[Humanist] 25.882 bringing in the sheaves

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Sun Apr 8 09:57:00 CEST 2012

                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 25, No. 882.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org

  [1]   From:    Henry Gladney <hgladney at gmail.com>                        (75)
        Subject: Two broad sources vis-a-vis (the lack of) a special case for

  [2]   From:    Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>          (47)
        Subject: bringing in the sheaves

        Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 10:12:15 -0700
        From: Henry Gladney <hgladney at gmail.com>
        Subject: Two broad sources vis-a-vis (the lack of) a special case for DH

[The following originated as part of a conversation essentially on the ownership 
of work relevant to the digital humanities. It suggests what in my experience has
always been the case: that the digital humanities is interdisciplinary, hence
that we can expect to be looking very widely for relevant material. --WM]

*Chemistry Journals: The Transition from Paper to Electronic, with Lessons
for Other Disciplines*, a special issue of Journal of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology, v54 n12 p1136-37 Oct 2003

and, more recently, a special issue of IEEE Computer focusing on *Computing
and the Arts*, whose ToC includes:

*Two Approaches to Interdisciplinary Computing+Music Courses
Jesse M. Heines, Gena R. Greher, S. Alex Ruthmann, Brendan L. Reilly

Adapting a Virtual World for Theatrical Performance
Joe Geigel, Marla Schweppe, David Huynh, Brian Johnstone

Cultural Analytics in Large-Scale Visualization Environments
So Yamaoka, Lev Manovich, Jeremy Douglass, Falko Kuester
*Back to Thin-Core Massively Parallel Processors
Ami Marowka

*Rural Outsourcing: Delivering ITO and BPO Services from Remote Domestic
Mary Lacity, Erran Carmel, Joseph Rottman
*Discovering City Dynamics through Sports Tracking Applications
Laura Ferrari, Marco Mamei

Grier Voted 2012 Computer Society President-Elect
*North America New PhD Numbers Hold Steady
*Using Process Mining to Bridge the Gap between BI and BPM
Wil van der Aalst
*Is Computer Science a Relevant Academic Discipline for the 21st Century?
Douglas Baldwin
*PossessedHand: Controlling Hand Movements with Computer Output
Emi Tamaki, Jun Rekimoto
*Museums at Your Fingertips
Alexander Hills

Implication: perhaps the academic territory being proposed for DH has
already for some time been handled within long-established disciplines.
(BTW, it is probably easy to find other examples.)

*DH proponents might consider counter-arguments as part of arguing their

Best wishes, Henry

H.M. Gladney, Ph.D.  

        Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 08:53:23 +0100
        From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>
        Subject: bringing in the sheaves

Some here will remember the time when nearly everyone, it seemed, made a 
list of resources in some subject area or other and put it online. As 
with all collections merit lay in the quality of what was selected, the 
coherence of the selection principle and (characteristic of digital 
media) maintenance of the collection. At some point, as the need for 
maintenance was becoming an obvious and increasingly unsupportable 
burden for most, Google came along, and collecting mostly became a thing 
of the past.

In this light it will be interesting to see if the new Journal of 
Digital Humanities (http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/), which 
depends on collecting but with interesting twists, securely establishes 
its way of finding, vetting and publishing worthy material. JDH is based on

> the idea that high-quality, peer-reviewed academic work can be
> sourced from, and vetted by, a mostly decentralized community of
> scholars rather than a centralized group of publishers

See the Editors' article, "A Community-Sourced Journal". Comments on 
this process and parallels elsewhere would be welcome.

It would be especially good to hear from those who edit print journals, 
for we are all too prone to take on faith, without examination and 
argument, the superiority of anything digital as opposed to printed, 
open as opposed to closed and so forth. When, for example, Humanist 
began (in 1987) vetting was an almost unchallenged and (again) 
unexamined and unargued evil among our kind, as the archive of early 
numbers will show. I am told that in some highly specialised areas of 
research vetting has never been particularly necessary, since the number 
of people involved is so small. Now that the digital humanities is 
popular if not trendy, vetting is obviously necessary. What other 
features of a printed journal have been or will be found necessary to 
instantiate online?

I'll also be interested to see if JDH precisely because of its method of 
locating material will prove itself more international than many 
collections based in the U.S. have been despite the reach of e-mail etc. 
Because of its method, will the professedly non-localized (a.k.a. 
"decentralized") JDH be swamped by articles originating in the U.S. and 
so inevitably distort the picture? Is localisation a stronger force than 
many have reckoned? One of the great problems for scholarship in some 
areas of the world is that printed journals and user-funded online 
collections are financially out of reach. Does this fact argue for a 
mechanism to favour material from those regions?


Professor Willard McCarty, Department of Digital Humanities, King's
College London; Professor (fractional), University of Western Sydney;
Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews (www.isr-journal.org); Editor,
Humanist (www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist/); www.mccarty.org.uk/

More information about the Humanist mailing list