Digital humanities is an expanding field which is, by its nature, continually active, developing, and growing. The live nature of data available online through the internet and digitised texts means that information available on Google Books, for example, is being continually updated to include new publications. That being said, there are certain cautions that should be taken with exploring data in this way, and examining data models in a critical way is an essential skill in the study of digital humanities. There are also ethical and moral considerations to take into account in digital humanities and the Debates in Digital Humanities publications show the development of these moral considerations from 2012 to 2019. In the 2012 Introduction, Matthew Gold asks ‘Does (digital humanities) have a politics?’ and notes that the volume he introduces takes a critical look at digital humanities and is not afraid to highlight its shortcomings at the time, including its lack of attention to issues such as race, gender, class, and sexuality. The tone of the introduction for the 2019 edition is notably expanded in its view, and speaks of a field that is proactively trying to ally with and aid activists and those seeking to empower others. One example of this is the establishment of the group Data for Black Lives Matter in 2017, which is employing the field of data science for matters of racial justice.
Another example of this in action is the Slave Voyages project which collates records relating to the Trans-Atlantic and Intra-American slave trades from 1501-1875, including the names of ships, number of slaves transported, sizes of crews, places disembarked, and names of captains. The public nature of the database is emphasised and the ability for contributions to be proposed and included (pending peer-review) affirms this. The public spirit of digital humanities seems strong here and the ability for anyone to access and explore this data in relation to research, either for personal or scholarly reasons, is a hugely positive aspect. In addition to this, the website includes lesson plans aimed at children aged 11-17 which feature activities that utilise the database and encourage students to conduct their own research. There are a variety of data mapping methods used in the database which present the data in engaging and easily readable ways, such as a time-lapse which represents the movement of slaves across the Atlantic through coloured dots. However, this contrasts somewhat to the sensitive subject matter the data represents, but nonetheless makes it more accessible to view. This is where the historical contextualisation included by the site is such a valuable addition: it provides social-historical context for the lives of the slaves who are essentially condensed into data points in the graphs and tables the website allows the user to view. Perhaps then, in the case of a data set relating to such a sensitive topic, an arms-length approach is best? Providing the essential historical contextualisation alongside the data allows the user to gain the information from the site that best suits their needs and draw their own interpretations from what they find. Regardless, making the data around the slave trade available and public and continually updating this information with new data (the site’s last update was August 2021) is a way of making the lives of those enslaved visible and available for anybody to research.
Anouk Lang
This is a terrific overview of the Slave Voyages, Lydia – I like the way you’ve combined concise descriptions with some evaluation of its resources and visualisations while also thinking about its audience and the fact that there’s the possibility for people outside the project to contribute data to it. You’ve also contextualised it nicely within the movement in the Debates intros that move towards a more politicised take on the discipline. Excellent work on the hyperlinks, too.
s1737092
I thought your comments surrounding questions of representation were really interesting, and the idea that different digital artefacts are perhaps more appropriate than others in terms of rendering a sensitive subject matter, such as slavery in this case. You emphasise the importance of historical contextualisation and the value this can bring to the data presented, something I equally explored in the Mining for Dispatch project that similarly focused on slavery.
Drawing upon the Debates Introductions, I liked your awareness of some of the shortcomings of the field, such as a lack of political commitment, but equally the ways in which the field is expanding and evolving. What I found particularly insightful was your awareness of how the choices regarding the representation of data are inherently political acts, and that this is something we should therefore be sensitive to.
You could perhaps develop upon why the ‘public spirit’ of the field is such a positive aspect – perhaps, for instance, the potential it holds to break down boundaries between scholars and the public, and the scope for knowledge to be democratised.
Lydia Housley
Thanks for your comments! I really like the phrase ‘public spirit’ and think it applies well to the field. It certainly has the potential to make data, and archives as a wider category, more accessible in a time where scholarship still feels quite an exclusive field. For peoples who historically have not had access to education in this way, empowering their descendants to be able to learn about their stories and pasts is hugely empowering and speaks to the potency of history as a foundation of one’s identity and sense of self. Allowing public contributions to the Slave Voyages database is particularly relevant here and allows people to see information they may know about their own ancestors inserted alongside the thousands of other data points already on the database.