At the Scholarly Commons, we’re always excited about the rapidly evolving field of digital humanities. Stanley Fish’s recent New York Times opinion piece on the predominance of digital humanities at the most recent MLA conference has set the blogosphere ablaze with discussion and debate over the identity of digital humanities and its possible role in reviving struggling disciplines. Here are some responses to Fish’s article, including a few by Illinois faculty members:
Ted Underwood (Illinois)
Why digital humanities isn’t actually “the next thing in literary studies.”
Feisal Mohamed (Illinois)
Can There Be a Digital Humanism?
Pannapacker at MLA: The Come-to-DH Moment
Digital Humanities at MLA
The Promotion that Matters
Roger T. Whitson
Does DH really need to be transformed? My Reflections on #mla12
Since his original post, Fish has continued to stir the pot with two more digital humanities posts:
If you are currently working on a digital humanities project or are wondering whether your research could benefit from digitization, text-mining, or the use of GIS or statistical software, stop by the Scholarly Commons. We have a variety of software and hardware tools for you to test and can connect you with experts in the field.