20.076 excuses for theory, ideas from practice

                Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 20, No. 76.
       Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
  www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/humanities/cch/research/publications/humanist.html
                        www.princeton.edu/humanist/
                     Submit to: humanist_at_princeton.edu

   [1] From: "Juan Garces" <juan.garces_at_kcl.ac.uk> (104)
         Subject: RE: 20.073 excuses for theory, ideas from practice

   [2] From: Zoe Borovsky <zoe_at_humnet.ucla.edu> (110)
         Subject: Re: 20.073 excuses for theory, ideas from practice

--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
         Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 08:32:42 +0100
         From: "Juan Garces" <juan.garces_at_kcl.ac.uk>
         Subject: RE: 20.073 excuses for theory, ideas from practice

It seems to me like you are engaged in an effort to (re?)define the
discoursive space you are a Reader for. ;) An effort whose necessity I fully
share, not least because the often occurring notion that Humanities
Computing does not exist - I view I don=92t share.

You bring up two distinctions that rarely occur in its pure form -
theory/practice, digital humanities/humanities computing. I would like to
make one brief comment on each:

(1) Theory, as critical meta-discourse, resurfaces in times when practice
becomes in some way problematic. I would argue that at this juncture, when
digital technologies reshape the way we produce knowledge in the Humanities,
we are still struggling with understanding what is happening with the impact
of these new technologies on our discourse. Indeed, we are discovering that
we perhaps had not always thought through with thoroughness what precisely
we were doing before the digital impact in the first place. It is, however,
also surprising to see how many digital projects seem to engage in digital
Humanities without explicit or apparent reflexion on what they do. Practise,
often without Theory, seems to be a large component of what we (but who are
we?) do - a sort of technical support for the real academics. This is, of
course, necessary, but certainly not enough to establish an identifiable
discipline.

(2) Humanities computing has to find a voice vis-=E0-vis not only digital
humanities (in the way you used that term), but also vis-=E0-vis the
Humanities at large, digital or otherwise. Only if we mobilise recognisable
Humanities expertise of our own are we in a position to not only give
support, but also forge a timely academic discourse of our own, which is in
a position to produce change in the Humanities. Change, of course, not just
for the sake of it or to be technically hip, but in order to not only answer
the question the Humanities are asking with digital means, but begin to ask
new, different questions whose answer digital technologies might produce.
That would be, I would like to put forward, a genuine contribution of a
genuine discipline - including _both_ digital humanities _and_ humanities
computing.

I hope I made some sense.

Yours,

Juan

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Juan Garc=E9s
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
Kay House, 7 Arundel Street
London WC2R 3DX
T: +44 (0)20 7848 1393
F: +44 (0)20 7848 2980

-----Original Message-----
From: Humanist Discussion Group [mailto:humanist_at_Princeton.EDU] On Behalf Of
Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty
<willard.mccarty_at_kcl.ac.uk>)
Sent: 24 June 2006 09:45
To: humanist_at_Princeton.EDU

                  Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 20, No. 73.
         Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
    www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/humanities/cch/research/publications/humanist.html
                          www.princeton.edu/humanist/
                       Submit to: humanist_at_princeton.edu

           Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:01:53 +0100
           From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty_at_kcl.ac.uk>
           Subject: theory and practice

In her book Copying Machines: taking notes for the automaton
(Minnesota, 2000), Catherine Liu makes the following remark about
literary critical and psychoanalytic theory:

>There is no excuse for theory.... Unlike other
>discourses, it does not purport to do anyone any
>good. It tries to provide material for
>thinking. [T]here seems to be an increasing
>need for those of us in the humanities to have
>an excuse for what we are doing, and those of us
>who "do" theory seem to be most lacking in
>excuses. We are the least likely to to appear as
>if we are doing anyone or anything any good.
>Theory exists, unfortunately, for itself: its
>insights are based on thinking through the
>complexities of both reading and writing. (p. 152)

In humanities computing we encounter the opposite situation: we have
many excuses for what we are doing, because the practice as is it
usually instantiated is precisely for the advancement of projects
elsewhere. One way of reading the situation is that humanities
computing offers rescue to the useless disciplines, provides these
unexcused ones with whatever excuses may be required. In the
short-term this seems a good pitch to make (though, of course, not in
those terms, not out loud), since it secures friends in middle and
high places. But as a long-term strategy it smells of High Moral
Seriousness, and one starts to wonder where our Wilde will come from.
If theory -- or Theory, as I prefer -- needs to engage with
artefacts, not only to obtain its get-out-of-jail-free card but also
to be liberated from solipsism, then humanities computing requires
the opposite engagement with its own sense of theory. It has to be
for itself if it's going to be good for the other humanities when, as
some claim, the woodwork computes.

So, I have a proposal to make: that we call what happens in the
disciplines the "digital humanities" but that we call the
techno-scholarly practice that thus informs these disciplines
"humanities computing". In other words, I think that we're witnessing
not just another evolutionary step (as in the steps from "computers
and the humanities" to "computing in the humanities" to "humanities
computing") but now the separation of this evolving entity into two
distinct though intimately related things.

Comments?

Yours,
WM

Dr Willard McCarty | Reader in Humanities
Computing | Centre for Computing in the
Humanities | King's College London | Kay House, 7
Arundel Street | London WC2R 3DX | U.K. | +44
(0)20 7848-2784 fax: -2980 ||
willard.mccarty_at_kcl.ac.uk www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/wlm/

--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
         Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 08:33:58 +0100
         From: Zoe Borovsky <zoe_at_humnet.ucla.edu>
         Subject: Re: 20.073 excuses for theory, ideas from practice

Dear Willard,

This strikes me as a good solution to what I have been grappling with...how
to create an organization that encompasses both new media theorists as well
as the hard-crunching morphological analyzing tools. I realized that it was
the perfect answer to a question I did not answer very well the other day.
I was asked to present an overview of the new text analysis tools, Juxta,
Xaira, WordHoard, TAPoR, etc., and was asked what the demand was for such
tools. I had tried to impress the audience with the ability to perform
sophisticated analyses with these new tools, but had to admit that very few
humanities faculty were asking for help using these types of tools.

However, upon reflection, what does interest them are the more utilitarian
tools such as RefVis, and citation indexes that incorporate textual analysis
tools into what is essentially a bibliographical application. I was
especially intrigued by this description on Thomson.com website:

http://scientific.thomson.com/free/essays/useofcitationdatabases/linking/

<quote>Subheadings, such as those in Medline=AE, serve as intermediate=
  topics
that bridge the two noninteractive literatures (see Figure 1). For instance,
a researcher might notice that the topic of emaciating or degenerative
diseases is frequently accompanied by the subheading of growth hormones in
the index. The subheading of growth hormones could then be considered as an
intermediate topic.

The next step in the exploratory process is to find titles that relate
directly to factors that influence the intermediate topic. In the case of
growth hormones, such a factor is arginine. Once a relationship is
established indirectly between two primary topics--such as degenerative
disease and the use of arginine--through an intermediate topic--such as
growth hormones--a hypothesis can be formed.</quote>

Swanson's method of linking two "noninteractive literatures" using a
citation index to explore indirect relationships between topics strikes me
as a typical method used in text analysis--now integrated into bibliographic
tools.

The Swanson example may also be a way of introducing how "techno-scholarly
practice" might inform the "digital humanitists" and lead to discussions,
indeed a discipline, that envisions a future of tools and theories that
address the needs of both. I will revamp the presentation and let you know
how it goes. Suggestions, comments are most welcome! --zoe
Zoe Borovsky
UCLA-Digital Humanities Incubator Group

On 6/24/06 2:45 AM, "Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty
<willard.mccarty_at_kcl.ac.uk>)" <willard_at_LISTS.VILLAGE.VIRGINIA.EDU> wrote:

> Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 20, No. 73.
> Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
> =
  www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/humanities/cch/research/publications/humanist.html
> www.princeton.edu/humanist/
> Submit to: humanist_at_princeton.edu
>
>
>
> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:01:53 +0100
> From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty_at_kcl.ac.uk>
> >
> In her book Copying Machines: taking notes for the automaton
> (Minnesota, 2000), Catherine Liu makes the following remark about
> literary critical and psychoanalytic theory:
>
>
>> There is no excuse for theory.... Unlike other
>> discourses, it does not purport to do anyone any
>> good. It tries to provide material for
>> thinking. [T]here seems to be an increasing
>> need for those of us in the humanities to have
>> an excuse for what we are doing, and those of us
>> who "do" theory seem to be most lacking in
>> excuses. We are the least likely to to appear as
>> if we are doing anyone or anything any good.
>> Theory exists, unfortunately, for itself: its
>> insights are based on thinking through the
>> complexities of both reading and writing. (p. 152)
>
> In humanities computing we encounter the opposite situation: we have
> many excuses for what we are doing, because the practice as is it
> usually instantiated is precisely for the advancement of projects
> elsewhere. One way of reading the situation is that humanities
> computing offers rescue to the useless disciplines, provides these
> unexcused ones with whatever excuses may be required. In the
> short-term this seems a good pitch to make (though, of course, not in
> those terms, not out loud), since it secures friends in middle and
> high places. But as a long-term strategy it smells of High Moral
> Seriousness, and one starts to wonder where our Wilde will come from.
> If theory -- or Theory, as I prefer -- needs to engage with
> artefacts, not only to obtain its get-out-of-jail-free card but also
> to be liberated from solipsism, then humanities computing requires
> the opposite engagement with its own sense of theory. It has to be
> for itself if it's going to be good for the other humanities when, as
> some claim, the woodwork computes.
>
> So, I have a proposal to make: that we call what happens in the
> disciplines the "digital humanities" but that we call the
> techno-scholarly practice that thus informs these disciplines
> "humanities computing". In other words, I think that we're witnessing
> not just another evolutionary step (as in the steps from "computers
> and the humanities" to "computing in the humanities" to "humanities
> computing") but now the separation of this evolving entity into two
> distinct though intimately related things.
>
> Comments?
>
>
> Yours,
> WM
>
>
> Dr Willard McCarty | Reader in Humanities
> Computing | Centre for Computing in the
> Humanities | King's College London | Kay House, 7
> Arundel Street | London WC2R 3DX | U.K. | +44
> (0)20 7848-2784 fax: -2980 ||
> willard.mccarty_at_kcl.ac.uk www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/wlm/
Received on Sun Jun 25 2006 - 04:09:20 EDT