new tool – durham blog search

Visting Durham this summer made me realize how much I miss my old stompin’ grounds. So I’ve found myself in the habit, recently, of opening up old website bookmarks and browsing the Bull City’s blogs. Linking around from blog to blog, I realize how big the Durham blogosphere’s grown.And since what I really want to do is keep up with a few things (like whether there are any new vegetarian/vegan restaurants in Durham), I designed a tool that helps me search the Durham blogosphere all at once.

And then I thought, someone else might like this tool as much as I do. So, here you go. durhamblogsearch.com

Durham Blog Search

 

Digital Humanities Blog Carnival, Presidents Day edition

Welcome back to the Digital Humanities Blog Carnival. This entry comprises the second edition, the February 2011 edition. Today is Presidents Day in the United States, which means that those of us employed by state institutions of higher learning have extra time to read through the inspiring posts below. As I proposed last time, I have broken the posts into five categories: Criticism, Projects, Tools, Funding, and Calls for Support. And, just the same as last time, the blogosphere was rife with dangerous ideas and tradition-challenging practices — not surprising for “a culture that values collaboration, openness, nonhierarchical relations, and agility” as Matthew Kirschenbaum (@mkirschenbaum) describes the digital humanities in a pre-released article, penned for the Association of Departments of English and the MLA.

Please enjoy this month’s edition of the Carnival, and consider submitting something to the next edition here.

Criticism

In a post titled On Reading Like a Hawk, Matthew Gold (@mkgold) implies that Ralph Waldo Emerson might have been a digital humanist had he transcended on/in this earth a little later in time.

Jennifer Vinopal (@jvinopal) at Library Sphere reviews a panel discussion entitled Why Digital Humanities?

Nate Kreuter (@lawnsports) has a review of THATCamp VA’s “pure brainstorming & intellectual cross-pollination” at THATCampVA ’10: Postscript, and Fade into THATCampSE ’11

In Models for the Future Humanities, Whitney Trettien (@whitneytrettien) shares reflections on her experience walking through the MIT HyperStudio’s lab (and the various labs she passed on her way there), wondering how the art studio or scientists’ laboratory (or some combination of both) can serve as a model for digital humanities labs.

Projects

Resource Shelf covers an announcement entitled Digitization Projects: Technology Reunites One of World’s Largest Korans (With Images of the Digitization Process)

Erin Corley shares a post on the Archives of American Art (@ArchivesAmerArt) blog titled Artists of the Harlem Renaissance, which highlights fully digitized collections documenting African American art and artists of the 20th century. The post includes links to works by artists such as Palmer C. Hayden, William H. Johnson and Prentiss Taylor among others. Don’t miss the Jacob Lawrence Migration Series, which I was humbled to see in a traveling exhibit at Golden Belt studios in Durham, NC in 2008.

Ben Brumfield (@benwbrum) offers this reflection on the previous year — 2010: The Year of Crowdsourcing Transcription. The post highlights TranscribeBentham as well as other fascinating collaborative transcription projects.

Tools

Aditi Muralidharan (@silverasm), a fellow alum from THATCamp Bay Area, has an update on her WordSeer project, at Digital Humanities and the Future of Search.

Christopher P. Long (@cplong) of The Long Road, shares an engaging example of what digitally immersed humanities scholarship looks like on a daily basis in his post Evolving Digital Research Ecosystem.

Once again, Google has been caught red-handed stirring things up in the world of the digital humanities. Releasing a “street view” version that tours the interior spaces of some of the worlds most famous art museums, Google is challenging art historians to consider the benefits of virtual art viewing. Kyle Chayka (@chaykak) of Hyperallergic has a review at 5 Ways Google’s Art Project Bests Other Virtual Art Viewers.

Funding

Once again, funding is not only scarce, announcements re: funding are in yet shorter supply.

Calls for support

Sarah Werner (@wynkenhimself) of Wynken de Worde proposes a new panel for the 2012 MLA conference: Old Books and New Tools

Without having announced a special topic or theme ahead of time, I am reluctant to call this edition the ebook/ereader edition, so consider the following items a bonus:

The next Carnival will be hosted by Jennifer Guiliano at the Center for Digital Humanities, University of South Carolina. Submissions for the Carnival will be received here.

Finally, if anyone is interested in hosting an edition of the DHBC, please send me an email or DM on Twitter. We need hosts beginning in July.

Thank you all, and I look forward to seeing what exciting projects and thoughts you all share in the coming months.
Digital Humanities Blog Carnival, Presidents Day edition

 

Digital Humanities Blog Carnival Vol. 1, Issue 1

Welcome to the January 17, 2011 edition — the inaugural edition — of the Digital Humanities Blog Carnival.

DH wordle

I’m excited to share with you eighteen blog posts from the last month, each of which carves out some corner of the digital humanities for closer examination. Whether the posts highlight interesting projects, solicit help on others, or offer critical examination of just how and why technology is affecting traditional humanities research, the posts gathered below offer a glimpse into the issues with which those who self-identify as digital humanists concern themselves.

I solicited submissions on any topic in the Digital Humanities and asked people submitting a blog post to categorize their submission as either a Criticism, Call for support, Project Highlight, or Funding Opportunity. The eighteen posts shared below represent the first three categories. I received none that could be called a Funding Opportunity. While this is disappointing, since finding diverse and consistent sources of funding is a need for everyone in the DH, it is also not surprising. I hope that in the future, however, more funding opportunities can be identified and shared via this carnival.

As scholars, the limits of our capacity for analysis are often defined by the tools we have at our disposal. As a result, innovation in the digital humanities often revolves around the digital tools we can bring to bear on our work. Perhaps the most exciting new tool released in the last month is the Google’s Ngram Viewer, a tool empowering the public to search more than 5 million volumes of text, digitized by Google. (citation)

For example, tracking the rise and fall of use of the term Nature, as opposed simply to nature, could add evidentiary support to a literary scholar trying to pinpoint beginning and end dates of British Romanticism. Distant reading is controversial and scholars who employ such techniques go to lengths to justify the value of their findings.

nature vs. Nature

Nature vs. nature

In Initial Thoughts on the Google Books Ngram Viewer and Datasets, Dan Cohen shares his reflections on how Google’s Ngram Viewer might be useful to humanities scholars.

Mike at The Aporetic offers thoughts on the (limited) value of Google’s Ngram Viewer in The Segway of Digital Searching.

And in Online collaboration in the humanities, H Niyazi offers an introductory post showcasing the use of Twitter and RSS feeds as research aids. Describing the submission, Niyazi says “an experience in an art history research query about a Botticelli painting is used as an example. The post also includes discussion of art history centric search engines.”

As a result of these posts, for the future I will add Tools as a fifth category of submission.

Criticism
Whether he intended to be provocative or not, William Pannapacker‘s guest post at The Chronicle’s Brainstorm, “Digital Humanities Triumphant?,” turned him into January’s gadfly of the Digital Humanities. Throughout the blogosphere, Pannapacker’s thoughts on the Digital Humanities’ representation at the 2011 MLA conference provoked the most responses.

Stéfan Sinclair interprets and responds to Pannapacker in Digital Humanities and Stardom.

In The (DH) Stars Come Out in LA, Matthew G. Kirschenbaum responds to Pannapacker and looks at the role of “stardom” in this nascent field of study.

In Navigating DH for Cultural Heritage Professionals, Sheila A. Brennan also responds to Pannapacker by offering several suggestions for how newcomers can gain a foothold in the digital humanities.

In Digital Humanities Silos and Outreach Perian Sully also meditates on Pannapacker’s post and reaches the conclusion that Twitter may be contributing to DH’s perception of academic insularity. “Stop using Twitter as the vehicle for outreach,” Sully offers.

But in defense of the ubiquitous platform for conversational brevity, H Niyazi makes the case for how Twitter enabled two scholars to collaborate long-distance on art history research. Niyazi says Giorgione, herons and a Carpaccio Knight is a “case study of Twitter based collaboration between independent researchers in the UK and Australia, which resulted in the discovery of a rare iconological marker in a Venetian Renaissance painting.”

In The Four Sons of digital curation, Dorothea Salo uses a parable to explain the need for more and better metadata standards in digital curation.

Call for Support
The post Proposal for THATCamp Project: SF Bay Area and its running commentary describe a project-based follow up to the Fall 2010 THATCamp SF Bay Area. John Fox says, “the idea is to bring to bear the many talents of our community to look at the changing fortunes of a specific SF neighborhood.”

Next up, in Digital Humanities: First, Second and Third Wave, David Berry offers a brief summary of the first two waves of the digital humanities development and a call to map out where the third wave may go (and should go).

Project Highlight
On the American Historical Association’s website, Robert B. Townsend offers in Perspectives on History an analysis of how new media is reshaping the work of historians.

In An Open, Digital Professoriat, Scott Jaschik from Inside Higher Ed weighs in on the MLA coverage and asks whether or not new media can change (or is changing) things in the humanities.

In Lorenzo Thomas, “Otis,” Al Filreis, tireless purveyor of recorded, digitized, and archived poetry readings, notes on his blog an exciting new entry on PennSound: a recording of Lorenzo Thomas reading his updated version of The Odyssey. “This is designed for today, it’s the Odyssey for attention-deficit people,” Thomas says, reassuring his audience that he is not about begin a recitation of Homer’s epic. Listen to Thomas read “Otis” on Filreis’ blog or at the PennSound website. The post appears, by chance, while I am reading the Robert Fagles’s wonderful translation of The Odyssey, and is a welcome reminder of each generation’s ability to interpret and find meaning in this classic.

With “A different perspective on digital history,” Marcin Wilkowski launches a new blog and shares his hope that digital history is a serious movement in the humanities, not merely a buzzword or fad.

In Militieregisters.nl and Velehanden.nl, Ben Brumfield highlights a project begun by Stadarchief Amsterdam to enlist the public in indexing manuscript conscription records. Brumfield writes, “I think the project takes an innovative federated approach to scanning materials from multiple archives, as well as a fascinating pay-or-wash-dishes approach to public funding.”

Last but not least, in Philosophers interviewed on radio show, yours truly has a post highlighting a digital humanities project I managed while I worked at the National Humanities Center. The Soundings Project is in its final stages of development, and this post is meant to demonstrate how humanities scholars might find their own point of entry into the vast collection of recordings.

 

Putting the ‘Humanities’ in ‘Digital Humanities’

Reflecting on the recent The Humanities and Technology conference (THAT Camp) in San Francisco, what strikes me most is that digital humanities events consistently tip more toward the logic-structured digital side of things. That is, they are less balanced out by the humanities side. But what I mean by that itself has been a problem I’ve been mulling for some time now. What is the missing contribution from the humanities?

Digital Humanities Wordle

I think this digital dominance revolves around two problems.

The first is an old problem. The humanities’ pattern of professional anxiety goes back to the 1800s and stems from pressure to incorporate the methods of science into our disciplines or to develop our own, uniquely humanistic, methods of scholarship. The “digital humanities” rubs salt in these still open wounds by demonstrating what cool things can be done with literature, history, poetry, or philosophy if only we render humanities scholarship compliant with cold, computational logic. Discussions concern how to structure the humanities as data.

The showy and often very visual products built on such data and the ease with which information contained within them is intuitively understood appear, at first blush, to be a triumph of quantitative thinking. The pretty, animated graphs or fluid screen forms belie the fact that boring spreadsheets and databases contain the details. Humanities scholars, too, often recoil from the presumably shallow grasp of a subject that data visualization invites.

For many of us trained in the humanities, to contribute data to such a project feels a bit like chopping up a Picasso into a million pieces and feeding those pieces one by one into a machine that promises to put it all back together, cleaner and prettier than it looked before.

Which leads to the second problem, the difficulty of quantifying an aesthetic experience and — more often — the resistance to doing so. A unique feature of humanities scholarship is that its objects of study evoke an aesthetic response from the reader (or viewer). While a sunset might be beautiful, recognizing its beauty is not critical to studying it scientifically. Failing to appreciate the economy of language in a poem about a sunset, however, is to miss the point.

Literature is more than the sum of its words on a page, just as an artwork is more than the sum of the molecules it comprises. To itemize every word or molecule on a spreadsheet is simply to apply more anesthetizing structure than humanists can bear. And so it seems that the digital humanities is a paradox, trying to combine two incompatible sets of values.

Yet, humanities scholarship is already based on structure: language. “Code,” the underlying set of languages that empowers all things digital, is just another language entering the profession. Since the application of digital tools to traditional humanities scholarship can yield fruitful results, perhaps what is often missing from the humanities is a clearer embrace of code.

In fact, “code” is a good example of how something that is more than the sum of its parts emerges from the atomic bits of text that logic demands must be lined up next to each other in just such-and-such a way. When well-structured code is combined with the right software (e.g., a browser, which itself is a product of code), we see William Blake’s illuminated prints, or hear Gertrude Stein reading a poem, or access a world-wide conversation on just what is the digital humanities. As the folks at WordPress say, code is poetry.

I remember 7th-grade homework assignments programming onscreen fireworks explosions in BASIC. When I was in 7th grade, I was willing to patiently decipher code only because of the promise of cool graphics on the other end. When I was older, I realized the I was willing to read patiently through Hegel and Kant because I learned to see the fireworks in the code itself. To avid readers of literature, the characters of a story come alive to us, laying bare our own feelings or moral inclinations in the process.

Detecting patterns, interpreting symbolism, and analyzing logical inconsistencies in text are all techniques used in humanities scholarship. Perhaps the digital humanities’ greatest gift to the humanities can be the ability to invest a generation of “users” in the techniques and practiced meticulous attention to detail required to become a scholar.


This piece originally appeared in Inside Higher Ed, titled “Putting the ‘Humanities’ in ‘Digital Humanities.’” You can find it over here.

 

Four principles of using digital tools to assist humanities research

This post is based on a series of workshops I am developing for humanities graduate students and faculty at the University of California, Davis. While some of what I do in the workshops resembles training on a particular program, I find program- or app-specific workshops a bit rudimentary.

That is, they run the risk of becoming what amounts to a digital trade school, when what is needed is something more closely approximating fluency in another language: the language of digital environments. Software will evolve and better apps will replace the ones we use today, so it is less useful to know one program very well and more useful to achieve a level of comfort navigating digital tools for oneself. That said, throughout this post, my principles are repeatedly best exemplified within the context of one program: Evernote.

1. Think of your computer less as the place where all your data lives and more as the thing that gives you access to your data.

** All hard drives crash** Do not think that yours is special and somehow won’t stop working one day. Therefore, you need a backup routine. Dropbox may be the simplest program to use to get started; or I recommend Carbonite for full hard drive, online backup.

Off-site storage is more secure in the long run, since there is a copy outside of your home in the event of catastrophe (fire, theft, EMP). I remember pre-internet stories about graduate students who would print out their in-progress dissertations every week and mail copies to out-of-town friends just to have their own distributed backup. New, digital storage systems make it a lot easier to have that same piece of mind. Just make sure that whatever system you use also makes it easy for you to get access to your stored files when you need them. Since humanities scholarship is mostly text, and text files are rather light (compared to images or video files), the free 2GB Dropbox account may be all you need to back up your most critical work.

Plus, online storage services often offer features that make it easier for you to do your work, even without a catastrophic demonstration of their value. For example, online access to your backed-up files means you have nearly universal access to your work. Both Evernote and Dropbox have websites that allow you to access your files whether you are on your computer or someone else’s.  Evernote’s iPhone, iPad, Blackberry, Android, and Palm apps along with the Dropbox iPhone app mean that you can carry your dissertation around in your pocket. And, some online storage services offer additional features like OCR, pattern detection, and even audio transcription. (Here I am thinking of Google DocsEvernotePicasaVoice2Note.)

2. Let your computer (do some of the) work for you; metadata is your friend.

Metadata is just information about your stuff. If we develop the habit of describing our stuff, and then attach these descriptions to our notes, our files, and even the books and articles that we read, then we are slowly building a searchable index of our own stuff, via editable metadata.

click to enlarge

Tag everything. Think of tags as keywords that describe something about the note, the audio file, the pdf, the article, the photo, or whatever it is to which you are adding a description. Think of tags less as categories or folders and more as the code words in your own personal index.

  • Categories, like folders, are a first level of organization. Something (a document, a note, an image) can be in only one folder at a time, and therefore can be in only one category.
  • Documents, images, pdfs, articles, notes can all have as many tags as you want. And items in separate folders can be tagged with the same word or phrase.
  • This comes in handy when, after you have tagged several notes in Evernote or several book citations in EndNote, you can then search by Tags to find what you’re looking for.
  • Use tags to describe an article in a way the author might not. For example, Albert Camus rejected the label existentialist. An article he wrote might, therefore, never use the term. But using tags, I can apply the term to his work so that when searching for articles or short stories under the rubric of existentialism, his works will show up.

Clip articles to read later using Evernote; if you install the Evernote clip tools {Chrome and Firefox extensions}, it’s even easier. Use EndNote or Zotero to quickly grab citation information (and depending on the source library, maybe even an abstract or other summary text) for any scholarly text you are reading.

Ideas for your workflow: store the précis that you write about books and articles in Evernote, drop pdfs into Evernote, export citations into EndNote, upload images (including scans) of text to Google Docs.

Why would you do all this?

Evernote and Google Docs perform OCR by default, which yields searchable text from what was just an image file. The more you store in Evernote, the more useful searching becomes, because at some point, you forget what you have written or what notes you have taken. Often, we find an article or reference in the middle of a web-surfing or database-browsing spree. We’ll never be able to replicate how we ended up finding this one particular article, so why not just grab it and store a copy of it on your computer? Evernote is essentially an easy-to-use personal database, which means that while the learning curve is less steep than database software (because of its intuitive interface), its utility curve may be about the same. That is, you may not see its true strengths until you’ve invested some time into it. And then, the more you invest, the more useful it becomes.

3. Learn to search, not just organize.

Keeping your work organized is a valuable skill, but at some point in your research, you are working on a project that is too large to hold in your head. There are too many citations, too many ideas for chapters, too many subtle differences in arguments. If you have been tagging information all along the way, then you have a way to search through your own stuff.

Spotlight (OS X), Google Desktop Search (Windows), Precipitate (Google Docs search plugin for Spotlight) all allow you to search your own computer, including Evernote files and Google Docs.

If you learn to tag your notes and bibliographic references, then you can search within them for just what you are looking for. You can use EndNote or Evernote to store the pdfs of articles downloaded from JSTOR or elsewhere, which gives you the ability to tag them as well as add meaningful text notes. I don’t know about you, but I am never going to remember that a pdf from JSTOR with the filename 3053803.pdf is an article on gender discrimination in the death penalty. The more simple search terms you learn (e.g. Boolean strings), the more effective you will be finding what you want, both on the web and within your own computer. Use Google’s Advanced Search page to teach yourself some of these techniques. The same techniques will work searching within Evernote. Technologists warn of the coming deluge of data (or “data tsunami” as Alan Blatecky of RENCI calls it). The more effectively you can search, the better prepared you will be for this developing problem.

4. Let these techniques and habits help you find patterns that you would not otherwise see.

This last principle speaks to an emergent utility, one that arises only after you have amassed quite a bit of information and developed the skills to look within it.

Much of scholarship is hard work and deliberation. But some of it is serendipity, which is related to how open you are to finding new ideas in your work or how open you are to seeing it from a new perspective. By becoming stronger at searching, you enhance your ability to find information that you wouldn’t find if you looked just on your own, whether you’re looking for information on the Internet, in an archive, or within your own notes.

If you find these four principles useful, feel free to share this with others by clicking the SHARE button below or save this page in your own Evernote account by clicking the CLIP button.

 

U.N. launches World Digital Library

Last week, the United Nations launched the World Digital Library, featuring historic books, maps, recordings and other artifacts from many of the great institutions around the globe. The WDL draws on the resources of the Library of Congress, UNESCO, and other cultural institutions.

For example, below is a digitized film from 1899, shot by Thomas Edison (yes, that Thomas Edison), of the NYPD bike patrol.

Description
The film shows members of “New York’s Finest” parading at a crowded Union Square. Seen are members of the Bicycle Squad, mounted horses, and two regimental marching bands. At the time of filming, the New York City Police Department was still recovering from the corruption scandals of the early 1890′s that had severely tarnished the reputation of the department. A State-Senate-appointed group known as the Lexow Committee investigated the department and issued a scathing report that detailed serious criminal activity within the department. In 1895, public opinion was so low that the annual parade was not held. That same year, Theodore Roosevelt was appointed president of the Police Board, and he is credited with initiating strict and effective reform measures that helped restore the public’s confidence in the police.
Date Created
June 1, 1899