Next year will be a reasonably big year on the Digital Humanities calendar in Australia. In March, we will hold THATCamp here at the University of Melbourne and also, we will establish our very own Digital Humanities Association in the first quarter of 2011. In the second half of the year, I will run a symposium with a Digital Humanities theme; possibly on reading or on Virtual Research Environments.There are also a number of projects that VeRSI is involved that will come into fruition in 2011.
In terms of a regional Association, there is a lot of work to be done. The term ‘Digital Humanities’ isn’t widely used in Australia but I have found little resistance to its use within the forums in which I have participated or organised. It is important to use the term ‘Digital Humanities’ as it is well understood in the US and Europe and as with all good research; we need to engage with the depth and breadth of knowledge in the field both locally and internationally so that this knowledge can be advanced (both locally and internationally). Plus we must acknowledge all the hard work of humanities scholars to establish the field over many decades. The Digital Humanities is research led and not service led. There are already a lot of excellent support mechanisms to support general computing in the humanities, but where the real gap lay is in research computing. By ‘research computing’ I mean using computers in a meaningful way to answer research questions (ie. the work of the ‘Digital Humanities’). As an example of this; the Founders and Survivors project is using linking methodologies to link records about the convict experience in Tasmania and uncover new knowledge about convicts. Convicts are the significant founding population of Australia and the use of computing methodologies in this instance is establishing new knowledge about this population.
The Digital Humanities isn’t about publishing a facsimile of a document online and then getting excited about this new found convenience. I have never heard of an Historian argue in a historical thesis the case for ‘convenience’. Research is inconvenient; it is about asking inconvenient questions. It isn’t simply about creating new access to digital facsimiles of a document (this is why we have Google who do a pretty average job). It is about creating machine readable texts that retain and advance the interpretative layer of that text. And the Digital Humanities isn’t Benthamite, utilitarian, nor modernist. These idea are usually associated with industry and government water utilities. The Digital Humanities is about culture; the cultural use of computing to understand new things about the human cultural condition. And some of the things we discover may be uncomfortable and inconvenient.
The Digital Humanities is always going to have at its core a rich philosophical debate about its defining values and principles. This is the sign of the maturity of the field because what field doesn’t have at its core the same set of reflections. It is the Benthamite, utilitarian, modernists who need concrete definitions. They would like to see us ‘defined’ in a glass cabinet in a 19th Century Museum where we would become inert, safe, and a curiosity to be viewed on special occasions. But like all humanities research, the Digital Humanities makes critical, dynamic, and holistic people who create problems (not solutions) . It is a dynamic set of skills and values that we apply to answer (inconvenient) questions.
Decoding Digital Humanities is an informal monthly get together in the pub to discuss all things digital in the humanities. This is an opportunity to meet others working on digital projects (or thinking of starting one) and is open to staff, students, and faculty.
This week we will discuss the recent article in the NY Times on the Digital Humanities. In particular, some of the contentious questions that arise from the article such as are the humanities heading towards a ‘post-theoretical age’.
There is a conference being held at the moment in Vienna, Austria titled ‘Supporting Digital Humanities’ (19-20 October). It is the first joint conference between the two major European digital humanities infrastructure projects, CLARIN and DARIAH. There is a very important distinction to be made here between ‘supporting the digital humanities’ and supporting the humanities. Accordingly, the conference’s aims are stated as thus:
Digital technologies have the potential to transform the types of research questions that we ask in the Humanities, and to allow us to address traditional questions in new and exciting ways. Supporting the Digital Humanities will be a forum for the discussion of these innovations, and of the ways in which these new forms of research can be facilitated and supported.
It is important to make this distinction explicit; that new infrastructure development must support digital scholarship (ie. the digital humanities) and not simply be about storage and publication (like older style digital projects). Infrastructures should support processes such as annotation, text encoding, mining and text analysis, and programmatic access (trough APIs) to the underlying structured data. In this way new questions may be asked or old questions asked in new ways. Often, this promise of the Digital Humanities is evoked more than it is actualised, but still I think there are enough honest researchers in the field who care enough about truth in research, that the potential research findings from these large public investments will be substantial (link).
For those interested in the Cyberinfrastructure debate within Australia for the humanities, there are a number of key documents to consider. Here is a report produced by Professor Graeme Turner for the Australian Academy of the Humanities titled ‘Towards an Australian Humanities Digital Archive‘. The report came out of a scoping study of Digital Humanities activities; in particular for consideration by NCRIS’s (National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy) investment roadmap. (Also see the Humanities and Social Sciences working group’s response to the NCRIS Roadmap review).
As a component of the NCRIS process, the National Research Infrastructure Council (NRIC) has been established to administer a programme called ‘Landmark Infrastructure Needs‘. Responses have been called for; here is a response from the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia (ASSA). And here is the response from the Australian Academy of the Humanities (AAH).
And if you don’t know what Cyberinfrastructure is; it is like a big electronic brain that connects researchers together so they can share data and work on it collaboratively and answer big questions! Here is an example from the Earth Sciences called AuScope.
In conjunction with University College London’s Centre for Digital Humanities, Decoding Digital Humanities is an informal monthly get together in the pub to discuss all things digital in the humanities. This is an opportunity to meet others working on digital projects and is open to staff, students, and faculty.
The first meeting of this semester will be held at the Prince Alfred Hotel, 191 Grattan Street
Date: Thursday 29 July 2010
To kick off this semester, it is suggested that we engage with the same material as our colleagues at UCL. Melissa Terras from UCL gave the closing plenary at the recent Digital Humanities conference in London which is online as text and video and would be a good point to start the informal discussions. This is from UCL’s Centre for Digital Humanities web site.
The annual Digital Humanities 2010 conference held this year at King’s College London was brought to a close on 10 July with a plenary speech by Dr Melissa Terras (UCL). Due to the topical and timely nature of issues raised in the speech, we felt it would make an excellent focus for discussion. The assigned reading for our meetup on the 27th will be:
“Present, Not Voting: Digital Humanities in the Panopticon”. Text available here. Video available here.
Have a look at the video and text and come along and discuss at the pub. If you have any suggestions for articles, software, funding opportunities any ‘digital humanities’ ideas drop us a line and we will put it on the agenda. The meeting is organised by Craig Bellamy and Conal Tuohy of VeRSI. firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Digital Humanities 2010, King’s College London, 7-10 July, 2010.
Members of the VeRSI team attended the Digital Humanities Conference at King’s College London (7-10 July); the annual conference of the Association of Digital Humanities Organisations. The conference in its various guises has been running for 22 years or 37 years if the first conference of the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing is incorporated. This year’s Digital Humanities Conference was significant as two of the elder statesman of the field, Professors Harold Short and Willard McCarty are both retiring. Professor Short has been head of the Centre for Computing in the Humanities at King’s for many years and received a long, standing ovation from the 400 plus delegates at the Conference dinner. Professor McCarty is one of the strongest critical voices in the field and has built a thriving Doctoral programme in Digital Humanities at King’s and has published widely on the application of computing technology to the understanding of human culture.
This year’s conference also included pre-conference workshops on various applied subjects such as text-mining for Classicists, text analysis, peer reviewing of digital work, and even how to design a Digital Humanities Lab. Also before the conference, a THATCamp was held; an informal user-generated ‘unconference’ about humanities and technology. Subjects such as what is computing analysis for an historian, geography in text, and even a manifesto for the Digital Humanities were robustly discussed (a ThatCamp will be held in Canberra, 28-29 August 2010 http://thatcampcanberra.org )