The introductory articles were interesting in that they identified DH as quite a fast-moving and responsive discipline, so it’s maybe not that easy to pin down an exact definition.
One theme that came up through the readings was accessibility, how can scholarly critical thinking be open to more people, and how can what is published or created through this scholarship be available for a wide range of people to read? There is of course a link to technology, although exactly what platforms are used can vary. Overall the discipline appears to be an intersection between newer technologies and forms of literary criticism that we might think of as more traditional or conventional.
Regarding the fast-moving and responsive nature of the discipline, the first article in particular did make me think about how quickly the functionality and context surrounding particular platforms (like twitter which was referenced in the first introduction and is now x and a very different platform to 10 years ago… grok!) can change, and how might this affect their relationship with scholarship?
This area came up during the class discussion, we talked about the legitimacy of different platforms like Substack or how the cultures around open-access journals compare to publications which are behind a paywall. Particularly in a ‘post-truth’ age, a couple of the Debates in Digital Humanities introductions emphasised the importance of accessibility, but this also intersects with peer-review systems which are kind of obstacles to publication or dissemination but are valuable too.
Thinking of DH as the ‘analysis of a complex problem into a data model’ (from the extract on the board in class) kind of echoes this sentiment, forming a multifaceted, slippery idea into a more rigid structure will really index the ways in which the politics and materiality of particular platforms affect how scholarship is constructed and disseminated.
You mention the ‘post-truth age’ and validly reference it as a reason for increasing the accessibility of knowledge; however, this accessibility also presents certain risks, especially when considered alongside the board quote which discusses how DH often translates the complexity of humanities subjects into structures of logic and data. This runs the risk of flattening nuance and, as you rightly stated, influences ‘how scholarship is constructed and disseminated’. This is problematic because making texts more available for all does not mean that they will be read critically or in good faith; indeed, increased online accessibility means texts will be more susceptible to decontextualisation, cropping, algorithmic visibility etc. Moreover, the same digital text is unlikely to be read in the same way by an expert and a non-specialist, as differing levels of academic training and contextual knowledge inevitably shapes interpretation. Therefore, DH doesn’t just circulate within post-truth culture but actively participates in it, whether intentionally or not.
This was a really great read which highlighted a lot of the key points which stuck with me after the class discussion!
I found you final point about the ‘slippery idea into a more rigid structure will really index the ways in which the politics and materiality of particular platforms affect how scholarship is constructed and disseminated’ really compelling; with reference to your earlier point on the fast development of x, I, also, worry how these adjacent platforms will come to affect scholarship, and politics, more broadly. The biggest examples which come to mind with this, is the 2021 Cambridge Analytica scandal, and the worrying rise of right-wing politics across these platforms. I do think there is a point to me made that rapid development (especially with x) does not necessarily correlate to development in a productive, or improved, direction. I thought Arianne’s point about the potential risks associated with open-access ‘decontextualisation, cropping, algorithmic visibility’ ring especially true here. While I agree, in this case, that these examples show the problems with increased accessibility (in my experience, if wide swathes of content is free online, the product is normally your data), It gives me optimism that the peer-review system in Digital Humanities seems to enjoy the benefits of accessibility and collaboration, without the (slightly sinister) downsides of adjacent media platforms, in part due to the open-access approach to peer-review. In the readings, a lack of cohesion and strong political backbone seemed to be a major issue facing the discipline, but, as you mention, in such a rapidly growing, and increasingly inclusive field, is political coherence throughout the discipline possible, how does this stretch towards politics more broadly? I think Matthew Gold’s question certainly rings true here ‘Where does new media studies leave off and DH begin? Does it have a politics?’