Digital Humanities is …
an innovative and creative field that combines knowledge of the humanities with emerging technologies. It examines the culture, stories, history, and art of communities to ask questions and generate ideas. As Matthew K. Gold puts it, DH has been developing over the years into a field of ‘socially oriented work’ (Gold, A DH That Matters). And we can track this development by engaging with the researcher’s comprehensive collections, Debates in Digital Humanities. From a field focused on establishing its own definition and finding its rightful place among more traditional academic scholarship; through loosening strict approaches of “The Big Tent”‘s “who’s in and who’s out”, by perceiving itself as “the expanded field” of relationships between its key concepts, and the possibilities they create; to stepping outside of the university walls by ‘engage[ing] the world outside academy’; to currently being oriented towards responding to pressing world issues and creating possibilities for inclusive futures.
An example of such a project could be Shakespeare and Company, which brings to the world a digitised (and therefore accessible) archive compiled by Sylvia Beach. These are library cards of (not only) famous writers and artists who held memberships at the Paris bookshop and lending library in the inter-war years. The public can, for example, browse the books that Gertrude Stein or Simone de Beauvoir read and engage with them themselves. It could also lead researchers engaging with it to create new, interesting projects that track influences on a particular author’s ideas in their publications. However, as we discussed in class, such a project also leads us to question whether such data should and can be made public. What about privacy? Wouldn’t James Joyce have wanted to keep his library card private?
That’s what interests me most in Digital Humanities. It is a way of creative reflecting on the current state of the world, in which our lives are becoming increasingly computerised and digitised. It is about two-way, collaborative approaches, in which communities and the public inform scholars’ work, and scholars foster critical thinking about emerging cultural and digital phenomena. But, most importantly for me, I see at the core of the DH, its commitment to asking critical questions regarding the world around us and the emerging technologies within it.
I think the questions raised here about the ethics of data gathering are really interesting, and similar to the ones Jacob raised in their excellent post! And I wonder if this also brings in DH’s focus on accessibility in an interesting way? Because so much data can be used, and the digital tools used to analyse and present the data are still relatively new and fast-moving, would this have implications for how comprehensive the ethical framework surrounding data collection and presentation might be? Is there a question of whether current ethical frameworks can keep pace with technological capabilities? There seems so much more room for oversight when projects are dealing with such large amounts of data. In this regard accessibility seems like a bit of a double-edged sword: the more accessible data is for researchers, the less privacy there might be around the subject. Amidst the findings of ongoing decolonising projects, which Edinburgh uni is heavily implicated in, would this make any scholars involved in DH think differently about data ethics or how the University’s records can be used? When we digitize archives that involve people who were historically marginalized or silenced, how do we balance a right to know with a right to privacy or cultural sensitivity? Maybe this will come up in the material for subsequent weeks
Thank you for your comment, Euan. I certainly agree with the points you raised here, and the questions surrounding accessibility are very valid. You asking: ‘Is there a question of whether current ethical frameworks can keep pace with technological capabilities?’ particularly reminded me of my own reflections on Regan’s post. The issues of pace and rapidity of knowledge production certainly seem crucial when discussing the accessibility of data and the ethics of data use. Just taking a look at the tech world itself can show that the drive for innovation, new projects, and technological capabilities does not always go hand in hand with ethical and sustainable development. Even though DH does seem to concern itself with questions of ethics and accessibility, maybe, just thinking, it is not enough to just pose questions? The fact that we can do and then, when “doing” is finished, we question this “doing”, doesn’t necessarily produce good results? Just some light musings…