Debates in the Digital Humanities

3 “This Is Why We Fight”: Defining the Values of the Digital Humanities

16 ] “This Is Why We Fight”: Defining the Values of the Digital Humanities lisa spiro E ven as the digital humanities (DH) is being hailed as the “next big thing,” members of the DH community have been debating what counts as digital humanities and what does not, who is in and who is out, and whether DH is about making or theorizing, computation or communication, practice or politics. Soon after William Pannapacker declared the arrival of digital humanities at the ModernLanguagesAssociation(MLA)conferencein2009(Pannapacker,“TheMLA andtheDigitalHumanities”),DavidParrywroteamuch-debatedblogpostinsisting that DH should aim to “challenge and change scholarship” rather than “us[e] computers to ‘tag up Milton’” (Parry). MLA 2011 unleashed another round of debates, as Pannapacker pointed to a DH in-crowd,an ironic label for a group of people who have long felt like misfits (Pannapacker,“Digital Humanities Triumphant?”). Although the debate has generated intellectual energy and compelling exchanges,it also has left me frustrated by statements that seem to devalue the work of fellow digital humanists and longing for a more coherent sense of community. Even as we debate the digital humanities, We need to participate in a frank discussion about what connects us and what values we hold in common. Given that the digital humanities community includes people with different disciplines, methodological approaches, professional roles, and theoretical inclinations, it is doubtful that we will settle on a tight definition of the digital humanities—just witness the many definitions of the term offered by participants in the Day of Digital Humanities (“How do you define Humanities Computing/Digital Humanities?”). Instead of trying to pigeonhole digital humanities by prescribing particular methods or theoretical approaches, we can instead focus on a community that comes together around values such as openness and collaboration. As Matt Kirschenbaum suggests , “the digital humanities today is about a scholarship (and a pedagogy) that is publicly visible in ways to which we are generally unaccustomed, a scholarship and pedagogy that are bound up with infrastructure in ways that are deeper and part i ][ Chapter 3 “This Is Why We Fight” [ 17 more explicit than we are generally accustomed to, a scholarship and pedagogy that are collaborative and depend on networks of people and that live an active, 24-7 life online”(Kirschenbaum, 6). How the digital humanities community operates— transparently, collaboratively, through online networks—distinguishes it. Even as we acknowledge points of difference,I propose that the digital humanities community develop a flexible statement of values that it can use to communicate its identity to itself and the general public, guide its priorities, and perhaps heal its divisions. Rather than debating who is in and who is out,the DH community needs to develop a keener sense of what it stands for and what is at stake in its work. Taking an initial step toward this goal, I will discuss the rationale for creating a core values statement by drawing on the literature about professional codes, suggest a process for engaging the community in developing a values statement, explore models for and influences on DH values, and analyze the DH literature to put forward potential values. Why the Digital Humanities Community Needs a Statement of Values By creating a core set of values, the digital humanities community may be able to unitetoconfrontchallengessuchasthelack of openaccesstoinformationandhidebound policies that limit collaboration and experimentation. As Kathleen Fitzpatrick notes of the digital humanities,“the key problems that we face again and again are social rather than technological in nature: problems of encouraging participation in collaborative and collective projects, of developing sound preservation and sustainability practices, of inciting institutional change, of promoting new ways of thinkingabouthowacademicworkmightbedoneinthecomingyears”(Fitzpatrick, “Reporting from the Digital Humanities 2010 Conference”).Solving such problems is not simple, but an important first step may be articulating shared values that can then be used to define goals, develop collaborations, and foster participation. Most professional organizations advance a set of values or an ethical code to make clear their aspirations,set standards of behavior,“provide the foundation of institutional mission and guide professional practice and decision making” (Miller, 5). Further, values statements can enable groups to confront change while remaining true to their overarching principles (Bell). Yet even as they help to define a community, values statements can also con- fine it, reflecting a static understanding of the organization or the particular biases of a powerful clique that defines the standards. Finding consensus on the few values held in common by the...