Skip to main content

People, Practice, Power: Figure Descriptions

People, Practice, Power
Figure Descriptions
  • Show the following:

    Annotations
    Resources
  • Adjust appearance:

    Font
    Font style
    Color Scheme
    Light
    Dark
    Annotation contrast
    Low
    High
    Margins
  • Search within:
    • Notifications
    • Privacy
  • Project HomePeople, Practice, Power
  • Projects
  • Learn more about Manifold

Notes

table of contents
  1. Cover
  2. Half Title Page
  3. Series Title Page
  4. Title Page
  5. Copyright Page
  6. Contents
  7. Introduction | Anne McGrail, Angel David Nieves, and Siobhan Senier
  8. Part I. Beyond the Digital Humanities Center: Historical Perspectives and New Models
    1. 1. Epistemic Infrastructure, the Instrumental Turn, and the Digital Humanities | James Malazita
    2. 2. Reprogramming the Invisible Discipline: An Emancipatory Approach to Digital Technology through Higher Education | Erin Rose Glass
    3. 3. What’s in a Name? | Taylor Arnold and Lauren Tilton
    4. 4. Laboratory: A New Space in Digital Humanities | Urszula Pawlicka-Deger
    5. 5. Zombies in the Library Stacks | Laura R. Braunstein and Michelle R. Warren
    6. 6. The Directory Paradox | Quinn Dombrowski
    7. 7. Custom-Built DH and Institutional Culture: The Case of Experimental Humanities | Maria Sachiko Cecire and Susan Merriam
    8. 8. Intersectionality and Infrastructure: Toward a Critical Digital Humanities | Christina Boyles
  9. Part II. Human Infrastructures: Labor Considerations and Communities of Practice
    1. 9. In Service of Pedagogy: A Colony in Crisis and the Digital Humanities Center | Kelsey Corlett-Rivera, Nathan H. Dize, Abby R. Broughton, and Brittany de Gail
    2. 10. A “No Tent” / No Center Model for Digital Work in the Humanities | Brennan Collins and Dylan Ruediger
    3. 11. After Autonomy: Digital Humanities Practices in Small Liberal Arts Colleges and Higher Education as Collaboration | Elizabeth Rodrigues and Rachel Schnepper
    4. 12. Epistemological Inclusion in the Digital Humanities: Expanded Infrastructure in Service-Oriented Universities and Community Organizations | Eduard Arriaga
    5. 13. Digital Infrastructures: People, Place, and Passion—a Case Study of San Diego State University | Pamella R. Lach and Jessica Pressman
    6. 14. Building a DIY Community of Practice | Ashley Sanders Garcia, Lydia Bello, Madelynn Dickerson, and Margaret Hogarth
    7. 15. More Than Respecting Medium Specificity: An Argument for Web-Based Portfolios for Promotion and Tenure | Jana Remy
    8. 16. Is Digital Humanities Adjuncting Infrastructurally Significant? | Kathi Inman Berens
  10. Part III. Pedagogy: Vulnerability, Collaboration, and Resilience
    1. 17. Access, Touch, and Human Infrastructures in Digital Pedagogy | Margaret Simon
    2. 18. Manifesto for Student-Driven Research and Learning | Chelsea Miya, Laura Gerlitz, Kaitlyn Grant, Maryse Ndilu Kiese, Mengchi Sun, and Christina Boyles
    3. 19. Centering First-Generation Students in the Digital Humanities | Jamila Moore Pewu and Anelise Hanson Shrout
    4. 20. Stewarding Place: Digital Humanities at the Regional Comprehensive University | Roopika Risam
    5. 21. Digital Humanities as Critical University Studies: Three Provocations | Matthew Applegate
  11. Figure Descriptions
  12. Contributors

Figure Descriptions

  1. Figure 19.1. This bar chart presents the distribution of undergraduate students against the percentage of digital humanities programs in the United States across six different classification categories. Those categories, running left to right across the horizontal axis are “For Profit,” “Private, research-focused”, “Private, teaching-focused,” “Public, teaching-focused,” “Public, research-focused,” and “Public, two-year.” The vertical axis displays percentages in increments of ten.

    The “For Profit,” category includes 3.6 percent of undergraduates and no DH Centers. “Private, research-focused” schools have 6.6 percent of the undergraduate share but retain 16.7 percent of DH programs. While ten percent of undergraduates attend “Private, teaching-focused” schools, those schools have no DH programs. “Public, teaching-focused” schools represent 15.9 percent of undergraduates and 4 percent of DH programs. “Public, research-focused” schools represent 25.4 percent of undergraduates and 70.8 percent of DH programs. Last, at “Public, two-year” institutions there are no DH programs though they represent 34.6 percent of undergraduates.

    Return to figure

  2. Figure 19.2. This bar chart compares first-generation students against continuing-generation students in six different degree categories: Nondegree, Associates, Technical School, BA, MA, and PhD. The degree categories run left to right across the horizontal axis with the vertical axis showing percentages in increments of ten.

    In nondegree programs 75.6 percent are first-generation students and 24.4 continuing-generation students. In the Associates degree programs, 69.9 percent are first-generation students and 30.1 are continuing-generation students. For Technical School, 63.8 percent are first-generation students and 36.2 are continuing-generation students. In BA programs, 49.6 percent are first-generation students and 50.4 are continuing-generation students. In MA programs, there is an even 50 percent split between first- and continuing-generation students. In PhD programs, 36.4 percent are first-generation students and 63.6 are continuing-generation students.

    Return to figure

Annotate

Next Chapter
Contributors
PreviousNext
Copyright 2021 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota
Powered by Manifold Scholarship. Learn more at
Opens in new tab or windowmanifoldapp.org