In my role as Digital Humanities (DH) Academic Champion, I promote an understanding of DH within the University of Reading and I lead the Community of Practice.
One of the questions that colleagues ask me most frequently is whether DH is a discipline or a set of methods. To me, DH is both. It is a discipline in its own right that critically studies how digital technologies and methods intersect with humanities scholarship. It also applies such technologies and methods to answer interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research questions. In doing so, DH unveils new pathways of innovative and creative thinking.
As Lara Putman explains in her 2016 ground-breaking article, “The Transnational and the Text-Searchable: Digitized Sources and the Shadows They Cast”, DH has opened up new and more complex research questions in a range of disciplines and it has made collaborative and interdisciplinary research possible. DH tools make us think differently about our data (and yes, we all have data!). These can uncover patterns in our data that would be difficult to infer without such tools. They can also help us to represent and communicate ideas in different ways. In this sense, as Jeffrey Schnapp has argued, DH is not a continuation of humanist traditions. It is disruptive. It makes us rethink how we understand the humanities.
Do we all need to turn into digital humanists then? Of course not! Though, to paraphrase Ian Milligan, if we are not all digital humanists, we are all digitized humanists. Not all research projects require digital tools to answer their questions and DH’s aim is not to replace the traditional humanities. Quite the contrary, in this scenario the role of the humanist becomes even more essential.
As scholars, however, we all have a professional duty to engage with the broader debates surrounding DH as a discipline. Technology has always been central to the constitution of what we call “the human,” but DH cannot be imported into the humanities without criticism and self-reflection. We need to understand the impact that the Digital Age is having on our research practice and learning environment.
While DH can help address new, big and complex questions, it can also generate political and social inequality, what Gerben Zaagsma calls “digital disparity.” DH is a very expensive business and requires considerable financial and infrastructural support. Digitization processes, documentation storage, and projects’ sustainability (including environmental sustainability), to name a few, are all costly activities. No wonder so many public-private partnerships are increasingly driving these activities. What are the implications? How are these partnerships shaping access to resources? How inclusive are these processes? And what about research ethics?
Given its cost, DH has almost exclusively been the domain of the rich Global North and English has been its dominant language. What happens to those individuals, communities or countries who don’t have the financial resources necessary to access this digital world? Or don’t speak English? For me, as a historian, this raises one fundamental question: Who is going to tell their story?
Without conscious engagement, we are at risk of generating new archival silences and new forms of colonialism. We all, therefore, have a responsibility to become more digitally literate to understand the implications and the appropriateness of these methods. Regardless of whether we want to use DH methods in our research or not, we need to be aware of how technology is shaping the creation and dissemination of knowledge so that we can ensure that this process remains as transparent as possible and accessible to as many as possible. We owe it to future generations of students and colleagues
Dr Mara Oliva, FHEA
Associate Professor in Modern US history
Digital Humanities Champion, University of Reading
Peer Review Editor at Digital Humanities Quarterly