Background

Manifestos are about self-definition, and the digital humanities’ preoccupation with this subject is perhaps reflected in the many notable works produced in this genre, which include Digital Humanities Manifesto 2.0 (2008), The Paris Digital Humanities Manifesto (2011), A [S]creed for Digital Fiction (2010), and The Critical Engineering Manifesto (2011, 2016), among others. In different ways, these documents seek to announce, provoke, unsettle, and probe who we are as digital humanists. 

As emerging digital scholars, we believe that the time to be bold and to be political is not over, particularly as key issues regarding student labor and learning have yet to be addressed satisfactorily. In fact, we argue that the precarious position of students within the digital humanities has largely been overlooked. 

There is a precedent for student-authored digital humanities manifestos. In 2015, a group of graduate students at UCLA published A Student Collaborators’ Bill of Rights. The document provides guidelines for the proper compensation and accreditation of student work. While A Student Collaborators’ Bill of Rights drew much needed attention to the issue of labor inequality in the digital humanities, this speaks only to part of the problem. As emerging digital scholars, we are calling for grassroots institutional change that addresses not just how we work but how we learn. 

We believe that students in the digital humanities should be given the opportunity to take charge of our own learning. In fact, we argue that the integrity of the digital humanities depends on it. 

Program Development and Training

✊ We call for

• Reconfiguring and rethinking the design of traditional humanities programs to create opportunities for digital training that combine practical, hands-on skills and theory.

Skills is a vexed word in the humanities. Daniel Allington, Sarah Brouillette, and David Golumbia argue that to talk about skills is to “sell out” to the neoliberal machine.6 Others such as Alan Liu, while distancing themselves from Allington, Brouillette, and Golumbia, have also warned against losing sight of the humanities’ true mission.7 As students, we share their concerns that the humanities (digital and otherwise) needs to remain self-critical. However, we also find their position to be an insular one. What about those not served by the current system? What, furthermore, are we talking about when we talk about skills? Where do students fit within this debate?

The primary concerns of Allington, Brouillette, and Golumbia feel disconnected from the material realities of those entering the workforce. Practical skills might be looked down upon by tenured scholars. However, this is a position that we, as students, cannot afford to take.

Let us not forget that preparing for a job after graduation is many students’ top priority. One might argue that hands-on skills, unlike theory, run the risk of becoming outmoded. Yet, what students seek is not necessarily specific programming languages like Python or Java but rather a general fluency, in other words, the ability to translate between humanities and computing. Our dynamism is part of what makes digital humanities grads valuable.

Yet, we also pursue DH for the pure joy of it. Contrary to Allington, Brouillette, and Golumbia, skills are more than a means-end to developing a product.8 Skills signify play, experimentation, and teamwork. To have skills is a form of praise: to do the extraordinary and the unexpected.

We furthermore question the claim that the digital humanities places technical skills on a pedestal at the expense of other forms of knowledge. Proponents of critical tool theory such as Stephen Ramsay and Geoffrey Rockwell, among others, have pointed out the ways that theory and practice are naturally compatible.9 Each furthers the understanding of the other, and together they can teach us how to think both critically and computationally.

We are likewise not advocating for skills over theory but instead for a better balance between the two. Our reason is that for all the fears of traditional scholarship’s being displaced, as students we have experienced the opposite. If students doing DH work are under added “pressure,” as Allington, Brouillette, and Golumbia claim, it is not due to an overemphasis on skills but to their neglect.

With regard to program development, we believe that the absence of skills training actively discourages technically innovative research, particularly for students outside of DH-focused programs. In a 2012 editorial for The Chronicle of Higher Education, Kathleen Fitzpatrick wrote of feeling hesitant to advise a graduate student to take the plunge and do a digital dissertation. Fitzpatrick’s conflict arose from the knowledge that students in this position are at “risk of burnout from having to produce twice as much—traditional scholarship and digital projects—as their counterparts do.”10 “Real innovation requires risk,” wrote Fitzpatrick, and yet students cannot afford to “do the risky thing” without support from their faculty and administration.11

Not all humanities students with an interest in computing should necessarily incorporate a digital project into their dissertation. Paige Morgan makes the point that there is value in being able to play with technology without the pressure of getting “serious.”12 Yet, even the privilege to “mess around” with computers is just that, and it requires that certain infrastructure such as the allocation of software, lab space, and training already be in place. 

For many students, practice comes at a price.

The Anderson et al. study found that students in the digital humanities often feel the need to do “double duty.” As the authors pointed out, even free online workshops require dedicated time and mental (and emotional) energy.13 Thus, while students might desire additional training, they may find themselves unable to cope with the additional demands.

In downplaying skills in favor of traditional scholarship, students are also closed off from the possibility of non-ac and alt-ac careers. A 2013 survey by the University of Virginia Library’s Scholarly Communication Institute found that not nearly enough is being done to promote opportunities outside of academia. Even though tenure-track jobs are on the decline, the survey participants reported receiving “very little advice or training for any other career.”14 We are in agreement with the study authors that students in the humanities are underinformed and undersupported with regard to pursuing alt-ac and alt-research (and non-ac/research) positions. As such, we assert the need for DH programs to partner with alt-ac professionals, particularly libraries, during their digital humanities training. Doing so will provide students with a hands-on understanding of alt-ac work, create stronger bonds between humanities departments and libraries, and emphasize the value of alt-ac scholarship.15 We also strongly concur that the impact of programs cannot be measured without a more rigorous effort to “track the career outcomes” of former students and that, moreover, such data needs to be made open and accessible to students.16 However, program design also plays a crucial role: when we devalue skills, we miss the manifold ways that scholarship translates into practice and vice versa.

Policy changes regarding digital dissertations continue to lag behind. Jentery Sayers has brought up the practical challenges of supervising digital thesis work, asking how “drafts” of a digital project might be stored, “circulated,” and “commented upon”?17 The wide range of areas of expertise encompassed by the digital humanities also creates unique complications.18

The new guidelines for evaluating digital scholarship produced by the Modern Language Association were rightly praised as a step forward in the right direction; the American Historical Association and the Canadian Society for Digital Humanities have released similar lists of recommendations.19 Yet, disappointingly, these documents exclude any mention of graduate research.

The omission speaks volumes: when it comes to institutional supports for digital research, students are often treated as an afterthought.

In order to shift this line of thinking, we need to embrace practice and, above all, build digital training into existing programs of study. In addition to diversifying career streams and establishing guidelines for digital dissertations, other strategies to consider include making it easier for students in the humanities to take computer courses for credit; establishing practicum courses in partnership with organizations like libraries and digital centers; establishing more diverse types of degrees, such as certificate programs; and giving students the option to use programming skills to fulfill language requirements.

If we are to meet these challenges, students need to be part of the dialogue.

Just as importantly, we need to stop treating skills like a dirty word and realize that positing practice as incompatible with other types of scholarship often does students a disservice.

Data Management and Organization

✊ We call for

• Increased training and resources so students can engage in good research data management practices to allow for more student-created sustainable data in the scholarly sphere.

One of the foundations of sustainable research, which has yet to be discussed from the student perspective, is the practice of data management and organization. Institutions, typically through their libraries, play an important role in the gathering, analysis, dissemination, preservation, and showcasing of academic data and research, particularly for student researchers. Through research data management (RDM) a scholar documents how “data are collected, formatted, preserved and shared, as well as how existing datasets will be used and what new data will be created. These guidelines assist researchers in determining the costs, benefits and challenges of managing data.”20 Without high-quality management, data can be lost through hardware failure or technological obsolescence, sensitive information may not be stored or anonymized securely, and the research resulting from the data may be difficult to replicate. Additionally, a growing number of funding agencies require researchers to comply with their data management planning policies.21 These challenges are not exclusive to students. However, as the main support system available to students, it is crucial that universities provide them with the education and skills necessary to properly manage their data. 

RDM offers many necessary benefits to student researchers. It allows them to build skills and experience in documenting the step-by-step process of gathering and analyzing data, helping them to gain a better understanding of the research practices and methodologies that they are using. This act of documentation improves the overall organization of a study and allows for future replicability to confirm that the results were reached. This in turn is a way for students (new researchers) lacking the legitimacy that comes with having been published to prove that their study is sound. RDM also serves to protect their intellectual property and ensure that they receive proper accreditation through citations. Students can learn valuable methods for ensuring that their data is secure and anonymized, if necessary, and how to document the methods that they use. Discussions of security and anonymity encourage a student to consider the ethics surrounding their data, a complex issue in itself, and practical skills such as understanding how to acquire data through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests are also cultivated. Finally, RDM plans that are open access help promote student research to the academic community at large. 

Training for all facets of RDM, including facets such as data visualization, processing, and cleanup, needs to occur for student researchers; but what form should it take? Consultations with RDM staff offer face-to-face assistance with the added benefit of one-on-one time with someone who is trained to handle unique RDM issues. Online guides, although not offering the in-person training of courses or workshops, can be useful as quick references or as an aid to students who may lack the time to dedicate to scheduled arrangements. Institutional courses offer the most structure, whereas workshops are more flexible, require less time to complete, and are administratively easier to arrange than a class that requires registration. Currently, libraries are the most common place to find such training and expertise, often with the added benefit of librarians who are strong advocates for students and student research. However, with the growing use of digital data sets in research and the importance of following RDM best practices, universities on the whole need to take a more prominent role in supporting students in this field.22

Universities should work to encourage student participation in workshops by being explicit in their registration language; a workshop may appear to be geared toward staff or to be staff-focused but in reality allows students to attend. If a university does not organize workshops on RDM, they need to make external training opportunities known. Training opportunities for faculty and staff need to be expanded to support students as well. As supervisors and professors, faculty need to be aware of new and developing trends in DH to provide an additional academic support system. Students must be free to independently pursue their own projects, and faculty need to be reliable and approachable for seeking assistance and advice in DH training and research. In the absence of university support, students need to be able to seek training through other avenues, such as by finding external opportunities through other educational programs or by organizing their peers to share their knowledge via workshops, unconferences, and clubs.

Digital storage space is another aspect of data management in which students require support of their institution. Some may offer their own hosted server space or have cross-institutional or federal support with external organizations that provide these services, such as (for Canadian institutions) Compute Canada or (for American institutions) the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE), but students are not often given explicit access. Students may not be mentioned in the policies and guidelines; they may require faculty sponsorship regardless of the legitimacy of the data; or they simply might not be aware of any organizations that could assist in data storage. Universities must make their affiliations known to students and handle student usage of these services in a manner that does not force them to rely on faculty sponsorship. Otherwise, they are promoting a culture of dependence, in which student research is not considered important.

Repositories are digital spaces provided by an organization, normally the organization’s library system, for the purpose of preserving and showcasing the intellectual output of those affiliated with it. Student involvement in a repository is often limited to the student’s institution, and often only in the long-term, secure archival storage of theses and dissertations. This kind of secure storage and display for students is an absolute necessity for research beyond this category in order to step into the role of a professional academic. If a student’s only interaction with a repository is the depositing of his or her thesis, the student loses out on making that research used in both academia and professional development capacities known; remains one step removed from the preservation of that research; and will develop poor preservation habits as that person steps further into his or her professional career. The benefits of using a repository are massive for students: they offer permanent identifiers for research and discoverability in search engines, a legitimate space for long-term preservation, and an increase in citations and credibility.

Consider the following: a student spends years on professional development, making presentations at conferences, engaging in poster sessions, and running workshops for fellow students. What happens to this material after the conference or workshop ends? In many cases the only indication of the student’s efforts is a note in a program which may or may not be available online. If the student is lucky, the abstract may be searchable. Those physical presentations, be they slideshows, posters, recordings or other forms of media, are lost to the academic ether. Repositories therefore have an obligation to save this research and make it discoverable to the academic community at large.

This call to action extends beyond the university to grant agencies and even to governments. We may be students, but the archiving of our data does not have to be tethered to our academic institution.23 We demand that our research and data be recognized as important and significant and that the organizations in place to provide these services to professional scholars support us in the same manner.

Digital Centers

✊ We call for

• Digital centers to be made more democratic and inclusive by making them more accessible and open to students.

Often digital centers are created with the needs of established scholars in mind. However, we argue that emerging digital scholars—a group that includes undergraduates, graduates, and postdocs—need a space of our own. In other words, we would like students to become more involved in how digital centers are designed and how they are run. 

Collaboration is a necessity in the digital humanities, and this has opened up new opportunities for graduate students who are often recruited as research assistants. The problem, as Amy Earhart, Tanya Clement, and Anderson et al. have all pointed out, is that the relationship between the team members is more hierarchical and less symbiotic than one might hope.24

We want to shift this dynamic by rethinking the uses of these spaces. Amy Earhart and Richard Lane have each used the scientific space of the laboratory as a model for “imagining new forms of practices.”25 But another way to think of centers is as communal spaces that shape and are shaped by certain social structures. One might consider to what various uses are digital centers put and how these spaces are perceived differently by the multiple communities they serve, including the student community.

One possible model is to envision digital centers as adaptable spaces designed to meet a variety of students’ digital scholarship needs. At Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, the Digital Scholarship Studio is a reservable space that hosts a variety of events for students and the public, including mapathons, transcribe-a-thons, and edit-a-thons. This model encourages students to take ownership of the space both by allowing them to utilize it as a study space, meeting room, or alternate classroom, and by inviting them into the space for events that appeal to the digital humanities community at large.

Developing centers and policies that focus on care-based practices would also encourage grassroots movements and community engagement between digital scholarship centers and those who utilize them. As Bethany Nowviskie points out, care-based practices are “meant to reorient the practitioner’s understanding in two ways. The first is toward an appreciation of context, interdependence, and vulnerability—of fragile, little things and their interrelation. The second is an orientation . . . toward personal, worldly action and response.”26 Incorporating care into our regular vocabulary in DH would encourage equal collaboration in projects and ensure that those who require, or want, skills and professional development have opportunities to do just that. There are many ways to become more care focused, including the writing of manifestos, an activity that helps groups such as ours “articulate its shared values and understand its individual members’ needs” and creates the opportunity for action by facilitating “real peer-to-peer collaboration” that transcends the “boundaries of academic status and rank.”27

In this spirit of encouraging collaborative, care-based practice, we call on scholars, librarians, and administrators in digital centers to involve students in the strategic planning of digital centers. Digital centers and labs act as pipelines for the formal and informal negotiation processes that exist between junior digital scholars and faculty members, in relation to the activities of learning new skills, building networks, and gaining leadership and professional experience.28 Consulting with students in the design and development of a center can help create spaces that better meet the needs of those they service. Julie Friddell makes the point that with regard to cultivating an environment that is conducive to collaboration, “enhancing human interoperability is just as important as technical interoperability.”29 Opening up a dialogue between students and administration helps build the mutual trust and familiarity on which digital research is built.

Allowing students to have more use of these facilities, whether as a makerspace or for hosting students’ clubs, can help to integrate digital centers more fully into the campus community. Showcasing student projects, both onsite and online, can likewise inspire future digital scholars. Digital centers can also benefit students by opening up information channels. Departments are not always effective at sharing news and events that might have cross-disciplinary appeal. Digital centers can help overcome the silo effect by serving as a billboard for digital humanities-related news and events. 

Some institutions are already taking steps in these directions. The Digital Scholarship Commons at the University of Victoria is one of a growing number of student-centered spaces. One of its stated aims is to “act as a hub for students to come together to share knowledge and to collaborate.”30 The University of Virginia Scholars’ Lab, home to the Praxis program for graduate students, is another example.31

We argue that digital centers as “public” or communal spaces are also inherently political. These shared spaces give students from multiple fields the opportunity to exchange ideas and build relationships. This sense of community is especially important for students from departments that may not have a strong digital presence and, as a result, might be in need of additional mentorship and support in addition to tools and training. Furthermore, as we found with the Digital Scholars student group, having a central space can be essential in mobilizing students across multiple departments, which in turn puts us in a stronger position to articulate demands for change. Institutions with a dedicated center are likewise better placed to acknowledge and listen to those demands and administer supports where needed. Finally, digital centers can help academic institutions to become less insular by modeling open scholarship practices at the student level, creating opportunities for emerging scholars to communicate their research to the larger public.

Student Organization

✊ We call for

• Students to work together to make our learning experience more encouraging and less daunting.

Although we hope that this manifesto can help to better inform institutional practices, we are also aware that top-down change is often slow to come. Therefore, in this section we speak directly to our peers.

Grassroots initiatives, organized and led by students, are one way that we, as the next generation of digital scholars, can take charge of our learning and experiment with new organizational structures. In recent years, there have been notable student-run research projects. UBC’s From Stone to Screen is a digitization project that is run entirely by graduate students in the history and classics department.32 On the publishing side, Inciting Sparks is a multimedia platform developed by graduate students for posting blogs, videos, and online exhibits related to arts and humanities research.33 There is also a growing number of student-run maker spaces, such as Five College Digital Humanities’ GlowLime Games student game development studio and the University of North Carolina’s Student Maker Network MakNet.34 These projects are examples of how the mobilization of students can play a crucial role in the future of the digital humanities.

At our own institution, we have had considerable success with the Digital Scholars student group (DSUA). The University of Alberta is unique in that it has one of the oldest digital humanities-focused masters programs. Yet, when we started the DSUA, our university did not have a digital center. As such, we had the opportunity and the impetus to create a “space of our own,” which came to be centered on student-led training.

Students have never been more interested in doing digital dissertations and projects. In our experience, this is true in arts departments across the board. Our own student group is fiercely interdisciplinary, and our diverse membership includes students from humanities computing, linguistics, the School of Library and Information Science, English and film studies, and many more. We have also found many unexpected allies including faculty, library staff, and administration.

Much of our efforts are put into connecting students with resources both on and off campus. A growing number of organizations, for instance, offer computing workshops free of charge or at heavily subsidized cost and we have worked with Ladies Learning Code, Compute Canada, and Edmonton Media Hive to promote their events to students. Last year, we also appealed to the Digital Humanities Summer Institute to create a special scholarship for student members of our group. Through these efforts, we have been able to cultivate relationships and share information and skills across disciplinary and institutional bounds. 

By stepping into leadership roles, students build skills in areas like project management, communication, business, and graphic design, as well as gain the opportunity to network with faculty, instructors, and staff. As teacher-mentors in training, we learn how to identify key concepts, break challenging material into layperson’s terms, and troubleshoot unexpected issues.

Building supportive networks that extend beyond the classroom helps students to maintain and deepen computational knowledge over the long term, particularly as students can feel more comfortable coming to peers for help. Some institutions run summer camp–style training sessions just for students with upper-level graduate students involved as counselors and organizers.35 Digital centers could follow the example of campus writing centers and hire students to act as mentors and tutors, or at least designate space for study groups and student-run code-along sessions.36

Despite the benefits of grassroots, student-led initiatives, this strategy has its limitations. The success of an organization like the DSUA depends on the energy and enthusiasm of student members and on the support of faculty and instructors, and we are cautious of demanding too much from those whose time and labor are already stretched.37 Thus, while we hope this manifesto can inspire students in the digital humanities to form organizations of their own, such grassroots efforts must be sustained and supported by institutional reform.

The blind spot of university administration can be partly attributed to how students are viewed in relation to the larger academic community. Ray Siemens has often spoken about DH as a “community of practice” defined by shared methodologies. Yet, past attempts to map the digital humanities, such as Willard McCarty and Harold Short’s often-cited Methodological Commons, are limited in that they tend to be oriented toward disciplines and to overlook communities that are not defined by field and yet are still distinct.

What organizations like the DSUA, From Stone to Screen, Inciting Sparks, GlowLime Games, and MakNet demonstrate is that students indeed operate as a distinct community within the digital humanities with its own unique practices, goals, and perspectives. Ray Siemens has spoken about the need for “self determination” in the digital humanities: in other words, the need to “grow our own” and “learn to do our own stunts.”38 As students, we too need to develop our own ways of doing things and in the process revolutionize and reimagine the field from the bottom up.

Notes

This chapter was written with contributions from Monika Biesaga, Paul Gifford, and Greg Whistance-Smith.

1. Anderson et al., “Student Labour and Training,” para. 24. http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/10/1/000233/000233.html.

   Return to note reference.

2. Clement, “Text Analysis, Data Mining, and Visualizations,” para. 29.

   Return to note reference.

3. Anderson et al., “Student Labour and Training,” para. 25.

   Return to note reference.

4. Anderson et al., “Student Labour and Training,” para. 14–15, 19.

   Return to note reference.

5. Anderson et al., “Student Labour and Training,” para. 32–33.

   Return to note reference.

6. Allington, Brouillette, and Golumbia, “Neoliberal Tools (and Archives),” https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/neoliberal-tools-archives-political-history-digital-humanities/#.

   Return to note reference.

7. Regarding distancing himself from Allington, Brouillette, and Golumbia, see Liu’s post (@alanyliu), Twitter, “in working inside the neoliberal university as way to differentiate it from other kinds of neoliberalism, such difference-making,” May 2, 2016, https://twitter.com/alanyliu/status/727293053006802944. Regarding his warning, see Liu, “State of Digital Humanities: A Report and a Critique,” http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1474022211427364.

   Return to note reference.

8. Allington, Brouillette, and Golumbia, “Neoliberal Tools (and Archives).”

   Return to note reference.

9. Ramsay and Rockwell, “Developing Things.”

   Return to note reference.

10. Kathleen Fitzpatrick, “Do ‘The Risky Thing’ in Digital Humanities.” http://www.chronicle.com/article/Do-the-Risky-Thing-in/129132.

    Return to note reference.

11. Fitzpatrick, “Do ‘The Risky Thing’ in Digital Humanities.”

    Return to note reference.

12. Paige Morgan, “How to Get a Digital Humanities Project off the Ground.” http://www.paigemorgan.net/how-to-get-a-digital-humanities-project-off-the-ground/.

    Return to note reference.

13. Anderson et al., “Student Labour and Training,” para. 14–15.

    Return to note reference.

14. Rogers, “Humanities Unbound.” https://libraopen.lib.virginia.edu/public_view/fb4948446.

    Return to note reference.

15. For a more in-depth discussion of alt-act professionals as allies and collaborators, see the chapter in this volume by Christina Boyles, “Intersectionality and Infrastructure: Toward a Critical Digital Humanities.”

    Return to note reference.

16. Rogers, “Humanities Unbound,” 4.

    Return to note reference.

17. Jentery Sayers, “Digital Humanities (DH) and/in the Dissertation.” For further discussion of digital dissertations, also see Visconti, “Evaluating Non-Traditional Digital Humanities Dissertations.”

    Return to note reference.

18. For a discussion of the complications of hiring and promotion in DH, see Cosgrave et al., “Evaluating Digital Scholarship.”

    Return to note reference.

19. Modern Language Association, “Guidelines for Evaluating Work”; American Historical Association, “Guidelines for the Professional Evaluation”; and Canadian Society for Digital Humanities, “Evaluating DH Scholarship: Guidelines.”

    Return to note reference.

20. Government of Canada, “Tri-Agency Statement of Principles,” para. 10.

    Return to note reference.

21. Cox and Pinfield, “Research Data Management and Libraries,” para. 1.

    Return to note reference.

22. One university-wide method is to enact open access mandates, such as Simon Fraser University’s Open Access Policy (https://www.lib.sfu.ca/help/publish/scholarly-publishing/open-access-policy). However, such mandates are most impactful when researchers are on board with the message before it becomes a requirement.

    Return to note reference.

23. SocArXiv (https://socopen.org/) is an example of a subject repository aiming to make social science research, regardless of the institution from which it originates, open access.

    Return to note reference.

24. See Clement, “Text Analysis”; Earhart, “Digital Humanities as a Laboratory”; and Anderson et al., “Student Labour and Training.”

    Return to note reference.

25. Earhart, “Digital Humanities as a Laboratory,” 399. See also Lane, Big Humanities.

    Return to note reference.

26. Bethany Nowviskie, blog post “On Capacity and Care,” October 4, 2015, http://nowviskie.org/2015/on-capacity-and-care/.

    Return to note reference.

27. Nowviskie, “On Capacity and Care.”

    Return to note reference.

28. Joan Lippincott, Harriette Hemmasi, and Viv Lewis, “Trends in Digital Scholarship Centers,” http://er.educause.edu/articles/2014/6/trends-in-digital-scholarship-centers.

    Return to note reference.

29. Friddell, “How Do We Support Collaboration?” See also Dana L. Church, et al., “The Northern Voice: Listening to Indigenous and Northern Perspectives on Management of Data in Canada”; and Holly Handley, “A Network Model for Human Inter-operability.”

    Return to note reference.

30. See the University of Victoria’s Digital Scholarship Commons’ Makerspace, https://onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca/dsc/about/.

    Return to note reference.

31. See the University of Virginia’s Praxis Program, http://praxis.scholarslab.org/.

    Return to note reference.

32. See UBC’s From Stone to Screen, https://cnrs.ubc.ca/research/stone-to-screen-project/.

    Return to note reference.

33. See Inciting Sparks, https://incitingsparks.org/.

    Return to note reference.

34. See Five College Digital Humanities’ GlowLime Games and UNC’s MakNet, http://glowlime.com/; http://maknet.web.unc.edu/.

    Return to note reference.

35. See Cornell University’s Summer Graduate Fellowship (https://blogs.cornell.edu/sgfdh/) and Illinois Tech’s Digital Humanities Summer Camp for high school students cotaught by graduate students (https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/7822/598952).

    Return to note reference.

36. For instance, the Digital Scholarship Studio at Trinity College recruits Student Technology Assistants (STAs) to provide technical support for their peers.

    Return to note reference.

37. See Spencer Keralis, who points out in “Milking the Deficit Internship” that students can be pressured into giving away their labor with exploitive practices disguised as “engagement” and “collaboration.”

    Return to note reference.

38. Ray Siemens, “Communities of Practice, the Methodological Commons, and Digital Self-Determination in the Humanities,” para. 29, http://doi.org/10.16995/dscn.31.

    Return to note reference.

Bibliography

1. Allington, Daniel, Sarah Brouillette, and David Golumbia. “Neoliberal Tools (and Archives): A Political History of Digital Humanities.” Los Angeles Review of Books, May 1, 2016. https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/neoliberal-tools-archives-political-history-digital-humanities/#.

2. American Academy of Arts and Sciences. “Advanced Degrees in the Humanities.” Humanities Indicators. August 2017. https://humanitiesindicators.org/content/indicatordoc.aspx?i=44.

3. Anderson, Katrina, Lindsey Bannister, Janey Dodd, Deanna Fong, Michelle Levy, and Lindsey Seatter. “Student Labour and Training in Digital Humanities.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 10, no. 1 (2016). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/10/1/000233/000233.html.

4. Bell, Alice, Astrid Ensslin, Dave Ciccoricco, Hans Rustad, Jess Laccetti, and Jessica Pressman. “A [S]creed for Digital Fiction.” Electronic Book Review, March 7, 2010. https://electronicbookreview.com/essay/a-screed-for-digital-fiction/.

5. Canadian Society for Digital Humanities. “Evaluating DH Scholarship: Guidelines.” December 31, 2015. https://csdh-schn.org/296-2/.

6. Church, Dana L., Julie E. Friddell, Ellsworth F. LeDrew, Gabrielle Alix, and Garret Reid. “The Northern Voice: Listening to Indigenous and Northern Perspectives on Management of Data in Canada.” Data Science Journal, 16 (2017): 48. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2017-048.

7. Clement, Tanya. “Text Analysis, Data Mining, and Visualizations in Literary Scholarship.” In Literary Studies in the Digital Age: An Evolving Anthology. New York: Modern Language Association, 2013. 

8. Cordell, Ryan. “How Not to Teach Digital Humanities.” Ryan Cordell (blog), February 1, 2015. http://ryancordell.org/teaching/how-not-to-teach-digital-humanities/.

9. Cosgrave, Michael, Anna Dowling, Lynn Harding, Róisín O’Brien, and Olivia Rohan. “Evaluating Digital Scholarship: Experiences in New Programmes at an Irish University.” Journal of Digital Humanities 1, no. 4 (2012). http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/1-4/evaluating-digital-scholarship-experiences-in-new-programmes-at-an-irish-university/.

10. Cox, Andrew M., and Stephen Pinfield. “Research Data Management and Libraries: Current Activities and Future Priorities.” Journal of Librarianship And Information Science 46, no. 4 (2013): 299–316. 

11. Dacos, Marin. “Manifesto for the Digital Humanities.” THATCamp aris, March 26, 2011. Updated January 25, 2012. http://tcp.hypotheses.org/411.

12. Di Pressi, Haley, Stephanie Gorman, Miriam Posner, Raphael Sasayama, and Tori Schmitt, with contributions from Roderic Crooks, Megan Driscoll, Amy Earhart, Spencer Keralis, Tiffany Naiman, and Todd Presner. “A Student Collaborators’ Bill of Rights.” UCLA Digital Humanities, 2015. https://humtech.ucla.edu/news/a-student-collaborators-bill-of-rights/.

13. Earhart, Amy. “The Digital Humanities as a Laboratory.” In Between Humanities and the Digital, edited by Patrik Svensson and David Theo Goldberg, 391–400. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 2015. https://dhtoph.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/earhartdhaslaboratory.pdf.

14. Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. “Do ‘The Risky Thing’ in Digital Humanities.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 25, 2011. http://www.chronicle.com/article/Do-the-Risky-Thing-in/129132.

15. Friddell, Julie. “How Do We Support Collaboration and Strong DRI User Communities?” (breakaway session). The Leadership Council for Digital Research Infrastructure Summit. Chestnut Conference Centre, June 27, 2017.

16. GC Digital Fellows. “What Is a Digital Dissertation?” CUNY Academic Commons. Updated December 2020. https://digitalfellows.commons.gc.cuny.edu/digital-dissertations/.

17. George Mason University. “Digital Dissertation Guidelines.” History and Art History, College of Humanities and Social Sciences. http://historyarthistory.gmu.edu/graduate/phd-history/digital-dissertation-guidelines.

18. Government of Canada. “Tri-Agency Statement of Principles on Digital Data Management.” 2016. http://www.science.gc.ca/eic/site/063.nsf/eng/h_83F7624E.html?OpenDocument.

19. Handley, Holly A. H. “A Network Model for Human Interoperability.” Human Factors 56, no. 2 (2014): 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813493640.

20. Keralis, Spencer. “Milking the Deficit Internship.” Disrupting the Digital Humanities, January 6, 2016. http://www.disruptingdh.com/milking-the-deficit-internship/.

21. Lane, Richard J. The Big Humanities: Digital Humanities/Digital Laboratories. London: Routledge, 2017.

22. Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

23. Liu, Alan. “The State of the Digital Humanities: A Report and a Critique.” Arts & Humanities in Higher Education 11: 8–41. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1474022211427364.

24. Modern Language Association. “Guidelines for Evaluating Work in Digital Humanities and Digital Media.” MLA, 2012. https://www.mla.org/About-Us/Governance/Committees/Committee-Listings/Professional-Issues/Committee-on-Information-Technology/Guidelines-for-Evaluating-Work-in-Digital-Humanities-and-Digital-Media.

25. Modern Language Association. Report on the MLA Job Information List, 2015–16. MLA Office of Research, January 2017. https://www.mla.org/content/download/58256/1846498/RptJIL15_16.pdf.

26. Morgan, Paige. “How to Get a Digital Humanities Project off the Ground.” Paige Morgan (blog), June 5, 2014. http://www.paigemorgan.net/how-to-get-a-digital-humanities-project-off-the-ground/.

27. Oliver, Julian, Gordan Savičić, and Danja Vasiliev. “The Critical Engineering Manifesto.” The Critical Engineering Working Group, October 2011. http://conceptlab.com/criticalmaking/PDFs/CriticalMaking2012Hertz-Manifestos-pp41-OliverSavicicVasiliev-TheCriticalEngineeringManifesto.pdf.

28. Ramsay, Stephen, and Geoffrey Rockwell, “Developing Things: Notes toward an Epistemology of Building in the Digital Humanities.” Debates in the Digital Humanities (2012), 75–84. https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/read/untitled-88c11800-9446-469b-a3be-3fdb36bfbd1e/section/c733786e-5787-454e-8f12-e1b7a85cac72#ch05.

29. Rogers, Katina. “Humanities Unbound: Supporting Careers and Scholarship beyond the Tenure Track.” Scholarly Communication Institute, 2013. https://libraopen.lib.virginia.edu/public_view/fb4948446.

30. Sayers, Jentery. “DH and/in the Dissertation.” Jentery Sayers, Annotation of Opening Remarks. MLA Convention, January 7, 2016. https://github.com/jentery/mla16/blob/master/dhsiDissertationOpeningRemarks.md.

31. Schnapp, Jeffrey, Todd Presner, Peter Lunenfeld, and Johanna Drucker. “Digital Humanities Manifesto 2.0.” Multitudes 59, no. 2 (2015): 181–95. 

32. Siemens, Ray. “Communities of Practice, the Methodological Commons, and Digital Self-Determination in the Humanities.” Digital Studies/Le champ numérique (2014). http://doi.org/10.16995/dscn.31.

33. Sula, Chris Alen, and S. E. Hackney. “A Survey of Digital Humanities Programs.” The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy 11 (May 2017). https://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/a-survey-of-digital-humanities-programs/.

34. Visconti, Amanda. “Evaluating Non-Traditional Digital Humanities Dissertations.” Amanda Visconti (blog), September 30, 2014. http://literaturegeek.com/2014/09/30/evaluating-non-traditional-digital-humanities-dissertations.

35. Warwick, Claire. “Institutional Models for the Digital Humanities.” In Digital Humanities in Practice, edited by Claire Warwick, Melissa Terras, and Julianne Nyhan, 193–216. London: Facet, 2012.