October 3 2017

Kathaleen McDonald

Dr. Wielgos

Senior Seminar

3 October 2017

Response Nine: What is Digital Humanities Anyway?

            This seems like something that I feel should have been addressed in week one rather than week six. However, I did really enjoy the readings for this response, which were both Digital Humanities Manifestoes from UCLA, Bob Samuel’s “Race to the Bottom: A Critical Response to the UCLA Humanities Task Force,” and the Whitepaper “The Promise of Digital Humanities.” I feel like I now have an even better understanding of what digital humanities is, and how I can support it in my future classroom.

            I loved Bob Samuel’s article. He is just so angry, and seems like he is way too rooted in tradition. He’s arguing that lecturers jobs will be threatened by offering online classes (especially over the summer), it’ll cost more money to offer online classes, and that students will receive a less-than-stellar education compared to students who are traditionally taught through lecture. One thing that Samuel said that I agree with, though, is that he says that UCLA’s authors of this task force “actually suggest placing faculty from other departments who continue to have low workloads into writing classes.” I think that having professors who are not trained in teaching writing could be very detrimental to a student’s education, English major or not. Everyone needs good writing and literacy skills because, as we have been discussing in class, many employers are looking for candidates who have good writing and literacy skills. I think Samuel’s other accusations sound a little ridiculous, but I think there are classes that are okay to teach online, such as math and creative writing, whereas some classes should stay in the classroom, such as art or biology. Those are the classes I would suggest, but I’m sure others may feel differently. This is also not to say that technology shouldn’t be included in the classes where instruction is held in person, since there is always room for technology in the classroom.

            I really enjoyed reading the Digital Humanities Manifestoes. I felt like I got a lot more out of The Digital Humanities Manifesto 2.0, since the first manifesto they published was pretty much reiterated and for the most part word-for-word in the second manifesto. I think what I took away the most from this manifesto was under paragraph fifty-two (I’m not sure exactly how to phrase how the manifesto categorizes its points). The authors state “Digital Humanities represent an effort not to downplay or ‘downsize’ these traditional merits but, on the contrary, to reassert and reinterpret their value in an era when our relation to information, knowledge, and cultural heritage is radically changing, when our entire cultural legacy as a species is migrating to digital formats.” I think a lot of people think that digital humanities and technology are trying to change everything there is about the humanities, whereas digital humanities is really just trying to keep with the times, and make sure the legacy of the humanities continues to live on.

            Finally, the Whitepaper gives a very exact definition of digital humanities and how it can be characterized. The authors state that the digital humanities can be characterized as interdisciplinary, collaborative, socially engaged, global, and timely and relevant (3). Under timely and relevant, the authors say that in order for twenty-first century students to be in the competitive job market, digital humanities teaches students “the critical thinking skills, media literacies, and technical knowledge necessary for success in the digital information age” (3).

            I think that digital humanities should be celebrated instead of scrutinized (I’m looking at you, Bob Samuel). I think that as technology becomes more prominent in our everyday lives, especially the lives of twenty-first century students, digital literacy needs to be taught now more than ever, so students can be ready to enter the world where technology is a force to be reckoned with.