I read the article titled The Digital Future is Now: A Call to Action for the Humanities by Christine L. Borgman and found it really interesting. Having read it I felt that we should all 'Go forth and do great things' as the main point I got from the article was that the humanities need to step up and 'make digital scholarship a leading force in humanities research.' The article lists the pros and cons, so to speak, of the humanities option to use digital scholarship, it considers this option by pitting it against the sciences and social sciences who have already led the way to the digital age. However there are obviously differences between humanities and sciences data though that does not stand out as the big point in the article, the point being made is that 'digital publication has become the norm' and that the humanities need to get on board with it so to avoid being left behind, especially since it is an exciting option to explore.
Unfortunately we are in a time burdened by declining budgets and so the humanities may suffer while the sciences may not. Their argument may appear better as funding them may seem more justifiable in the hope of gaining medicine advancement etc. as a consequent of the funding, while Borgman reminds us that in contrast, by supporting the humanities one may wish to gain a more developed sense of cultural understanding and critical thinking etc. Science may seem the better option, however a lecturer having heard that Arts students are often deemed somewhat less important so to speak to other faculties acutely said, while the world needs engineers to build roads and bridges, while we need doctors and scientists to help people and find cures, none of this could be done unless their humanity is in tact! He encouraged us to make it clear that 'at least I have my humanity!' when someone chooses to look at us as lesser in the future! I think he made a fair point! Hence, I believe that the humanities have an equal right to the funding as the sciences do and should receive it so to allow the humanities grow and prosper in the digital age. However Borgman is simply pointing out that the humanities may be limited in contrast to the sciences and so when comparing the sciences place at present in the digital age to the humanities, we need to keep that in mind.
Cyberinfrastructure and eScience initiatives which are used by the sciences can be used as a guide for the humanities to learn from. Both have proven successful for the sciences as has arXiv which, we are informed, gets typically 50,000 visits per hour and has at least three iPhone applications available for it. 'It is little wonder that our science colleagues claim they never go to their campus libraries anymore; their libraries come to them.' Unfortunately the humanities have not been as quick as the sciences to leap in the same direction. Frischer's definition of what digital scholarship means I found to be the best one, it is Frischer says, 'the application of information technology as an aid to fulfill the humanities' basic tasks of preserving, reconstructing, transmitting, and interpreting the human record.' While this great option which offers all of this to us is available the reasons for not leaping into the digital age are; 'not trusting online dissemination to a general reluctance to experiment with new technologies.'
However there are two important advantages of digital they are; work can be published quicker and it can reach a wider audience online. Digital can be very useful in that it can be more accessible and easier to find. When I am researching for an essay I always look online as often it can prove difficult to get books from the library as there are often limited numbers of copies of a book available, hence the online option is always good to have. As the sciences have taken to journal publications quicker than the humanities it is evident that some journals in the sciences are dropping print publication altogether which the humanities may hold as a reason for reluctance to enter the field. The issue of the book getting 'widowed', where by scholars search online only is a shame however humanists should recognise the greatness of having both options which widen their field for research, having more options available to humanists is better than being in the library all the time one can get a break from it from time to time and search the web. 'Maureen Whalen's concern for art history, with its continuing reliance on print publishing, is that ''the voices of authority ... will be talking amongst themselves.' Whalen makes a fair point here, it is time the humanities recognised the importance of the digital outlet so to avoid this happening.
Johanna Drucker is 'concerned that her fellow scholars are deferring responsibility for action to librarians, computer scientists, technology developers, publishers, and others.' This is a significant point as is the fact that 'those who conduct the research must take the lead' because they know 'what should be built.' This is when the issue of collaboration becomes vital as yes humanists need the help of these people yet humanists need to stand up and represent themselves in this area so to gain the best from what digital has to offer. Digital has a lot to offer to humanists and represents the way forward in a world which is more and more becoming dominated by digital technologies. 'Now is the moment to consolidate that knowledge and to articulate the community's requirements and goals. Go forth and do great things...'
http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/4/000077/000077.html
http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/4/000077/000077.html
