A Tale of Two Durhams

A Community of Practice

There were many ways to organize this endeavor, but the choice to invite faculty to explore pedagogical applications of DH is worth viewing through the emphasis placed on communities of practice by the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). Study of the FHI-NCCU DH Fellows Program demonstrates the potential such collaborations have to transform academic communities. Randy Bass reminds us that the best uses of technology in education are those that help us learn to be better human beings, and such approaches to using digital resources in the classroom increasingly have been addressed in SoTL.8 We believe that our program builds on this SoTL research by offering a model in which DH serves as a catalyst for a community of teachers to think about their pedagogy cooperatively.

Transforming campus cultures so that faculty and administrators embrace the importance of SoTL has long been an area of focus for those working in SoTL.9 Beyond affirming a place for this interdisciplinary work within larger institutional structures, such as through funding or promotion criteria, a central question for SoTL asks how we can help change campus culture at the unit or interdepartmental level. Joëlle Fanghanel has suggested that we should consider SoTL a “collaborative transdisciplinary methodology for professional development.”10 How, then, can we foster interdisciplinary communities of humanities instructors who reflect actively on ways to enhance teaching and learning and who share their findings with each other? Such faculty members regularly improve their teaching in systematic, thoughtful ways that, when shared with colleagues, help to elevate individual classroom improvement to public SoTL inquiry. A further potential step in SoTL on an academic campus, or across multiple campuses, is to foster a community of practice.11

A sound pedagogical framework was essential for our community of practice to be successful. Peter Felten identified five principles for good practice in SoTL, and the fellows program was designed in a way that aligns with them:12

• Inquiry focused on student learning: Each fellow developed a DH innovation designed to improve student learning.
• Grounded in context: These innovations responded to discipline-specific and classroom-specific contexts.
• Methodologically sound: Fellows were trained in good DH practices. Initially, Duke faculty and staff conducted trainings; over time NCCU faculty fellows alumni also took on this role with one another.
• Conducted in partnership with students: Implementation varied, but generally faculty learned alongside students when implementing DH methods in their classrooms, and many engaged students in feedback and improvement.
• Appropriately public: Each year fellows presented their work at a symposium, thereby publicly sharing their work and offering thoughtful scholarly reflection on it. For many fellows, participating in the symposium led to additional presentations at local and national conferences.

Although the program’s design centered on the training of NCCU faculty fellows, these practices resulted in positive outcomes for a larger community. The faculty and staff at Duke learned much in the training sessions about how to shape DH pedagogy to fit various classroom contexts and disciplines. The NCCU fellows involved students, both graduate and undergraduate, in developing pedagogical practices and class projects that benefited students and instructors alike. The symposia allowed all to share these experiences with the wider interinstitutional community.

The Program’s Origins and Organization

One of the goals for the FHI-NCCU DH Fellows Program was to augment FHI’s 2014–18 Humanities Futures Initiative, funded by the Mellon Foundation, which had as its mission to explore “possible trajectories of the humanities in the wake of interdisciplinary developments of recent decades, particularly the rapidly changing paradigms and practices in research, teaching, publishing, and public engagement today.”13 The fellows program focused in particular on developments in contemporary teaching practice in the humanities. Designed to support faculty members at NCCU as they develop DH skills by providing training and grants to enable their work on pedagogical projects, the program had a parallel goal: to increase representation in DH from faculty at HBCUs. Scholars point to an urgent need to make DH more inclusive and to increase opportunities for participation from underrepresented scholars and scholars at minority-serving institutions.14

At its core, the program’s concept was simple: train instructors in the skills needed to create a course-related DH project, and invite them to present reflections on their work at a symposium. Prospective fellows applied to the program with a project idea and were selected by a committee of representatives from both institutions who were involved in the program’s creation and implementation. The program was originally scoped to be three years with a different cohort each year made up of four to seven NCCU faculty from the History, Language and Literature, Mass Communication, Art, and Music Departments. The program was organized around a series of hands-on and discussion-oriented workshops; funding opportunities for project development including travel and hardware; access to Duke resources such as library materials; the creation of a DH lab at NCCU; and an annual symposium.15 Faculty, staff, and graduate students at Duke facilitated workshops and one-on-one consultations, and they participated in the annual symposia.16 The consultations included individualized tool training, brainstorming and feedback sessions, and technical instruction for student research assistants. Undergraduate students enrolled in courses with the fellows at NCCU and participated in pedagogically oriented DH projects developed through the program. In some cases, NCCU students also received technical training at Duke and presented the results of their work at the symposia.

The workshops focused on a range of web-based tools that present relatively low barriers to access while offering powerful possibilities for DH. These platforms included WordPress, Omeka, Neatline, Google Sheets and My Maps, and Knight Lab’s StoryMapJS and TimelineJS. Fellows and organizers aimed to teach platforms that could be maintained with little or no institutional support and that students could use in contexts beyond one course project. While these platforms are often touted as easy to learn, they provide rich opportunities for engagement with critical DH thinking less likely to be impeded by infrastructure or interface.17 Faculty and students could quickly shift from learning a tool to developing digital literacies such as critical analysis and digital media production as they focused on presenting content in public interactive formats. An additional consideration was the types of devices NCCU students commonly bring into their classrooms, which range from laptops to Chromebooks, tablets, and mobile devices. The chosen platforms function on some, if not all, of these devices. To ensure the possibility of access to all platforms for all fellows’ courses, NCCU’s DH Lab was outfitted with a cadre of Chromebooks.

The workshops’ facilitators were Victoria Szabo and Hannah Jacobs with Amanda Lazarus, Amanda Starling Gould, Filippo Screpanti, and Brooks Frederickson. In addition to their teaching in Duke’s Wired! Lab and Information Science + Studies Program, Szabo and Jacobs brought to the fellows program years of experience organizing programs like the Getty-funded Visualizing Venice Summer Institutes and Duke’s PhD Lab in Digital Knowledge Fellows Program.18 Lazarus, Gould, Screpanti, and Frederickson, all PhD Lab alumni, brought teaching, project development, and consultation experience. Based on their collective knowledge, the facilitators designed training opportunities that introduced NCCU fellows to the aforementioned platforms, presented examples of classroom implementations, and offered feedback on fellows’ works in progress. As the fellows community grew, program alumni also became trainers and mentors to each other.

These training opportunities varied in format from year to year. These shifts reflected an ongoing logistical challenge: workshops had to be scheduled around the respective obligations of NCCU faculty and Duke faculty and staff, and the two institutions have different academic calendars and professional commitments. (For example, NCCU’s semester begins before Duke’s, meaning that any boot-camp-style workshops needed to occur in the summer, when Duke humanities faculty are often traveling for research. And while NCCU faculty teach four courses per semester, the Duke facilitators teach up to two courses with varying other responsibilities.) In year one, the facilitators held a multiday workshop at the beginning of the academic year that covered all platforms. Follow-up meetings were used to review details of individual platforms and to organize the new DH lab at NCCU. Year two saw a shorter introductory boot camp in August 2017 with meetings and additional hands-on workshops throughout the year, and year three consisted entirely of workshops combined with meetings scheduled throughout the year so that each meeting also involved a hands-on tutorial with one of the tools mentioned. These meetings took place at the FHI to provide NCCU faculty a retreat atmosphere in which they could reflect on their teaching practices with their colleagues.

Even with this comprehensive and somewhat flexible structure, several logistical considerations affected the program. As with any large-scale undertaking, organizers had to account for the needs of various stakeholders, including not only those directly involved in the program but also administrators at both institutions. There were, to be sure, a variety of factors that required compromise. For instance, NCCU could not provide teaching releases for fellows. If that had been possible, fellows might have spent time more fully developing assignments to be implemented in a subsequent term. Instead, most fellows developed pedagogical projects concurrently with their teaching and workshop participation. Fellows noted advantages and disadvantages to this approach. On the one hand, they were able to test new strategies immediately; on the other hand, they had less time to reflect on DH project development before implementation. The program’s fellows and organizers met these challenges with open communication that has deepened the community’s connections with one another and continued to improve the program as a whole.

One NCCU Faculty Member’s Experience

We have written about the overall structure of the program, but each NCCU fellow had a unique and productive experience. Here W. Russell Robinson shares his experience to offer a richer picture of how the program influenced his research and pedagogy.

Robinson was approached by his office mate to consider applying to the FHI-NCCU DH Fellows Program. At the same time that, he received the fellowship, he was a co–principal investigator of an Innovation Grant at NCCU. Robinson proposed an oral history project that enabled him to engage in a deep dive of Black masculinity during the Obama presidency. Through the fellows program, he acquired a professional digital camera that allowed him to collect interviews, and through its workshops, he was introduced to TimelineJS as a manner of presenting his interviews. After a series of trials and errors, he was able to create a browsable timeline where various pieces of media and text were accessible. Taking advantage of this newly acquired knowledge, he launched a TimelineJS class project in an American Mass Media and Pop Culture course.19 For Robinson, the addition of digital humanities served a pedagogical need and added value to course delivery. Beyond students gaining conceptual content, digital humanities methods made the assignments more tactile. Aside from students collecting interviews, they were now being introduced to digital indexing, HTML, and cross-platform management—skillsets not generally taught in a mass communication media studies program. Because his students brought to the course personal experiences with digital technologies, their learning curve was reduced. Their assignment was to create a timeline that discussed their fathers’ experiences during the Obama presidency. They, like Robinson, collected interviews with either their fathers or influential men in their lives to discuss the dynamics of what it was like to be an African American man during President Barack Obama’s eight years in office. To this initial assignment, Robinson added different complexities, including working in groups, requiring original video interviews, and providing contextual information to point to where students were merging content and technology.

From this classroom exercise, Robinson was able to identify students who went over and above the assignment requirements. These students became his DH interns and were given additional access to project materials. They demonstrated a motivation that went far beyond a course grade. Two students in particular stood out, Jasmine Hall and Daniel Hargrove. Recently, Robinson met with the two former students to gauge their experiences in his course. Hall, a public relations major, reflected on new understandings she had gained in “finding the research and finding out how everything aligns from the dates and how it all pans together . . . not just assembling random information, but to actually make everything cohesive and actually make everything go along in a nice flow in the timeline.”20 Hargrove, meanwhile, reflected on his team role as key to the project’s completion: “I was more so on the research side. . . . We ended up delegating up our responsibilities and that’s how we were able to divide and conquer essentially.”21

For both students, this academic experience represented an anomaly of sorts, as it is an unusual learning format at NCCU. They were encouraged to operate autonomously and really believed doing so enabled them to acquire lateral skillsets within their major. Hall could really appreciate the field experience: “I was in the field, working on camera set up, setting questions, and learning the interview process. I even learned from dialogue post interview, so I was able to see how all this (the interviews and editing) came together outside of the classroom. I really enjoyed that this experience was hands-on. . . . With [this class] we had to go out there and find the information.”22

Creating the Obama timeline proved to be a highly reflective project in the sense that the changes and social movements discussed in interviews forced students to consider the advances made in eight short years, particularly against the backdrop of a starkly different presidency. Hargrove’s summary illustrates this point:

It’s really interesting to see how many topics of discussion were brought into the forefront, during [Obama’s] presidency. Whether it was the things seen with Trayvon Martin, whether it was the things seen with Black Lives Matter, a lot of things popped up during his presidency that were a bit unprecedented socially. Gay marriage bills passing and so on. A lot of things socially were changing and happening, that I feel like we kinda took for granted because it kinda happened so quickly, especially with the way news media is going now a days, on to the next story. But a lot of things changed, a lot of things happened that we still are feeling the effects of today.23

Two Duke Facilitators’ Experiences

Following the FHI’s mission, the program’s Duke facilitators, Szabo and Jacobs, structured their roles around developing partnerships with NCCU faculty. While in the beginning the facilitators recognized the value of a collaboration in which the sharing of knowledge was truly an exchange among instructors from both institutions, the outcomes have been unexpected.

The program’s work encouraged conversations about DH as expansive rather than constraining: by choosing platforms to fit both the instructors and their students, the facilitators found that space opened for theoretical conversations and creativity. With the fellows, they found that they had created a community of practice that brought their institutional cultures, priorities, and resources together in a shared physical and intellectual space with shared tools and a shared goal of engaging students and themselves in DH practices to deepen humanistic inquiry. For example, by focusing on free, open-source, mobile-compatible platforms, the group minimized any barriers to access that might be caused by hardware, funding, or prior knowledge. Instead, fellows engaged directly with platforms like TimelineJS with little hesitation, privileging the selection and organization of subject matter rather than the creation of new interfaces and infrastructures, which can come later as projects evolve. The facilitators observed that no two fellows’ methods of applying these platforms to their research and teaching were alike. Fellows connected these tools to their own disciplines and theoretical approaches, unleashing both their own creativity and that of their students in the process.

The fellows’ focus on content creation and organization of information with accessible digital tools provided the Duke facilitators with a new clarity about the significance of DH pedagogy and how to implement such practices at scale. While the Duke facilitators already valued the integration of research and teaching practices, their experiences with the fellows and their students brought home to them the importance of students’ taking ownership of course content and meaning-making through digital expression. Through these exchanges, the facilitators also realized the inherent value of a community centered on knowledge sharing in DH, which by its own nature can bring together experts with many experiences, institutional positions, and areas of expertise. Furthermore, the lessons learned in Durham through the fellows program about building an ongoing community of digital practice and about leading with teaching and research questions have been applied not only in their own teaching but also to other programs organized by Duke, including advanced DH institutes supported by the National Humanities Center, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Getty. The ethos propagated among all of these initiatives is one of partnering to learn and creating communities of practice through access and sharing, at whatever level of technological complexity.

With each new cohort, the facilitators’ own DH practices are enriched and a community is enlarged. In addition, Duke graduate student assistants who help with the program’s technological implementation gain invaluable pedagogical experience in providing DH training and consultation, a professional opportunity that is not yet offered at scale at Duke. They can take these skills into work as research and teaching assistants, as graduate fellows in the libraries, and in their own courses, providing an indirect but nonetheless significant impact on Duke’s undergraduate education.

A Reflection on Funding and Resources

Perhaps the greatest outcome has been that the program has continued even after the Mellon grant concluded because of institutional support developed after the initial grant. The DH Lab at NCCU, managed by former fellow and coauthor Kathryn Wymer, has become a hub for regional DH programs and outreach to diverse institutions. The community’s collaborations have extended far beyond Durham. They include not only scholars and practitioners engaged with the Digital Humanities Collaborative of North Carolina but also initiatives such as a DH fellows program in Pakistan funded by the American Institute of Pakistan Studies and led by former NCCU fellows, with facilitators from both the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke playing supporting roles.24 These are the partnerships that are reshaping how we think and do DH at scale.

As we have noted throughout, NCCU has different access to resources than Duke has. Although Wymer and her colleagues have applied for grants, including one spearheaded by Matthew Cook to conduct the outreach with Pakistan, most of the work done at NCCU happens not because of a major grant but rather because of general institutional support, such as sustaining the DH Lab and initiating a DH minor that will support faculty already doing DH in their teaching and research. One item that the original partnership could not fund was faculty course release time, something that NCCU is now working on. Additionally, NCCU now also supports DH work as part of each faculty member’s regular workload.

The original funding received from Humanities Futures supported only specific aspects of the program, such as travel for conference presentations and workshop attendance and refreshment for group gatherings. The project’s leads and fellows learned through the experience what kinds of support are truly needed. Ultimately, Duke’s willingness to provide space and staff support for this endeavor was the core component that made the partnership work. NCCU’s willingness to provide subsequent on-campus space and to invest in technology and professional development was transformative in that it allowed faculty members to create a hub of academic inquiry with international impact.

Much of the work can be done with these regular levels of support. It is worth noting, however, that the institutional partnership fostered through this grant provided other benefits not directly related to the Mellon grant. Fellows received affiliate access to Duke resources including library subscriptions and software, a level of access that NCCU cannot afford to provide through its own resources. Also, the continued partnership has facilitated connections, such that Duke faculty and staff members regularly keep in contact with NCCU partners to share knowledge about new programs and opportunities.

The authors recognize that the structures and relationships described in this chapter may not be replicable in many cases. However, resources may still be gathered for such initiatives without seeking major grants. Those interested in developing such a program might ask, Are there units on campus—in libraries, humanities centers, departments—that can offer support in the form of staff time, space, or equipment? Is it possible for research staff and faculty, with institutional support, to offer their time and expertise within the bounds of their current work? Is there existing shared equipment on campus that can be used for workshops? Are there smaller internal, or external, funds that can be used to support specific events or activities within such a fellowship program? Acknowledging the power structures that make up academic institutions, are there senior scholars who are interested in the work and who can lend the weight of their position to developing a fellows program?

As DH scholars, the authors and program participants are united by our desire to understand how the digital turn permeates society. Through DH, we are promoting awareness of the digital turn’s effects on ourselves and our students. These efforts are embodied in our common needs for space, time, hardware, funding, and access. Whether and how these needs are met shape our DH practices. While students at both NCCU and Duke walk into classrooms with networked devices, the types of devices they bring and the hardware and software made available to them by their institutions may influence whether a DH project uses open web-based, mobile-compatible applications or proprietary desktop-based software. Whether an institution has long-standing ties to external funding that provides additional resources also greatly affects how DH is shaped at that university.

It is easy to note differences between these institutions, but embracing those differences as unique strengths can help motivate partnerships. If we consider that community between students, staff, and faculty is what drives DH, then a focus on a community of practice as a catalyst for collaboration between faculty members across a variety of disciplines can be instructive. We are learning as we go, but we continue to work together to center best pedagogical practices and cross-departmental and cross-institutional collaborations to improve teaching and learning outcomes.

As we look ahead to future iterations of the fellows program, we see a few avenues for growth. Fellows alumni are interested in deepening their engagement with DH on both technical and conceptual levels. Even as we reach out to new cohorts of fellows, we are planning initiatives for both current and former fellows, including theoretical and critical cross-institutional reading groups and further training sessions in technologies such as digital mapping, virtual and augmented reality, data visualization, and web development, as well as collaborative projects focused especially on the complex histories, peoples, and cultures of Durham, the city we share. Simply knowing about each other’s work in many cases provides the impetus for future teaching and research collaborations, as an April 2021 virtual symposium titled “Digital and Public Durham History: Works in Progress at Duke and North Carolina Central University” showed us.25 Other institutions in the Triangle area have become interested in the fellows model, and NCCU itself organized a meeting of the Triangle Digital Humanities Institute in October 2019.26 Building on our successful collaboration with colleagues from Pakistan, we anticipate future connections with DH colleagues from around the world. These partnerships enrich our collective understanding of DH not only as a set of pedagogical and research-based practices but also as a transformation agent for grappling with complex questions of technology, media, and communication.

Notes

The fellows program was launched in summer/fall 2016 with the support of the Franklin Humanities Institute’s Mellon Humanities Futures Initiative. The Mellon grant funded the fellowships through fall 2018. Additional support has been provided by the Digital Humanities Initiative @ FHI, the Information Science + Studies Program, and the Digital Art History and Visual Culture Research Lab (formerly Wired! Lab) at Duke University, as well as the College of Arts and Sciences at North Carolina Central University.

1. 1. For more on the importance of considering local specificities of DH, see Ortega, “Zonas de Contacto”; and Risam, “Decolonizing.”

2. 2. Du Bois, “Upbuilding.”

3. 3. For a history of Duke University in Durham, see Durden, Launching.

4. 4. John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute, “About.”

5. 5. John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute, “Humanities Futures.”

6. 6. For examples of faculty-led DH at Duke, see Computational Media, Arts, and Cultures, “Labs and Working Groups”; John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute, “Humanities Laboratories”; and Humanities Unbounded, “Humanities Labs.” Student-led DH initiatives may be found within individual labs, especially the PhD Lab for Digital Knowledge (see John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute, “PhD Lab”). A number of graduate students have built their own DH projects outside Duke’s lab structure.

7. 7. See John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute, “Duke-NCCU.”

8. 8. Bass, “Impact.” See also Poole and Chick, “From Machines and Screens”; and Spivey and McGarry, “Bridging.”

9. 9. See Hutchings, “Scholarship.”

10. 10. Fanghanel, “Going Public,” 60.

11. 11. See Dzidic et al., “Reflections.” See also Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder, Cultivating Communities of Practice. In the summer of 2019, the DH community modeled what an international network of practice might look like when Matthew K. Gold invited people to “#citepedagogy” during his keynote at the 2019 Digital Humanities Summer Institute; see https://twitter.com/search?q=%23citepedagogy&src=typeahead_click.

12. 12. Felten, “Principles.”

13. 13. John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute, “Humanities Futures.”

14. 14. See Gallon, “Making a Case”; and McPherson, “Why?”

15. 15. Fellows have presented at conferences such as HASTAC 2017 and attended the Digital Humanities at Oxford Summer School.

16. 16. See John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute, “Duke-NCCU.”

17. 17. For an explication of the perils of considering platforms like Omeka or TimelineJS “easy to use,” see Morgan, “Consequences.”

18. 18. See Venice International University, “Visualizing Cities”; and John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute, “PhD Lab.”

19. 19. Hall, Tatum, and Hargrove, directed by Robinson, “Barack Obama’s Presidency Timeline.”

20. 20. Hall, Interview.

21. 21. Hargrove, Interview.

22. 22. Hall, Interview.

23. 23. Hargrove, Interview.

24. 24. See Digital Humanities Collaborative of North Carolina, homepage.

25. 25. See John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute, “Digital and Public Durham History.”

26. 26. See Digital Humanities Collaborative of North Carolina, “TDHI.”

Bibliography

1. Bass, Randy. “The Impact of Technology on the Future of Human Learning.” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 50, no. 3–4 (2018): 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2018.1507380.
2. Computational Media, Arts, and Cultures. “Labs and Working Groups.” https://cmac.duke.edu/labs.
3. Digital Humanities Collaborative of North Carolina. Homepage. http://dhcnc.org.
4. Digital Humanities Collaborative of North Carolina. “TDHI: #RepresentationMatters.” https://dhcnc.org/past-institutes/tdhi-representationmatters-october-2019/.
5. Du Bois, W. E. B. “The Upbuilding of Black Durham: The Success of the Negroes and Their Value to a Tolerant and Helpful Southern City: Electronic Edition.” Documenting the American South, 2002. https://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/dubois/dubois.html.
6. Durden, Robert F. The Launching of Duke University, 1924–1949. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1993.
7. Dzidic, Peta, Emily Castel, Lynne D. Roberts, Peter J. Allen, and Michelle Quail. “Reflections on the Emergence and Evolution of a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Community of Practice within a Research-Intensive Higher Education Context.” In Communities of Practice: Facilitating Social Learning in Higher Education, edited by Jacquie McDonald and Aileen Cater-Steel, 219–39. Singapore: Springer, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2879-3.
8. Fanghanel, Joëlle. “Going Public with Pedagogical Inquiries: SoTL as a Methodology for Faculty Professional Development.” Teaching and Learning Inquiry 1, no. 1 (2013): 59–70. https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/TLI.
9. Felten, Peter. “Principles of Good Practice in SoTL.” Teaching and Learning Inquiry 1, no. 1 (2013): 121–25. https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/TLI.
10. Gallon, Kim. “Making a Case for the Black Digital Humanities.” In Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016, edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein, 42–49. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2016. https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu.
11. Hall, Jasmine. Interview with W. Russell Robinson. June 2019.
12. Hall, Jasmine, Thurman Tatum III, and Daniel Hargrove, directed by Dr. W. Russell Robison. Barack Obama’s Presidency Timeline. https://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/timeline3/latest/embed/index.html?source=1oRNhj2Gw2GuFF8bDY0ZVx6LVCwoYNLHaSsc7qmtzUrM.
13. Hargrove, Daniel. Interview with W. Russell Robinson. June 2019.
14. Humanities Unbounded. “Humanities Labs.” https://humanitiesunbounded.duke.edu/humanities-labs.
15. Hutchings, Pat. “The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: From Idea to Integration.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 123 (2010): 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.410.
16. John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute. “About the John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute.” https://fhi.duke.edu/about.
17. John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute. “Digital and Public Durham History: Works in Progress at Duke and North Carolina Central University.” https://fhi.duke.edu/digital-and-public-durham-history.
18. John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute. “Duke-NCCU Digital Humanities Fellows Program.” https://sites.fhi.duke.edu/nccudhfellows/.
19. John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute. “Humanities Futures (2014–18).” https://fhi.duke.edu/programs/humanities-futures-2014-18.
20. John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute. “Humanities Laboratories.” https://fhi.duke.edu/labs/.
21. John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute. “PhD Lab in Digital Knowledge.” https://sites.fhi.duke.edu/phdlab/.
22. McPherson, Tara. “Why Are the Digital Humanities So White? Or Thinking the Histories of Race and Computation.” In Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by Matthew K. Gold, 139–60. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu.
23. Morgan, Paige C. “The Consequences of Framing Digital Humanities Tools as Easy to Use.” College and Undergraduate Libraries 25, no. 3 (2018): 211–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2018.1480440.
24. Ortega, Élika. “Zonas de Contacto: A Digital Humanities Ecology of Knowledges.” In Debates in the Digital Humanities 2019, edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein, 179–87. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2019. https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu.
25. Poole, Gary, and Nancy Chick. “From Machines and Screens to Learning.” Teaching and Learning Inquiry 5, no. 2 (2017): 1–2. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.2.1.
26. Risam, Roopika. “Decolonizing the Digital Humanities in Theory and Practice.” In The Routledge Companion to Media Studies and Digital Humanities, edited by Jentery Sayers, 78–86. New York: Routledge, 2018.
27. Spivey, Virginia B., and Renee McGarry. “Bridging the Research/Teaching Divide with DAH and SoTL-AH.” Visual Resources 35, no. 1–2 (2019): 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973762.2019.1553442.
28. Venice International University. “Visualizing Cities Summer Institute | Past Editions.” https://www.univiu.org/study/summer-schools/visualizing-cities/past-editions.
29. Wenger, Etienne, Richard McDermott, and William Snyder. Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2002.