AHA 2015
Session description from the program: Digital historians have been concerned with reshaping scholarly activity and institutional structures for a natively digital world. They have been open to multiple forms of analysis, to sharing sources and materials (data), and to adopting large-scale, distributed models of scholarship. They have proceeded from an important recognition: that we are now in an era of capaciousness, of ubiquitous storage, of networked information, and of unprecedented access. Rather than orienting scholarship around a model of scarce materials, limited access, and expert gate-keeping, the digital humanities at its most vibrant has been about widening the scope of the humanities, opening access to sources, and broadening definitions of scholarly activity. This panel explores the characteristics of scholarship in the digital environment and interrogates disciplinary ideas about authorship, audience, and what constitutes scholarship. The AHA has recently formed an ad hoc Committee on Professional Evaluation of Digital Scholarship, charged with developing guidelines for departments. This panel features scholarship and scholarly communication explicitly created for and in the digital medium, blending tools, sources, and interpretive analysis. Panelists address several critical questions: does digital scholarship fundamentally break with the traditional forms, is a more hypertextual history possible, how is the representation of historical knowledge changing, is the digital medium suitable for historiographical questions?
Already awake at #AHA2015? Come discuss the future of digital history with us: https://t.co/CyAYMPYZMU #s158
— Yoni Appelbaum (@YAppelbaum) January 4, 2015
Good morning, #wmnhist! Getting ready for #s159 at 9am, looking forward to tweets from #s158. Lots more digital history today. #aha2015
— Monica L. Mercado (@monicalmercado) January 4, 2015
Busy day today: tweeting at #s155, #s158, #s208, #216, and then the @AHAhistorians Business Meeting #AHA2015
— Vanessa Varin (@VLVarin) January 4, 2015
About to begin: my panel Authoring Digital History #s158 #AHA2015
— Adeline Koh (@adelinekoh) January 4, 2015
Settling in for #s158 Authoring Digital Scholarship for History w/ @historying @nolauren @YAppelbaum @adelinekoh #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
@jaheppler @historying @nolauren @YAppelbaum thanks for coming! #aha2015 #s158
— Adeline Koh (@adelinekoh) January 4, 2015
@wgthomas3 @YAppelbaum @historying thanks so much for organizing! #aha2015 #s158
— Adeline Koh (@adelinekoh) January 4, 2015
In #s158 @YAppelbaum Getting us started with a talk about hyperlinks and the practice of history #aha2015
— Seth Denbo (@seth_denbo) January 4, 2015
s#158 #aha2015 @EdwardAyres intros, @YAppelbaum kicks us off with defining DH: specifically involving some tools not universally adopted…
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 …and others (like hyperlinks) that are much more universally established/adopted at this point. @YAppelbaum
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
@kos2 @Yappelbaum #s158 #aha2015 however, more generally he does situate it:‘the product of long collective struggles and individ efforts…"
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 use formal citation style for <a title> footnote, and the onlein/web/digital paper trail (url, finding aids etc.) !linkrot
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
footnotes allows scholars to reproduce the path of research, the context – but not many follow #AHA2015
— Bob Kosovsky (@kos2) January 4, 2015
#aha2015 #s158 Yoni Appelbaum-use of hyperlinks to show popular readers historical methods and sources
— Laura Dull (@ProfLauraDull) January 4, 2015
Yoni Appelbaum-digital readers tell him about citation errors unlike print readers #AHA2015 #s158
— Laura Dull (@ProfLauraDull) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @YAppelbaum href footnote popularity inversely correlated with quality (the more they click, the less you got it right?)
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
Yoni Appelbaum-downside is level of abuse directed at authors esp from disadvantaged populations #AHA2015 #s158
— Laura Dull (@ProfLauraDull) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 culture in some of the (darker) corners of the online space can be unequally supportive of scholars from marginalized spaces,
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
Appelbaum so convinced of power of outreach he's resigning Harvard position & joining Atlantic as sr editor to help others #AHA2015 #s158
— Laura Dull (@ProfLauraDull) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @YAppelbaum to focus full-time on helping bringing the work of digital historians to the public
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
Hyperlinks are indeed amazing things – so powerful, and so accessible – citations and digital history #s158 #aha2015 @YAppelbaum
— Steve Anderson (@sgahistory) January 4, 2015
Up next, @historying on “The Perpetual Sunrise of Methodology” #aha2015 #s158
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
Next up @historying on the “Perpetual Sunrise of Methodology” #s158 #aha2015
— Seth Denbo (@seth_denbo) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @historying is getting started by going ‘off script’ foregoing the abstract he submitted a year ago 2 talk re @foundhistory
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
.@historying: Citing @foundhistory’s “Sunset for Ideology, Sunrise for Methodology” http://t.co/BRY30Qp3g5 #aha2015 #s158
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
"Academic scholarship: marshaling evidence to make an argument." @historying #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
.@historying: There’s an imbalance between DH workshops, grants, labs, and the impact it has on generating scholarly claims #aha2015 #s158
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @historying keeping it real – talking re ‘lagging behind of Digital History in academic scholarship’s argument-driven model.
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
.@historying: Digital historians have a love affair with methodology. #aha2015 #s158
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
.@historying: We tout the promise of digital history rather than it’s results. #aha2015 #s158
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
#s158 @historying arguing that “Argument driving scholarship" has not been at the heart of digital scholarship in history. #aha2015
— Seth Denbo (@seth_denbo) January 4, 2015
.@historying: Pointing to his Martha Ballard topic model post http://t.co/8ZAVzp0LCj #aha2015 #s158
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @historying own examples of @foundhistory “The Perpetual Sunrise of Methodology” and the imbalance between method and result
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
"Digital history scholarship has over-promised and under-delivered." @historying #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
.@historying: The Martha Ballard post is the most widely read piece he’s written. But the problem: nothing revelatory here. #aha2015 #s158
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
.@historying: People like the post because of its methodological potential, not it’s actual results. #aha2015 #s158
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
Interesting (and refreshing) to hear @historying critiquing his own work on Martha Ballard. #s158 #aha2015
— Abby Mullen (@abbymullen) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @historying on his personal Topic Modeling experience with the Martha Ballard’s diary. The potential, more than the result.
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @historying his second piece was argument-driven, concerned more with measuring ‘the annihilation of time and space’
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
.@historying: Now citing his JAH article using computational techniques to study spatial history http://t.co/SsNQMvTcTP #aha2015 #s158
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @historying found a focus on region instead nation, in place name freq. Eg Houston seen more as midwestern than southern…
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
#AHA2015 #s158 @historying talks about the focus on methodology in digital history — argumentative work is often "just over the horizon."
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @historying it was mundane commodity material, etc. made up a large percentage of newspaper, which accounted for regionally.
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
.@historying: The JAH article was a different audience than the Ballard post: DH is more than tech for the sake of tech. #aha2015 #s158
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
We need to include the boring stuff too – it can reshape the perspective, and computers/DH can help #s158 #AHA2015 @historying
— Steve Anderson (@sgahistory) January 4, 2015
"Digital history has more than just the potential to reshape the way we think about the past." @historying #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
.@historying: Much of the feedback on the article, however, has focused on the methodology rather than the result. #aha2015 #s158
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @historying only w DH would he have found this, he produced a trad paper w/real findings, but method again overwhelmed…
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @historying …once it went online, with reach functionality. Again, the focus switched to the potential, the future…
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
"But too much of the questions we ask of digital history work is about the method and not the result." @historying #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
.@historying: It’s telling that many DH panels here use the words “potential,” “promise,” “possibilities.” #aha2015 #s158
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
Blevins- methodology has stayed the focus of reception of digital scholarship vs results. Stuck on potential. #AHA2015 #s158
— Laura Dull (@ProfLauraDull) January 4, 2015
Too much of digital work is stuck in a perpetual future tense. @historying #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
Digital History – needs to be more about kinetic rather than potential energy #s158 #AHA2015 @historying
— Steve Anderson (@sgahistory) January 4, 2015
Cameron Blevins, Stanford University: it is time to begin talking about Digital Scholarship in the present tense not future #AHA2015 #s158
— Rikk Mulligan (@CritRikk) January 4, 2015
“#s158 #aha2015 @historying keeping it real – talking re ‘lagging behind of Digital History in academic…” http://t.co/RGDQUluExH
— Beyond Citation (@beyondcitation) January 4, 2015
Up now, @adelinekoh on the “Chinese Englishmen” digital archive. #aha2015 #s158
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
Now we’re hearing from @adelinekoh about her “Digitizing Chinese Englishmen” project #s158 #aha2015
— Seth Denbo (@seth_denbo) January 4, 2015
"When you look at archives of writers from the 19th century, why does the 19th century look so white?" @adelinekoh #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 starting q: why is the 19th c lit canon so white? librarian: WritersOC only started in 20thC. @adelinekoh shows otherwise.
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
"People of color wrote in the 19th Century." @adelinekoh #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
What we choose to digitize can have an exponential effect on future historical research – digital history #s158 #AHA2015 @adelinekoh
— Steve Anderson (@sgahistory) January 4, 2015
.@adelinekoh presents "very traditional paper" on the “Chinese Englishmen” digital archive because of that whole laptop thing #aha2015 #s158
— Kathryn Tomasek (@KathrynTomasek) January 4, 2015
#AHA2015 #s158 @adelinekoh gives "traditional paper, because I forgot my laptop." But Adeline is, in best ways, always far from traditional.
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @adelinekoh Describes the ‘King’s Chinese’, who often engaged in complicated, ‘frustrated’ mimicry and hybridity of Brit id.
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @adelinekoh also articulates complexities of "Chinese essence and Anglo education", construction of identity & masculinities…
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
.@adelinekoh gestures to more to say about how she structures her digital archive and tries to make it #poco w/o anachronism #AHA2015 #s158
— Kathryn Tomasek (@KathrynTomasek) January 4, 2015
Now up, @nolauren on “Looking Past the Written Word” #aha2015 #s158
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @nolauren re the dissemination of dig scholarship to different segs of the public and the risk of the form driving the study
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @nolauren grounds us in hist of film workshops' self-ethographic ’shadow archive’ – the FSA of the 70’s, demanding digital!
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @nolauren now even the communities cannot access their own (celluloid) cultural archive. Worse? 96% degradation rate/8 years
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
.@nolauren Her work demands the digital. Digitizing film reduces the amount of damage film receives, extends their reach. #aha2015 #s158
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @nolauren Louis Valet (filmmaker) got to see his own film, “Life in New York” for the first time since it went in the can
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
"This project is not just about the past but also the present." @nolauren #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
Shadow archives – more content comes to light with each viewing – digital history & film @nolauren #s158 #AHA2015
— Steve Anderson (@sgahistory) January 4, 2015
.@nolauren Exploring the filmmakers through networks and space #aha2015 #s158
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @nolauren s/o @benmschmidt and surfaces her DH/network's hist args and socio model, showing the core participants.
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @nolauren DH providing layers of argumentation that can be put in conversation.
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @nolauren places it back in the community, the family of those in the film… but it was returning to a non-circ collection 🙁
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
.@nolauren describes effect of special effort to digitize film, its reception #aha2015 #s158 1/2
— Kathryn Tomasek (@KathrynTomasek) January 4, 2015
.@nolauren and sadness knowing it was going back into non circulating collection #AHA2015 #s158
— Kathryn Tomasek (@KathrynTomasek) January 4, 2015
@nolauren presentation demonstrates how digital projects can bring dynamic interaction of subjects, archives, public #AHA2015 #s158
— Laura Dull (@ProfLauraDull) January 4, 2015
.@nolauren gets even more animated as she speaks about how network analysis leads to discoveries in her project. Awesome! #AHA2015 #s158
— Kathryn Tomasek (@KathrynTomasek) January 4, 2015
@nolauren, Digitizations of past films is a political and historical necessity #s158 #AHA2015
— John Rosinbum (@JohnRosinbum) January 4, 2015
Everyone at #s158 talk are great presenters. Wonder if that's partly because they've had to sell their DH work so many times. #AHA2015
— Becky Erbelding (@rerbelding) January 4, 2015
Ed Ayers: These are big things we’re talking about. Digital is many branching roads, not the information highway #s158 #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
Ayers: We have for the first time in our professional discipline a potential to reach wide audiences without diluting #s158 #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
Ayers: The concern of the digital makes us aware of the means in which we talk to each other and our public #s158 #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 Ed Ayers: enhancing curiosity, and creativity, while sustaining and enhancing the scholarly rubric, no watering down…
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
Ayers: History is more than the forms in which we convey it. #s158 #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
.@adelinekoh: Asking as a non-historian: if historians open up sources and methods, what happens to specialization? #s158 #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
.@YAppelbaum: Digital spaces are not replacements for things we already produce. #s158 #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
"What would happen to the discipline of history if we opened it fully (methods and ideas) to citizen historians?" @adelinekoh #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
.@YAppelbaum: Not denigrating the value of the monograph or journal article. But there will be more variety of form. #s158 #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @YAppelbaum digital spaces needn’t replace ways and spaces of trad work, new possibilities sure, but not denigrating trad’l.
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
.@adelinekoh: How is history going to be shaped by something other than an academic institution? #s158 #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
.@adelinekoh: With the multiplicity of sources, methodologies, citizen-historians, what happens to the discipline? #s158 #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @YAppelbaum hists can't isolate fm public, Ed Ayers counterpoint: risk of devaluation of rigor in exchange for accessibility?
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
.@YAppelbaum: Our greatest strength as a discipline is people read our work for the sheer pleasure of reading it. #s158 #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
Can we work harder to open conversations between specialists and non-specialists? Can we imagine students as experts? #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
"Many people not disciplined by institutions have still 'done their reading?'" @adelinekoh #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
.@adelinekoh pushes the panel & audience to explore potential impact of blurring of public/scholarly worlds. #s158 #aha2015
— Jeffrey McClurken (@jmcclurken) January 4, 2015
Wikipedia, for example? #s158 #AHA2015
— Steve Anderson (@sgahistory) January 4, 2015
.@YAppelbaum There’s some danger of blurring the lines, but that’s up to us. We have to insist on academically rigorous work. #s158 #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
Maybe we should stop thinking about inviting people into a tent and work to get ourselves outside tents. #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
.@YAppelbaum: I would rather try to embrace opportunities than recoil from the pitfalls. #s158 #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @YAppelbaum the strengths of historical prof are actually uniquely suited to public engagement (reaching segments of pop)
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
Q: How are these projects evaluated for promotion and tenure? Will alternative output be given similar weight? #s158 #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @adelinekoh asks a linguistic followup: -how- are history practices and spec going to change in the face of the dig turn?
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
Ayers: Chairs the AHA task force on evaluating digital scholarship. A draft of guidelines will be coming soon. #s158 #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 Citizen historians have been a part of historical community for much longer than digital tools have been around +
— Abby Mullen (@abbymullen) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 and I think rigorous dig methods (programming etc) do require training, more so than source research. –
— Abby Mullen (@abbymullen) January 4, 2015
"The discipline is going to change. How will it change? I'm not suggesting we assemble battalions in defense." @adelinekoh #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
seems that "digital scholarship" inevitably becomes a discussion about future of the discipline, at least in history. others too? #AHA2015
— susan garfinkel (@footnotesrising) January 4, 2015
.@footnotesrising Although #s158 is the first #dhist panel at #aha2015 that I've noticed going in this direction.
— The Red and the Green battle within Hamish (@peregrinekiwi) January 4, 2015
Ayers: How do we create space for this innovation? #s158 #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 Ed Ayers: how will we create a well-disciplined space within the discipline to deal with such open-ended promise ?
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
Ed Ayers talks about work of Committee on Professional Evaluation of Digi Scholarship by Historians & draft guidelines #aha2015 #s158
— Kathryn Tomasek (@KathrynTomasek) January 4, 2015
.@historying Everyone focuses on tenure, but a bigger problem is the disconnect between hiring process and tenure process. #s158 #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
.@historying: When someone is hired in DH to do “this,” department’s don’t know what “this” is. #s158 #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
Interloping librarians. Digital historians. Non-historians. Citizen historians. The tent has more outliers than residents. #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
The problem with erecting walls and building tents is that the containers always exclude more people than they include. #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
And when we talk about walls, disciplines, tents, exclusion, it usually happens mostly at the expense of marginalized groups. #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
Unicorns and mechanics – digital scholars are neither, they’re scholars – digital humanities #s158 #AHA2015
— Steve Anderson (@sgahistory) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @nolauren sees worrying walls being built in digital humanities. The ‘land grab’ of defining DH is related to power to hire.
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
Building walls in DH? – I see it more like different flavors, or foci – I see the community overall is very open, big tent #s158 #AHA2015
— Steve Anderson (@sgahistory) January 4, 2015
@atrubek @ColdWarScience Fascinating, right? Loved the story about refusing to review a 2-year-old book. #aha2015 #s158
— Amanda French (@amandafrench) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @KathrynTomasek speaks to the usefulness to US historians of thinking of the disc in international context
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
Can we think about scholarship and knowledge as arising from a community and not institutions or academic disciplines? #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
TEI: Yesterday’s Information Tomorrow. #s158 #aah2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
(Those aren’t my words. It’s a great joke by Ayers.) #s158 #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
.@nolauren voices concerns about building walls in Digital Humanities, urges we consider disciplines in transnational context #AHA2015 #s158
— Kathryn Tomasek (@KathrynTomasek) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @KathrynTomasek says, talk about the walls (implies investigate, move bricks around, maybe a nice patio) – why all the fear?
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
Can we think about the role of disciplines and #highered institutions as not creating but guarding space for scholarship? #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
But wait, there’s more! Doing DH means "twice the work" to many scholars #s158 #AHA2015
— Steve Anderson (@sgahistory) January 4, 2015
@ProfLauraDull @EdwiredMills I'm excited to see increasing attention directed to CC, especially @NEH_ODH Summer Institute. #AHA2015 #s158
— Kathryn Tomasek (@KathrynTomasek) January 4, 2015
.@YAppelbaum We’re talking the outsourcing of judgment. An article in a journal gets a certain value. DH doesn’t have this. #s158 #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @adelinekoh collapsing DH to a monograph and/or unclear eval crit particularly onerous disc aspects/limits in hiring DH'ers
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @YAppelbaum on his own experience confronting unwilling/self-defined ‘unqualified’ potential trad evaluators of dh work
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
Q: How much of this is about technological literacy among scholars? #s158 #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
"Evaluating digital scholarship effectively requires committees to do extra work they often don't want to do." @adelinekoh #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
@Jessifer #thingsishouldnothavesaidimpublic #aha2015 #s158
— Adeline Koh (@adelinekoh) January 4, 2015
@Jessifer #oopsididitagain #aha2015 #s158
— Adeline Koh (@adelinekoh) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @jmcclurken this is nothing new, we hire those who know how to do what we often don’t. Need to use existing structures and…
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @jmcclurken …and employ new journals, modify existing, keep moving in the direction, but to stop restarting the conversation.
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
Small lib arts colleges have little choice but to break down disciplinary walls for digital humanities. #s158 #AHA2015
— Robin Morris (@ProRoMo) January 4, 2015
Q: The rapid development of DH tools is joined by the rapid obsolescence of them. How do we solve that? #aha2015 #s158
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
We should make ourselves better readers of alternative scholarship, rather than demanding scholars "make their work legible." #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
.@historying: We’re always thinking about this and it’s a constant anxiety. Collaboration with librarians is helping. #s158 #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
Great Q about problem of link rot. @YAppelbaum describes his method for providing links w/ lower rot potential. #AHA2015 #s158
— Kathryn Tomasek (@KathrynTomasek) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @nolauren if u created & cultivated well-documented datasets in your work, that IS ongoing lasting repurposable hist product
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
.@nolauren speaks eloquently to value of nonproprietary, open source, data formats. #AHA2015 #s158
— Kathryn Tomasek (@KathrynTomasek) January 4, 2015
Keep hearing questions about digital project preservation in #dh sessions. #AHA2015 #s158
— Peter Carr Jones (@petercarrjones) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @adelinekoh DH helping archivists 2 be seen morenmore as equal collaborators, but resistant faculty see further complications
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
More great conversations on digital scholarship going on right now. Again, thanks for tweeting, folks. #s158 #s159 #aha2015
— Philip Hnatkovich (@_beneze_) January 4, 2015
Doing DH isn’t free, neither is open source – many costs, need for support, collaborative concerns, tech resources needed #s158 #AHA2015
— Steve Anderson (@sgahistory) January 4, 2015
"When talking about the digital humanities we focus too much on the digital and not enough on the humanities." @adelinekoh #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
Looks like we're asking the same Qs at #s159. MT @sgahistory: Doing DH isn’t free, neither is open source, resources needed #s158 #AHA2015
— Monica L. Mercado (@monicalmercado) January 4, 2015
The #s158 session has been great. I was last at the AHA in Chicago in 2012. So much more convo. about digital, alt-ac, tenure #aha2015
— Jason Heppler (@jaheppler) January 4, 2015
One positive of #dhist panels: relatively short papers with good coherence and engaging post-paper discussions. #s158 (and others) #aha2015
— The Red and the Green battle within Hamish (@peregrinekiwi) January 4, 2015
Digital Humanities should be as much about using humanities tools for digital work as using digital tools for humanities work #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
What counts as digital humanities = work that doesn't try to police the boundaries of what counts as digital humanities. #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
THIS. MT "@Jessifer: Can we think abt disciplines, #highered institutions as not creating bt guarding space for scholarship? #AHA2015 #s158"
— RLB (@bookluvr8705) January 4, 2015
And THIS. "@Jessifer: Can we think abt schlrshp, knowledge arising from community, not institutions or academic disciplines? #AHA2015 #s158"
— RLB (@bookluvr8705) January 4, 2015
https://twitter.com/CDimas14/status/551765734049595392
.@CDimas14 Yes. And the classroom is a scholarly space. A space of learning and also a space of knowledge production. #AHA2015 #s158
— Jesse Stommel (@Jessifer) January 4, 2015
“On a more positive note…” Thank you @historying for reinjecting some enthusiasm into our discourse this morning #s158 #aha2015
— Seth Denbo (@seth_denbo) January 4, 2015
DH can be/is exclusionary, evading questions of race, gender, etc – code is not pure, tech is not neutral @adelinekoh #s158 #AHA2015
— Steve Anderson (@sgahistory) January 4, 2015
#s158 #aha2015 @historying optimistically posits future trajectory of digital hist a la public hist – serving many varied communities, etc.
— Micki Kaufman (@MickiKaufman) January 4, 2015
I love the way @adelinekoh is splattering a truth bomb layer of politics and ideology all over the technical side of #dhist. #s158 #aha2015
— The Red and the Green battle within Hamish (@peregrinekiwi) January 4, 2015
@adelinekoh: to reduce exclusion in DH, expand its genealogy to embrace new media studies & "messy" social categories. Yes. #s158 #AHA2015
— Jane Carr (@janegreenway) January 4, 2015
not on purpose i'm sure but program ctte put feminist dh scholars up against "general" discussion of same field. (1/2) #aha2015
— susan garfinkel (@footnotesrising) January 4, 2015
i wonder how the convo would be different if we were all in same room? (2/2) #s158 #s159 #AHA2015
— susan garfinkel (@footnotesrising) January 4, 2015
All the most dynamic (live-tweeted) sessions seem to be happening at the same time #s154 #s158 #s159 … #AHA2015
— Kristy Rawson (@EstherRawson) January 4, 2015
#s158 was another great #dhist panel. My head and notes are buzzing with ideas! #aha2015
— The Red and the Green battle within Hamish (@peregrinekiwi) January 4, 2015
Touching on @YAppelbaum's point in #s158: DH needs infrastructure for evaluating work that tenure committees can rely on #AHA2015 #s195
— Cameron Blevins (@historying) January 4, 2015