09-26

The two readings for today were easier to comprehend and get through than the others of this semester. Smith’s article gave a summary of the climate surrounding Technology in the Humanities, even though it was written in 2002. Since she was writing from the perspective if a professor, it is difficult to tell if these same feelings and ideas persist in current day, but from what we have discussed in class, I would guess that they do. Smith discusses the reluctance that professors and scholars of the Humanities have when it comes to using technology to further develop the field. Smith believes that technology has the potential to expand the reach of the humanities in general and create a more collaborative/team-oriented culture within the field. She states, “humanities computing will continue to change the way humanities scholarship is practiced, expanding objects of study and lines of critical inquiry, thereby making more expansive, responsible critical histories” (854). She argues that through the use of technology, people will be able to view the world of humanities from more perspectives, thus giving voice to those who were once voiceless. However, this will not be easily accomplished. Anytime change is present, some people will feel threatened or nervous. Therefore, we have to think of creative ways to get everyone to participate, or at least as many people as possible. She discussed the many different tools that are involved in technology, expanding the opportunities to reach different people through visuals and other multimedia. Collaboration is something that Juola mentions in his article as well. He speaks of the ways that the invention of a “killer app” for the humanities could bring scholars together, bringing more perspectives to the table, raising money for funding of our studies, and making materials more accessible. In the end, Joala argues that “scholars lack incentive to participate (or even to learn about) the results of humanities computing…DH specialists are placed to create their own incentives by developing applications with sufficient scope to materially change the way humanities scholarship is done” (17).  In other words, even those people who are interested in the humanities are not invested in digital humanities. However, if there were a “killer app” those people would have the motivation and the means to use digital humanities to their advantage.