Debates in the Digital Humanities

4 Beyond the Big Tent

36 ] Beyond the Big Tent patrik svensson B ig Tent Digital Humanities” is the theme of the Digital Humanities 2011 conferenceatStanfordUniversity.Itisawell-chosenconferencetopicgiven the current, often fairly intense debate about the scope and direction of the digital humanities, one also exemplified by the Modern Language Association (MLA) 2011 panel on “The History and Future of the Digital Humanities” as well as a number of concurrent online discussions. This debate has a disciplinary, historical , and institutional basis and is backdropped by considerable interest in the digital humanities from universities, funding agencies, scholars, and others. Moreover , there is a basic tension between a tradition invested in technology as a tool and methodology and a range of “newcomers” starting out from other modes of engagement between the humanities and the digital (Svensson, “Landscape”). A related point of tension has to do with the scope of the digital humanities. Arguably , much of the hope and interest currently invested in the digital humanities relates to an inclusive notion of the field and a sense of the digital humanities as a way of reconfiguring the humanities (Svensson,“Envisioning”). Hence the issue of the size of the digital humanities canalizes a range of important debates and future critical choices. This chapter explores the contemporary landscape of digital humanities starting from the discourse of “big tent” digital humanities. What is it exactly that needs to be incorporated into the tent that was not there before? Does a larger tent come with expanded responsibilities? Why do we need a tent or a bounding mechanism in the first place? Is there place for private as well as public institutions of higher education in the tent? Is a very inclusive notion of digital humanities problematic? The chapter ends with a suggestion that the community may bene fit from a “no tent” approach to the digital humanities and that “trading zone” (Galison) or “meeting place” may be useful, alternative structuring devices and ideational notions. part i ][ Chapter 4 “ Beyond the Big Tent [ 37 Sizing the Digital Humanities There can be no doubt that the digital humanities have expanded in multiple ways over the last ten years. Indeed, ten years ago, the notion of digital humanities itself was an emerging one, arising out of a relabeling process within the humanities computing community (Kirschenbaum;Svensson,“Humanities Computing”).The perceived larger size would partly seem to be a result of having a more distinct and inclusive label, although there has also obviously been a real expansion as indicated by new book series,the number of positions advertised,funding available,the growing number of digital humanities initiatives, interest from policy makers and university leadership, increased visibility, and general buzz. The digital humanities arose from a specific epistemic tradition or set of traditions (Knorr Cetina), and with the expansion of the field comes a higher degree of heterogeneity and inclusion of other epistemic traditions (Svensson, “Humanities Computing”). This is part of what makes the digital humanities a dynamic and, to some extent, indeterminate field. It is important to note that traditional humanities computing, as well as digital humanities, frequently have had an intersectional position. In other words, digital humanities institutions tend to depend on interaction with other institutions to a larger extent than most traditional departments and disciplines. This is evident in the idea of a methodological commons (McCarty), for instance; and it is also notable that the digital humanities have often been institutionalized as centers and institutes rather than as traditional departments. Indeed, such centers may be more institutionally akin to traditional humanities centers than departments. Examples include the Centre for Computing in the Humanities (CCH) at King’s College, the Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities (IATH) at the University of Virginia, and the Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities (MITH) at the University of Maryland. These centers obviously share some characteristics, such as a range of activities and strategies to do work with other parts of the humanities, as well as outside of the humanities proper. This liminal position is quite important, offering something that can be built on in order to facilitate digital humanities as a larger project. However, we also need to acknowledge that this necessitates the reassessing of traditions and possible interaction points between the humanities and the digital and allowing change not only in terms of size but also in terms of epistemic texture and institutional focus. An interesting question is whether the recent name change of the Centre for Computing in the Humanities to...