this changes everything: the "digital turn" and the institutional practice of the...
DESCRIPTION
It is a truism to say that the “Digital Turn” is having a profound effect on disciplinary practice in the Humanities. It is affecting what we study, how we teach, and the methods we use present our findings. These are changes we've seen coming and, as a result, they have been well studied. But how is it affecting our institutional practice? The way we organise and adjudicate our work? The way we fund and understand our activity? The way we present ourselves to the public? How what we do is understood? These changes are as important and potentially far-reaching as anything affecting our disciplinary practice. But because they involve us rather than the things we study, they can be easier to overlook and more difficult to analyze. The inherent institutional conservatism of academy also ensures that they tend to move much more slowly, and often in the face of deep resistance. This paper looks at the effect the “Digital Turn” is having on the place and practice of the Humanities as an institution and how humanists are responding to the challenges and opportunities it presents. Perhaps most importantly, it discusses some of the new opportunities these changes present for improving the humanities relevance and standing in contemporary society.TRANSCRIPT
This changes everything!The “Digital Turn” and the Institutional Practice
of the Humanities
Daniel Paul O'DonnellUniversity of Lethbridge
[email protected]@danielPaulOD
I Seminário Internacional em Humanidades Digitais no Brasil.
Universidade de São Paulo. October 23, 2013
Imagine what it was like to be a middle-aged natural historian in 1869
Ten years after the publication of Origin of Species
1
Imagine what it was like to be a middle-aged natural historian in 1869
Ten years after the publication of Origin of Species
Study of what to study of how
Natural History to Biology
Statistics added to observation
2
The Humanities Darwinian Moment
Technological change is affecting the humanities in fundamental ways:
Methodology
What we study
Institutions
Will things look the same in 25 years?3
The Humanities Darwinian Moment
Change is more significant in Humanities than other disciplines because it is non-incremental.
Major change in how we work and the questions we ask.
In this paper, I'm going to look at some examplesof the institutional effect of these changes.
4
O'Donnell's Law
The non-trivial application of computing toHumanities research always involves a consideration of first principles.
5
O'Donnell's Law
The non-trivial application of computing toHumanities research always involves a consideration of first principles.
Or
Computers require us to develop principles thatcan then be used algorithmically (i.e. deductively)elsewhere.
6
Why am I speaking here?
A Canadian Anglo-Saxonist at a meeting of Portugese-speaking scholars in Brazil?
7
Why am I speaking here?
A Canadian Anglo-Saxonist at a meeting of Portugese-speaking scholars in Brazil?
Because of paradisciplinary experience with scholarly societies and scholarly communication:
Digital MedievalistGlobal Outlook::Digital HumanitiesCanadian Society for Digital Humanities
8
Why am I speaking here?
A Canadian Anglo-Saxonist at a meeting of Portugese-speaking scholars in Brazil?
Not something you would have seen 15 yearsago.
Because the pre-digital Humanities weretied to specific linguistic, cultural, and disciplinary interests.
9
Why am I speaking here?
This meeting is evidence of the generalising(i.e. deductive) turn the digital has introducedinto Humanities study.
We have something in common to talk about!
Globalisation of the Humanities only makes sense in a Digital context.
10
Why do people fund us?
Digital Humanities is target of many specialfunding opportunities not available to traditionalhumanities.
“Digging into Data” not “Digging into Shakespeare” or “Digging into Deconstruction”.
11
Why do people fund us?
Partially because we are efficient target
Allow access to many different disciplines united by single method or interest.
12
Why do people fund us?
But more importantly, we make the Humanitiesextensible
We leverage Humanities skills for goals other than personal fulfilment.
Make them applicable to economic ends.
We give our students transferable skills.
13
Who do we work for?
In traditional Humanities, clear distinction between peers and public
Peers work in universities and are trained inour discipline.
Public are people outside of universities wesometimes write special studies for
14
Who do we work for?
In Digital Humanities, distinction is less clear:
Work with multiple disciplines.
Work with wider range of specialists.
Greater engagement with non-Scholars
15
Who do we work for?
This causes us to question the previously rigid hierarchy Scholarly Dissemination > PopularDissemination.
Novel forms of publication (Blogs, Exhibitions, Crowd sourcing) puts pressure on our evaluationsystems.
16
This is our Survival of the Fittest
The bit we don't understand yet, but which is clearly is going to occupy our attention going forward.
Something new is required. But we don't know what.
Inherent conservatism of the academy willhold us back.
But final result will need to work with global, popular, reasonably well funded Humanities.
17
This is our Survival of the Fittest
Model is Darwinian divide in the library.
Predates our own (late 1990s/early 2000s)
Different issues; similar, though perhaps greater, disruption.
18
And finally, two problems
Globalisation ironically reduces diversity of expression
Research is conducted in lingua franca—by people who were hired because of their abilities in their native language and culture.
Extensibility of Digital Humanities to other domains opens us up to neo-liberal attack
Training is purpose not side benefit of research
19
