[Humanist] 23.432 process/product? models for tenure & promotion?

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Fri Nov 13 11:46:51 CET 2009

                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 23, No. 432.
         Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org

  [1]   From:    Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>          (33)
        Subject: process and product?

  [2]   From:    Alan Liu <ayliu at english.ucsb.edu>                          (5)
        Subject: Fwd: Digital Humanities Projects in Tenure/Promotion

        Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:39:29 +0000
        From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>
        Subject: process and product?

I am wondering about when we think of process and when of product. To take
an extreme example, one can sit in a dry riverbed, looking at the stones and
plants, and imagine (see imaginatively) the rocks and boulders there, as
well as the trees, shrubs and darting lizards, all in motion at various
speeds. The way that the water over millennia has shaped the rocks does
help, of course. The shapes of the trees and grasses are traces of motion
which evoke kinaesthetic knowledge, if I may call it that. To take an
example at the other extreme, we can speak of a very brief event, such as a
nuclear interaction, thanks to the noun "event" perhaps more than anything
else, as a product, a thing. But I am asking about the in-between.

I am asking not idly but because the two ways of looking are for computing
very much in competition with each other, and how we consider them
consequential for representing our work to ourselves and to others. Do we
associate what we do with things like bridges or processes like dance or
musical performance? For a number of reasons, I'd suppose, doing the former
is easier: things stick around, have a prominent "thud factor" (the sound
that the book makes when hitting the dean's desk). I'd also suppose that
associating our work with the latter, though risky, would push it in all
manner of interesting new-to-us (or perhaps just to me) directions. It would
also draw more attention than is often given to the psychological moment, to
the dynamics of what we clumsily call "interaction".

If I may detain you for a moment longer -- I'd think that programming as
choreography or more generally as performance would be primarily associated
with making research tools like legos rather than research products like
whole applications. Which, of course, gets us back to John Unsworth's


Willard McCarty, Professor of Humanities Computing,
King's College London: staff.cch.kcl.ac.uk/~wmccarty/

        Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:46:45 +0000
        From: Alan Liu <ayliu at english.ucsb.edu>
        Subject: Fwd: Digital Humanities Projects in Tenure/Promotion
        In-Reply-To: <4AF92C45020000A40004102B at hermes.cwu.edu>

Dear friends,

The following is from Chris Schedler, now teaching at Central Washington U.  Chris was one of the first people interested in new media/digital humanities issues to come out of our program here at UCSB.  He is collecting some models of institutional policies for promotion and tenure that are friendly to, or that otherwise explicitly recognize, digital scholarship.  Do you know of any such implemented institutional policies that would serve as good models?  (I am aware of the MLA guidelines: http://www.mla.org/guidelines_evaluation_digital)

--Thanks, Alan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Christopher Schedler <schedlerc at cwu.edu<mailto:schedlerc at cwu.edu>>
Date: Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:03 AM

More information about the Humanist mailing list