When first assigned the task to interview someone in the Digital Humanities segment of academia, I felt a bit overwhelmed. Not knowing where to start, fear of barraging the same person with interview requests, and a sense of ignorance of who does or does not qualify – left me hesitant. However, I was so lucky in contacting Melanie Schlosser a Digital Publishing Librarian/Scholarly Resources Integrator from Ohio State University. I had a great opportunity – and time – conversing with another human being passionate about digital humanities and scholarship as a whole. I would like to take this time to thank Melanie for her time and her thoughts. I was pleasantly surprised about how much fun it was to get my questions answered by a compassionate professional willing to share intriguing insights about the digital humanities discipline.
Nonetheless, let me tell you about Melanie. Melanie is a librarian. Being such, Melanie “stressed that she is not engaged in digital humanities research or teaching, but does collaborate with digital humanists in her service and librarianship”. This disclaimer made me recollect the assigned reading – of August 29th – about the digital humanities. More specifically, the “I’m Chris. Where am I wrong?” article. This article made compelling arguments about the nebulous definition of the Digital Humanities field. Chris Forester begs the question about the cogency of the digital humanities definition when he states – “So rather than introducing myself, let me try introducing you.” Forester attempts to define the Digital Humanities field – a daunting task. Melanie also fleshes out what is or is not the digital Humanities which I will explore later in this blog post.
I asked Melanie three questions that I was interested in. These questions were: (1.) The definition of Digital Humanities. (2.) Advice for someone interested in pursuing a career in the Digital Humanities. (3.) Melanie’s thought’s on the statement “the Digital Humanities is intersectional”. I will be exploring the career question first, followed by the definition and the intersectionality blurb – if word count allotment allows.
Schlosser’s advice to someone interested in a digital humanities career can be broken down into three arguments. First, get some experience, second, create your own project, and third, learn a desired skillset. But first, Melanie articulated that experience is key when it comes to the digital humanities. She suggested doing whatever you can to get involved. Such as finding a digital humanities project and offering whatever assistance possible. Schlosser did note that sometimes one must overcome cliquey attitudes. And that digital humanities projects require an orientation to openness regarding hands on work. As a quick aside, the hands on work of the digital humanities seems appealing to me. I personally like to see the results of my work, and be able to physically acknowledge contributions and progress. After talking with Melanie – the digital humanities seems right up my alley. The ability to see a hard drive fill up with data, or reworking a research question, or even collecting data about a topic that interests me – seems splendid. Second, Melanie suggested starting your own digital humanities project. When I first entertained the idea of starting my own digital humanities project, I again felt a bit overwhelmed. However, Schlosser denoted some possible resources that reduce the “dauntingness” of publishing scholarly digital humanities work. Outside possible resources include: scholars, fellow digital humanists, librarians, and programmers. Take librarianship for example, librarians use specific scholarly knowledge on how to go about completing or starting a digital humanities project. Librarians’ order books and journals and can even assist with tricky research questions. Outside resources are a necessary component of scholarly digital humanities work. Making librarianship a key component to digital humanities. Moreover, Schlosser recommended an online tool named Omeka. Omeka is a web based, web publishing platform, for all types of collection based research. It bridges the realm of scholarship, librarianship, and museum curatorship through common standards. The program’s dashboard seems easy to deal with. It utilizes keyword functions, collections, and even Youtube integration. Someone relatively new can even use the “Documentation” section or the forum to unmask difficult “how to’s”. One phrase I found compelling in talking with Melanie was “there’s no shortcut for scholarship”. Schlosser noted that slapping together a digital humanities project for the sole purpose of adding it to a resume or feeling like a digital humanist is inadequate. Authentic scholarly activity requires diligent, collaborative, efforts. Lastly, Melanie suggested developing skills necessary to the Digital Humanities. For example, learning computer programming and being able to “speak code” is a great resource for someone interested in collaborating with the digital humanities. The IT – Internet & Technology – knowledge required to complete certain digital humanities projects means there is always a need for IT skills. Learning how to code the “back door” of a given digital humanities project would appear to make oneself more employable. Schlosser also recommended the alternative academic community – something I had never heard of before. Here is the link: (http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/alt-ac/). The alternative academic community made me optimistic about employment post-graduation. The job market has always appeared dismal to me. Especially the lack of tenure track positions, slashed school budgets, and the overwhelming phenomena of the “publish or perish” attitude. This has always been discouraging. The humanities are such an intriguing and intersectional field. Hopefully the rise of Digital Humanities opens more doors then it closes.