Based on the readings, activities, and examples, my own personal definition of Digital Humanities is that it is a comprehensive method of practice that seeks to synthesize traditional forms of humanistic study with digital tools and media, in order to enhance the humanities’ scope, perspective, and engagement. I came to this definition because of how expansive Digital Humanities has become in form and use over the years, making it rather difficult to pinpoint a specific identity; as Matthew Kirschenbaum says in his definition, it is “methodological by nature and interdisciplinary in scope” (Module 2.3.1). The term Digital Humanities encompasses all of the modern electronic tools, programs, and practices of the modern computing era, none of which being constrained to a specific discipline or field. The majority of terms from the TaDiRAH database are digital in nature, such as “Data Mining” and “Machine Learning,” reflecting what differentiates the Digital Humanities from prior practice (TaDiRAH). However, Digital Humanities is not merely the use of such computational means, as explained by the reading from “A Short Guide to the Digital Humanities.” It is not the “mere use of digital tools for the purpose of humanistic research” and other objects, but rather it “understands its object of study as the entire human record” because it is applicable to every humanistic endeavor (Burdick, et. al.). As it is applied to multitudinous fields of study, so too is it continually expanded and enhanced through the use of new tools and practices. In this way, as Klein and Gold relate in the reading, it can be partly understood as “a field that operates through relation, one that informs and is informed by allied disciplines,” underscoring its highly collaborative nature.
The multimodal identity of the Digital Humanities is exemplified through the sample projects in the Module. Some focused on digital transcription and archival of physical paper sources into an electronic database, such as the Shelley-Godwin Archive and Photogrammar, representing a clear relationship between past preservation practices and new digital ones. However, most of them offered unique perspectives that cannot be replicated through traditional means, such as “Constructing the Sacred’s” use of 3D modeling techniques and “Mapping Marronage’s” use of mapping to illustrate its data. Moreover, Omeka illustrates Digital Humanities’ role in enhancing publishing and the sharing of data and information. Overall, these examples highlight the multifaceted nature of Digital Humanities: it involves many different means and methods for various objectives that supplement, not replace, the existing humanities. As modern technology continues to develop, so too will the importance of Digital Humanities, as the modern age creates its own sources, speeches, and artifacts that can only be accessed and understood through its means; as “A Short Guide to the Digital Humanities” explains, it explores a “universe
in which print is no longer the primary medium in
which knowledge is produced and disseminated” (Burdick, et. al.). I believe that my definition succinctly captures these aspects of Digital Humanities, from its collaborative nature to its expanding scale, but it will likely change so long as the Digital Humanities continue to change as well.
Sources Cited:
ACDH-CH/DARIAH Vocabularies: tadirah: Alphabetical index:
Hi, this is a comment.
To get started with moderating, editing, and deleting comments, please visit the Comments screen in the dashboard.
Commenter avatars come from Gravatar.