It's good that the question, "What is digital humanities?" has been getting a lot of attention and discussion. It shows up periodically in my twittersphere, will be getting some good attention at THATCamp, and has been the subject of some rolling discussions elsewhere. After attending HASTAC III a while back, I blogged a bit (also) about what I saw as two very different notions of digital humanities as enacted by the folks doing digital humanities, with THATCamp and HASTAC seeming to represent two ends of a spectrum.

Barbara Hui recently posted some thoughts that combine the theme of theory/praxis with other conversations about being in industry vs. being in academia, producing a bit more nuance to the discussion. And since more nuance tends to beget more thoughts, here's what her post made me think of.

First, though, she was following along story-swapping about getting into digital humanities in the first place. That story gave useful context, so I'll follow suit and tell my story.

Unlike Barbara, I've been in academia for, well, ever. Not even a break between undergrad and grad school. My undergrad degree is in math, with minors in physics and English; Ph.D. in Anglo-Saxon literature. A friend in grad school once said that going from math to Anglo-Saxon literature made perfect sense -- I just moved from one indecipherable set of symbols to another. There's a lot of truth to that. I like thinking symbolically, moving back and forth between signifier and signified, and digging around in the ambiguities and polysemousness (wow---it's a long time since I've used that word!) of both. During undergrad I'd tinkered a bit with computer programming, and during grad school tinkered a little more. I liked how the notation of code offered nifty new ways to express ideas, to the point that I would sometimes make notes and plans for dissertation chapters in something akin to code.

I got my Ph.D. and joined the thronging throngs on the job market. Had a one year position at UMW, then adjuncted at UMW and University of Richmond, then got another one year position at UMW. All along, I spent more and more time learning javascript, XML, and various technologies that came to be called Web 2.0. My theory -- and I still think it was a sound one -- was to market myself as a medievalist who could also do innovative things with online technology. ("Look! I'm a medievalist and I can use technology well in teaching! Hire me! Hire me!"). A good theory, but it couldn't quite stand up to the facts of the job market. More importantly, maybe, I also saw myself enjoying the technology stuff more than research and teaching. Well, not more than the teaching, but certainly more than having a 4-4 load of mostly first-year composition with the attendant stacks and stacks of intense grading and commenting on their papers. (*shudder*)

And so when the chance to work with Gardner Campbell in the position I have now as Instructional Technology Specialist came up, I made that switch, beginning my journey up the path to being a digital humanist. Definitely the right decision -- I have much more life of the mind now than I did as a professor, which surprised me since I wanted to be a professor exactly because I thought that was the gig where I'd have the fullest life of the mind. (Everyone feel free to tut-tut me for my naivete). Since then, I've been learning Drupal, WordPress, PHP, RDF, etc. to build things to help teaching and learning. Barbara described the satisfaction of coding wonderfully:

I love the pattern-making and puzzle-solving aspect of coding, the challenge of designing tools and interfaces in efficient and elegant ways. I still find it enormously satisfying to be able to create something via code that is functional, that is deployed out into the world and is instantly useful to people.

I especially like that I feel that in the service of teaching. I think I was a fairly good teacher. Not great like Gardner. But not too bad, either. Now, though, I think that I am contributing to teaching and the development of students, even though at a step removed from the classroom, to a degree and in a way that I never could have as a professor.

Which brings me back to Barbara. She picked up the theory/praxis distinction I also made here and here, and quite happily filled it out.

I've seen DH defined (implicitly more often than outright) in a few different ways. Some define DH more along the lines of theory, and others more along the lines of praxis. Saying that one "does DH" can mean a variety of things:

1. Some DH scholars don't create any digital tools themselves at all, but rather, for example, read and theorize about literature that has been written in the digital medium, and/or that references the digital medium in some way. (pure theory)
2. Other DH scholars don't theorize at all, but instead, for example, might have a background in a "practical" discipline like Library and Information Studies (or a humanities degree they have "left behind") and now work on creating digital reference or archival tools for use by humanities scholars. (pure praxis)
3. Yet others do a mixture of both: for example a literature and media studies scholar creates a new media mapping platform to serve as a multi-purpose tool for both teaching and theorizing about city-spaces. (theory + praxis)

Reading her post made me think more about another implicit difference in how people seem to think and talk about digital humanities: teaching vs. research/publishing (with the additional mix of research about teaching). Here's a few of the common questions I see that seem to reflect that difference:

• What should we teach students to be digital humanists?
• How do we bring digital tools into the classroom to improve our teaching?
• How do we use digital tools to do research in the humanities?
• How do we do research on online materials?
• How do digital humanists publish online?

It seems to me that the more connected someone is to teaching, the more likely they are to fall into the theory + praxis category. Conversely, a professor in a position of primarily research (or who views their position as such) is more likely to be a theory person. That's not at all surprising. I'll even go so far as to say that it's healthy and as it should be.

But my worry is that trying to get too solid an answer to the question "What is digital humanities?" will muddy the waters in unhealthy ways. By way of analogy to traditional disciplines, it is unhealthy to any discipline when someone says, for example, "Pshaw--he's not a real historian because he spends so much more time teaching than publishing." Or, "She's one of those professors who only does research and doesn't care about teaching." Remind anyone of any department meetings they've been to lately?

I think it's good for various faculty to be at various positions along the spectrum of research and teaching. The problem, I think, is that it is so difficult within the current structure of universities to recognize that, both in teaching obligations and in tenure and promotion criteria. I get the impression that some institutions are moving toward being able to do so, but as always in higher ed, it's a slow journey.

To build up the analogy a bit more, and drawing from my background, one could ask is someone is a real medievalist if they haven't ever touched a manuscript. Or if their Latin is only fair-to-midlin. As far as disciplines within English Literature go, medievalists are, I think, among the most friendly and accepting crowds (anyone who's been to the International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo will likely agree). But even among us -- hey, once a medievalist, always a medievalist! -- I've heard distinctions like those used in unhealthy ways.

So I'd like to advocate not worrying too much about answering "What is digital humanities?" -- All of the above. Instead, lets look toward refining the emphases and goals within digital humanities.

1. What skills does a theorist in digital humanities need (and not need) in order to publish research in traditional print journals? What conferences should they go to? (A: HASTAC)
2. What knowledge and skills and programming languages does an instructional technology support person need to support the research and teaching goals of faculty at an R1 university? a liberal arts college? What conferences should they go to? (A: Code4Lib).
3. What knowledge and experience does a humanities teacher need to have about Web 2.0 in order to teach at the undergrad level? What conferences should they go to? (A: THATCamp).

So lets say digital humanities encompases a large ecosystem of skills, approaches, goals, knowledge, etc. Barbara also moves forward a conversation about something much more fundamental:

But really, given the current academic system, is it fair to expect digital humanists to have expert technical skills? We are humanities academics, after all. Most humanities scholars start their careers without having had a discrete chunk of time in which to learn tech skills, much less experience the life cycle of an IT project (which is arguably essential for successful digital tool development).

This is sticky, because the theory part of the ecosystem fits better with the traditional publishing structures that new professors need to work within to get tenure. But the praxis part is much more relevant to teaching, student satisfaction, and contemporary society in general.

Part of this will shift as universities generally pull their heads out of the 20th century, especially as they unthaw their tenure and promotion structures. An early ray of warm sunshine in that process is support for technology fellows programs, like the one Cole Camplese has going on at Penn State. The idea is to offer incentives in the form of course releases, stipends, assurance of credit in tenure and promotion files, etc., for faculty to spend a period of intense time working closely with other digital humanists (especially the praxis folks) to develop their knowledge of digital skills and emerging technologies. When we tried a similar program here at UMW, it was a remarkable success -- but somehow didn't maintain momentum. I worked with a philosophy professor to create an online logic textbook in a Drupal installation, something he's used for several semesters, and has adapted once for an entirely online version of the course. I also worked with a chemistry professor to create an online lab data manager that let students share their lab data right in the lab, helping them focus on understanding and interpreting the data, rather than just recording it. (Notice the second one is a step forward in digital sciences for teaching undergrads, not digital humanities!)

Fellows programs help faculty develop a rich understanding of the digital landscape. For me in the role of praxis guy working to help them implement their ideas, I can also say that my experience pushed forward my knowledge of Drupal and coding for the web immeasurably. If not for the fellows program, I wouldn't have nearly the knowledge and skills that I have today. So for both faculty and staff development, administrative support for fellows programs brings a huge return on investment for everyone involved.

Another part of it will shift as digital humanities becomes less and less of a relevant term. That is, at some point it will be silly to think that one can do humanities without being digital. So, to one degree or another any "humanities academic" will necessarily also be a "digital humanities academic". That, too, is a long way off, though. Meanwhile, to toot UMW's own horn, institutions can support the people who are closer to the innovative praxis level. The kinds of people that technology fellows work with. UMW has done a fabulous job in supporting faculty development within digital humanities by focusing more on the people who can support digital humanities than on the (expensive) applications that are often associated with educational technology (like BlackBoard). (Jim Groom's recent talk at CUNY hits on investing in people over investing in technology). Because I work with amazing, smart people who understand the role innovative technology can (and should) play in higher education, we can meet with the kind of faculty members Barbara refers to, understand their ideas, and take the time to talk through and implement it. That's kinda like a fellows program, but not as intense, often spread over a longer period of time, and part of just what we do every day.

And that's the healthy ecosystem that universities need to recognize and support. Theorists and teachers with a vague idea about a praxis they would like to try from one sub-ecosystem of digital humanities can mix with other faculty and staff from the implementation/praxis sub-ecosystem. They can teach each other about their perspectives and the principles by which they operate. When the theory, praxis, and theory+praxis folks all intermingle and have the chance to (inter)act in significant ways, everyone can accomplish great things.