This is a great example of what we are trying to accomplish in our respective "discourse communities." A paper proposal that I had the pleasure of sharing with my colleagues:
Ryan Bradley
October 3, 2008
Final Paper Proposal
One of the things that immediately stood out to me upon taking this class was the punctiliar aspect of its origin. As has been pointed out, Digital Humanities has an undisputed and defined beginning, which is unique with interdisciplinary “experiments.” All scholars point to Father Busa’s quest to digitize the complete works of the venerable St. Thomas Aquinas as the beginning of the humanities collaborating with modern technology. The rest of the field of study, as we have discovered, could not be more convoluted in its projection. Most of the endeavors regarded as academically viable within the Digital Humanities are the ones similar to Father Busa’s, i.e. Projects that digitize texts and make them searchable using extensive markup language. Having large quantities of texts associated with the humanities, available to search within a digital interface, is embraced by the current hierarchy of academicians. I have witnessed, first hand, elderly professors scrolling through databases such as EEBO, fiercely clutching a monocle while attempting to discover a nuance that allow them to travel abroad one final time in their twilight years. While this aspect of Digital Humanities is embraced by the current status quo, innovations within the field that seek to go beyond compiling objective empirical data has yet to be embraced on a grandiose scale. Many professors echo sentiments similar to Stanley Fish, who contended that textual analysis was only possible in the autopoietical act of reading. For some, the process of integrating computer technology with scholarly criticism is exciting, for many it remains problematic. Unlike the beginning of Digital Humanities, there remains no consensus on how to proceed in the field. The philosophy of this crossroads is where my interest lies, and it is with this issue that my paper will take up.
Since the research for this paper is not fully complete nor my argument particularly narrowed, I am unable to fully contain the projection of the paper here. That being said, the basic structure will be parsed in three primary sections:
(1) The first third of the paper will seek to provide a philosophical point of reference for the discussion that will take place. Before critiquing differing scholarly opinions, basic epistemological approaches must be explained. I will examine deductive and inductive forms of reasoning in order to explain the polarity between the humanities and the sciences. It is my view that most of the discourse community surrounding Digital Humanities has failed with offering philosophical investigations into why many in literary studies are hesitant to embrace new technology that intuits literature and rises beyond empirical observation. Many of the articles we have discussed largely ignore the giant pink elephant in the room: the fusing of literary criticism and the hard sciences represents an unprecedented epistemological conundrum. I can’t think of a clearer modern example where the academy is wrestling so directly with the problems presented in Plato and Aristotle’s original discourse community.
(2) Thomas Kuhn has been mentioned a few times in our class discussions and in several of the articles we have read. Section two will present summaries of articles and books written by scholars, grouped by those who favor innovation in the Digital Humanities and those who resist it. By classifying these authors, the paper will investigate whether or not the field is producing a Kuhnian paradigm shift within literary studies. Why are scholars so hesitant to embrace the new technology, and are their fears/hesitations with good reason? The answer to these questions are at the heart of the debate and the future of our discipline.
(3) The final section of the paper will discuss the future projection of Digital Humanities. In Kuhnian terms, have enough people begun to embrace the new technology for another scientific revolution to occur in the near future? Expounding on the discoveries in the second part of the paper, I’m hoping that some general observations can be made about the possibility of innovative digital technologies becoming academically viable in literary criticism.
As digital humanist Willard McCarty explains, “[In regards to the future of Digital Humanities] Methods are explicit, actions definite, results forthcoming, yet we have been unable fully and persuasively to articulate the intellectual case for the means by which these results are produced.” Part of the reason for this problem remains the lack of dialog between the old and new orders. Although Father Busa compiled data over fifty years ago, there remains a lot of novelty about the humanities collaborating with new technologies. A dialog needs to be established in order to work through these problems, and as a current graduate student, I am very interested in figuring out where my discipline may or may not be heading. By establishing a philosophical backdrop for investigation and classifying scholars within this framework, I hope to present a compelling overview of the current status of Digital Humanities that will naturally progress into predicting the future of this interdisciplinary experiment
Friends,
Posts
