Expanding Communities of Practice through DH Andragogy

The DH Professional Development Landscape

While the number of formal degree and certificate programs in digital humanities has expanded over the past decade, there remains a majority of humanities scholars, faculty, and staff for whom DH was not included as part of their formal education. A 2017 survey commissioned by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and funded by the Mellon Foundation reveals that fewer than 20 percent of humanities departments in four-year colleges offer a seminar on digital methods, and only one out of four have faculty members specializing in DH.3 Consequently, DH professional development, which often takes place outside traditional academic programs in centers, labs, or libraries, remains an important part of expanding DH practice. Even so, only 17 percent of humanities departments at comprehensive colleges and universities have access to a DH center, a lack that is especially felt at institutions such as historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and small liberal arts colleges, not to mention community colleges.4 At present, most DH professional development takes place outside of the classroom, for example in workshop settings like libraries, teaching and learning centers, and academic computing units or in multiday institutes that require travel to another university, but these models are resource intensive and rely on a limited number of people to deliver personalized training to relatively small cohorts of scholars at a time. All the while, interest in and demand for digital humanities professional development continues to grow among early- and midcareer humanists inside and outside the academy, and scaling up opportunities for humanists, especially those at underresourced institutions, is critical if we also want to expand DH practice equitably.5

The opportunities for scholars who are looking for DH professional development are often shaped by the institutional and personal resources at their disposal. One might choose to attend a summer or winter weeklong DH institute, where humanities scholars travel and remain in residence to learn from reputable instructors, such as the Digital Humanities Summer Institute in Victoria, British Columbia; the Humanities Intensive Learning and Teaching (HILT), which is hosted on a rotating basis at various campuses; or the Digital Humanities @ Oxford Summer School.6 While these institutes and workshops are offered annually, others may be offered on a nonrecurring basis. For example, NEH runs an annual Institutes in Advanced Topics in Digital Humanities program. Funding from the award has been used to support a wide range of skill-training events, including workshops for midcareer historians building their first digital humanities project, for specialized instruction on word embeddings, and for geospatial mapping and more.7 With the notable exception of George Mason University’s Doing Digital History in 2014 and 2016, advanced topic workshops are often designed to help scholars learn to use a specific tool to enhance their research or teaching project in the hope that the workshop will lead to greater use of the tools. Professional development centered on specific tools and advanced methodologies fills a necessary role in the DH professional development ecosystem by creating communities of practice around specific research or teaching goals; however, its impact rarely extends beyond those people who can attend.8 If, as a scholarly community, we are committed to expanding DH professional development opportunities equitably, we will need to do so with an eye toward scaling our efforts to reach more humanities scholars, especially in institutions that are resource scarce.

This was the evolving landscape of DH professional development opportunities in 2015, when the Graduate Center (GC) Digital Initiatives received funding from the City University of New York (CUNY) to develop “bootcamps” to improve the human infrastructure around digital research skills across the university’s network of twenty-six campuses.9 Led by Lisa Rhody in collaboration with the GC Digital Fellows, a group of ten interdisciplinary doctoral students, the GC Digital Research Institute (GC DRI) helped graduate students, librarians, faculty, and staff develop foundational skills in research computing. The curriculum covered an introduction to the command line, data collaboration and version control with Git and GitHub, and an introduction to databases, Python, text analysis, and digital mapping. The week culminated with an extended workshop on digital project development and planning. Over seven subsequent years, we have led eight additional CUNY institutes, during which time each new cohort of fellows has refined, tested, led, and improved the core curriculum to meet the needs of our diverse population.

In 2017, the GC DRI evolved into a proposal to NEH’s Institutes in Advanced Topics in Digital Humanities program, which proposed to share the resources created at CUNY with a national network of digital humanities practitioners.10 DHRI’s application included two unique features: a commitment from applicants to lead a local version of the institute and a letter of support from the applicants’ sponsoring organization pledging to put institutional resources toward applicants’ efforts. Participants selected to attend the ten-day in-person institute received a stipend to cover travel and living expenses while they learned technical skills to support their individual research, connected with other similarly positioned scholars at other humanities institutions, and began planning versions of a local DHRI. While in residency at CUNY’s DHRI, participants attended sessions that included roundtable discussions on topics such as digital research ethics and open-access scholarship and less structured discussion sessions on topics related to local institute planning, such as how to find local partners, secure funding, and recruit participants. Participants, who came to be known as community leaders (CLs), were encouraged to use our curricula to develop a variant DHRI at their home institutions and to combine them with their institutions’ local interests and resources.11

Over the academic year that followed, CLs grew as an interconnected network of digital humanists and shared resources, materials, and lessons learned. Building from DHRI’s core curriculum, participants at the June 2018 institute led fourteen local versions adapted to their local community’s particular needs. Local DHRIs reached more than two hundred additional humanities scholars and practitioners, and when the DHRI community leaders returned to the GC in 2019 to share their experiences, they reported that their participation in an NEH-supported institute helped leverage local resources, connect with potential collaborators, and raise internal and external funds. Often, the local DHRI was the first on-site opportunity for humanities faculty to participate in DH professional development, and in some instances local institutes led to longer-term internal and regional partnerships, creating space for mutually beneficial access to resources. For example, South Bend DHRI has continued to be supported by Notre Dame University and St. Mary’s College, and Binghamton DHRI (State University of New York) continues to be supported by the university library and college of arts and humanities.

Meanwhile, CLs reported measurable career growth, including promotions in salary and title, expanded responsibilities, new collaborations within local networks, and opportunities for leadership. The lessons we have learned from DHRI point to how adult learning theory combined with tenets of critical pedagogy can lead to a sustainable, scalable model of professional development in the digital humanities. The following sections articulate what we imagine to be DH andragogy. Guided by Freire’s and hooks’s insistence that the outcome of liberation pedagogy is the affirmation of our shared humanity, we suggest two principles of DH andragogy that could lead toward liberatory professional development: design in dialogue and develop sociotechnical learning objectives.

DH Andragogy

In the late twentieth century, Knowles introduced the term andragogy into the scholarship of teaching and learning to describe characteristics and needs particular to adult learning, arguing that educators should begin with assumptions about adult learners that differ from the ones they hold for children. As learners mature, they develop what Knowles calls self-concept, an awareness of what they already know and what they need to learn, which leads them toward independence and less reliance on an instructor to shape their academic path.12 Adults have had more opportunities to accumulate lived experiences, which they draw on to connect new content to existing knowledge. Knowles also points out that an adult’s motivation to learn is tied to their social and professional roles such that existing responsibilities, expectations of others, and expectations of themselves frame how and what they choose to learn. Knowles’s observations are equally true within DH professional development settings, where students have often already specialized in a humanities discipline. They likely enter the professional development workshop with their own research questions and may have teaching experience of their own. Consequently, their motivation to learn is shaped by existing or near-future academic and professional responsibilities.

Knowles’s principles of adult learning support Freire’s critique of authoritarian educational systems. Addressing adult education in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire theorizes a “‘banking’ concept of education” as one in which a teacher-expert deposits knowledge into students as if they were nothing more than empty vessels waiting to be filled.13 What the “banking model” ignores is the wealth of situated knowledge students—and particularly adult learners—bring to the classroom. Similarly, digital humanities professional development does not happen in a vacuum. In our DHRI experience, for example, CLs come with knowledge about their local institutional needs, about their own research needs and the needs of their colleagues. Importantly, students also come with previous technology learning experiences, ones that often reinforce the “banking” model Freire describes, wherein the instructor possesses knowledge that is inaccessible to students and which the teacher will bestow on them. “Banking” pedagogy is reinforced when workshops prioritize content delivery, such as how to master a particular tool, over the significance of the task to the learners, their daily activities, and their long-term goals. Turning to Freire’s argument that a classroom becomes liberatory when knowledge creation acts as a humanizing force, and to hooks’s insistence in Teaching to Transgress that liberatory classrooms emphasize “a union of mind, body, and spirit,” we explored the ways in which DHRI could make learning foundational technical skills a liberatory DH experience.14

Developing the DHRI curriculum, our aim was to address fundamental concepts in computing while also attending to students’ lived experience, career needs, and community responsibilities. Knowles suggests in Andragogy in Action to consider four principles: involving adult learners in the planning and evaluation of their instruction, integrating their experiences into learning activities, centering learning activities on solving problems rather than absorbing content, and clarifying connections between the learning and the adult learner’s professional and personal life.15 Since our objective was to move beyond an impact on the individual attending the workshop to helping build and strengthen local communities of learners, we also considered the ways in which Knowles’s observations echo those of Freire and hooks. Consequently, we adapted Knowles’s principles for the purpose of imagining DH andragogy as a way to respond to the sociotechnical needs of practicing humanists: design workshops in dialogue with students and their local communities, develop sociotechnical learning objectives that recognize students’ experiences and expertise, shape content delivery in terms of solving recognizable professional challenges, and connect students to ongoing communities of support. By resisting the banking model, DH andragogy recognizes the existing expertise of the practicing digital humanist by engaging them in curricular design and community practice at all stages. What distinguishes liberatory DH andragogy is its focus on students’ well-being, cultivating sustained connections, opportunities for recognition, and professional support.16

Design in Dialogue

“Dialogue,” Freire writes in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, “imposes itself as the way by which [people] achieve significance as human beings. Dialogue is thus an existential necessity.”17 Likewise, effective DH andragogy maintains an open dialogue with students at all stages of curriculum design and implementation, acknowledging them as self-directed learners with a wealth of existing knowledge and experience in the humanities and who are often already teachers themselves. Soliciting adult students’ input before, during, and after the learning experience through advance surveys, periodic check-ins, and follow-up evaluations acknowledges that adults arrive in the professional development setting with a wealth of knowledge about their own localized technology use, their previous learning experiences, and their own and their local community’s needs. By including students in the design process, we create space for them as experts in their own learning and recognize them as full and equal members of the classroom.

In fostering dialogue, DH professional development students may be willing to share negative learning experiences relating to technology (or STEM fields more broadly) that instructors can use to inform how they present similar concepts by acknowledging students’ earlier experiences and confronting those barriers directly. In planning for DHRI, we began integrating input from participants as early as the application process. Applications included questions such as, “Describe an instance when you experienced a technical problem that you didn’t know the answer to right away. How did you resolve it?” Drawing from the responses we received, we shaped the classroom experience to address areas that students had already identified as causing them frustration and to connect new modes of solving technical problems to students’ existing skillsets. For example, we learned that most participants already knew to search for error messages by cutting and pasting them into a search engine, but where they met with frustration was in evaluating the best solution and implementing it. Therefore, during workshops on the command line and Python, instructors acknowledged that students already knew how to search for an error message and then anticipated their frustration in evaluating search results by connecting the content in the workshop to understanding how to implement suggested solutions.

In order to respond to feedback in ongoing workshops, CLs completed daily exit slips in which they shared their level of comfort with the pace of the workshops, the applicability of the content to their professional goals, and suggestions for the next day. Our team assembled at the end of each day, read the evaluations, and adjusted the following day’s activities to accommodate requests. Exit slips provided CLs with space to share their thoughts about the applicability of the workshop’s technical concepts to their humanities teaching and research and to the needs of the scholars in their communities they were charged with supporting. For example, when the workshops covered concepts like version control using Git and GitHub, CLs explained that the complexity of the process seemed unnecessary within the context of the local collaborations that humanities scholars on their campuses might be interested in. Acknowledging those concerns, we discussed how CLs may use their familiarity with how version control systems work to evaluate other forms of version control that might be more effective depending on the project with which they were engaged and how their needs may change as their projects or those of their colleagues grow. The more we obviously and consciously responded to feedback, the better we could engage with them in all aspects of curricular design, embracing hooks’s assertion that “any classroom that employs a holistic model of learning will also be a place where teachers grow, and are empowered by the process. That empowerment cannot happen if we refuse to be vulnerable while encouraging students to take risks.”18 Daily exit slips also provided CLs with an opportunity to teach us by explaining their own campus constraints or suggesting alternative approaches to a concept that might help others’ understanding. In other words, by acknowledging that CLs are experts in their own learning process and their local communities of practice, we created space for CLs to teach us, to participate in the ongoing and iterative design of the curriculum, and to contextualize classroom content in ways that led to deeper learning.

Listening to feedback, we frequently heard from CLs about workshops before DHRI that assumed technical access and capacities that either they or their institutions lacked, preventing them from continuing to build on the skills they learned. In response, we strove to divest ourselves of assumptions about what CLs could and would have at their disposal and to build a curriculum that took into account their existing resources and limitations. For example, preinstitute surveys asked whether CLs had privileges to install software on their own machines and how much memory their laptops might have, and we worked with students in advance to create a viable technical setup that they could use during the institute and also when they returned home. In other words, we spent time listening first to hear what challenges CLs were facing and then to design our workshops so that at the end students could become more confident autodidacts rather than presenting students with content that they would then need to reconcile within—or against—local constraints. This approach extended all the way into how we shared curricular materials. Each workshop lives as an open repository using markdown files. During the workshops, students learned and then repeatedly reinforced the process of cloning a workshop repository to their own local machine. We encouraged them to take the materials and reuse them in the way that worked best for them, adding, refining, and modifying them for their own local audiences.

Developing the curricular materials in an open and modular way included CLs as cocreators and encouraged them to apply their newly developed skills in the creation of local versions of our institute curriculum. In doing so, CLs applied their existing knowledge about their local humanities communities of practice and suggested revisions that could be shared with other CLs as well as with our CUNY team and future DHRI cohorts. Suggestions made by CLs were integrated into subsequent iterations of DHRI. For example, Amy Gay and Nancy Um at the State University of New York at Binghamton suggested that there should be a more elegant interface for the curricular materials for the participants who come to the CUNY institute. When DHRI’s in-person meetings were moved online due to the Covid-19 pandemic, we responded to Gay and Um’s feedback by developing a dynamic web interface that presented the material in a more visually engaging format. CLs who participated in DHRI in summer 2021 overwhelmingly appreciated the interface design, which now reaches a much wider audience.

Develop Sociotechnical Learning Objectives

DH andragogy is most effective when it recognizes the socially and technically situated needs of the learner. When first used in post–World War II contexts, the term sociotechnical referred to interactions between people and the social systems in which they operate.19 In the past twenty years, the term has also been used to refer to the relationship between people and the material technologies that have systematized their interactions. Sociotechnical learning objectives, therefore, acknowledge the nonneutrality of technology and require students to draw connections between technologies and the impact they have on human knowledge and systems of power. While instrumentalist workshops prioritize learning how to use technology to produce a specific outcome—for example, how to create a website for your research or build a database for a digital archive—sociotechnical objectives in DH andragogy contextualize technology in terms of an adult learner’s situated experiences, intellectual values, and research needs. For instance, when teaching a topic such as how to create a website using HTML and CSS, sociotechnical objectives include understanding the difference between using a proprietary platform to build a website (e.g., Squarespace or Wix) and using an open-source platform (e.g., WordPress or Jekyll) and contextualizing those choices within students’ professional, institutional, and personal situations. While instrumental objectives will help students complete an immediate task (create a website), sociotechnical learning objectives in DH andragogy contend with the way completing that task is ideologically driven.

For DHRI, developing sociotechnical learning objectives also meant acknowledging the ways in which CLs’ past technology experiences would shape their classroom experience at our institute, as well as their local versions. Through preinstitute surveys, we learned that previous negative experiences would present barriers to learning unless they were directly addressed and the technologies we discussed were situated in relationship to CLs’ lived experiences. In 2018, eleven out of sixteen participants identified as women, and in 2021, twenty-six out of thirty-two participants identified as women. Collectively, almost half of the CLs attending DHRI identified as BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color), and twenty-four CLs from 2021 are employed at minority-serving institutions. In preparation and in order to make the classroom environment as inclusive as possible, workshop leaders rehearsed and refined their presentation of content, focusing on eliminating language that would present barriers for participants, such as calling concepts “simple” or “easy,” reducing the possibility that confusion might reinforce past experiences of alienation or insufficiency. Additionally, we remained attentive to potential feelings of frustration, confusion, or exclusion by avoiding phrases such as “Don’t worry” that can unintentionally invalidate adult learners’ legitimate concerns, especially for those whose prior experiences with technology have not been positive and for whom anxieties about technology use are high. Instead, the DHRI staff favored language that positioned learners as in control of their own learning process. For example, instead of “You can easily just . . . ,” DHRI fellows might say, “It may surprise you to know that you already have the skills you need to do this next step.”20 Attentiveness to inclusive language models DH andragogy and reinforces the sociotechnical objectives of the workshop, acknowledging in practice that technology is not equally accessible to everyone.

Outcomes of DH Andragogy

In “Representation at Digital Humanities Conferences (2000–2015),” Nickoal Eichmann-Kalwara, Jeana Jorgensen, and Scott B. Weingart uncover a lack of diversity among presenters at DH conferences, a key site of field formation.21 Their discoveries reinforce concerns in Tara McPherson’s “Why Are the Humanities So White? Or Thinking the Histories of Race and Computation” and Moya Z. Bailey’s “All the Digital Humanists Are White, All the Nerds Are Men, but Some of Us Are Brave”: that overrepresentation of masculinity and whiteness in DH practice is both structurally and socially encoded, making DH particularly inhospitable for those marked by difference.22 If professional development is a primary place for humanities scholars to be introduced to and to continue to grow in DH practice, then DH professional development must directly confront those factors we already know prevent scholars from underrepresented groups, such as racialized minorities and women, from entering and remaining in the field.

When we asked CLs in advance surveys why they wanted to participate in DHRI, their answers frequently turned toward community. For example, one response reads, “What makes DHRI attractive to me is the chance not only to learn DH skills and methodologies, but to think deeply about pedagogy and communities of practice. I like the idea of developing a shared but flexible curriculum that can bind digital humanities practitioners in common experience across geographic distance.” Another CL commented, “Unlike other workshops that focus on building particular skills and proficiencies, the DHRI stands out because it is focused on community development. I have been seeking ways to ignite interest in digital humanities on my own campus and the DHRI seems like an ideal venue for that purpose.” In fact, we heard repeated comments in applications about the stressors of creating “DH community” locally with little to no support, pointing to a challenge anticipated by Miriam Posner in her blog post “The Digital Humanities Postdoc” in 2012.23 Sustaining efforts to diversify and expand communities of practice depends on DH professional development ecosystems that support the career-long development of individual scholars within intersecting networks of disciplinary practice and that can sustain and support them as they grow within the profession.

Where DHRI succeeded was in its ability to help practicing humanists develop technical, professional, and community-building skills simultaneously. In post-DHRI reflections in 2019, one CL commented, “Learning the foundational skills helped with so many things that I was working on in the past year—things that I would have tried to do, but probably just given up on after a few failed attempts. But the foundational training of the DHRI sustained my resilience and ability to figure things out (even if it took a few tries and a few Google queries).” The confidence CLs developed resulted in professional gains, too, as another CL explains: “Specifically, the institute has generated great interest among faculty and administrators at my institution, and I was subsequently invited to participate in a campus-wide Digital Literacy Planning Committee where we have proposed to build a center and create an interdisciplinary digital studies program.”24

The principles of DH andragogy described here are likely familiar to humanities pedagogues and can be found across humanities classroom settings; nevertheless, what our experience leading DHRI reveals is that conceived as part of a liberatory practice, principles of DH andragogy can help expand the field. By designing workshops in dialogue with practicing humanists, we elevate their existing knowledge and decenter the classroom experience, recognizing students as experts in their own learning process. The results were transformative not only for the CLs but for their local and disciplinary communities of practice. For example, Erika Gault, assistant professor at the University of Arizona, led a virtual DHRI for Africana studies scholars. Rico Chapman, an associate professor of history, transformed his graduate methods course to produce a public-facing oral history and mapping project at Clark Atlanta University. Dianne Fallon, English Department chair at York County Community College, led a collective of local historians and archivists in a four-week institute that centered on digital mapping. Subsequently, since our curricular design efforts remain open to dialogue and based on feedback from the 2018 DHRI CLs, we were able to improve the curriculum for the next cohort, accepting applicants in teams rather than individually, in order to ensure local support throughout the year.

To embrace professional development in digital humanities as a liberatory process, we need to focus on DH andragogy and the contexts that shape adult learning and professional development in the humanities. DH andragogy, rooted in the scholarship of teaching and learning and critical pedagogy, responds to the internal and external pressures that practicing humanists face, while reflecting the values of shared experience, collaboration, self-direction, and experiential learning. By foregrounding the building of community as a pedagogical value, we have the capacity to work against the institutional conditions that reproduce inequity and cultivate a much broader understanding of what DH might be.

Notes

The authors would like to thank the members of the Digital Humanities Research Institute faculty and staff, as well as the community leaders from 2018 and 2021, whose comments, reflections, feedback, instruction, conversation, and critique have produced the body of work described in this chapter; see Digital Humanities Research Institute, “People.”

1. 1. Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 79.

2. 2. See Digital Humanities Research Institute, homepage, for an overview of the project, archived copies of previous schedules, lists of all the community leaders in the current network, a list of publications, and video interviews with most of the participants. See also Digital Humanities Research Institute, “Curriculum” and “Curriculum Repositories.”

3. 3. Humanities Indicators, “The State.”

4. 4. Humanities Indicators, “The State.”

5. 5. As just one example of ongoing demand, DHRI’s 2018 call for applications garnered 136 applications for 15 available seats. In 2021, we received 176 applications for 32 available seats.

6. 6. This was predominantly the case until the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. As of the writing of this chapter, the way in which Covid-19 will affect the professional development landscape remains unclear.

7. 7. See Digital Humanities Summer Institute, homepage; Humanities Intensive Learning and Teaching, homepage; Digital Humanities @ Oxford, “Digital Humanities”; Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media, “Doing Digital History” and “Doing Digital History: 2016”; Clement, “Institute”; and Presner, “Digital Cultural Mapping.” For a complete list of NEH-funded institutes, see National Endowment for the Humanities, “Funded Projects Query Form.”

8. 8. Now that DHRI has been used as an example of a successful proposal, more institute grants are adapting and modifying our approach—for example, Rosenblum and Tell, “Public Digital Humanities.”

9. 9. Part of the largest urban university in the United States, CUNY’s graduate student population across all programs is also one of the most diverse. According to City University of New York Office of Institutional Research, “Total Enrollment,” graduate student breakdowns by race and ethnicity in 2019 were as follows: American Indian / Native American, 0.2 percent; Asian / Pacific Islander, 17.9 percent; Black, 18.6 percent; Hispanic, 18.1 percent; and white, 45.2 percent.

10. 10. Detailed information about DHRI, including profiles of the community leaders, descriptions of each local institute, application statistics, evaluations, and more, can be found in the project whitepaper located in NEH’s database of previously funded projects; see Rhody, “Expanding Communities of Practice.”

11. 11. Following a conversation with the participants in the institute, we settled on a name for them—community leaders—that emphasized their leadership roles in their own local contexts as well as being a part of both the group of participants and the larger DH community of practice.

12. 12. See Knowles, Modern.

13. 13. Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 72.

14. 14. Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed; hooks, Teaching to Transgress, 14.

15. 15. Knowles and associates, Andragogy in Action.

16. 16. See hooks, Teaching to Transgress, 15.

17. 17. Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 88.

18. 18. hooks, Teaching to Transgress, 21.

19. 19. For more on the evolution of the term sociotechnical, see Trist, “Sociotechnical Perspective.”

20. 20. In this approach, we draw on Morgan, “Consequences,” where she argues that the promotion of a “false familiarity” through this kind of language risks undermining both scholarly innovation and risk taking, which was the intention of using the language to begin with (211).

21. 21. Eichmann-Kalwara, Jorgensen, and Weingart, “Representation.”

22. 22. McPherson, “Why?”; Bailey, “All.”

23. 23. Posner, “Digital Humanities Postdoc.”

24. 24. See the videos of postinstitute reflections at Digital Humanities Research Institute, “Current DHRI Network.”

Bibliography

1. Bailey, Moya Z. “All the Digital Humanists Are White, All the Nerds Are Men, but Some of Us Are Brave.” Journal of Digital Humanities 1, no. 1 (Winter 2011). https://journalofdigitalhumanities.org.
2. City University of New York Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. “Total Enrollment by Undergraduate and Graduate Level, Race/Ethnicity and College: Percentages.” Fall 2019. https://www.cuny.edu/irdatabook/rpts2_AY_current/ENRL_0016_RACE_UGGR_PCT.rpt.pdf.
3. Clement, Tanya. “Institute for High Performance Sound Technologies for Access and Scholarship (HiPSTAS).” National Endowment for the Humanities. Awarded September 1, 2012. https://securegrants.neh.gov/publicquery/main.aspx?f=1&gn=HT-50069-12.
4. Digital Humanities @ Oxford. “Digital Humanities at Oxford Summer School.” https://digital.humanities.ox.ac.uk/digital-humanities-oxford-summer-school.
5. Digital Humanities Research Institute. “Current DHRI Network.” https://www.dhinstitutes.org/network.
6. Digital Humanities Research Institute. “Curriculum.” https://curriculum.dhinstitutes.org.
7. Digital Humanities Research Institute. “Curriculum Repositories.” GitHub. https://github.com/DHRI-Curriculum.
8. Digital Humanities Research Institute. Homepage. https://dhinstitutes.org.
9. Digital Humanities Research Institute. “People.” https://www.dhinstitutes.org/people.
10. Digital Humanities Summer Institute. Homepage. https://dhsi.org.
11. Eichmann-Kalwara, Nickoal, Jeana Jorgensen, and Scott B. Weingart. “Representation at Digital Humanities Conferences (2000–2015).” In Bodies of Information: Intersectional Feminism and Digital Humanities, edited by Jacqueline Wernimont and Liz Losh, 72–92. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2018. https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu.
12. Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 1970. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. 30th Anniversary ed. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2000.
13. hooks, bell. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge, 1994.
14. Humanities Indicators. “The State of the Humanities in Four-Year Colleges and Universities (2017).” Summary of Findings. American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 2017. https://www.amacad.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2020-05/hds3_the_state_of_the_humanities_in_colleges_and_universities.pdf.
15. Humanities Intensive Learning and Teaching. Homepage. http://dhtraining.org/hilt.
16. Knowles, Malcolm S. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy. Chicago: Association Press, 1980.
17. Knowles, Malcolm S., and associates. Andragogy in Action: Applying Modern Principles of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. National Endowment for the Humanities. “Funded Projects Query Form: Institutes for Advanced Topics in the Digital Humanities.” https://securegrants.neh.gov/publicquery/main.aspx?q=1&a=0&n=0&o=0&ot=0&k=0&f=0&s=0&cd=0&p=1&pv=260&d=0&at=0&y=0&prd=0&cov=0&prz=0&wp=0&sp=0&ca=0&arp=0&ob=year&or=DESC.
21. Posner, Miriam. “The Digital Humanities Postdoc.” Miriam Posner’s Blog (blog), May 7, 2012. https://miriamposner.com/blog/.
22. Presner, Todd. “Digital Cultural Mapping: Transformative Scholarship and Teaching in the Geospatial Humanities.” National Endowment for the Humanities. Awarded October 1, 2011. https://securegrants.neh.gov/publicquery/main.aspx?f=1&gn=HT-50047-11.
23. Rhody, Lisa Marie. “Expanding Communities of Practice.” National Endowment for the Humanities. Awarded September 1, 2017. https://securegrants.neh.gov/publicquery/main.aspx?f=1&gn=HT-256968-17.
24. Rosenblum, Brian, and David W. Tell. “The Public Digital Humanities: An Institute for Academic/Community Collaborations.” National Endowment for the Humanities. Awarded September 1, 2021. https://securegrants.neh.gov/publicquery/main.aspx?f=1&gn=HT-281161-21.
25. Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media. “Doing Digital History.” http://history2014.doingdh.org/.
26. Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media. “Doing Digital History: 2016.” http://history2016.doingdh.org.
27. Trist, Eric L. “The Sociotechnical Perspective: The Evolution of Sociotechnical Systems as a Conceptual Framework and an Action Research Program.” In Perspectives on Organization Design and Behavior, edited by Andrew H. Van de Ven and William F. Joyce, 19–75. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1981.