Die Bedeutung und Konsequenzen der Digital Humanities diskutieren WissenschaftlerInnen in der Los Angeles Review of Books.

Wenn Digital Humanities zum Selbstzweck werden. Ein kritischer Beitrag von Daniel Allington, Sarah Brouillette und David Golumbia.

Daniel Allington, Sarah Brouillette und David Golumbia explain how Digital Humanities plays a lead role in the corporatist restructuring of the humanities.

„What Digital Humanities is not about, despite its explicit claims, is the use of digital or quantitative methodologies to answer research questions in the humanities. It is, instead, about the promotion of project-based learning and lab-based research over reading and writing, the rebranding of insecure campus employment as an empowering ‚alt-ac‘ career choice, and the redefinition of technical expertise as a form (indeed, the superior form) of humanist knowledge.“

Quelle: Neoliberal Tools (and Archives): A Political History of Digital Humanities – Los Angeles Review of Books

Eine lesenswerte Replik haben Juliana Spahr, Richard So, Andrew Piper verfasst. Sie weisen auf das Potenzial der Digital Humanities und auf ihre Vielseitigkeit hin.

„The history the authors provide also risks effacing contributions from individuals in the present – particularly women and persons of color – who work outside of this institutional framework. There is a tremendous amount of new scholarship being produced in DH that seeks to answer significant research questions, and a great deal of this work directly addresses issues related to race, gender, class, and power.“

Quelle: Beyond Resistance: Towards a Future History of Digital Humanities – Los Angeles Review of Books