By K.G. Smith
I’ve been thinking about disciplinarity, and how that maps onto the DH genealogy approach we took to the start of the class. Specifically, why is this approach novel? And why are ‘What is DH?’ articles so ubiquitous that to not include any of them on a DH course syllabus is worthy of a tweet? And, if the backlash to this genre is in full swing, as I think it is, what are more productive ways of talking about disciplinarity in DH?
As Tom Scheinfeldt argues, focusing on the diversity of DH (rather than our connectedness) can be generative,
I believe the time has come to re-engage with what make us different. One potentially profitable step in this direction would be a continued exploration of our very different genealogies … In the end, I believe an examination of our different disciplinary histories will advance even our interdisciplinary purposes: understanding what makes us distinctive will help us better see what in our practices may be of use to our colleagues in other disciplines and to see more clearly what they have to offer us.
For Scheinfeldt, the diversity can be traced through a genealogical approach. In Alan Liu’s article <a target="_blank" …read more
Read more at : Kevin G. Smith