css.php

Author Archives: Samantha Kretmar

Digital Humanities Journals

For this assignment I chose to review DHQ, a fully online journal known as the Digital Humanities Quarterly, a journal dedicated to digital humanities scholarship. The DHQ offers peer-reviewed scholarship in the forms of “scholarly articles, editorials, experiments in new media, and reviews.” In her article entitled DIY Humanities, author Ashley Dawson raises several valid criticisms of the attempts of scholarly publication to effectively embrace and utilize digital media. Namely, she claims that most online journals do little more than simply recreating the traditional print model in digital form. DHQ falls in this designation and their format certainly represents a basic digital recreation if the traditional print journal. But, unlike traditional print, the DHQ’s online format allows for users to post comments about articles and pieces and engage in discussions with other users via these comment mediums. This furthers the goal of scholarship as initiating a conversation, exchange, or debate over thoughts and ideas.

In terms of content and access, both of which Dawson also addresses, DHQ represents significant progress. First, the journal upholds an open access policy and allows scholars to maintain full ownership of their and redistribute it in any place or means they desire. Additionally, the site claims that as soon as materials “are ready they are posted in the preview section” addressing many of the issues Dawson raises with the significant time lag associated with publishing in traditional journals.

Secondly, speaking more to content, the journal also claims to accept scholarship that pushes the boundaries of what constitutes the digital humanities. For instance, many of the articles contain graphs and various data visualizations which represent a progressive application of data analysis to traditional humanities work. The journal also “publishes” multimedia works that go well beyond the traditional humanities paper. All “published” submissions, whatever their nature, all undergo a traditional peer review process. However, I searched for information about the specifics of this peer review process and couldn’t seem to find anything.

Despite the lack of information about the peer review process, the DHQ serves as a good example of the possibility for online, open-access scholarship. By staying within the framework of the tradition peer reviewed structure the DHQ provides an outlet for scholars to release their work in an accessible and progressive way, while still obtaining the necessary designation of scholastic achievement through the peer review process. I believe that more journals emulating this format would go a long way to mitigate many of the concerns rightly raised by Dawson in her article.

Kitchen Sink Revision Project!

Hey guys!  Hope this message finds everyone well.  So, this is what Greg and I have in mind for our Kitchen Sink revision project.  We want to improve the language, structure, and content of the tools section of the wiki and think it would benefit most from better, more comprehensive descriptions that actually provide insight into the ways in which the tools facilitate scholarship and can be used in an academic context.  We recognize that there are several tools and categories, so to lighten the load and direct each of our energies at a specific part of the revision, we have grouped everyone.  Each group has been assigned a few sections to work on.  We want you to work within your group to determine how you want to revise your specific section.  Don’t be afraid to use images, links, color, etc.  Also, if you think your section needs to have tools added or removed from the list, please feel free to do that as well.  Please complete this task before class on Tuesday.  We are hoping to come in Tuesday with each of  our sections completely revised.  This way we can work on additional editing to the general language of the page as a group in class on Tuesday, make any other changes we see fit, and discuss the way everything worked.  If you have any questions please feel free to contact us or post on the blog.  Thanks for your efforts in advance and we are excited to see what comes out of the project!
Group 1) Ben, Phil, and Jennifer
Group 2) Ashley, Mikayla, and Bronwyn
Group 3) Julie, Michelle, Anderson
Group 4) Greg, Samantha, and Erin
Sections:
Group 1: Multimedia Toolset, Timelines, Mapping, Presentations, Diagrams
Group 2: Data and Tables, Video Viewing and Embedding, Video (editing, etc), Web Page Annotation, Storage Space and File Sharing
Group 3:  Draw on Desktop, Audio/Music, Social Bookmarking, Media, Note Taking
Group 4:  Graphics, Screen Capture, Blogging, Publishing