitiescomputingcentersanddepartments.Fromsuchanexerciseoneeasilygetsaroughand readysenseofwhatweareabout,andconsiderable reassurance, ifany isneeded,thatindeed,thereissomethingwhichweareabout.[2]

    Communalidentity,ofcourse,isbuiltovertime,andhistoryandfoundationalnarrativesplayanimportantroleinthisprocess.FatherRobertoBusaistypicallycitedasthepioneerofthefieldofhumanitiescomputing,andhisworkdatesbacktothelate1940s:

    During theWorldWar II,between1941and1946, Ibegan to lookformachinesfor theautomationofthelinguisticanalysisofwrittentexts.Ifoundthem,in1949,atIBMinNewYorkCity.[Busa2004,xvi]

    In this foundational story, two important epistemic commitments of humanities computing are established:information technology as a tool and written texts as a primary object of study (for linguistic analysis).Commitments such "computer as instrumental tool" and "text as object" end up helping decide what arelegitimate types of questions and study objects for the field, and how work and relevant institutions areorganized.

    ThejournalComputersandtheHumanitieswasstartedasearlyasin1966and,interestingly,itseemsasifearly issues were not as textually oriented as one might have assumed. Early articles include "PL/I: Aprogramminglanguageforhumanitiesresearch,""Art,arthistory,andthecomputer"and"MusicologyandthecomputerinNewOrleans"(allfrom19661967).Thirtyyearslaterwefindarticlessuchas"ThedesignoftheTEI encoding scheme," "Current uses of hypertext in teaching literature," "Neural network applications instylometry" and "Word frequency distributions and lexical semantics" (all from 19951996). In 2005, thisjournalwasrenamedLanguageResourcesandEvaluation,andhadbythistimelostitsstatusasoneofthe"official" journals forhumanitiescomputing. Inoneof theobituaries,WillardMcCartyapplauds the first25yearsofthejournalandcommentsontheeditorsfinalstatement(whichpointsthedifficultyofmaintainingthebroadscopeofthejournal):

    CHum'sastonishingdenialofafutureforhumanitiescomputingcomesinthesameyearastheBlackwell'sCompaniontoDigitalHumanities.[]Ifanything,thedevelopmentofCHumsincethensuggestsrathertheoppositeanarrowingdownfromthebreadthofhumanisticinterests,acrossthefullrangeofdisciplines,toasharpfocusonmaterialoftenclosertocomputationallinguisticsthananythingelseandoftentootechnicalforallbutthespecialisttoread.Thisnarrowingdoesnotreflectthefield.[Humanist18.615]

    Inotherwords,ComputersandtheHumanitieswasseenashavingtakenadirectionnotfullycompatiblewiththeepistemic traditionof humanities computing. Indicatively, in aCall forPapers from1998,[3] there is aspecial invitation for stateoftheart surveys, and the only example given is "Current Approaches to

  • 12/6/2014 DHQ:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly:HumanitiesComputingasDigitalHumanities

    http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/3/000065/000065.html 5/17

    21

    22

    23

    24

    Punctuation inComputational Linguistics."Also, this happenedat about the same timeas theAllianceofDigital Humanities Associations (ADHO) was formed, and another important reason for the "demise" ofComputersandtheHumanitieswas that itwasstrategically, financiallyand institutionallyadvantageous tomakeLiterary andLinguisticComputing andnotComputers and theHumanities the principal humanitiescomputingjournal.[4]Indeed,thesereasonswereprobablymoreimportantthantheperceivedincompatibilitybetweenhumanitiescomputingatlargeandComputersandtheHumanities.Nevertheless,theresultwasthatforafewyears,humanitiescomputingonlyhadoneprincipaljournal.

    ThejournalLiteraryandLinguisticComputinghasfromitsinceptionfocusedontextualandtextbasedliteraryanalysisasyouwouldexpectfromitstitle.Itwasestablishedin1986bytheAssociationforLiteraryandLinguistic Computing (itself established in 1973). This journal has clearly played an important role inestablishingthefieldofhumanitiescomputingnotonlyinofferingapublicationvenue,institutionalstructureandacademicexchangebutalsoinpublishingselfreflectivearticlesontherole,organizationandfutureofhumanitiescomputing.Aswesawearlier,thejournalhasevenbeenusedtodefinethedigitalhumanitiesthusinasensetransferringtheepistemiccultureofthejournalandassociatedfieldtothe"new"field.

    As important as these printed journals have been for establishing humanities computing as a field,humanities computing representatives were also early adopters of communication technologies such asemail lists.The firstmessageon theHumanist Listwas sent onMay13, 1987by foundingeditorWillardMcCarty, making it one of the first academic email lists to be established. Currently about 1600 peoplesubscribe to the Humanist list[5] which is an email list with consistently high quality, carefully organizedthreadsandanoftenlivelydiscussion.[6]Althoughtherangeoftopicsisverybroaditisfairtosaythatthereispersistentand fundamental interest in textualanalysisand relatedmatters.AsMcCartyhimselfpointsout,Humanistfacilitatesanongoing,lowkeyandimportantdiscussion:

    We'realwaysworryingourselvesaboutwhetherhumanitiescomputinghasmadeitsmarkintheworldandontheworld.Itseemstome,however,thatquietchange,thoughharderto detect, is sometimes much better and more powerful in its effects than the noisy,obviously markmaking, positiontaking kind. If during these 17 years Humanist hascontributedtotheworld,ithasdonesoveryquietlybynature,likeconversation,leavinghardlyatrace.[Humanist18.001]

    Here it isalso ratherobvious that "humanitiescomputing"servesasan identifying labelandcollaborativesentimentfortheHumanistcommunity.Wewillsoonreturntothislabel(andanongoingrelabelingprocess)aswellastheworryorconcernthatMcCartymentionsbutfirstabrieflookatanothermajorinstitutioninthisfield.

    One of the most important venues for humanities computing have been the annual conferences jointlyorganizedbytheAssociationforLiteraryandLinguisticComputing(ALLC)andtheAssociationforComputersandtheHumanities(ACH).Originallytheseorganizationsrantheirownconferenceseries,butfrom1996theystarted a joint conference series. From 2008, the Society for Digital Humanities/Socit pour l'tude desmdias interactifs (SDH/SEMI) became a third organizing association. These three associations are allmembers of the Alliance of Digital Humanities Associations. It is quite clear that these conferencespredominantly address textual analysis,markup, retrieval systems and related areas. A simple frequencyanalysisbasedon titlesofpapersandsessions from1996 to2004showsus that frequentnonfunctionalwords include text (56),electronic (53), language (30),markup (28),encoding (27),TEI (23),corpus (22),authorship(18),XML(18),database(13)andmultimedia(11).Incomparisonthereisoneinstanceofgameandtwoinstancesofthepluralformgames.Thisisarathercrudemeasurement,ofcourse,butitdoesgiveusasenseoftheoverallorientation.Amorecarefullookatthe2005conference(atUniversityofVictoria,BC)does not seem to contradict this sketch. For instance, the themed sessions that extendedmore than oneprogramslotwere"AuthorshipAttribution,""Libraries,Archives&Metadata,""ComputationalLinguisticsandNatural Language Processing," "Encoding & Multiculturalism," "Scholarly Projects" and "Visualisation &Modeling." Oneslot themed sessions included "Automation," "Text & Technology," "Textual Editing &Analysis,""InterfaceDesign"and"Hypertext".[7]Yetanotherexampleisthe2008DigitalHumanitiesSummerInstitute[Humanist21.469].Herethefocusisontextencoding,transcription,andcorpustextanalysisinfive

  • 12/6/2014 DHQ:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly:HumanitiesComputingasDigitalHumanities

    http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/3/000065/000065.html 6/17

    25

    26

    27

    28

    out of the eight offerings in the curriculum. The other three sessions take up digitization fundamentals,multimediaandlargeprojectplanning.

    While,journals,conferencesandacademicassociationsplayanimportantroleincreatingandmaintainingan academic field and community, another important factor is the ways in which a field has beeninstitutionalized. In the caseof humanities computing, this hasbeena longandpartly uncertain process,whichhasclearlyshapedthefield.

    InstitutionalModelsInorganizationalterms,humanitiescomputingenterpriseshavebeeninstitutionalizedinmanydifferentways.And, of course, institutions develop over time. A useful resource is Willard McCartys and MatthewKirschenbaums"Institutionalmodelsforhumanitiescomputing"[McCarty&Kirschenbaum].Hereanumberofquestions or criteria are used to list and categorize humanities computing institutions. The first categoryincorporatesacademicunitsthatdoresearch,teachingandcollegialservice.Also"[s]omemembersoftheseunitsholdacademicappointmentseither inorprimarilyassociatedwithhumanitiescomputing."ExamplesincludetheCenterforComputingintheHumanities,KingsCollegeLondon,andtheInstituteforAdvancedTechnologyintheHumanities.Eventhoughitissaidinthedocumentthat"[n]ojudgementisexpressedorimpliedastotheworthofthecentresunderconsideration,"itcouldprobablybearguedthatthisfirstcategoryservesasarolemodel(basedonthewaycriteriaarecreatedandpresented,theorderingofthecategoriesandabroaderhumanitiescomputingcontext).

    Historically, and to someextent contemporarily, itwould seem thataprototypical organizational form isahumanities computingunit or center affiliatedwith a school of liberal arts or humanities.Often suchunitsprovideservicetotherestoftheschoolandthisratherinstrumentalfunctionhastypicallybeenprimary.Ofcourse,theremighthavebeendevelopmentinmanyotherdirectionsovertime,butthisbasicfunctioncannoteasily bedismissed.Aprominent examplewouldbe theHumanitiesComputingUnit atOxfordUniversitywhoserootsgobacktothe1960sandwhichwasclosed(ortransformed)in2002.[Burnard2002]describesthefinalstagesofthisdevelopment:

    At the start of the newmillenium, theHCUemployedover 20 people, half of themonexternal grants and contracts valued at over 350,000 annually. With the advent ofdivisionalization, however, it faced a new challenge and a newenvironment, inwhichOUCS,asacentrallyfundedservice,musttakeparticularcaretomeettheneedsofthewholeUniversity,inawaywhichcomplementsthesupportactivitiesfundedbyindividualdivisions,ratherthancompetingwithorsupplantingthem.Ourstrategyhasbeentofocusonareaswhere theHCU's longexperience inpromotingbetterusageof ITwithinonedisciplinecanbegeneralized.In2001,wesetupanewLearningTechnologiesGroup,toactasacrossdisciplinaryadvocacyanddevelopmentfocusfortheintegrationofITintotraditionalteachingandlearning.ThisnewLTGisnowoneoffourkeydivisionswithinthenewOUCS,additionallyresponsibleforthefullrangeofOUCStrainingactivities.

    Thestatusofsuchacademicunits,ofcourse,isnotnormallyonthesamelevelas(traditional)departmentswhichtendtobetheprivilegedacademicorganizationalunit.Inmanycaseshumanitiescomputingunitshavebeen seenas service unitswith a rather instrumental role and representatives find themselves having topresent their field in such a way as to maintain financial support as well as their share of integrity andindependence.Frequently,likeinthecaseabove,academicunitswhichareseenashavingatechnologicalservicefunctionaresusceptibletodifferentkindsoforganizationalchangesandbudgetcuts.Forinstance,thecentraluniversityadministrationmightquestionwhether themostefficientorganizationalstructure is tohavedepartmentsand faculties run theirowncomputersupport functionsorwhether it ismoreefficient toadoptamorecentralizedmodel.Alsohumanitiescomputingunitsthathaveseveralfunctionsmighthavetocutbackonthemoreresearchorientedactivitiesbecause,afterall, technicalsupport ismore instrumental(and sellable/buyable) and there might not be enough explicit interest from humanities departments tomotivate amore research andmethodology focused function. There aremany examples of changes likethese(see[Flanders&Unsworth2002]forsomeotherexamplesandafurtherdiscussion).Severalprominentservicebasedunits,includingtheHumanitiesComputingUnitatOxfordUniversityandCentreforComputing

  • 12/6/2014 DHQ:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly:HumanitiesComputingasDigitalHumanities

    http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/3/000065/000065.html 7/17

    29

    30

    31

    32

    intheHumanitiesatUniversityofToronto,havebeencloseddown(orradicallyreformed)overtimeandthisvulnerablepositionispartoftheshapingofhumanitiescomputing.

    While it is fair to say that the present institutional landscape is rather diverse and expansive, it is alsoimportant to acknowledge that the ratio of thriving humanities computing environments and initiatives atuniversities in Europe and the United States is still very low in relation to the whole of the Humanitiessomethingthatmayormaynotbeseenasaproblem.TakingSwedenasanexample,thereseemstobeonlyone traditionalhumanitiescomputingunit in thecountry (atGothenburgUniversity)atpresent.Mostof thegrowthseemstohappeninplaceswherethereisnoorlittlehumanitiescomputinglegacy(BlekingeInstituteofTechnologyandSdertrnUniversityCollege).Myownenvironment,HUMlabatUmeUniversity,doesrelate to humanities computing, but also to many other influences, and most of the Ph.D. students, forinstance,wouldprobablynotseethemselvesasprimarilyinvolvedinhumanitiescomputing.MostofthemdosubscribetotheHumanist,however.

    TheQuestionofAutonomyA related and muchdiscussed issue highly relevant to digital humanities generally and to humanitiescomputing as digital humanities concerns whether humanities computing should be independent andpossibly an academic discipline in its own right or whether it should primarily interrelate with existinghumanitiesdepartments.Thisdiscussionhaspartlybeenfueledbytheneedforacademicstatustocreateacademic positions and a sense of not wanting or needing to be reliant on traditional and slowmovingdepartmentsanddisciplines.[8]Infact,thesedisciplinesmaynotevenbeconsideredsuitablefordealingwithrelevantstudyobjectsandresearchissues,orappropriatemethodologies:

    Tostudytheeffectsandconsequencesofdigitaltechnologyonourculture,andhowweareshapingthesetechnologiesaccordingtoourculturalneeds,wecannowbegintoseethecontoursofaseparate,autonomousfield,wherethehistorical,aesthetic,culturalanddiscursiveaspectsofthedigitalisationofoursocietymaybeexamined.Thatway,thefieldof Humanistic Informatics may contribute to the goal of the Humanities, which is theadvancementoftheunderstandingofhumanpatternsofexpression.Wecannotleavethisnew development to existing fields, because theywill always privilege their traditionalmethods,whicharebasedontheirownempiricalobjects.[9][Aarseth1997]

    Anotherargument fornot involvingall of theHumanitiesmaybe that it isnot seenasanefficientmodel.[McGann2001, 7] tells us about strategies adopted when the Institute for Advanced Technology in theHumanities (IATH)atUniversityofVirginiawasstarted.AlanBatson,DepartmentofComputerScienceatUVA,arguedthattryingtoinvolveeveryone(distributeresourcesevenly)wouldbetoreplicate30yearsoffailureprovidingITresourcestopeoplewhoarenotinterestedinthemordonotwanttoexplorethemdoesnotwork.

    IATHwas founded as a resource for peoplewho had alreadymade a commitment tohumanities computing, a commitment defined practically by an actual project withdemonstrablescholarlyimportance.[McGann2001,9]

    Thetensionbetweentryingtoinvolveasmanyaspossibleandmakingadifferencethroughengagingpeoplewhohavealreadyshownaninterestisbasicandrecurrent.Naturally,anyenterpriseofthiskindisdependentonthelocalenvironment.Thereisobviouslyasignificantdifferencebetweenbeinganautonomousacademicunit and a servicebased or organization. In practice most humanities computing units are probablysomewhere in between. Also, the "service" function can, of course, be very complex and should not betrivialized.McCartytalksabout"practice"and"practitioners,"andsuchterminologymightbemoresuitableformanyoftheservicelikefunctionsmoredirectlyrelatedtothehumanitiescomputingenterprise.Hestressesthe importance of methodological knowledge and says that "[t]he practitioner learns a specific butgeneralizable method for tackling problems of a certain kind" [McCarty 2005, 120]. This focus onmethodologyandassociatedtoolsiscommoninhumanitiescomputing,andarguablypartoftheepistemiccommitmentsof the field that fundamentally shape thewayhumanitiescomputing relate to the restof thehumanitiesandtootherworkinthehumanitiesandinformationtechnology.

  • 12/6/2014 DHQ:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly:HumanitiesComputingasDigitalHumanities

    http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/3/000065/000065.html 8/17

    33

    34

    35

    36

    ApproachingtheDigitalHumanitiesAswenotedearlier"humanitiescomputing"hasbeenastrongcommondenotationformuchoftheworkandcommunitydescribedabove.InhisHumanitiesComputing,WillardMcCartydescribesthedevelopmentfrom"computers and the humanities" via "computing in the humanities" to "humanities computing." Hecharacterizesthesethreedenotationsasfollows:"whentherelationshipwasdesiredbutlargelyunrealized"(computersandthehumanities),"onceentryhasbeengained"(computinginthehumanities)and"confidentbutenigmatic"(humanitiescomputing)[McCarty2005,3]. Ihavearguedelsewhere [Humanist 17.111] thatjuxtaposition (as in the first stage) does not necessarily have to indicate separated entities and that"humanities computing" has an instrumental ring to it. Also, "humanities computing" does not necessarilyseemtoincludemanyoftheapproachesandmaterialsthatinterestmanyhumanitiesscholarsinterestedininformationtechnology(andcomputing).Ofcourse,theseargumentsarerelatedtotheambitionsandscopeofthefieldyouaretryingtodenote.

    Fromthispointofview,itisinterestingtonotethathumanitiescomputingrepresentativescurrentlyseemtobeappropriating the term digital humanities. Prominent examples of use of the new identifier include therelabeledALLC/ACHconference(from2006onwardsentitled"DigitalHumanities"),anewbookseriescalled"TopicsinDigitalHumanities,"anewcomprehensivewebsitehttp://www.digitalhumanities.orgsponsoredbythemajor humanities computingassociations, thepeerreviewed journalDigitalHumanitiesQuarterly, themassive,editedvolumeACompaniontoDigitalHumanities[Blackwell2004],andtherecentrenamingoftheCandianConsortiumforComputersintheHumanitiesintoTheSocietyforDigitalHumanities.Thedenotationhascertainlybeenusedbefore(atUniversityofVirginiaamongotherplaces),butitseemstobeemployedmorebroadlynowandinamoreofficialandpremeditatedfashion.Animportantindicationofthespreadofthe term and institutionalization of the field can be seen in the establishment of the Office of DigitalHumanities by the National Endowment for the Humanities (US) in 2008. A broader analysis of differentvarietiesofdigitalhumanitieswillbereturnedtointhesecondarticleinthisseries.

    Lookingatissues120oftheHumanist[10]andinstancesofhumanitiescomputingversusdigitalhumanities,the following figures emerge: 304/2 (19971998), 343/3 (20002001), 566/16 (20012002), 283/15 (20022003), 280/19 (20032004), 363/45 (20042005), 130/44 (20052006) and 110/90 (20062007). The firstinstancesofdigitalhumanitiesinissues11and14(19971998and20002001respectively)refertonominalconstructions such asdigital humanities object and digital humanities environment. While we should becarefulabouthowtointerpretcrudequantitativedatalikethese,itisfairlyclearthathumanitiescomputingforalongtimewasthepredominanttermandstillisfrequent,butthatwearemovingtowardsanincreaseduseofdigital humanities (relative tohumanities computing). The retained and frequent use of the older termpointstoadiscrepancybetweentheovertheboardinstitutionalrenamingofthefielddescribedaboveandthecommunitysuseofthetermasevidencedintheHumanistmaterial.

    This discrepancyor coexistence[11] is alsoevident if you lookat theBlackwell'sACompanion toDigitalHumanities from 2004. There are about twice as many instances of humanities computing as digitalhumanities (139/68). The internal distributionof the terms ismore interestingand caneasily beexploredusingtheonlineversionofthecompanion.Forinstance,humanitiescomputingispredominantlyusedinthesectionwherethecontributorsaredescribed,whiledigitalhumanitiesismuchmorecommonthanhumanitiescomputing in the introduction (called "The Humanities Computing and the Digital Humanities: AnIntroduction").Thesetwotextsrepresentverydifferentgenres.TheNotesonContributorssectionislargelyavenueforselfrepresentationandpresentation.Theintroductioniswherethe(new)fieldofdigitalhumanitiesisbeingdescribedandadvocated(bytheeditorsofthevolume).Inthehistorysection(12chaptersintotal)itis clearly thehistoryofhumanitiescomputing that is told (58 instancesofhumanities computing versus1instanceofdigital humanities). The section on principles (7 chapters) is primarily humanities computingfocused (23/4) as themain topics are text analysis, encoding, classification andmodelling. The final twosectionsonapplicationsandproduction,dissemination,archivingcontainfewerinstancesofeitherterm.Onepossiblereasonmaybebecausethesesectionsaremoregroundedinactualpractice.Also,itisclearthat individual preference plays an important role. Again, we are concerned with simple, quantitativemeasurements,butthereisdefinitelyapictureemerging.

  • 12/6/2014 DHQ:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly:HumanitiesComputingasDigitalHumanities

    http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/3/000065/000065.html 9/17

    37

    38

    39

    40

    41

    42

    Apertinentquestioniswhetherthediscursivetransitionfromhumanitiescomputingtodigitalhumanitiesismainlyamatterofrepackaging(humanitiescomputing),orwhetherthenewlabelalsoindicatesanexpandedscope,anewfocusoradifferentrelationtotraditionalhumanitiescomputingwork.Theeditorsofthebookseries"TopicsintheDigitalHumanities"indicateanongoingchange:

    Humanities computing is undergoinga redefinitionof basic principlesbya continuousinfluxofnew,vibrant,anddiversecommunitiesofpractitionerswithinandwellbeyondthehallsofacademe.Thesepractitionersrecognizethevaluecomputersaddtotheirwork,that thecomputer itself remainsan instrument subject to continual innovation,and thatcompetitionwithinmanydisciplinesrequiresscholarstobecomeandremaincurrentwithwhatcomputerscando.[Humanist19.052]

    The book series announcement as a whole, however,maintains a focus on the computer as a tool andhumanitiescomputingmethodologies.Theepistemiccommitmenttotechnologyastoolisalsoclearlyevidentfrom"[t]hesepractionersrecognizethevaluecomputersaddtotheirwork."

    Unsurprisingly, it is difficult, possibly irrelevant, to pinpoint the meaning of a term in change, but it isneverthelessrelevantto lookathowsuchtermsareintroducedandusedbyanacademiccommunity. It isobviousthatthetermdigitalhumanities,asusedbythehumanitiescomputingcommunity,oftenservesasanoverarchingdenotationinbookandjournaltitles,etc.,whilehumanitiescomputingisoftenusedintheactualnarrative.

    Theterritoryof thetermisbeingdefinedandnegotiatedby institutionalentitiessuchasthe journalDigitalHumanitiesQuarterly. The following text, which also suggests ongoing change, comes from the very firsteditorialofDHQintheinauguralissue:

    Digitalhumanitiesisbyitsnatureahybriddomain,crossingdisciplinaryboundariesandalso traditionalbarriersbetween theoryandpractice, technological implementationandscholarlyreflection.Butovertimethisfieldhasdevelopeditsownorthodoxies,itsinternallines of affiliation and collaboration that have become intellectual paths of leastresistance. Inaworldperhapsscarcely imagined twodecadesagowheredigitalissuesandquestionsareconnectedwithnearlyeveryareaofendeavor,wecannottakeforgrantedapositionofcentrality.Onthecontrary,wehavetoworkhardeventoremainawareof,letalonetomaster,thenumerousrelevantdomainsthatmightaffectourworkandideas.Andatthesametime,weneedtoworkhardtoexplainourworkandideasandtomakethemvisibletothoseoutsideourcommunitywhomayfindthemuseful.[DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly2007]

    This is an inclusive and open definition which also suggests a particular community, associated history,changingboundariesandpossiblysomefencekeeping(imposinganotionofcentralityornoncentralityandthroughidentifying"we"and"them").Althoughnodirectreferenceismadeinthetext,itisratherclearthatthetradition implicitly referred to ishumanitiescomputing.The interest indialogue indicated in theeditorial isclearlyimportanttothedevelopmentofthewholefield.Importantly,forabroadnotionofdigitalhumanitiesandaconsortedeffort, thisdialoguemustnotonly incorporatehumanitiescomputingasdigitalhumanitiesand other varieties of digital humanities, but must also take place across a disciplinary landscape thatadditionallyincludesquiteanumberofinitiativesandpeoplethatmightnotprimarilyclassifywhattheydoasdigitalhumanities. Indeed, not eveneveryoneassociatedwith theenterprisesbeing subsumedunder thelabeldigitalhumanitiesmightbecomfortablewiththatcategorization.

    In any case, thenewnamedefinitely suggests a broader scopeand it is alsoused inwider circlesasacollectivenameforactivitiesandstructuresinbetweentheHumanitiesandinformationtechnology.[12]Andaswehaveseeninthisanalysis,therearemanyexamplesofhumanitiescomputingasdigitalhumanitiesclaimingalargerterritory.

    HumanitiesComputingasDigitalHumanitiesIf humanities computing is to be taken as amore general digital humanities project it seems relevant to

  • 12/6/2014 DHQ:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly:HumanitiesComputingasDigitalHumanities

    http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/3/000065/000065.html 10/17

    43

    44

    45

    46

    47

    carefully consider the scope, implementation and ambition of the paradigm. Also, regardless of thisperspective, therearecertaincharacteristicsof theparadigmthatdeservecriticalattentionanddiscussion.The four issues presented below touch on some of the disciplinary boundaries and epistemic culture ofhumanitiescomputingandmaypossiblychallengesomeestablishedperceptionsofhumanitiescomputing.In any case,what follows is not somuch a criticism of a paradigm as an exploration of boundaries andpossibilities. It shouldalsobeadded that thepointsdiscussedherehaveabearingondigitalhumanitiesmoregenerally.

    First, humanities computing as a whole maintains a very instrumental approach to technology in theHumanities.InherintroductorychapterinthevolumeDigitalHumanities,SusanHockeysaysthatthisisnottheplacetodefinehumanitiescomputing,andcontinues,"[s]ufficeittosaythatweareconcernedwiththeapplications of computing to research and teaching within the subjects that are loosely defined as 'thehumanities,' or in British English, 'the arts' " [Hockey 2004, 3] (italics added). Hockeys description isindicative of a paradigm in which information technology is typically not seen as an object of study, anexploratory laboratory,anexpressivemediumoranactivist venue.Rather, technologyhas thisbasicandepistemicallygroundedroleasatoolandmuchofhumanitiescomputingisaboutusingthesetools,helpingotherstousethemand,tosomeextent,developingnewtools(andmethodologies).Manyofthesetools,suchasconcordanceprograms,havearatherlonganddistinguishedhistory,andtherehasnotnecessarilybeenagreatdealofradicalchangeovertime(see[McCarty1996]).Itcouldbearguedthatthefocusoftraditionalhumanitiescomputingisnotinnovatingnewtools,butratherusinganddevelopingexistingones.Alsoafairproportion of the development seems to occur on a structural or metadata level. Examples include textencoding and markup systems. Of course work on this level has fundamental implications for thedevelopmentanduseoftools.

    Textencoding is typicallyseenasacoreelementofhumanitiescomputing.KoenraaddeSmedtsays that"Textencodingseemstocreatethefoundationforalmostanyuseofcomputersinthehumanities"[deSmedt2002,95].[13]Classificationssuchas themajorTextEncodingInitiative(TEI) involveverybasic theoreticalandmethodologicalchallenges[McGann2006]andtherehavealsobeencallsforthedevelopmentofmoreinnovativetoolsbasedontheseandotherschemas[Rockwell2003].Rockwell stresses the importanceofmovingbeyondexistingpersonaltools,makingcommunityandserverbasedtoolsmoreavailable,allowingfor playful exploration and encouraging critical discussion of tools. Clearly there is a need for such adevelopment, and while there are some exemplary projects there is a need for further development,discussion of best practice and further critical analysis. For instance, it would be interesting to seemoreintegrationwithweb2.0 thinkingandplatforms.[14]work in interactionandparticipatorydesignaswellasmethodologies suchas rapid prototyping.An interesting, current exampleofmethodological innovation isRockwellsandSinclairsworkonextremetextanalysis.[15]

    Itmightalsobearguedthattraditionalhumanitiescomputinghasnotprimarilybeenconcernedwithinterfaceandhowthings lookandfeel thematerialityof the tools.Kirschenbaumsaysthat"thedigitalhumanitieshave also not yet begun [] to initiate a serious conversation about its relationship to visual design,aesthetics,and,yes,evenbeauty"[Kirschenbaum2004,532].McGannassertsthat"[d]igitalinstrumentsareonlyasgoodas the interfacesbywhichwethink through them" [McGann2006,1567].Therehavealsobeen calls for tools with more farreaching and radical scope than the ones that humanities computingtypicallyprovides.DruckerandNowviskiepointoutthat"[w]earenotonlyabletousedigitalinstrumentstoextend humanities research, but to reflect on the methods and premises that shape our approach toknowledgeandourunderstandingofhowinterpretationisframed"[Drucker&Nowviskie2004,432].

    Second,ithasoftenbeenpointedoutthatwhatbringshumanitiescomputingtogetherislargelyacommoninterestinmethods,methodology,toolsandtechnology.Thispartlyfollowsfromaninstrumentalorientation,ofcourse,andthere isnoreasontoquestion themethodologicalcommonsasavaluable interdisciplinaryfocus and productive collaborative sentiment. However, this strong methodological focus fundamentallyaffectsthewayhumanitiescomputingoperatesandrelatestootherdisciplines.Themostseriousimplicationisthatapredominantlymethodologicallinktootherdisciplinesmaynotintegratemanyofthespecificissuesthatareat thecoreof thesedisciplines. It couldbeargued that thismakes itmoredifficult forhumanitiescomputing to reachoutmorebroadly to traditional humanitiesdepartmentsandscholars.While therewill

  • 12/6/2014 DHQ:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly:HumanitiesComputingasDigitalHumanities

    http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/3/000065/000065.html 11/17

    48

    49

    50

    alwaysbeinterestinmethodsandtechnology,theactualtargetgrouphumanitiesscholarswithanactiveinterest in humanities computing tools and perspectives must be said to be relatively limited.[16] In aninterestingandprovocativepaper,[Juola2008,83]arguesthattheemergingdisciplineof"digitalhumanities"hasbeenemergingfordecadesandthatthereisaperceivedneglectonthepartofthebroaderhumanitiescommunity.Whileheisappreciativeoftheworkdoneinhumanitiescomputing,healsofindsthat

    For the past forty years, humanities computing have more or less languished in thebackgroundof traditionalscholarship.Scholars lack incentive toparticipate (oreven tolearnabout)theresultsofhumanitiescomputing.

    Lookingat textanalysis,Rockwellpointsout that"textanalysis toolsandthepracticesof literarycomputeranalysis have not had the anticipated impact on the research community" [Rockwell 2003, 210]. JuolasanalysisshowsthatcitationscoresforhumanitiescomputingjournalsareverylowandhealsopointsoutthattheAmericanIvyLeagueuniversitiesaresparselyrepresentedinhumanitiescomputingpublicationsandathumanitiescomputingconferences.Itcouldbeargued,however,thatthelackofcitationsispartlyduetothefactthathumanitiesscholarswhousehumanitiescomputingtoolsmightnotbeinclinedtocitethecreatorsofthese tools. This is especially true if no written work on associatedmethodology (or theories) has beenemployedintheresearch.

    A relevant question, of course, is whether humanities computing wants and needs to reach out to thehumanities disciplines.[17] This relates to the earlier discussion of autonomy and discipline or not. Thereseems,however,toberatherstrongsupportforexpandingtheterritoryandforachievingahigherdegreeofpenetration.Furthermore,ifthemethodologyandtoolsarecentraltotheenterpriseitseemscounterintuitivetodisassociateyourselffrommanyofthepotentialusers(andcocreators)ofthetools.Itisevidentfromhisdiscussionofpossiblehighprofile"killerapplications"thatJuolasharesaninterestinthedevelopmentofaneworevolvedkindof toolswithDruckerandNowviskieandothers. It couldbeargued that itwouldbebeneficial to have tools or applications that relatemore directly to some of the central disciplinespecificchallengesofthevarioushumanitiesdisciplines.Suchadevelopmentwouldprobablyleadtosomewhatlessfocus on methodology, a tighter integration of humanities computing and humanities disciplines[18] andpossiblymoretoolsandapplicationswitharich,combinedtheoretical,experientialandempiricalfoundation.

    Third,humanitiescomputinghasaverystrongtextualfocus.Giventhehistoryandprimaryconcernsofthefieldaswellasthetextualorientationofmuchofthehumanitiesthisisnotverysurprising.Traditionaltextisclearlyaprivilegedlevelofdescriptionandanalysis.Inheranalysisofhumanitiescomputing,whichispartlycorpusbased, Terras writes that "Humanities Computing research is predominantly about text" [Terras2006,236].Whilethisistrue,therehascertainlybeenanincreasedinterestinmultimediaandnontextualrepresentation. This interestmay, for instance, bemanifested in the formofmetadata schemes for visualmaterial or, increasingly, the interest in using geographical information systems in humanities computing.Referenceissometimesmadetodifferenttechnologiesandmethods(3Dmodeling,GIS,animation,virtualrealityetc.)butthesearenotnecessarilyintegratedinpractice.Forinstance,Jessopsaysthat"theresearchpotentialofworkingwithdigitaltoolsforhandlingspatialdatahasbeenexploredinonlyverylimitedcontexts"[Jessop2007,4].Therearemanyexceptionsandprolificscholarswithastrongcommitmenttotheseissuesbutthiscannotbesaidtobetrueofmostofhumanitiescomputing.Thereisalsoariskthatothermediaarehandledmuch in the samewayas text (e.g. anotherobject type toencode)ormerely subservient to textfollowingaverystrongepistemiccommitmenttotextasobject.Herefollowsarathertextfocuseddiscussionofimagesinrelationtothehistory(andfuture)ofhumanitiescomputing:

    Thereareofcoursemanyadvantagesinhavingaccesstoimagesofsourcematerialoverthe Web, but humanities computing practitioners, having grown used to the flexibilityoffered by searchable text, again tended to regard imaging projects as not really theirthing,unless,liketheBeowulfProject[Kiernan1991],theimagescouldbemanipulatedandenhancedinsomeway.Interestingresearchhasbeencarriedoutonlinkingimagesto text, down to the level of the word [Zweig1998].Whenmost of this can be doneautomatically we will be in a position to reconceptualize some aspects of manuscriptstudies.Thepotentialofotherformsofmultimediaisnowwellrecognized,buttheuseof

  • 12/6/2014 DHQ:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly:HumanitiesComputingasDigitalHumanities

    http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/3/000065/000065.html 12/17

    51

    52

    53

    54

    thisisonlyreallyfeasiblewithhighspeedaccessandthefuturemaywelllieinagradualconvergencewithtelevision.[Hockey2004,15]

    Thereisnothingwrongwithatextualfocus,ofcourse,butitdoeshaveeffectsonthescopeandpenetrationofhumanities computing.The socalled "visual turn" [19] or research onmultimodal representation does notseemtohavehadalargeimpactonhumanitiescomputing.Onereasonisprobablybecausethereis littleinteractionbetweenthesecommunitiesandbecauseitisdifficulttoconceptualizeanddeveloptoolsforthesekindsofframework.Moregenerally,thereseemstobeanincreasinginterestinnontextualandmixedmediaintheHumanitiesandelsewhere(seeforinstanceresearchonremediation,transorcrossmediatexts,digitalartandthecurrentinterestin"mashups").And,needlesstosay,mostnativedigitalmediaarenotpuretextwhilehumanitiescomputing through focusingon text in itsdigitalizedandencoded formcouldbesaid toprivilegearather"pure"(ifannotatedandstructured)formoftext.Itseemsthatthereshouldbeconsiderableopportunities in this area for humanities computing both for innovative tools and thinking but also inrelation to making a strong case for the need for considerable cyberinfrastructure in the Humanities.[20]

    Furthermore,thereisclearlyaneedforpeoplewithexpertcompetenceandinterestinstructuring,annotatingandmanagingdata.Itisexcitingtoseethatinterestinnontextualrepresentationandanalysisseemstobegrowinginhumanitiescomputing.Itseemsworthwhiletosupportthisdevelopmentatleastifthevisionisanexpansiveand inclusivehumanitiescomputing/digitalhumanities.Suchadevelopmentwouldnothave toprecludearetainedtextualfocus,ofcourse.

    Myfourthandfinalpointrelatestodataandmaterialusedinhumanitiescomputingor,putanotherway,theobjects of study of humanities computing and associated disciplines.McCarty distinguishes between fourdata types in his discussion of a methodological commons: text, image, number and sound [McCarty2005,136].It ischaracteristicofthemodelthatthesourcematerialsandapproachesofthedisciplinesarereducedthesefourdatatypesanda"finite(butnotfixed)setoftoolsformanipulatingthem".[21]Thistoucheson a tendency to subscribe to formal and sciencedrivenmodels of knowledge production in humanitiescomputing(wheretextistheprincipalobjectofstudy):

    Applicationsinvolvingtextualsourceshavetakencenterstagewithinthedevelopmentofhumanitiescomputingasdefinedbyitsmajorpublicationsandthusitisinevitablethatthisessay concentrates on this area. Nor is it the place here to attempt to defineinterdisciplinarity,butbyitsverynature,humanitiescomputinghashadtoembrace"thetwocultures,"tobringtherigorandsystematicunambiguousproceduralmethodologiescharacteristicofthesciencestoaddressproblemswithinthehumanitiesthathadhithertobeenmostoftentreatedinaserendipitousfashion.[Hockey2004]

    Aswehavealreadyseenandas theabovequote reinforces, text isaprivilegeddata type in humanitiescomputing.Furthermoreitcouldbearguedthathumanitiescomputingismainlyinterestedindigitalizedtexts(orinsomecases,digitalizedhistoricalsitesetc.)andnotmaterialthatisnativelydigital.Borndigitalmaterialwould include computer games, blogs, virtual worlds, social spaces such asMySpace, email collections,websites, surveillance footage, machinima films and digital art. Most of these "objects" are studied andanalysedwithindifferentkindsofnewmediasettingsandtomethisisaninterestinginbetweenzone.Wouldhumanitiescomputingbeinterestedinengagingmorewithnewmediascholars?Thereiscertainlyaneedforwellcraftedtoolsforstudyingonlinelifeandculture.Whydoestherenotseemtobeanysoftwarefordoingcomparativeanalysisandinterpretationofcomputergames,for instance?[22]Howcanmachinimafilmsbetaggedandrelatedtotheculturalartefactstowhichtheyreference?Howdowesystemizeandcontextualizeemail archives?[23] Can social software platforms be adapted to humanities computing needs? Canmultimodalandmultichannelcommunicationbetracked,tagged,interrelatedandmadesearchableinanyconsistentway?

    Ifindtheintersectionbetweenhumanitiescomputingandnewmediastudiesintriguing.Thereissomenewmedialike work going on in humanities computing but it is relatively marginal and there are few toolsavailable. A more complete and multifaceted engagement might stimulate more theoretical work inhumanitiescomputing.Rockwellmakesacasefortheimportanceofsuchanengagement:

  • 12/6/2014 DHQ:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly:HumanitiesComputingasDigitalHumanities

    http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/3/000065/000065.html 13/17

    55

    56

    57

    58

    59

    Digitaltheoryshouldnotbelefttonewmediascholars,norshouldweexpecttogetitrightso thatwe can go back to encoding or other humanities disciplines. Theorizing, not atheory,isneededweneedtocultivatereflection,interruption,standingasideandthinkingaboutthedigital.Wedontneedtonegotiateacanonoragrandtheory,insteadIwishforthinkingaboutandthroughthedigitalincommunity.[Rockwell2004]

    Regardlessofwhethersuchanengagementinvolvedtheoryormainlymethodsandtools,itseemsthattheremightbemutualgains.Notleastwouldhumanitiescomputingbeabletodrawmoreonagrowinginterestindigitalcultureandthe"technologicaltexture"thatDonIhdepostulates.Afurtherpossibleresultwouldbeamorerobustlinktohumanitiesdisciplinesthroughalsoworkinginafieldwheretherearemanycurrentandimportant research challenges in relation to the digital (e.g. participatory culture, surveillance societies,genderandtechnology,andemergingartandtextforms).[24]

    The epistemic commitments of humanities computing are not limited to points discussed above, howevertheseareparticularlyrelevantforthediscussionofhumanitiescomputingasdigitalhumanities[28].Abroadlyconceived digital humanities would necessarily include the instrumental, methodological, textual anddigitalized,butalsonewstudyobjects,multiplemodesofengagement,theoreticalissuesfromthehumanitiesdisciplines,thenontextualandtheborndigital.

    MultipleIdentitiesandRiskTakingLetusbrieflycontrasthumanitiescomputingwitharatherdifferentkindofinstitutionalsettingandepistemictradition.AnneBalsamowritesabouttheGeorgiaInstituteofTechnologyinthearticle"EngineeringCulturalStudies:Thepostdisciplinaryadventuresofmindplayers,fools,andothers."Morespecificallysherelatesthestory, tensions and context of the program in science, technology, and culture offered in the School ofLiterature, Communication and Culture (LCC) at Georgia Tech. Partly this is done through the work ofcyberpunksciencefictionwriterPatCadigan.

    LCC used to be an English Department and was transformed in 1990. Balsamo discusses the differentidentitiesthatfacultywearandthecomplexinterrelationsassociatedwithbeingahumanitiesrepresentativeat a predominantly technical school. For instance, the institutional position requires LCC faculty to becommittedtotraditionalhumanitiesvalues,inordernottogiveengineeringschoolsargumentsforreducingordoingawaywiththehumanitiesrequirement.Thelackofastableidentityistheresultofdifferentrolesandaninterdisciplinarysetting,anditresonateswiththelackofstableidentitythatseemstobesuchanintegralpartof humanities computing.The interdisciplinarymeetingsandsettingare important tobothenterprises,buttheyarenotwithoutrisk:

    Forging these new alliances with technologists, scientists, andmedical educators offersthepossibilityofstakingaclaimonaterritorythathasbeenpreviouslyofflimitstothenonscientistculturaltheorists.Aswithotherpoliticalstruggles,theprojectofalliancebuildingisnotwithoutitsrisksanddangers.[Balsamo2000,268]

    Anothersimilarityisinstrumentalisticexpectationsfromthe"outside."InthecaseofaninstitutionsuchasLCCthere are expectations of delivering "high culture" and presumably, useful knowledge, to engineeringstudents.Atthesametimetherearebasicvaluesandcriticalperspectivesthatneedtobeexpressed:

    Asafeministscholar,Icertainlydontwanttoabandontheepistemologicalcritiqueoftheconstructionofscientificknowledgeaspatriarchalknowledge.NordoIwanttogiveuponthe pursuit of social justice through scientific and technologicalmeans. This becomesanotheroccasionforthepracticeofidentityswitchingthistimenotsimplybetweenthehumanistandthecritic,butbetweentheteacherandtheadvocate.Whereastheteacherdemandsthestudentsengagethephilosophicalcritiqueofanepistemologicalworldviewand construct their own assessment of the valueladen nature of a particular scientificworldview, the advocate continues to guide them towards careers in science andtechnologyandencouragethemtofindawaytomakeadifference.[Balsamo2000,271]

    Both Balsamos engaging narrative and the narratives of humanities computing speak about being in

  • 12/6/2014 DHQ:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly:HumanitiesComputingasDigitalHumanities

    http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/3/000065/000065.html 14/17

    60

    61

    62

    between,havingmultipleidentities,lackingastableidentity,andengagingrichlybutnotunproblematicallywithotherdisciplineswithinandwithoutthelocalsetting.Thereisenergy,risktakingandwantingtomakeadifferenceinsuchnarratives.

    Georgia Tech and traditional humanities computing clearly represent very different approaches to digitalhumanities. For example, while Balsamo sees information technology as a cultural object in need ofexplorationandepistemologicalcritique,traditionalhumanitiescomputingtreatstechnologyinamoreformaland instrumental way. In the next article in this series, an attempt to lay out a more detailed andcomprehensivemapofthedigitalhumanitieswillbemade.Anumberofdiverseinitiativesandapproachesareusedasexamples,anddifferentmodesofengagementwiththe"digital"arediscussedatmorelength.The story of the digital humanities continues to be complex in terms of the theoretical, practicebased,historical,technicalanddisciplinaryfoundationsandafastchanginglandscape.Itisexactlythesequalitiesthatmakedigitalhumanitiesanexcitingfieldtostudy,andaplacefullofenergyandmultipleidentities.

    AcknowledgementsI drawon interactionwith a greatmanyhelpful and inspiring scholars,managers, artists, developersandothers.IwouldliketothankMatthewRattoforhiscarefulreadingofdraftsandhissuggestionsandStephanieHendrickforhercommentsandlanguagesuggestions.Inaddition,IhavegreatlybenefitedfromdiscussionswithGeoffreyRockwell,WillardMcCarty,DavidTheoGoldberg,LisaParks,KatherineHayles,ChristopherWitmore,EricaRobles,MichaelShanks,JeffreySchnapp,AnneBalsamo,TaraMcPhersonandmanyothers.

    Notes[1]Forinstance,theprivilegedroleoftextcanbeindicatedthroughlookingatfourrecentissuesofthejournal:[LiteraryandLinguisticComputing24:1](specialtheme:Computingtheedition),[LiteraryandLinguisticComputing23:4](largelystatisticaltextanalysis),[LiteraryandLinguisticComputing23:3](largelytextanalysisapartfromonearticleonscholarlyvisualization)and[LiteraryandLinguisticComputing23:2](largelytextanalysis,annotationandauthorshipattribution).Seealsoexpandeddiscussionlaterinthisarticle.

    [2]http://www.ach.org/abstracts/1999/renearach.html

    [3]http://cfp.english.upenn.edu/archive/Collections/0047.html

    [4]Seee.g.http://www.ach.org/documents/minutes2003.html

    [5][Humanist21.436].InDecember2004,therewereabout1500subscriberspersonalcommunicationwithWillardMcCarty.Thereadershipthusseemsrelativelystable.

    [6]ThereisanarchiveoftheHumanistlistwhichmakesforinterestingreadingandhistoricalcontextualization.http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/

    [7]Interestingly,[Terras2006]employsasomewhatsimilarmaterialinheranalysis.AsfarasIknowtheseareindependentanalyses.Myownmaterialwasfirstpresentedpubliclyin2004.

    [8]InparticularEnglishdepartmentsarelikelytobetargeted.Theyarepartoftheheritageandidentityofhumanitiescomputingaswellasthefoundationalnarrativesmentionedearlier.GeoffreyRockwellwrites,"Adisciplinemaintainscommonstoriesofitsfoundingandahistorycompletewithheroes(FatherBusa),monsters(EnglishDepartments)andtimelyachievements(thepublicationoftheTEIP4)."[Rockwell2002]

    [9]ItisrepresentativeofAarsethspositionandrefreshinglyprovocativestylethathisALLC/ACH2005keynotewasentitled"Old,new,borrowed,blue?CantheHumanitiesContributetoGameResearch?"

    [10]ThetextfilesweretakenfromtheHumanistwebsiteapartfromissues20052006and20062007whichwerecreated.

    [11]AninterestingexampleofcoexistencecanbefoundintheintroductiontotheACompaniontoDigitalHumanities:"Thedigitalhumanities,then,andtheirinterdisciplinarycorefoundinthefieldofhumanitiescomputing,havealonganddynamichistorybestillustratedbyexaminationofthelocationsatwhichspecificdisciplinarypracticesintersectwithcomputation."

    [12]Inhershortreferencetotermsforthefield,[Terras2006]seemstoregardtheseandotherrelatedtermsas

  • 12/6/2014 DHQ:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly:HumanitiesComputingasDigitalHumanities

    http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/3/000065/000065.html 15/17

    moreorlessequivalent.Inthisanalysisthetermsarenotseenassynonymous.Rathertheyhavecertaintraditionsandvaluesassociatedwiththem.

    [13][Renear2004]providesausefuloverviewandhistoryoftextencoding.

    [14]Whileweb2.0iscertainlyabuzzwordthereisnodoubtmuchinterestingdevelopmentinwebbasedcollaborativeandsocialsoftware,handlingofmicrocontent,visualizationandinnovativeinterfaces.See[Alexander2006]forausefuloverview.

    [15]http://tada.mcmaster.ca/Main/WhatIsExtremeTextAnalysis

    [16]Conversely,thetargetgroupmaybetoolargeorknowledgeablewhenthemethodsortechnologiesarealreadyinuse.

    [17]CommentingonJuolaspresentationatDH2006inPairsinaninformalwikientry,GeoffreyRockwellwrites,"Whydowehavetogetbuyinfromothers?Doresearchersinestablishedfieldsfeeltheyneedtoconverteveryoneelseinthehumanities?Dowereallyneedlegitimizationfromothers?"(http://tada.mcmaster.ca/view/Main/Dh2006?skin=plain).

    [18]Terrassaysthat"[t]hefieldmayonlyflourishasanacademicsubjectifitbecomeslessinsularandinteractsbothwithComputerScienceandthoseHumanitiesscholarswhoarelesswillingtoacceptcomputingaspartoftheirresearchtools"[Terras2006,243].

    [19]Or,forthatmatter,a"postvisual"turnrepresentedbyforinstance[Sterne2006]and[Witmore2006].

    [20]Whilethereseemstobeinterestintextminingandgridcomputingfortextualanalysisinhumanitiescomputingitseemsmorelikelythatabroaderrangeofdata,visualizationandcomputingintensiveapplicationswilldevelopinrelationtonontextualmaterial(oracombinationoftextualandnontextualmaterial).

    [21]McCartyalsoaddsthatthesetoolsarederivedfromandtheirapplicationgovernedby"formalmethods."Theformalisticaspectsofhumanitiescomputingwillnotbediscussedinanygreatdetailhere.

    [22]Tothebestofmyknowledge.

    [23]RockwellandLancashiredodiscusspreservationofelectronictexts:"Thefutureunderstandingofourpastandunderstandingofthisageoftechnologicalchangewillbeincompleteifwedonottakestepstopreserveoneofthemostwidelyusedformsofelectronicinformationtheelectronictext."(http://tapor.ualberta.ca/Resources/TAIntro/).

    [24]Theneedforastrongerlinktothedisciplineshasbeenarticulatedinseveraldifferentcontexts.InaninterestingHumanistthread([Humanist6.0357],[Humanist6.0362])from1992,MarkOlsensays(ratherprovocatively)that"Humanitiescomputingisahobbylargelybecausetherehasbeenaconsistentfailureamongthepractitionersofhumanitiescomputingtorocktheboattoproduceresultsofsufficientinterest,rigorandappealtoattractafollowingamongscholarswho*donot*makeextensiveuseofcomputers."While"rockingtheboat"shouldnotbeagoalinitselfitistruethatthekindofdevelopmentindicatedherewouldprobablybringaboutmoredisciplinespecificandhumanitiesexternalinterest.

    WorksCited

    Aarseth1997Aarseth,Espen.1997."ThefieldofHumanisticInformaticsanditsrelationtothehumanities."HumanIT,4/97.http://www.hb.se/bhs/ith/497/ea.htm

    Alexander2006Alexander,Bryan.2006."Web2.0:Anewwaveofinnovationforteachingandlearning?"EducauseReview,March/April2006.http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0621.pdf

    Balsamo2000Balsamo,Anne.2000."EngineeringCulturalStudies:Thepostdisciplinaryadventuresofmindplayers,fools,andothers."InReid,RoddeyandSharonTraweek(eds.),DoingScience+Culture,259274.Routledge:NewYork.

    Blackwell2004Schreibman,etal(eds.),ACompaniontoDigitalHumanities.Oxford:2004.

    Burnard2002Burnard,Lou.2002."HumanitiesComputinginOxford:aRetrospective."HumanitiesComputing.http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lou/wip/hcuobit.txt

    Busa2004Busa,R.(2004)."Foreword."InSchreibman,etal(eds.),ACompaniontoDigitalHumanities2004,xvixxi.

    deSmedt2002deSmedt,Koenraad.2002."Somereflectionsonstudiesinhumanitiescomputing."Journalof

  • 12/6/2014 DHQ:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly:HumanitiesComputingasDigitalHumanities

    http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/3/000065/000065.html 16/17

    LinguisticandLiteraryComputing,17,89101.

    DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly2007Editorial,DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly,2007,1:1.

    Drucker&Nowviskie2004Drucker,JohannaandBethanyNowviskie.2004."SpeculativeComputing:AestheticprovocationsinHumanitiesComputing."InSchreibman,etal(eds.),ACompaniontoDigitalHumanities2004,431447.

    Flanders&Unsworth2002Flanders,JuliaandJohnUnsworth.2002."TheEvolutionofHumanitiesComputingCenters."ComputersandtheHumanities36:379380.

    Hockey2004Hockey,Susan.2004."Historyofhumanitiescomputing."InSchreibman,etal(eds.),ACompaniontoDigitalHumanities2004,119.

    Humanist17.111Svensson,Patrik,andWillardMcCarty."17.111HistoryinTerms"June21,2003.http://www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist/archives/virginia/v17/0107.html

    Humanist18.001McCarty,Willard."18.001Happy17thBirthday"May10,2004.http://www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist/archives/virginia/v18/0000.html

    Humanist18.615McCarty,Willard."18.615ComputersandtheHumanities19662004."March5,2005.http://www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist/archives/virginia/v18/0604.html

    Humanist19.052Siemens,Ray."19.052newbookseriesinhumanitiescomputing"May26,2005.http://www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist/archives/virginia/v19/0053.html

    Humanist21.436McCarty,Willard."21.436Happy&merrysolstitialgreetings!"December21,2007http://www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist/archives/virginia/v21/0434.html

    Humanist21.469McCarty,Willard,CarstenLutzandMelanieChernyk."21.469moreevents:DL2008DigitalHumanitiesSummerInstitute."January10,2008.http://www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist/archives/virginia/v21/0467.html

    Humanist6.0357Brennan,Elaine."6.0357HumanitiesComputing:MerelyaHobby?"November17,1992.http://www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist/archives/virginia/v06/0358.html

    Humanist6.0362Rabkin,Eric,andJimGuthrie."6.0362Rs:NewspapersOnline"November17,1992.http://www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist/archives/virginia/v06/0363.html

    Jessop2007Jessop,Martyn.2007."TheInhibitionofGeographicalInformationinDigitalHumanitiesScholarship."LiteraryandLinguisticComputing,AdvanceAccesspublishedonNovember20,2007

    Juola2008Juola,Patrick.2008."Killerapplicationsindigitalhumanities."LiteraryandLinguisticComputing,23(1):7383.

    Kiernan1991Kiernan,K.S.1991."DigitalImageProcessingandtheBeowulfManuscript".LiteraryandLinguisticComputing6:207.

    Kirschenbaum2004Kirschenbaum,Matthew.2004."Interface,aesthetics,andusability."InSchreibman,etal(eds.),ACompaniontoDigitalHumanities2005,523542.

    Klein1996Klein,JulieThomson.1996.CrossingBoundaries:Knowledge,Disciplinarities,andInterdisciplinarities.Charlottesville,VA:UniversityofVirginiaPress.

    KnorrCetina1999KnorrCetina,Karin.1999.EpistemicCultures:HowtheSciencesMakeKnowledge.HarvardUniversityPress:Cambridge,MA.

    LiteraryandLinguisticComputing23:2LiteraryandLinguisticComputing,OxfordJournals.Volume23,Number2,June2008.http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol23/issue2/index.dtl

    LiteraryandLinguisticComputing23:3LiteraryandLinguisticComputing,OxfordJournals.Volume23,Number3,September2008.http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol23/issue3/index.dtl

    LiteraryandLinguisticComputing23:4LiteraryandLinguisticComputing,OxfordJournals.Volume23,Number4,December2008.http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol23/issue4/index.dtl

    LiteraryandLinguisticComputing24:1LiteraryandLinguisticComputing,OxfordJournals.Volume24,Number1,April2009.http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol24/issue1/index.dtl

    McCarty&KirschenbaumMcCarty,WillardandMatthewKirschenbaum."Institutionalmodelsforhumanitiescomputing."http://www.allc.org/imhc/

    McCarty1996McCarty,Willard.1996."Introductiontoconcordingandtextanalysis:history,theory,and

  • 12/6/2014 DHQ:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly:HumanitiesComputingasDigitalHumanities

    http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/3/000065/000065.html 17/17

    methodology."InHockey,SusanwandWillardMcCarty(eds.),CETHSummerSeminar.Princeton,NJ:CETH,Section5.

    McCarty2005McCarty,Willard.2005.HumanitiesComputing.Palgrave:NewYork.

    McGann2001McGann,Jerome.2001.RadiantTextuality:Literatureaftertheworldwideweb.PalgraveMacmillan:NewYork.

    McGann2004McGann,Jerome.2004."Markingtextsofmanydimensions."InSchreibman,etal(eds.),ACompaniontoDigitalHumanities2004,198217.

    McGann2006McGann,Jerome.2006.TheScholarsArt:LiteraryStudiesinaManagedWorld.ChicagoUniversityPress:Chicago.

    Ratto2006Ratto,Matthew.2006."Epistemiccommitmentsandarchaeologicalrepresentation."InOosterbeekL,RaposoJ(eds)XVCongrsdelUnionInternationaledesSciencesPrhistoriquesetProtohistoriques.LivredesRsums,vol1,p.60.http://www.uispp.ipt.pt/uisppprogfin/livro2.pdf

    Renear2004Renear,AllenH.2004."Textencoding."InSchreibman,etal(eds.),ACompaniontoDigitalHumanities2004,218239.

    Rockwell2002Rockwell,Geoffrey.2002."Multimedia,isitadiscipline?Theliberalandservileartsinhumanitiescomputing."JahrbuchsfrComputerphilologie4.Paderborn:mentisVerlag.http://computerphilologie.tudarmstadt.de/jg02/rockwell.html

    Rockwell2003Rockwell,Geoffrey.2003."Whatistextanalysis,really?"LiteraryandLinguisticComputing,Vol.18,No.2.

    Rockwell2004Rockwell,Geoffrey.2004."HumanitiesComputingChallenges."Blogentry,August31,2004.http://www.philosophi.ca/theoreti/?p=544

    Schreibman,Siemens&Unsworth2004Schreibman,Susan,RaySiemensandJohnUnsworth(eds.).2004.ACompaniontoDigitalHumanities.Blackwell:Malden,MA.

    Sterne2006Sterne,Jonathan.2006."Thehistoriographyofcyberculture,"inSilver,DavidandAdrienneMassanari(eds.),CriticalCybercultureStudies.NewYorkUniversityPress:NewYork.

    Terras2006Terras,Melissa.2006."Disciplined:Usingeducationalstudiestoanalyse'HumanitiesComputing'."LiteraryandLinguisticComputing,Vol21,No.2.

    Witmore2006Witmore,Christopher.2006."Vision,Media,Noise,andthePercolationofTime."JournalofMaterialCulture.Vol.11(3),267292.

    Zweig1998Zweig,R.W.1998."LessonsfromthePalestinePostProject."LiteraryandLinguisticComputing13:8997.