Since our blog topic was quite open ended this week I thought it would be helpful to just put some of my thoughts about my potential project on paper. Goals, difficulties, process and all that good stuff that way I have a concrete direction.
Goals: I was hoping to create a quite unique experience of the Vietnam War. I feel like books, slide shows, videos all do a good job of showing aspects of the war. But I kept coming back to the idea of how can DH make that information most effective and used in a different manner for the viewer. I believe that using a map with layered years and various pin points of events give the viewer a unique way to analyze the war itself. It'd be super cool if I had enough information in it to make it searchable, and add various amount of resources such as soldiers letters, interviews and more. In my head I'm envisioning on version geared toward my high schoolers then another one that really dives into the capabilities of the project itself. Certainly that will take a considerable amount of time, probably past the length of this class, but hey nothing worth having was ever easy to get. I do agree that many of my students would benefit from reading primary accounts of the events as they are typically the most moving and bring out the human element of the event. Just as a side note, its always discouraging teaching about history and saying something like "the Battle of Stalingrad was the bloodiest battle in world history with over a million soviet deaths" and having the vastness of that violence go right over my students heads. We've become so desensitized that I feel like the human element is one of the only ways to truly bring the reality of those types of events back. Vision: So I was thinking that I would have a map with the various pins, then some sort of timeline function/ slider on the right hand side or maybe bottom that would be able to move from the various years of the battle. I know this would be somewhat difficult but I don't just want it to move from like a map of 1954 then 1955 and so on. That seems to simple and like something that could be achieved with a PPT. I would like it to be more fluid and interactive to truly get the viewer experiencing the material. As far as the actual content involved, I think I would like a basic overview of the event as your first select the pin that your looking as. For example perhaps a view paragraphs about the Tet Offensive. However once that was complete I'd really like to just give as many options as possible about what content to use. Since the war was covered so well, it would be neat to include of news coverage, interviews, letters, really whatever type of information I could find on the event to further the viewers understanding. I certainly don't want to limit myself and say that I only want to use this type of material or this type. I think with a project like this the more the merrier as well as the more diverse the merrier. I'd like to select the best pieces available rather than try to fit some sort of mold for the project. Difficulties: I think some of the difficulties I may encounter will involve getting that exact fluidity that I had mentioned previously. Also I think it will be somewhat difficult finding the exact type of pieces I want in the time frame because I don't just want to put pieces of information up there that are at the quality that I prefer. But I think realistically I need to understand that its something I can come back and edit, change and manipulate how I see fit. Rome wasn't built in a day so why should my Intro to Digital Humanities Project be? Nevertheless the more I ramble about my ideas that more excited I am about what this could become so I should probably start managing my time a bit more wisely so I can compile the amount of material I need for this. Time to get to Work, Adam
1 Comment
To start off, I found Burdick’s and Hockey’s pieces particularly interesting this go round. I have to admit; I wasn’t the fondest of reading about how the computer worked or the older editions of how humanities computing came to be. It was insightful to truly examine the inner workings of the computer, but it definitely wasn’t something that got my circuits firing by any means. What did however was the introduction of Open-Source Knowledge Economies. It forced me to question the purpose of knowledge and scholarship. Previously I’d always just thought of knowledge; writing a book, journal article or anything of the sort as more of a rite of passion- something that had to be done to achieve or keep your status in the world of academia. However, the comparison of economies to publication really got me thinking. When Burdick mentioned how the trade secretes were feverishly guarded during the Industrialization it made me question why would scholarship want to stick to such a model. It is counterproductive to what they actually want to accomplish, I think. Burdick presented the idea of intellectual property and how it is strictly guarded and even at times battled over. Yet with all we’ve been discussing I don’t understand why. The premise of scholarship, which I’m just coming to realize, is not to be more intelligent than everyone around you, although I'm sure thats a pretty cool feeling. Instead it is to help spread that knowledge to as many people as possible, thus the reason why I am supportive of open sourcing now. Why not be able to publish something quickly, have your peers give you instant feedback and then edit it. Everyone benefits. Well expect the publication companies, but thats okay in my book. More information is shared, you produce a better product quicker and that knowledge is truly being used, rather than sitting on a shelf like many old books (although those are usually the best ones). If we continue to relate to the model of the economy, every successful business owner in the world would like to see a model where they produce better products quicker and are able to sell them to more people. Ah selling. Therein lies the problem and the debate here. Also the reason why this differs from an economic debate. If this were truly about making money, the open sourcing idea may not be the best. But ideally, scholarship should not be about that. It should be able to spreading of usual, quality knowledge to educate anyone who is interested. Although this challenges the established model, I can only think it will ultimately lead to better scholarship down the road. It is also more efficient. After all, Bush dreamt of a situation where millions of volumes of encyclopedias could fit on the end of a desk. That reality is finally here. Open sourcing and digital humanities projects have only made the reality that much more inviting and welcoming for all. Some may be hesitant about the change, but I believe it’s a necessary one. As someone who values knowledge growth of any subject matter, the university as an institution should not be the totalitarian state holding back the spread of knowledge. It should not be the gate keeper to knowledge. By limiting who can see, publish, edit and contribute to scholarship, in many ways they are certainly acting in that manner. It’s time to fully embrace the twenty-first century, jump into the internet and see what is possible. After all, what would Digital Humanities or even the modern college experience be without access to the internet? We have become so dependent on it for both academic and personal experiences that it truly has become a part of us. Yikes, that’s scary.
I’d just like to conclude that is was very nice to read something good about Wikipedia. I’d often thought that it was a wonderful model for spreading basic knowledge. It is often ripped for not being 100% accurate all the time, but it does a pretty good job of providing A LOT of information. (Granted I don't remember much from the early dark days of Wikipedia) Sure It is not all going to be incredibly scholarly, but it does a good job of meeting its intended purpose in my opinion. Plus, most articles now have gone through a pretty intense review process and most of the citations are from fairly respectable sources. I think Wikipedia is a nice baby step into research, so it was pleasant to see that recognized from someone else as well. Go Wikipedia. Till next time, Adam 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 |
Adam RudyHistory Teacher, Cross Country and Track Coach, Runner, Amateur Blogger Archives
September 2017
Categories |