Why (in the World) Teach Digital Humanities at a Teaching-Intensive Institution?

Practicing DH: Exasperation

The most obvious place to engage in DH for individual practitioners who lack institutional infrastructure is within the individual classroom. Christina Murphy and Shannon Smith, editors of the 2017 Digital Humanities Quarterly special issue on undergraduate DH education, identify boutique scale as a key theme in the journal issue that suggests an “impulse in DH undergraduate pedagogy to seek a bite-sized approach to the field . . . that contrasts with the big-data promises that have come to dominate many flavours of DH.”8 This scale of work represents a feasible avenue for practicing DH for those who do not have the infrastructure for large-scale projects because it fits into the individual classroom, where an instructor has autonomy. This sounds great! But that bite-size impulse is not necessarily by choice. In our experience, there are limitations to this promise, especially the ephemerality of DH pedagogy that lives and dies within the individual class.

As an adjunct teaching intermediate Latin at the University of Texas–Austin, Davis saw firsthand the pros and cons of how instructor autonomy allows for DH pedagogy in a temporary, teaching-intensive position. Davis included an assignment for her students to experiment with computer-assisted text analysis by trying out a suite of freely available, online tools to analyze translations of Vergil’s Aeneid.9 Davis could use this assignment as long as she was willing to take her own, uncompensated time to develop it, and it aligned with the purpose of the class as a gateway into advanced study of Latin literature and culture. Essentially, her contingent position allowed her to fly below the radar if she did not do anything too outrageous that would bring attention to the course. This minor assignment (worth about 1 percent of the final grade) exemplifies the “bloom and fade” approach, which offers a low-risk way to integrate DH into the classroom.10 For the lone digital humanist, the “bloom and fade” assignment is a mainstay of DH pedagogy, allowing him or her to sneak DH into a variety of courses.

While classroom autonomy enables DH pedagogy, the veil of control hides exasperating aspects. As an adjunct, Davis did not connect with local colleagues to plan this assignment or depend on institutional technology support. Instead, she relied on her own familiarity with free text-analysis tools created by the DH community, including Voyant Tools and the TAPoR gateway.11 Andrew Bretz describes similar barriers for adjunct instructors pursuing DH pedagogy: “lack of access to resources (in terms of time, access to technical support, professional development, communities of practice, and access to administration).”12 While acknowledging the advantages of autonomy, Bretz argues that contingent faculty practicing DH pedagogy must be itinerant entrepreneurs learning on their own, leveraging free tools, and peddling their digital courses. Davis had to take the initiative to frame DH methods, especially computer-assisted text analysis, as one potential scholarly approach to Latin literature and include it in her course. Autonomy also meant that she had to become the tech support for her students and did not necessarily have any lasting effect on how intermediate Latin is taught. Even for full-time faculty, when DH pedagogy blooms and fades in individual classrooms, it misses out on opportunities to connect and scaffold DH into the larger curriculum or produce lasting results that might fuel a larger project.

Another exasperating aspect of solitary classroom experiments in DH is their very isolation. Seeing the challenges of DH isolation at the small, private institutions that made up the NITLE network, Davis and Quinn Dombrowski described this pervasive phenomenon—the “lone digital humanist”: “When a digital humanist is not surrounded by a community of colleagues, she must struggle to demonstrate the value of her work. . . . Not all institutions can provide complex technical infrastructure for digital projects or expert training in relevant tools.”13 In many ways, they could have been writing about Harris’s experience with the DH pedagogy version of Bethany Nowviskie’s “eternal September,” a term to describe the ongoing, exhausting need to educate newer colleagues on the origins and history of DH.14 At teaching-intensive institutions, the eternal September so often means engaging colleagues in the same conversation every year about the legitimacy of DH pedagogy in curricular and professional advancement opportunities. For students as well, there is no longitudinal effect, no connected curriculum, no scaffolding to support students’ explorations. With no institutional allies, Harris ends up always teaching and talking about the introductory level of DH. Arriving at St. Edward’s University, Davis, too, found herself stuck in introductory conversations about DH without institutional allies.

Lack of institutional infrastructure compounds the challenges of isolation and DH confined to the classroom. Determined to overcome this type of isolation, in 2011 Harris personally provided infrastructure for four intrepid graduate and undergraduate students, intrigued by the mystery of three valuable, beautifully illuminated, early twentieth-century artists’ books that were thrown into SJSU King Library’s book depository. Jesus Espinoza, an English major working in the library, got permission to bring the books, which did not belong to the library, to Harris because they reminded him of her courses about the history of the book. He and three other students sustained a year’s worth of exploration by gathering at Harris’s home for dinner and discussion about the context, history, and materiality of these Aubrey Beardsley and Alastair texts. No grades. No independent study credit. No funding for dinners. No expectations. Harris and her students were driven by curiosity and the freedom afforded by collaborative conversation. Without an on-campus DH center or even an inviting lounge where the group could gain a sense of institutional investment, the unconventional research group then came to a natural conclusion. Despite the captivating monthly conversations, the lack of credit for this work became frustrating, and the group realized they needed a DH project to share these texts, the authors, and the modernist artist book tradition with the larger scholarly community. The team documented their explorations and named the project BeardStair in a mash-up of the books’ two modernist author-artists.15

At a teaching-intensive institution, the obvious avenue for further development was curricular rather than the creation of a digital scholarship project. The documentation, even in its rough form, was enough to convince Harris’s department to allow her to teach a graduate-level Introduction to DH course, which was fully enrolled with fifteen students in spring 2013. Essentially, Harris had to spend a year fostering the students’ conversations in order to create a proof of concept before the department would commit resources. Even then, the course was offered under a general umbrella course number instead of as a permanent Introduction to DH course, a pitfall that has meant no second instance has been offered since. With the intention to shepherd her students through all facets of DH, Harris introduced students to BeardStair and all of the previous research. While her students did not at first appreciate the idea of “screwing around,” they eventually came to understand the experimental approach of DH and embraced the freedom to explore technological infrastructure, project management, and collaboration, as well as performing more traditional literary-historical research.16 For the students, DH pedagogy created a space where they could try on new hats, so to speak, without fear of graded failure. For Harris, DH pedagogy afforded a moment of creating and being part of a DH community on her campus, but because it was through and with students, not other faculty, it was an inherently ephemeral community.

Because of the lack of institutional infrastructure, the BeardStair digital project did not last. SJSU denied server space and had no out-of-the-box platform to host it. Unbeknownst to Harris, the students purchased their own server space to create a proof-of-concept DH project, but ultimately it went unfinished. Instead, these students published a peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy about the history of the BeardStair Project—a publication that recognizes process over product.17 With this unfinished digital project, was Harris encouraging her students to rely on an entrepreneurial spirit in lieu of local resources? Did she hand down to her students the inadequate, isolating infrastructure that has marked her career at SJSU? Because of misgivings like these, we both feel it is important to acknowledge the challenges and limitations of doing DH or DH pedagogy at teaching-intensive institutions. We know from experience and research that when innovative pedagogies are promoted with no caveats, disappointment and discontinuation are likely outcomes.18 DH pedagogy at teaching-intensive institutions can be an exasperating experience when confined to individual classrooms, isolated, and with limited opportunities to create and complete digital projects applying DH methods that can be publicly shared back to the DH community. You cannot produce and share scholarly knowledge, tools, or resources in the same way the rest of the community does.

Lessons Learned: Using the DH Community to Our Advantage

Given the exasperating experiences we have just described, one might reasonably ask, why bother? Why self-identify as a DH practitioner at a teaching-intensive institution? The answer for us was the DH community. As Lisa Spiro proposed in the first Debates in the Digital Humanities volume, the DH community aspires to the values of openness, collaboration, collegiality, connectedness, diversity, and experimentation.19 Each of us found those values at work as we interacted with the community, and this network supported our work even when we did not have local support. With Harris at SJSU and Davis at NITLE working with small liberal arts colleges, we likely never would have crossed paths without the DH community. But Harris was engaging in pedagogical conversations about DH via social media networking as @triproftri, and Davis was working to build DH networks across the NITLE network of small liberal arts colleges by using DH pedagogy as the focus. Our paths crossed and our collaboration has compensated for the lack of local support. For example, while Harris did not have institutional allies to explain the value of her DH work, engagement with the DH network created opportunities to frame that work in ways legible to local tenure and promotion committees. In 2011 Davis invited Harris, in light of her public discussions about DH pedagogy, to be part of the NITLE Digital Humanities Council, founded “to promote the value of digital humanities . . . for undergraduates.” This role afforded enough prestige for Harris’s departmental Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Committee to count it as service work during pretenure reviews. And by drawing on prominent digital humanists from a variety of institutional types, Davis was able to tie the DH network at small liberal arts colleges into the larger DH network in order to highlight “the valuable contributions these colleges make to and within the broader digital humanities movement.”20

Davis’s experience creating a DH assignment as an adjunct (described later) illustrates how the values described by Spiro support the isolated practitioner of DH pedagogy. The open sharing of text-analysis tools and related support enabled Davis’s text-analysis assignment, and the community’s spirit of collegiality and connectedness answered her technical questions over Twitter. In turn, she paid it forward by openly sharing her assignment prompt with the DH community, where it was an Editors’ Choice for DHNow, one of the avenues that fuels that connectedness by aggregating and curating the open content produced by the community.21 We believe it is important that DH pedagogy go beyond the limits of the individual class. Otherwise, we begin to feel like DH is our secret identity only known to the Twittersphere and the DH community, and we betray some of the very values—openness, connectedness, and collegiality—that attracted us in the first place. For us, that has meant learning how to talk about DH or at least elements of DH methods in ways that make sense at our own institution and working to advance DH pedagogy and digital pedagogy more generally both at home and beyond.

Lesson Learned: DH beyond Our Classrooms

One of our first lessons learned for advancing DH pedagogy at our home institutions has been talking about DH in ways that appeal to local audiences by connecting elements of DH to the goals of the institution. We call this “bridging rhetoric.” For example, Davis wrote the blog post describing the DH experiment in her Latin course over a year after teaching the course because she had moved to St. Edward’s University.22 By analyzing the assignment in terms of pedagogical theory, she takes an experiment in text analysis (as it would be described to the DH community) and converts it into a demonstration of experiential learning and blended learning design for a generalized faculty audience at St. Edward’s University. Along with our coeditors, we used a similar strategy in titling Digital Pedagogy in the Humanities, seeking a name that would appeal to a broader audience more interested in pedagogy than DH approaches, and building the project with the MLA to reach a much larger audience than the DH community alone.23 Similarly, at the 2018 HumetricsHSS workshop, Harris discovered that she had organized the trajectory of her sixteen-year career around particular values—inclusivity, collaboration, and risk taking—and thereafter began to consciously use bridging rhetoric, like Davis, to engage other faculty in a discussion about pedagogy alongside these values.24 Using that language explicitly opened doors to collaborate with SJSU’s eCampus and Center for Faculty Development, as well as with faculty to link the college’s innovative cultural events explicitly with the curriculum.

Our experience of aligning DH pedagogy with institutional goals exemplifies an inclusive DH pedagogy that pushes against a narrow interpretation of producing more digital humanists or creating large-scale digital scholarly projects and instead adapts that pedagogy to a variety of goals. Its other practitioners repeatedly articulate a pedagogical approach that expands the boundaries of DH and is often characterized by teaching with DH instead of teaching the DH.25 For recent examples of instructors pairing digital methods with the learning goals of the local institution or classroom and thus pushing out the boundaries of DH pedagogy, see Danica Savonick and Lisa Tagliaferri teaching undergraduates in a public university system and using DH to create student-centered learning and promote student agency, Jennifer Travis and Jessica DeSpain transferring DH to the American literature classroom, Kara Kennedy addressing social justice and digital literacy, and Claire Battershill and Shawna Ross advocating for developing your own personal pedagogy that integrates digital tools and methods.26 In reviewing the nearly six hundred pedagogical artifacts in Digital Pedagogy in the Humanities, we (along with Matthew K. Gold) identified “six key concepts of digital pedagogy: openness, collaboration, play, practice, student agency, and identity,” which represent other types of learning goals that would motivate the use of DH pedagogy even in courses that are not explicitly DH.27 In all of these cases, and in our own experience, DH is used because its methods serve the learning goals, but these goals are not necessarily advancing DH knowledge production or creating the next generation of digital humanists.

Bridging rhetoric has been a key strategy helping both of us find allies to foster internal communities that aligned with DH methods and practices on our individual campuses. As head of instructional technology, Davis annually cosponsors, with the Center for Teaching Excellence, the Office of Academic Affairs, and the Munday Library, an Innovation Fellowship program that offers faculty the opportunity to revise or create courses to integrate some pedagogical innovation, very often aligned with DH and embracing the DH value of experimentation.28 In building institutional capacity for online teaching and learning, Davis has likewise advanced the adoption of DH-aligned pedagogies by sharing technology-enhanced DH assignments and projects as models to be used in online and blended courses. With the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic and remote instruction in spring 2020, both of us have suddenly found a much broader audience for DH pedagogy models and examples.29 Davis also found ways to advance DH openness by partnering with the Center for Teaching Excellence and library to advocate for open educational resources as a social justice issue. Such input into faculty development programs has enabled her to advance DH practices and methods at St. Edward’s even if they are not explicitly recognized as DH. In fact, she has learned that the name digital humanities can be a distraction, prompting reactions like, “What is that?” or “I’m not in the school of humanities,” whereas pointing to ways that DH methods fulfill institutional goals is a more fruitful form of advocacy. Similarly, Harris now teaches with DH methods in almost all of her classes without reference to DH.

Beyond finding a local DH community with her own students through the BeardStair project, Harris’s path to build DH networks through institutional allies at SJSU has been through department-, college-, and university-level service. From chairing the University Library Board and its Open Access Task Force to sitting on the Academic Senate; to being voted onto the college-level Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Committee; to chairing the statewide California Open Educational Resources Council for three years, she has gained that same higher-level view through committee work and administrative service duties.30 With SJSU’s 2019 move to support more research, Harris advocated for a robust definition of scholarship that includes publicly engaged scholarship, collaborative projects, and digital projects as equivalent to the scholarly monograph.31 But this progress required more than a decade of teaching and service work and two promotions in order to even begin to organize a reliable network of digitally adjacent teaching faculty interested in DH pedagogy. Harris turned her DH knowledge of open sharing, inclusivity, and collaboration to service for her institution and system—a different kind of inclusiveness, but one that is exceedingly capacious. For both of us, rather than relying on the term digital humanities and all it signals, we have instead unpacked DH and taken out the parts that resonate in various areas of our campus—DH collaboration as a way of teaching teamwork, DH openness and open educational resources as a social justice issue for disadvantaged students, DH digital methods as hybrid skills for the new digital economy, and DH experimentation as innovation and experiential learning.32

Looking back at the past decade, we see that we have been able to overcome limitations of institutional infrastructure and DH field limitations by networking in the field and reframing it on our campuses. But without a stable infrastructure, our local DH pedagogy is always tenuous. We harbor no illusions that it will last. Without us advocating and advancing connections, DH elements may remain, but they will become isolated. At the same time, we hope that our experience offers some lessons for the lone DH practitioner at a teaching-intensive institution. The DH community can compensate for your isolation and can even provide some infrastructure to support your work. Some digital projects can be done under curricular structures, but as Kathryn Tomasek has explained, progress may be slow or, as with the BeardStair project, there may be no lasting product.33 We also hope that our “fork of DH,” as suggested by Bryan Alexander and Davis in the first Debates in the Digital Humanities volume, may continue to grow and that those within it can support each other in an expansive, networked DH pedagogy that brings core values of openness, collaboration, collegiality, connectedness, diversity, experimentation, and other DH methods to a broader community—not to evangelize for DH, but because of the inherent benefit it brings our students.34

We leave you with this advice: if you want to do DH work, if you want to advance the field, if you want professional advancement, you have to do more than just practice DH in your classroom. Be part of the DH community and be part of your local institutional community talking about pedagogy. Work to build bridges and support those isolated at other teaching-intensive institutions by sharing your work—your assignments, your syllabi, and your bridging rhetoric—openly. Together, we can create a networked infrastructure for DH pedagogy that can survive outside and despite the local vicissitudes of the teaching-intensive institution.

Notes

1. 1. To distinguish when we speak with an individual voice or distinguish an individual’s story, we have resorted to moving into the third person, using surnames.

2. 2. While our focus is on teaching-intensive institutions based on our lived experience, we hope that any DH practitioners similarly struggling with isolation might benefit from our story and advice.

3. 3. The dilemma of being tenured but not promoted was a direct result of the lack of a DH network at SJSU; see Harris, “Explaining DH” and “Moving Up.”

4. 4. Both are Hispanic-serving institutions, with SJSU also designated as an Asian American– and Pacific Islander–serving institution. See data on race and ethnicity for each institution: St. Edward’s: full-time enrollment in 2019 was 3,976 total students (3,388 undergraduates and 588 graduate students), 43.4% Hispanic Latino, 4.7% Black or African American, 37.3% white, 3% Asian (6.7% other), 6% international (Institutional Effectiveness and Planning, SEU Factbook); SJSU: full-time enrollment in 2019 was 29,904, 41% Asian, 31.1% Latinx, 14.6% white, 3.6% Black (Office of Institutional Research, “University Snapshot”). See also the Carnegie Classification for each institution.

5. 5. See Zorich, Survey; Sula, Hackney, and Cunningham, “Survey”; Group for Experimental Methods, “Advanced Degrees in Digital Humanities”; and Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations, “ADHO Special Interest Groups.”

6. 6. See Boyles et al., “Precarious Labor”; and Maron and Pickle, Sustainability Implementation Toolkit. In tracing the history and resurgence of digital humanities pedagogy, Brett Hirsch points to institutional commitment in the form of centers, curricular programs requiring institutional resources—“not only deliberate sponsorship at the departmental or faculty level, but also the efforts of multiple teaching, support, and administrative staff” (“</Parentheses>,” 9). Likewise, Alexander and Davis point to grant funding as a marker of success for small liberal arts colleges supporting digital humanities centers, programs, and projects; see “Should Liberal?”

7. 7. We acknowledge that not all research-intensive higher education institutions with DH infrastructure represent inclusivity writ large. Each institution that embeds DH into its infrastructure struggles with overcoming exclusionary dilemmas; see Wernimont, “Introduction”; Risam, “Beyond the Margins”; and Josephs and Risam, “Introduction.”

8. 8. Murphy and Smith, “Introduction,” paragraph 8.

9. 9. Davis, “Reflections.”

10. 10. Davis, Gold, and Harris, “Curating.” For more examples of “bloom and fade” assignments, see the corresponding tag in Davis et al., Digital Pedagogy in the Humanities.

11. 11. Sinclair and Rockwell, Voyant Tools; Rockwell and Radzikowska, TAPoR 3.

12. 12. Bretz, “New Itinerancy,” paragraph 8.

13. 13. Davis and Dombrowski, Divided and Conquered, 6.

14. 14. Nowviskie, “Eternal September.”

15. 15. Harris, “Student Driven.”

16. 16. Harris, “Play.”

17. 17. Coad et al., “BeardStair”; Harris, “Our Students’ Successes.”

18. 18. See Henderson, Dancy, and Niewiadomska-Bugaj, “Use of Research-Based.”

19. 19. Spiro, “‘This Is Why.’”

20. 20. Davis, “Announcing.”

21. 21. Hoffman, “Editors’ Choice.”

22. 22. Davis, “Reflections.”

23. 23. Davis et al., Digital Pedagogy in the Humanities.

24. 24. See Agate et al., “Transformative”; and Harris, “Moving Up.”

25. 25. This development confirms a fork in the digital humanities code predicted by Alexander and Davis in the first volume of Debates in the Digital Humanities: inclusion in the undergraduate curriculum at small liberal arts colleges offers digital humanities “a path for expansion beyond research centers at large universities to other types of institutions and beyond” because these institutions focus not on preparing future digital humanists but rather on fulfilling “the learning outcomes of undergraduate liberal education” (“Should Liberal?,” 382).

26. 26. Savonick and Tagliaferri, “Building,” paragraph 2; Travis and DeSpain, Teaching with Digital Humanities, ix; Kennedy, “Long-Belated Welcome,” paragraph 2; Battershill and Ross, Using Digital Humanities, 11.

27. 27. Davis, Gold, and Harris, “Curating”; in this volume, see also chapters 3, 8, 9, and 21.

28. 28. St. Edward’s University, “Innovation Fellowship.”

29. 29. See Harris, “#dayofdh2020.”

30. 30. See Harris et al., “OER Adoption Study” and “Final Progress Report.”

31. 31. See College Research Committee, “2022S H&A RSCA Metrics.”

32. 32. See Markow, Hughes, and Bundy, New Foundational Skills.

33. 33. Tomasek, “Is It Out There?”

34. 34. Alexander and Davis, “Should Liberal?,” 383.

Bibliography

1. Agate, Nicky, Rebecca Kennison, Stacy Konkiel, Christopher P. Long, Jason Rhody, Simone Sacchi, and Penelope Weber. “The Transformative Power of Values-Enacted Scholarship.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 7 (2020): article 165. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00647-z.
2. Alexander, Bryan, and Rebecca Frost Davis. “Should Liberal Arts Campuses Do Digital Humanities? Process and Products in the Small College World.” In Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by Matthew K. Gold, 368–89. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu.
3. Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations. “ADHO Special Interest Groups.” https://adho.org/sigs.
4. Battershill, Claire, and Shawna Ross. Using Digital Humanities in the Classroom: A Practical Introduction for Teachers, Lecturers and Students. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2017.
5. Boyles, Christina, Anne Cong-Huyen, Carrie Johnston, Jim McGrath, and Amanda Phillips. “Precarious Labor and the Digital Humanities.” American Quarterly 70, no. 3 (September 2018): 693–700. https://doi.org/10.1353/aq.2018.0054.
6. Bretz, Andrew. “The New Itinerancy: Digital Pedagogy and the Adjunct Instructor in the Modern Academy.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 11, no. 3 (2017). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/.
7. Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. “Institution Lookup.” https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/lookup/lookup.php.
8. Coad, David, Kelly Curtis, Jonathan Cook, and Katherine D. Harris. “BeardStair: A Student-Run Digital Humanities Project History, Fall 2011 to May 16, 2013.” Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy 4 (2013). https://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu.
9. College Research Committee. “2022S H&A RSCA Metrics.” College of Humanities and the Arts, San Jose State University. https://triproftri.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/ha-rsca-metrics-revisions-working-draft-for-2021-2022-shareable-20211027-1.pdf.
10. Davis, Rebecca Frost. “Announcing the NITLE Digital Humanities Council.” Techne (blog), National Institute for Technology in Liberal Education, November 1, 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20140409152106/http://blogs.nitle.org/2011/11/01/announcing-the-nitle-digital-humanities-council/.
11. Davis, Rebecca Frost. “Reflections on a Text Analysis Assignment.” Rebecca Frost Davis: Liberal Education in a Networked World (blog), November 12, 2013. https://rebeccafrostdavis.wordpress.com.
12. Davis, Rebecca Frost, and Quinn Dombrowski. Divided and Conquered: How Multivarious Isolation Is Suppressing Digital Humanities Scholarship. National Institute for Technology in Liberal Education, 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20110429170920/http://www.nitle.org/live/files/36-divided-and-conquered.
13. Davis, Rebecca Frost, Matthew K. Gold, and Katherine D. Harris. “Curating Digital Pedagogy in the Humanities.” In Digital Pedagogy in the Humanities: Concepts, Models, and Experiments, edited by Rebecca Frost Davis, Matthew K. Gold, Katherine D. Harris, and Jentery Sayers. New York: Modern Language Association, 2020. https://digitalpedagogy.hcommons.org/introduction.
14. Davis, Rebecca Frost, Matthew K. Gold, Katherine D. Harris, and Jentery Sayers, eds. Digital Pedagogy in the Humanities: Concepts, Models, and Experiments. New York: Modern Language Association, 2020. https://digitalpedagogy.hcommons.org/.
15. Group for Experimental Methods in Humanistic Research, Columbia University. “Advanced Degrees in Digital Humanities.” GitHub. https://github.com/dh-notes/dhnotes/blob/master/pages/dh-programs.md.
16. Harris, Katherine D. “#dayofdh2020 Digital Pedagogy Style.” triproftri (blog), May 5, 2020. https://triproftri.wordpress.com.
17. Harris, Katherine D. “Explaining DH in Promotion Documents” triproftri (blog), October 1, 2012. https://triproftri.wordpress.com.
18. Harris, Katherine D. “Moving Up the Professional Ladder—Promotion Narrative for Full Professor.” triproftri (blog), January 12, 2018. https://triproftri.wordpress.com.
19. Harris, Katherine D. “Our Students’ Successes Are Our Successes.” triproftri (blog), December 2, 2013. https://triproftri.wordpress.com.
20. Harris, Katherine D. “Play, Collaborate, Break, Build, Share: ‘Screwing Around’ in Digital Pedagogy.” Polymath 3, no. 3 (Summer 2013): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.17613/h3fe-tz76.
21. Harris, Katherine D. “Student Driven Project: BeardStair.” triproftri (blog), November 26, 2011. https://triproftri.wordpress.com.
22. Harris, Katherine D., Diego Bonilla, Ruth Guthrie, Lawrence Hanley, Peter O. Krapp, Cheryl Stewart, Chikako Takeshita, and Kevin Yokoyama. “Final Progress Report of the California Open Educational Resources Council.” California Open Educational Resources Council, April 15, 2016. https://tinyurl.com/FPRCAOERC41516.
23. Harris, Katherine D., Diego Bonilla, Ruth Guthrie, Lawrence Hanley, Peter O. Krapp, Cheryl Stewart, Chikako Takeshita, and Kevin Yokoyama. “OER Adoption Study: Using Open Educational Resources in the College Classroom.” California Open Educational Resources Council, April 1, 2016. https://tinyurl.com/WPOERAdoption040116.
24. Henderson, Charles, Melissa Dancy, and Magdalena Niewiadomska-Bugaj. “Use of Research-Based Instructional Strategies in Introductory Physics: Where Do Faculty Leave the Innovation-Decision Process?” Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research 8, no. 020104 (2012): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.020104.
25. Hirsch, Brett D. “</Parentheses>: Digital Humanities and the Place of Pedagogy.” In Digital Humanities Pedagogy: Practices, Principles and Politics, edited by Brett D. Hirsch, 3–30. Cambridge, U.K.: Open Book, 2012. https://books.openedition.org/obp/1605.
26. Hoffman, Sasha, ed. “Editors’ Choice: Reflections on a Text Analysis Assignment.” Digital Humanities Now (blog), November 21, 2013. https://web.archive.org/web/20200928124914/https://digitalhumanitiesnow.org/2013/11/editors-choice-reflections-on-a-text-analysis-assignment/.
27. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education: 2018 Update: Facts and Figures. Revision 7. Bloomington: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, May 24, 2019.
28. Institutional Effectiveness and Planning. SEU Factbook. Austin, TX: St. Edward’s University, 2019.
29. Josephs, Kelly Baker, and Roopika Risam. “Introduction: The Digital Black Atlantic.” In The Digital Black Atlantic, edited by Roopika Risam and Kelly Baker Josephs, ix–xxiv. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2021. https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu.
30. Kennedy, Kara. “A Long-Belated Welcome: Accepting Digital Humanities Methods into Non-DH Classrooms.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 11, no. 3 (2017). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/.
31. Markow, Will, Debbie Hughes, and Andrew Bundy. The New Foundational Skills of the Digital Economy: Developing the Professionals of the Future. Boston: Burning Glass Technologies and Business-Higher Education Forum, 2018. https://www.burning-glass.com/wp-content/uploads/New_Foundational_Skills.pdf.
32. Maron, Nancy L., and Sarah Pickle. Sustainability Implementation Toolkit: Developing an Institutional Strategy for Supporting Digital Humanities Resources. New York: Ithaka S+R, June 18, 2014. https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/sustainability-implementation-toolkit/.
33. Murphy, Emily Christina, and Shannon R. Smith. “Introduction.” In “Imagining the DH Undergraduate: Special Issue in Undergraduate Education in DH,” edited by Emily Christina Murphy and Shannon R. Smith. Special issue, Digital Humanities Quarterly 11, no. 3 (2017). http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/.
34. “National Institute for Technology in Liberal Education.” Wikipedia, November 29, 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Institute_for_Technology_in_Liberal_Education&oldid=871243861.
35. Nowviskie, Bethany. “Eternal September of the Digital Humanities.” In Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by Matthew K. Gold, 243–46. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu.
36. Office of Institutional Research. “University Snapshot.” San Jose State University, February 20, 2020. https://public.tableau.com/views/UniversitySnapshot/UniversitySnapshotDashboard.
37. Risam, Roopika. “Beyond the Margins: Intersectionality and the Digital Humanities.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 9, no. 2 (2015). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/.
38. Rockwell, Geoffrey, and Milena Radzikowska. TAPoR 3 (Text Analysis Portal for Research). https://tapor.ca/home.
39. Savonick, Danica, and Lisa Tagliaferri. “Building a Student-Centered (Digital) Learning Community with Undergraduates.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 11, no. 3 (2017). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/.
40. Sinclair, Stéfan, and Geoffrey Rockwell. Voyant Tools homepage. https://voyant-tools.org.
41. Spiro, Lisa. “‘This Is Why We Fight’: Defining the Values of the Digital Humanities.” In Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by Matthew K. Gold, 16–35. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu.
42. St. Edward’s University. “Innovation Fellowship.” http://sites.stedwards.edu/innovationfellowship/.
43. Sula, Chris Alen, S. E. Hackney, and Phillip Cunningham. “A Survey of Digital Humanities Programs.” Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy 11 (2017). https://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu.
44. Tomasek, Kathryn. “Is It Out There? Undergraduate Research as Digitization at Analog Pace.” Doing History Digitally (blog), March 28, 2010. https://kathryntomasek.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/is-it-out-there-undergraduate-research-as-digitization-at-analog-pace/.
45. Travis, Jennifer, and Jessica DeSpain, eds. Teaching with Digital Humanities: Tools and Methods for Nineteenth-Century American Literature. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2018.
46. Wernimont, Jacque. “Introduction to Feminisms and DH Special Issue.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 9, no. 2 (2015). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/.
47. Zorich, Diane M. A Survey of Digital Humanities Centers in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources, 2008. https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub143/contents.html.