Tona Hangen

Resources

Favorite Primary Source Caches
Best of the Vernacular Web
Getting Started in Digital Humanities

Tools, Groups & Resources I find really helpful

Zotero
Dropbox
Omeka
Color Scheme Designer
Ow.ly or Bit.ly
Humanities 3.0: Tooling up for Digital Humanities
The Broadside
Crossroads/ American Studies Web
Center for History and New Media
NINES
H-Net classic
Academic Commons
Sympoze
NITLE
Teaching Digital History
CUNY Digital Humanities Resources Guide

Blogs and Podcasts I follow

ProfHacker
Digital Campus
Making History
Digital Humanities Now
The New Digital History Education
AmericanStudies
GetReligion
Old is the New New
Memory Palace
The Hope Chest
Ancient Industries
Wired Campus
The Juvenile Instructor
Clioweb
This American Life
Rand’s Esoteric OTR

Organizations to which I belong

American Historical Association
Organization of American Historians
American Studies Association
New England Historical Association
Northeast Popular Culture/American Culture Association
Society for History Education
MERLOT
Classroom 2.0
Academia.edu
American Academy of Religion
Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
Mormon History Association
Berkshire Conference of Women Historians

4006 Total 1 Views Today

2 thoughts on “Resources

  1. Jearic

    Erik Johnson:I’ll echo Nile in the thanks due to Jon, Cameron, and Zephyr for pulnilg this series together. The snapshots it has provided of projects, tools, and methodologies being developed around the Stanford community have been fascinating and useful. Perhaps the biggest contribution digital humanities has to make to the rest of us right now is precisely this sharing model, since it’s a tendency in our compartmentalized, period-bound disciplines for methodological developments and tools to end up ghettoized to particular subfields or objects of study.Is digital humanities a field though? Digital humanists seem to have staked themselves out as a group that wants (as a group) to generate its own research questions. I wonder if the field can or should balance these enterprises with a more consistent sense of service to the humanities as a whole.Bibliography, paleography and textual editing, for instance, are fields, but they are fields that exist with a strong sense of service to the larger humanities world. The research questions they generate by virtue of their own techniques and tools are rarely of intrinsic interest unless they speak to larger research questions. Whether or not there’s a comma between two words or how many times Great Expectations were reprinted are not innately interesting questions. But textual scholarship can help to resolve the interpretive problems raised by close readers; descriptive bibliography can answer questions about an author’s biography and enumerative bibliography about the audience of his novels; and so on.So my question: could there be a more effective balance between digital humanities that aims to reinvent its field and digital humanities research that serves the existing humanities community? Should the goal be to take distant reading approaches and produce some synthesis of data (about topics in the Victorian novel, say) that any one working on a dissertation on Dickens would then be obliged to consult in the same way they’d be obliged to consult a good Dickens bibliography now?Should groups like the literary lab here be structured so as to consult systematically with students and professors doing work that is not explicitly digital and say, okay, you work on adultery in the Hellenistic world, let’s locate that within a topic model, with an aim to incorporating these kinds of research methods more fully into the larger humanities conversation? Or does the desire to articulate a digital humanities agenda mitigate against that happening?

  2. Febri

    Willys DeVoll:Like many of those who have commented bforee me, I’d like to thank all of the people involved in organizing the workshop and those who spoke during the various sessions throughout the quarter.I thought that the last session was particularly interesting because it provided an opportunity for a much-needed conceptual look at what exactly the digital humanities are halfway through 2011, and whether or not there is an agreed-upon path forward for the field (and, it seems, there is not). I was also intrigued by how closely some of the concerns raised toward the end of the hour those regarding disciplinary colonialism parallel the rhetoric used in discussions on the value of the arts and humanities on this campus, throughout the country, and in Washington. This is highly speculative, but it might be that the digital humanities can give humanities on the whole a better way of communicating to non-humanists the value of humanists’ fields, in addition to the many other potential benefits of increased use of digital methodologies in the humanities. If that’s so, it’s yet another possible feather in the cap of this emerging field.Anyway, thanks again for a great workshop series, and I hope that there will be more opportunities like this at Stanford in the years to come!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Header Image: Adapted from Niki Feijens

Log In page visits = 655588