Here is a list of ‘podcast’ seminars undertaken by the Methods Network at the Centre for Computing in the Humanities here at King’s College. And don’t you just love the Internet; it means that you don’t have to attend all these seminars! And it is now becoming possible to learn about almost any subject online, not only through text (as has been the case up until very recently) but also through video and audio. And you can listen to them when ever you want; the best thing about the Internet is not the ease of distribution, but the reinvention of asynchronous time. Here is the URI to subscribe:
The Humanities Research Institute at the University of Sheffield, like the Centre for Computing in the Humanities at King’s College London, is one of the leading centres in the UK in the digital humanities. Check out their range of projects..
As its history of successfully completed projects demonstrates, the HRI has to date concentrated on the use of innovative techniques for handling digital text, images and multi-media in order to explore issues in humanities research which cannot be readily investigated by other means (link).
On of the major centres for digitisation projects in Ireland is the Long Room Hub at Trinity College. They have a list of projects that they are working on (although the links are broken so you mights have to search for the web pages yourself). This image is of James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh, one of the founders of Trinity (1625-1656). That thing around his neck looks awfully uncomfortable and must have been a bugger to keep clean.
Here is a report done in the UK to help advance peer review processes for digital work in the arts and humanities. Peer review is a problematic issue, especially in Australia, in that many academics who don’t invest any intellectual energy into advancing digital work for humanistic purposes are (ironically) rewarded more than those academics that do advance it (ie. only peer-reviewed journal articles and books are quantifiable as ‘research’ whilst digital scholarship is marginalised). Another related problem is that many academics ‘critically’ understand popular and commercial software at the expense of a more scholarly appreciation of academic software. Let’s hope that these emerging peer-review processes can foster more well-rounded research. Peer processes not only need to recognise digital-scholarly-output, but they also need to make sure that academics are not unduly rewarded (through promotion, tenure, and other rewards) for not investing in digital technology.
The mechanisms for the evaluation and peer review of the traditional print outputs of scholarly research in the arts and humanities are well established, but no equivalent exists for assessing the value of digital resources and of the scholarly work which leads to their creation. This project proposes to establish a framework for evaluating the quality, sustainability and impact over time of digital resources for the arts and humanities, using History, in its broadest sense, as a case study (link).
Also, check out the criteria for promotion and tenure guidelines developed by the University of Maine, in the US:
Recognition and achievement in the field of new media must be measured by standards as high as but different from those in established artistic or scientific disciplines. As the reports from the American Council of Learned Societies, the Modern Language Association, and the University of Maine recommend, promotion and tenure guidelines must be revised to encourage the creative and innovative use of technology if universities are to remain competitive in the 21st century (link).
I haven’t played with this tool as yet but I would be intereted to hear your ideas…
TAPoR is a gateway to tools for sophisticated analysis and retrieval, along with representative texts for experimentation (link).
Here is a list of links that are useful for humanities computing research. Thanks to Geoffrey Rockwell for the (link).