Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By admin

“within the field—every “What Is Digital Humanities?” panel aimed at explaining the field to other scholars winds up uncovering more differences of opinion among its practitioners”(Fitzpatrick, The Humanities, Done Digitally).

This quote sticks out to me because it clearly highlights that digital humanities do not have a clear definition and that there is continued debate about what they truly are. This allowed for me to more analyze the article than to take it as fact.

“I wrote that the digital humanities could be understood as “a nexus of fields within which scholars use computing technologies to investigate the kinds of questions that are traditional to the humanities” (Fitzpatrick, The Humanities, Done Digitally).

This quote does a good job of giving readers a brief overview of a basic understanding of digital humanities. Very helpful for someone who has never explored this field before. Also makes me think of the Wulf article, as she clearly explains how it is helpful to have background knowledge of the authors past experiences in regards to religion, marriage, economic status, and experiences.

“Digital humanities as it is currently practiced isn’t just located in literary studies departments; the field is broadly humanities based and includes scholars in history, musicology, performance studies, media studies, and other fields that can benefit from bringing computing technologies to bear on traditional humanities materials” (Fitzpatrick, The Humanities, Done Digitally).

This quote does a great job of emphasizing the versatility of digital humanities studies in a wide variety of academic fields. Makes the study of digital humanities seem very prevalent.

“Those differences often produce significant tension, particularly between those who suggest that digital humanities should always be about making (whether making archives, tools, or new digital methods) and those who argue that it must expand to include interpreting” (Fitzpatrick, The Humanities, Done Digitally).

This ties in to what Fitzpatrick says at the beginning about there still being much debate about what digital humanities truly are. This helps to make it clear as to what the debate is consisting of. Very interesting to think about the possibilities that digital humanities can provide for future research.