[iDC] digital humanities
Michael W. Massey
mikemassey at windstream.net
Sun Jul 10 19:27:10 UTC 2011
this is fascinating to me. thank you all of you digerati.
i do not have a specific course to offer you, @mark, but i would like to offer/reinforce two observations amidst of a lot of mathematical gobbledy-gook by way of examples. bear with me a moment. or skip directly to the much shorter conclusion.
i began college in mathematics and some physics. very objectivist/positivist. i am now in a doctoral program in which i am using adult education as a platform to construct an interdisciplinary work-space at the nexus of several fields (e.g., management, technology, and open, remote, personal -- self-directed, as someone posted earlier -- learning) using postie epistemologies and discursive methodologies. thus over time, i have situated myself among various spaces on any continuum of knowledge, and i'm waaaaay beyond (in my view) objectivism/positivism. however, i do appreciate some of its resulting knowledge-outcomes.
my point is that i have observed players in many sandboxes, as have all of you. i have two related observations about them:
1. only the best objectivist/positivist specialists, whom i have personally known, appear to understand the assumptions under which they operate. e.g., many if not most of us were taught that large objects orbit our sun in circular (later elliptical) orbits. it seems that many if not most do not know that our sun, planets, moons, etc. do not orbit in any perfect single elliptical plane. that idea is a representation, a simulation of reality. same for sub-atomic quarks orbiting atomic nucleii. thus, many don't understand the assumptions of models as only approximations of reality of variable quality. thus, such reductionism in education predisposes ill-conceived, overly simplistic analyses in daily discourse which presumes linear cause-and-effect. bottom line: the universe is nonlinear and complex. the FACT that president obama had a kenyan father does not mean that he's from kenya.
2. however, only the best qualitative specialists, whom i have personally known, appear to understand the assumptions under which they operate. e.g., many of not most education majors -- at least in the USA -- are taught that inferential statistics, properly applied, correctly model to some degree of probability human behavior in school systems and classrooms. those mathematically logical and correct recipes are difficult for most to master and are, therefore, consoling to future teachers and administrators who very humanly seek ways to structure, understand, and predict learning outcomes but who don't understand either the math that they use or of which they are unaware. (thus, to paraphrase freud, is neurosis passed down from generation to generation.) they are using the wrong tools. the tools do not closely approximate cause-and-effect in human behavior. they are fine for controlling tolerances of, say, mass-produced ball bearings or large quantities of international capital flows or even the maintenance schedules of school facilities and equipment (e.g., median = 5 years to hard disk failure), but the methods really don't tell us why teacher X results in students A and B thinking differently. bottom line: the universe is nonlinear and complex. the correct tools would be nth-order, nonlinear, partial differential equations which address rates-of-change. however, they are famously difficult to solve, let alone conceptualize.
so, in my opinion, the bottom line of the bottom lines of ##1, 2 above is that many, if not most, quantitativists and qualitativists blindly apply knowledge and methods whose foundational assumptions they poorly understand. a carpenter who hammers large nails with a pair of pliers would not be productive. nor would a plumber who tightens pipes with a hammer.
do the "digital humanities" at least offer soothing salves to such severe methodological abrasions?
best,
michael w massey
doctoral student
the university of georgia
On Jul 9, 2011, at 10:10 AM, idc-request at mailman.thing.net wrote:
> Send iDC mailing list submissions to
> idc at mailman.thing.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> idc-request at mailman.thing.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> idc-owner at mailman.thing.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of iDC digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. The Future of the Humanities (Mark Marino)
> 2. Re: The Future of the Humanities (David Berry)
> 3. Re: The Future of the Humanities (Simon Biggs)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 23:09:59 -0700
> From: Mark Marino <markcmarino at gmail.com>
> Subject: [iDC] The Future of the Humanities
> To: iDC at mailman.thing.net
> Message-ID: <BANLkTimEwdF2Jgqg-Gmq5h97w=Mg3BcOrQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi, IDC-ers,
>
> Last summer I met a computer scientist who shared with me his hierarchy of
> knowledge. In his schema, the sciences were at the top and all branches of
> knowledge and learning in the academy fell underneath. By his account, at
> one time, due to a collective ignorance, much of knowledge was ordered under
> the Humanities, but slowly over time that ice cap had been chipped away and
> had floated off and melted into the larger sea of Science where it
> belonged. By his account medicine, astronomy, and many other realms of
> knowledge had been relocated to their rightful place, leaving only certain
> types of speculative philosophy, perhaps a few arts, and other trivial or
> superfluous enterprises.
>
> I don't think this computer scientist was misrepresenting his perspective to
> be provocative, though I do believe he knew exactly which of my buttons he
> was pushing. His pedestal for positivism was built upon a larger progress
> narrative (that a humanities course might even critique). Nonetheless, it
> took a long coffee break with a philosophy librarian friend to pull me back
> from the ledge or perhaps get me off the war path.
>
> In an age where very reasonable folks are questioning the value of a college
> education, when the digital humanities seem to be flourishing, and when the
> US and global economies are still flagging sending students into their most
> pragmatic shells, I wonder if it isn't time for a new kind of humanities
> course. I guess I am thinking about something different than what I know
> to be "digital humanities" in as much as that can mean the humanities plus
> computers (not to reduce -- I just don't mean that version of DH.)
>
> Remember last year and Cornell's President Skorton's address?
> http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/11/01/humanities
>
>> From an Inside Higher Ed article on the topic:
> Robert M. Berdahl, president of the Association of American Universities,
> said he has noticed increasing concern among university leaders about "the
> marginalization of non-scientific work" in higher education. "At every
> meeting these days, there is concern expressed about the status of the
> humanities and the fear that the humanities and to some extent the social
> sciences are being sidelined in a discussion about higher education that
> seems to focus almost exclusively on the economic value of universities."
>
> Are the Humanities under attack? If they need rescued and if so how?
>
> So here's an idea, and this is not new: humanities need to be able to show
> what they can offer even the sciences. (Now I don't mean getting caught up
> in the debate over the "value" of the humanities directly -- as that's like
> trying to defend a fine arts program on the basis of the Christie's auction
> price on a few Picasso's. Also Stanley Fish's retort that the humanities
> need not justify themselves comes to mind, but it's probably easier to make
> that claim when you are the Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor
> and a professor of law. That's not to slight, but to say it's easier to
> claim the humanities don't need to argue their value when you've already
> established/earned your own security.
>
> Here is where my personal interest comes in with Critical Code Studies in
> the Humanities and Critical Code Studies (HaCCS Lab), where one of the goals
> is to create new spaces for humanities and computer scientists to meet and
> discuss. While I think it is naive to suggest that the humanities will all
> of the sudden be valued the way the sciences are, I'd be interested to hear
> about humanities courses geared toward scientists. Not Rocks for Jocks but
> Greeks for Geeks. Critical Theory for Civil Engineers. I'm interested in
> classes that teach the traditional humanities topics but that are aimed at
> the science students -- beyond, say, the History of Science or the History
> of the Philosophy of Science. Which is another way of asking: what can the
> humanities teach the sciences (which probably plays into a completely
> useless binary)?
>
> I guess I've been thinking a lot about what humanists can offer code studies
> and can't help feel that we could design humanities courses geared toward
> science students that would be (actually and hopefully perceived to be)
> valuable to their pursuits -- with perhaps the long-term goal of not erasing
> but seriously smudging the division between the sciences and humanities.
> Don't get me wrong -- these would INCREASE humanities offerings, not take
> the place of current classes.
>
> I know I'm preaching to the interdisciplinary choir, but can anyone reply
> with actual courses they've taught or offered at their institution that seem
> to fit this bill? Can we propose imaginary courses that might accomplish
> these goals? Or does this in effect undervalue that work that any good
> humanities course does already?
>
> Thoughts?
> Mark Marino
> HaCCS Lab
> University of Southern California
> http://haccslab.com
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20110605/e258f747/attachment.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 14:50:37 +0200
> From: David Berry <D.M.Berry at swansea.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [iDC] The Future of the Humanities
> To: Mark Marino <markcmarino at gmail.com>
> Cc: "iDC at mailman.thing.net" <iDC at mailman.thing.net>
> Message-ID: <489E2D13-B002-4127-9DE8-A90581AC528B at swansea.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> Hi Mark
>
> Thanks for that post, which I thought was extremely thought-provoking and timely. I think the hierarchy of knowledge you drew is increasingly guiding UK government policy and agree with you that it is a false dichotomy. I think that your call to map the nexus between humanities and science is important as it is to understand the hybridity that constantly lies underneath this distinction. Perhaps quasi-science and quasi-humanities to paraphrase Serres. :-)
>
> Best
>
> David Berry
>
> Swansea University
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 6 Jun 2011, at 08:09, Mark Marino <markcmarino at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, IDC-ers,
>>
>> Last summer I met a computer scientist who shared with me his hierarchy of knowledge. In his schema, the sciences were at the top and all branches of knowledge and learning in the academy fell underneath. By his account, at one time, due to a collective ignorance, much of knowledge was ordered under the Humanities, but slowly over time that ice cap had been chipped away and had floated off and melted into the larger sea of Science where it belonged. By his account medicine, astronomy, and many other realms of knowledge had been relocated to their rightful place, leaving only certain types of speculative philosophy, perhaps a few arts, and other trivial or superfluous enterprises.
>>
>> I don't think this computer scientist was misrepresenting his perspective to be provocative, though I do believe he knew exactly which of my buttons he was pushing. His pedestal for positivism was built upon a larger progress narrative (that a humanities course might even critique). Nonetheless, it took a long coffee break with a philosophy librarian friend to pull me back from the ledge or perhaps get me off the war path.
>>
>> In an age where very reasonable folks are questioning the value of a college education, when the digital humanities seem to be flourishing, and when the US and global economies are still flagging sending students into their most pragmatic shells, I wonder if it isn't time for a new kind of humanities course. I guess I am thinking about something different than what I know to be "digital humanities" in as much as that can mean the humanities plus computers (not to reduce -- I just don't mean that version of DH.)
>>
>> Remember last year and Cornell's President Skorton's address?
>> http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/11/01/humanities
>>
>> From an Inside Higher Ed article on the topic:
>> Robert M. Berdahl, president of the Association of American Universities, said he has noticed increasing concern among university leaders about "the marginalization of non-scientific work" in higher education. "At every meeting these days, there is concern expressed about the status of the humanities and the fear that the humanities and to some extent the social sciences are being sidelined in a discussion about higher education that seems to focus almost exclusively on the economic value of universities."
>>
>> Are the Humanities under attack? If they need rescued and if so how?
>>
>> So here's an idea, and this is not new: humanities need to be able to show what they can offer even the sciences. (Now I don't mean getting caught up in the debate over the "value" of the humanities directly -- as that's like trying to defend a fine arts program on the basis of the Christie's auction price on a few Picasso's. Also Stanley Fish's retort that the humanities need not justify themselves comes to mind, but it's probably easier to make that claim when you are the Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor and a professor of law. That's not to slight, but to say it's easier to claim the humanities don't need to argue their value when you've already established/earned your own security.
>>
>> Here is where my personal interest comes in with Critical Code Studies in the Humanities and Critical Code Studies (HaCCS Lab), where one of the goals is to create new spaces for humanities and computer scientists to meet and discuss. While I think it is naive to suggest that the humanities will all of the sudden be valued the way the sciences are, I'd be interested to hear about humanities courses geared toward scientists. Not Rocks for Jocks but Greeks for Geeks. Critical Theory for Civil Engineers. I'm interested in classes that teach the traditional humanities topics but that are aimed at the science students -- beyond, say, the History of Science or the History of the Philosophy of Science. Which is another way of asking: what can the humanities teach the sciences (which probably plays into a completely useless binary)?
>>
>> I guess I've been thinking a lot about what humanists can offer code studies and can't help feel that we could design humanities courses geared toward science students that would be (actually and hopefully perceived to be) valuable to their pursuits -- with perhaps the long-term goal of not erasing but seriously smudging the division between the sciences and humanities. Don't get me wrong -- these would INCREASE humanities offerings, not take the place of current classes.
>>
>> I know I'm preaching to the interdisciplinary choir, but can anyone reply with actual courses they've taught or offered at their institution that seem to fit this bill? Can we propose imaginary courses that might accomplish these goals? Or does this in effect undervalue that work that any good humanities course does already?
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> Mark Marino
>> HaCCS Lab
>> University of Southern California
>> http://haccslab.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (distributedcreativity.org)
>> iDC at mailman.thing.net
>> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>>
>> List Archive:
>> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>>
>> iDC Photo Stream:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>>
>> RSS feed:
>> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>>
>> iDC Chat on Facebook:
>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>>
>> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20110709/6bcbce10/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 14:26:04 +0100
> From: Simon Biggs <simon at littlepig.org.uk>
> Subject: Re: [iDC] The Future of the Humanities
> To: Mark Marino <markcmarino at gmail.com>, <iDC at mailman.thing.net>
> Message-ID: <CA3E157C.329B3%simon at littlepig.org.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Hi Mark
>
> The arts and humanities are under attack, especially in the UK where, other
> than Scotland, there has been a 100% cut to the government undergraduate
> teaching grant in all except STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering
> and medicine) and a tripling in student fees to make up the difference.
> Whilst STEM is ring-fenced by government policy the rest have to justify
> themselves in a now competitive market. Some institutions, without STEM
> programmes, now receive no government income for teaching. The subsequent
> instrumentalisation of arts, humanities and social sciences is no surprise.
>
> Here in Edinburgh, which will be affected by the changes south of the border
> but in as yet uncertain ways, we are trying to look beyond the arguably
> false dualities inherent in UK government HE policy. This September we have
> a new MSc by Research starting up in Interdisciplinary Creative Practice. It
> welcomes graduates from all subjects and we are keen to ensure a spread of
> students, from STEM, social sciences, arts and humanities as the mix will
> inform what the students can do together. It is its first year so we will
> see how it goes but recruitment has been promising.
>
> http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/finder/details.php?id=656
> http://ddm.ace.ed.ac.uk/ICP-info.html
>
> Best
>
> Simon
>
>
> On 06/06/2011 07:09, "Mark Marino" <markcmarino at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, IDC-ers,
>>
>> Last summer I met a computer scientist who shared with me his hierarchy of
>> knowledge. In his schema, the sciences were at the top and all branches of
>> knowledge and learning in the academy fell underneath. By his account, at
>> one time, due to a collective ignorance, much of knowledge was ordered under
>> the Humanities, but slowly over time that ice cap had been chipped away and
>> had floated off and melted into the larger sea of Science where it
>> belonged. By his account medicine, astronomy, and many other realms of
>> knowledge had been relocated to their rightful place, leaving only certain
>> types of speculative philosophy, perhaps a few arts, and other trivial or
>> superfluous enterprises.
>>
>> I don't think this computer scientist was misrepresenting his perspective to
>> be provocative, though I do believe he knew exactly which of my buttons he
>> was pushing. His pedestal for positivism was built upon a larger progress
>> narrative (that a humanities course might even critique). Nonetheless, it
>> took a long coffee break with a philosophy librarian friend to pull me back
>> from the ledge or perhaps get me off the war path.
>>
>> In an age where very reasonable folks are questioning the value of a college
>> education, when the digital humanities seem to be flourishing, and when the
>> US and global economies are still flagging sending students into their most
>> pragmatic shells, I wonder if it isn't time for a new kind of humanities
>> course. I guess I am thinking about something different than what I know
>> to be "digital humanities" in as much as that can mean the humanities plus
>> computers (not to reduce -- I just don't mean that version of DH.)
>>
>> Remember last year and Cornell's President Skorton's address?
>> http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/11/01/humanities
>>
>> From an Inside Higher Ed article on the topic:
>> Robert M. Berdahl, president of the Association of American Universities,
>> said he has noticed increasing concern among university leaders about "the
>> marginalization of non-scientific work" in higher education. "At every
>> meeting these days, there is concern expressed about the status of the
>> humanities and the fear that the humanities and to some extent the social
>> sciences are being sidelined in a discussion about higher education that
>> seems to focus almost exclusively on the economic value of universities."
>>
>> Are the Humanities under attack? If they need rescued and if so how?
>>
>> So here's an idea, and this is not new: humanities need to be able to show
>> what they can offer even the sciences. (Now I don't mean getting caught up
>> in the debate over the "value" of the humanities directly -- as that's like
>> trying to defend a fine arts program on the basis of the Christie's auction
>> price on a few Picasso's. Also Stanley Fish's retort that the humanities
>> need not justify themselves comes to mind, but it's probably easier to make
>> that claim when you are the Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor
>> and a professor of law. That's not to slight, but to say it's easier to
>> claim the humanities don't need to argue their value when you've already
>> established/earned your own security.
>>
>> Here is where my personal interest comes in with Critical Code Studies in
>> the Humanities and Critical Code Studies (HaCCS Lab), where one of the goals
>> is to create new spaces for humanities and computer scientists to meet and
>> discuss. While I think it is naive to suggest that the humanities will all
>> of the sudden be valued the way the sciences are, I'd be interested to hear
>> about humanities courses geared toward scientists. Not Rocks for Jocks but
>> Greeks for Geeks. Critical Theory for Civil Engineers. I'm interested in
>> classes that teach the traditional humanities topics but that are aimed at
>> the science students -- beyond, say, the History of Science or the History
>> of the Philosophy of Science. Which is another way of asking: what can the
>> humanities teach the sciences (which probably plays into a completely
>> useless binary)?
>>
>> I guess I've been thinking a lot about what humanists can offer code studies
>> and can't help feel that we could design humanities courses geared toward
>> science students that would be (actually and hopefully perceived to be)
>> valuable to their pursuits -- with perhaps the long-term goal of not erasing
>> but seriously smudging the division between the sciences and humanities.
>> Don't get me wrong -- these would INCREASE humanities offerings, not take
>> the place of current classes.
>>
>> I know I'm preaching to the interdisciplinary choir, but can anyone reply
>> with actual courses they've taught or offered at their institution that seem
>> to fit this bill? Can we propose imaginary courses that might accomplish
>> these goals? Or does this in effect undervalue that work that any good
>> humanities course does already?
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> Mark Marino
>> HaCCS Lab
>> University of Southern California
>> http://haccslab.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
>> (distributedcreativity.org)
>> iDC at mailman.thing.net
>> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>>
>> List Archive:
>> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>>
>> iDC Photo Stream:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>>
>> RSS feed:
>> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>>
>> iDC Chat on Facebook:
>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>>
>> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
>
>
> Simon Biggs | simon at littlepig.org.uk | www.littlepig.org.uk
>
> s.biggs at eca.ac.uk | Edinburgh College of Art
> www.eca.ac.uk/circle | www.elmcip.net | www.movingtargets.net
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> iDC mailing list
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
> _______________________________________________
> Institute for Distributed Creativity (iDC)
> _______________________________________________
> www.distributedcreativity.org
> _______________________________________________
> The research of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
> (iDC) focuses on collaboration in media art, technology,
> and theory with an emphasis on social contexts.
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> End of iDC Digest, Vol 77, Issue 11
> ***********************************
Michael W. Massey
Doctoral Student
Adult Education, Higher Education, and Qualitative Research Programs
River's Crossing, 4th Floor
The University of Georgia
and
Adjunct Instructor
Marketing and Management
Athens Technical College
Athens, GA
HOME: mikemassey at windstream.net
UGA: mwmassey at uga.edu
ATC: mmassey at athenstech.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20110710/4f3531c8/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the iDC
mailing list