By Kate Theimer in Journal of Digital Humanities
Approaching the field of digital humanities as an outsider is an interesting experience. It is best compared, I think, to being a tourist in a foreign country for which there are no reliable guidebooks. It is a country in which the language is almost the same as the one you speak, and yet words are used to mean somewhat different things. It is also a relatively young country, still trying to define its national identity.
As an archivist, attempting to learn more about this foreign country of “Digital Humanities,” I am struck with how often its citizens refer to the “archives” they or their colleagues create. To continue the tourist analogy, imagine that the country I come from is the nation of “Archives,” and that it has a longer history than that of the country of Digital Humanities. The nation of Archives has well established national principles. It is a small country, perhaps, and not a powerful player on the international stage, but its citizens are quietly proud of what they have managed to accomplish with such a small national budget.
And so I, a tourist from the country of Archives, visited the foreign land of Digital Humanities and quickly realized that something a bit odd has happened to my treasured national heritage. When I questioned digital humanists about what they meant when they use the word “archives” or questioned the appropriateness of using it to describe various collections, the responses varied from befuddled confusion (“I’m not sure what I mean”) to a strenuous defense of the different usage. Given the emerging importance of digital humanities as a scholarly field, I thought it would be useful to explore this disconnect and so perhaps shed some light for both archivists and digital humanists about what each may mean when using this common word.
Archivists have become accustomed to the adoption of “archives” by information technologists as well as the general public to refer to things which we archivists would not call archives. So it is not the adoption of the term by digital humanists that is noteworthy, but that its meaning in certain contexts has been altered by scholars, many of whom have experience working with archives as traditionally defined. And yet it is these scholars who have chosen to describe the collections they have created as archives, seemingly in all sincerity that their usage is appropriate and not in contradiction to the practice of archivists. What could account for this disconnect?
Read the rest Here
By Adam Crymble in StatsLife
Family history giant Ancestry.com claims to have digitised 12.7 billion records that document an element of millions if not billions of individual lives. Maybe a marriage, or a birth, or an arrest, or a discharge from the military. These are what historians call ‘life events’. Unless you’re related to one of these people, or the person happens to be a notable figure, chances are you wouldn’t care about them all that much. You don’t have to feel bad – our collective descendants won’t care about us either.
For data historians though, the individual lives can be aggregated with others to give us a view of whole populations that lived in the past. Through these billions of records we can look for emerging patterns that change over time, as societies evolve, cities grow or shrink, and the age structure gets older or younger as chance may be. These individual lives, seen through documentary fragments in libraries and archives, and digitised to sell to family historians via subscriptions, offer us a chance to see the big picture of history like never before. This is what Kate Börner calls the ‘macroscopic’ view, which lets us ‘observe what is at once too great, slow, or complex for the human eye and mind to notice and comprehend’.
Read More Here
By Mahendra Mahey in BL Digital Scholarship Blog
The second annual British Library Labs Symposium on Monday 3rd November, 2014, opened with Professor Tim Hitchcock giving a keynote speech focusing on ‘Big and small data in the humanities’.
The video is available on Youtube.
Read More Here
Making it Free, Making it Open: Crowdsourced transcription project leads to unexpected benefits to digital research.Posted: May 17, 2014
Melissa Terras in LSE Blog:
The Transcribe Bentham project, a benchmark achievement for digital humanities research, relies on volunteer transcribers in order to make Jeremy Bentham’s writings more well known, accessible, and searchable, over the long term. Melissa Terras discusses the project’s underpinning ethos which emphasised “co-creation” rather than academic broadcast. This open ethos is also reflected in their approach to making the preprint of their journal article available in an institutional repository.