Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 15, No. 370.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
<http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:21:04 +0000
From: Stefan Sinclair <ss@huco.lang.arts.ualberta.ca>
Subject: report from the Humanities Computing Curriculum conference
Dear colleagues,
Malaspina College-University in Nanaimo, on beautiful Vancouver Island,
was the site, this past weekend, of our discipline's first major
conference on Humanities Computing Curriculum. The importance of this
conference to our teaching activities is obvious, which is why I thought
I'd try to formulate a report -- reductionist and inevitably partial -- of
the proceedings. Apologies in advance to fellow participants for omissions
and deformations, particularly from the papers in parallel sessions that I
missed; more information available at
<http://web.mala.bc.ca/siemensr/HCCurriculum/>.
I must begin by congratulating the organisers and hosts on a particularly
successful and enjoyable event. Ray Siemens deserves special praise for
having struck an excellent balance between the professional and social
components that make such a conference so fruitful. The attention to
detail and the integration of local culture were especially appreciated.
A Discipline in Transition
Humanities Computing, since its birth over a half century ago (depending
on how retroactively the label is applied to pioneering activities), has
been in constant transition. Or, more accurately, it's a discipline that
has never been able to satisfactorily define itself (to any substantial
degree of consensus). In fact, this constant search for identity is
perhaps one of the most important defining aspects of Humanities
Computing. It may even be suggested that if ever we were able to
conclusively define who we are and what we do, it would signal the
beginning of our end, like a language that has stopped evolving and that
is fated to die. Of course, very few if any disciplines aren't susceptible
to the ebb and flow of fashionable ideas, approaches and methodologies,
but very few if any disciplines have as much difficulty as Humanities
Computing in defining the sphere of its activities.
Still, there is a rich research tradition of Humanities Computing made
available to us through journals like Computers and the Humanities and
Literary and Linguistic Computing, various seminal books, and conferences
like the annual ACH-ALLC joint meeting, The challenge is to sort through
and organise what research we've done and are currently doing in order to
establish a teaching curriculum to pass on to our students. In the terms
suggested by Geoffrey Rockwell during this conference, we're no longing
only relying on individuals (like ourselves) who cobble together a variety
of perspectives and skills to do Humanities Computing
(pre-disciplinarity), we're now in the business of reproducing ourselves.
Reproduction is a huge responsibility, and this conference was about
starting a dialogue on the opportunities and the dangers that await us in
parenthood.
Humanities Computing Curriculum
Susan Hockey's opening plenary talk identified many of the essential
questions that would be discussed throughout the conference, including the
tension between the "doing it" that characterises the sciences and the
"talking about it" that characterises the Humanities. When done well,
Humanities Computing can benefit from both cultures in balancing theory
and practice, curiosity and employability. Susan discussed some of the key
benefits of a Humanities Computing education by adapting a very useful
list of objectives for the Liberal Arts found at:
<http://www.humanities.ualberta.ca/Arts/about/Deansmessage.htm>.
Willard McCarty's plenary talk further explored the contribution of the
Liberal Arts culture to Humanities Computing, as well as that of the
Social Sciences (like history and sociology). We're essentially
"problematisers", we question, we oppose, we create and represent
knowledge and then we look for cracks in it (and indeed the interest lies
in the cracks). John Unsworth's plenary talk explored knowledge
representation in more depth, as this seems central to using computers in
the humanities (and certainly to what is planned for the M.A. in Digital
Media at the University of Virginia). Knowledge representation (by any
other name...) allows us to define our materials, their potential and
their limitations.
The final plenary talk was given by Nancy Ide who sought to define the
infamous question of "what is Humanities Computing?" Is it in the use or
creation of data? Is it in the use or creation of algorithms? The clearer
the answer, the less broadly the definition applies (far more people use
data than do programming). Still, programming can be highly relevant,
especially when concepts are taught and not just specific languages.
Terry Butler drew an interesting parallel between the rigorous way natural
languages were taught and learned years ago with methods that required
patience and discipline, and the patience and discipline needed to learn
programming languages, given their highly formalised and generally rigid
nature. The value of such exercises goes beyond what is directly learned.
Likewise, as argued by Thomas B. Horton and John Unsworth, developing
software goes beyond the actual language into a whole realm of broader
managerial competencies involving planning, design, testing,
implementation and maintenance. The trick, as argued by Susan Schreibman
(and others), is to ensure the commerce between technique and theory, or
in the "theorizing of technology and the technologising of theory."
Patrick Juola provided very convincing examples of the need to understand
the mathematical and logical presuppositions behind programming, and the
ability to evaluate the appropriateness and correctness of particular
tools and techniques.
Implementation of Humanities Computing curriculum
Beyond the prospect of complete Humanities Computing programmes (such as
M.A. at the University of Alberta presented by Sean Gouglas), there was
much discussion about other models of teaching curriculum, be it by
integration into existing courses, the formulation of separate modules or
the creation of entire courses. Experiences by Michael Best, Murry
McGillivray, Steven Lane, Stan Beeler, Deneka MacDonald, and many others,
suggest that a variety of approaches are possible, depending on the
circumstances of each institution and the will of individuals. Peter
Liddell, William Winder, Daniel Gilfillan, Judith Musick and others
considered sustainable approaches to the development of curriculum,
whether centralised or decentralised, grassroots or top-down,
individualised or community-based. In any case, as Dirk van Hulle and
Edward Vanhoutte reminded us in discussing a planned M.A. in Humanities
Computing at the University of Antwerp, a review of curriculum prompted by
the need to teach our discipline is an excellent opportunity to reform or
at least reconsider some of our outdated institutional and pedagogical
practices.
Such transformations prompted by Humanities Computing are very familiar to
Andrew McTavish who has been involved in developing a successful B.A. in
Multimedia at McMaster University. Andrew encouraged us to see some of the
benefits of cooperation with industry -- despite our trepidations -- not
only for the good of our students (employability), but in affecting the
social change (or dialogue) that some see as the very vocation of the
Humanities and Social Sciences.
Wendy Robbins indefatigably reminded us of the _human_ aspect of
Humanities Computing, and in particular of certain gender issues involved.
Technology tends to be a "one size fits all" proposition, but we must
remain sensitive to the fact that the one size works better for some
individuals and groups than others.
Outcomes
An inaugural conference on Humanities Computing Curriculum couldn't
possibly have arrived at a consensus about a single formula for how to
teach our discipline. On the contrary, this conference was a success
precisely because it was a forum to hear about differing perspectives and
approaches. As Computing Humanists, we all share the desire to see our
activities gain greater institutional recognition and support, but
awareness of local circumstances is key to ongoing growth.
The teaching of Humanities Computing is of course well underway, through
existing or planned M.A. programmes (UAlberta, UVirginia, etc.), B.A.
programmes (McMasterU, GlasgowU), and various individual courses or
modules (see <http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/wlm/hcu/> for a recent
list). The proposed _Companion to Humanities Computing_ to be edited by
Susan Schreibman, Ray Siemens and John Unsworth would be a valuable
resource for teaching our discipline.
I think we have much reason to be proud of how far we've come, but also
humbled by the many challenges that lay ahead.
Yours,
Stfan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stfan Sinclair, University of Alberta
Phone: (780) 492-6768, FAX: (780) 492-9106, Office: Arts 218-B
Address: Arts 200, MLCS, UofA, Edmonton, AB (Canada) T6G 2E6
M.A. in Humanities Computing: http://huco.ualberta.ca/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Nov 16 2001 - 04:35:21 EST