As a history teacher it shouldn't be a surprise that I have a natural interest in debates. Frankly, debating has always been somewhat of a fun experience for me. Whether it is arguing if Ronald Reagan was a good president or referencing the impact of the Lincoln Douglas Debates on the future Civil War, its always been something that sparked my eye. As someone who also likes to be sure to successfully prove their point at just about any opportunity, I find debating to be something thats rather enjoyable. Still, I never expected to put much thought into the active debates taking place in the Digital Humanities world. As an amateur digital humanist I don't believe I truly have the expertise to have a cohesive argument about the inner workings of the field...yet. However there were several phrases with relation to Digital Humanities and really learning in general that certainly caught my attention. Reading Stephen Ramsay's, "On Building" really started to get the wheels turning in my head and forced me to challenge what I typically have associated with truly great work in the Humanities. He spoke of the "move from reading to making." My first reaction was that I think that statement shouldn't be over thought- yet thats exactly what I'm doing. I thought, "but you have to place an emphasis on reading in order to produce a good work in the humanities." I instantly wanted to defend the hours of reading it had taken me to write some of the historical papers I crafted in college that I am somewhat proud of. Still the more I thought about it, the more I realized that my ignorance for the field was showing. What I think he was getting towards was making the distinction between those who are active in the field versus those that are aware of the field. They need to place a larger emphasis on producing pieces rather than simply reading content. As a traditional historian, we can place a large role in devouring copious amounts of text and knowledge and eventually critiquing it or crafting our own opinion of their work in a journal or maybe if we're really ambitious, a book. However, to me it seems that in the DH field, to truly be successful you must both critique as well as create. Perhaps critique is the wrong word, after all collaboration certainly appears to be a more powerful term. It has definitely become clear to me that one cannot simply exist on an island in the DH world. In some ways I think that is great and a wonderful move. However just from my personal style and experience, existing on an island- your own well thought out and detailed, independent island, isn't always the worst thing in the world. After all, life in the islands is REALLY PEACEFUL.
As I continued my reading another phrase that truly struck me was from Kirschenbaum's article, "Digital Humanities As/ Is a Tactical Term." I'll be honest and come out and say that that was definitely not the most exciting article I have ever read, yet I really liked his phrase "Knowledge Representation." As a public high school teacher, that often has students that are not the strongest writers, or will only write if they are threatened with a trip to the Guillotine (What if that were actually possible? Man we'd have some great writers...), I am often forced to decide if I want to fight the battle that is the traditional writing process or look for an alternative. It is a bit relieving that this question of the value of other forms of knowledge representation is being considered at other levels of academia as well. I must admit at times I'm definitely an old school fan of a knock you down, bang up paper. But recently I have come to consider the value of different forms of knowledge representation if a student is going to feel more comfortable and truly do their absolute best with it. Is it better to have an above average paper or a really fantastic video? Certainly there is a place for both, but deciding on that time and place seems to be the issue. Even so much as recently this week in my College Readiness class (AVID II) that I teach, I opted for giving the students more freedom on their "Problem Solution" Project, rather than the traditional essay that I had originally planned. I guess like most things it is simply a matter of balance and being able to truly evaluate the product in terms of quality of work, even if it does challenge the norm. Traditionally, I really enjoy swimming upstream and challenging the norm, so I guess that makes me a DH Fan and leaning toward the more open side of this active debate. Although this was a bit scatter brained, I feel it adequately reflects the debates in the field in that the opinions are still changing, growing, moving all around and being considered, then reconsidered. So perhaps in a month I'll be on a totally different point of view on a similar topic. Who knows? Hope this was mildly entertaining for a 1st blog post, Adam
1 Comment
|
Adam RudyHistory Teacher, Cross Country and Track Coach, Runner, Amateur Blogger Archives
September 2017
Categories |