- Jahrgang 68 (2023)
- Vol. 68 (2023)
- >
- Ausgabe 1
- Nr. 1
- >
- Seiten 5 - 26
- pp. 5 - 26
Digitization, Digital Humanities, and American Studies
Seiten 5 - 26
DOI https://doi.org/10.33675/AMST/2023/1/4
open-access
This publication is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivatives 4.0.
Digitization and the digital humanities (DH) continue to shape the field of American studies. This forum brings together ten international scholars who assess where we as (German) Americanists stand on digital scholarship, (inter)disciplinarity, data, and publishing. Some of the statements collected here were originally presented during a digital town hall meeting of the German Association of American Studies (GAAS) on April 1, 2022; others were written specifically for this forum. Together, they discuss how digitization impacts our work environments, the role DH methods play in American studies, and the production, use, and sustainability of research data in the humanities. Contributors define DH and its connection to literary and cultural studies and trace its history in German American studies and beyond. Several contributions shed light on the (in)accessibility of digital publishing and practices of data tracking. They critically flag neoliberal logics of exploitative research designs but also point to collaborative endeavors and open-access formats as useful tools to resist them. The statements reflect and resume the conversation initiated in April 2022 to chart a possible direction for American studies.
1 Alfano, Veronica, and Andrew Stauffer, eds. Virtual Victorians: Networks, Connections, Technologies. New York: Palgrave, 2015. Print.
2 Aljoe, Nicole, and Elizabeth Maddock Dillon. “Decolonizing the Archive: Remix and Reassembly.” Early Caribbean Digital Archive. Northeastern University, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2022. https://ecda.northeastern.edu/home/about/decolonizing-the-archive/.
3 Allington, Daniel, Sarah Brouillette, and David Golumbia. “Neoliberal Tools (and Archives): A Political History of Digital Humanities.” Los Angeles Review of Books 1 May 2016. Web. 28 July 2022. https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/neoliberal-tools-archives-political-history-digital-humanities/.
4 Ancion, Zoé, et al. Action Plan for Diamond Open Access. Zenodo, 2022. Web. 26 Sept. 2022. https://zenodo.org/record/6282403#.Y1A2Gy8RppQ.
5 Atypon. “Analytics.” Atypon, n.d. Web. 20 Aug. 2022. https://www.atypon.com/products/literatum/analytics/.
6 AuROA: Publizieren und Open Access in den Geisteswissenschaften: Erkenntnisse aus dem Projekt AuROA zu den Stakeholdern im Publikationsprozess. Essen, 2022. Web. 16 Sept. 2022. https://projekt-auroa.de/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/AuROA-Publizieren-und-Open-Access-in-den-Geisteswissenschaften.pdf.
7 Bargheer, Margo, and Kizer Walker. “Library Publishing and the University Press in the United States and Germany: Lessons from Two Academic Contexts for Sustaining the Scholarly Book.” Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis 41.3 (2017): 291-307. Web. 15 Dec. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1515/bfp-2017-0037.
8 Barnett, Fiona, Zach Blas, Micha Cárdenas, Jacob Gaboury, Jessica Marie Johnson, and Margaret Rhee. “QueerOS: A User’s Manual.” Debates in Digital Humanities. Ed. Matthew K. Gold and Lauren Klein. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2016. 50-59. Print.
9 Bertram, Lillian-Yvonne. Travesty Generator. Blacksburg, VA: Noemi, 2019. Print.
10 Bode, Katherine. “The Equivalence of ‘Close’ and ‘Distant’ Reading; or, Toward a New Object for Data-Rich Literary History.” Modern Language Quarterly 78.1 (2017): 77-106. Web. 4 Sept. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1215/00267929-3699787.
11 Brembs, Björn. “Algorithmic Employment Decisions in Academia?” björn.brembs.blog. Björn Brembs, 23 Sept. 2021. Web. 12 Sept. 2022. http://bjoern.brembs.net/2021/09/algorithmic-employment-decisions-in-academia/.
12 ---. “Off to Paris for #FENS2022 with Two Posters.” björn.brembs.blog. Björn Brembs, 8 July 2022. Web. 12 Sept. 2022. http://bjoern.brembs.net/2022/07/off-to-paris-for-fens2022-with-two-posters/.
13 Bruns, Andre, et al. Diamond Open Access Journals Germany (DOAG). Bielefeld University, 2022. Web. 26 Sept. 2022. https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/record/2963331.
14 Carroll, Stephanie Russo, et al. “The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance.” Data Science Journal 19.1 (2020): 1-12. Web. 15 Dec. 2022. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-043.
15 Chen, George, and Leslie Chan. “University Rankings and Governance by Metrics and Algorithms.” Research Handbook on University Rankings. Ed. Ellen Hazelkorn and Georgiana Mihut. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2021. 425-43. Print.
16 Clarivate. “Form 10-K.” 2021, 1-153. Web. 12 Sept. 2021. https://s25.q4cdn.com/843006813/files/doc_downloads/2022/05/2021_12-Clarivate-Plc-FSs-DOC-10K-(32).pdf.
17 Clement, Tanya E., et al. “Collaborators’ Bill of Rights.” Humanities Commons. Humanities Commons, 2021. Web. 28 July 2022. https://hcommons.org/deposits/item/hc:31187/.
18 “Colored Conventions Project.” Colored Conventions Project. Web. 28 July 2022. https://coloredconventions.org.
19 Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Academic Publishing as a Foundation and Area of Leverage for Research Assessment: Challenges and Fields of Action. Bonn, 2022. Web. 26 Sept. 2022. https://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/foerderung/grundlagen_dfg_foerderung/publikationswesen/positionspapier_publikationswesen_en.pdf.
20 Drucker, Johanna. “Humanities Approaches to Graphical Display.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 5.1 (2011): n. pag. Web. 15 Dec. 2022. http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/5/1/000091/000091.html.
21 Elsevier. “Elsevier Fingerprint Engine.” Elsevier. Elsevier, n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2021. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/elsevier-fingerprint-engine.
22 Fried, Eiko. “Welcome to Hotel Elsevier: You Can Check-Out Any Time You Like … Not.” Eiko-fried.com. Eiko Fried, 9 May 2022. Web. 12 Sept. 2022. https://eiko-fried.com/welcome-to-hotel-elsevier-you-can-check-out-any-time-you-like-not/.
23 Foreman, P. Gabrielle, et al. Colored Conventions Project. Web. 2 Dec. 2022. https://coloredconventions.org/.
24 Fyfe, Aileen. “Self-Help for Learned Journals: Scientific Societies and the Commerce of Publishing in the 1950s.” History of Science 60.2 (2022): 255-79. Web. 15 Dec. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/0073275321999901.
25 Galey, Alan, and Stan Ruecker. “How a Prototype Argues.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 25.4 (2010): 405-24. Web. 15 Dec. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqq021.
26 Gallon, Kim. “Making a Case for the Black Digital Humanities.” Debates in Digital Humanities 2016. Ed. Matthew K. Gold and Lauren Klein. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2016. 42-49. Print.
27 Greenspan, Brian. “The Scandal of Digital Humanities.” Hyperlab 23. Carleton University, Jan. 2018. Web. 6 Sept. 2022. https://carleton.ca/hyperlab/2018/the-scandal-of-digital-humanities/.
28 Grusin, Richard. “The Dark Side of Digital Humanities: Dispatches from Two Recent MLA Conventions.” Differences 25.1 (2014): 79-92. Web. 15 Dec. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1215/10407391-2420009.
29 Hansen, Morten. “Building Education Assets, One Crumb at a Time.” The Post-Pandemic University 20 Mar. 2022. Web. 12 Sept. 2022. https://postpandemicuniversity.net/2022/03/20/building-education-assets-one-crumb-at-a-time/.
30 Hayles, N. Katherine. Writing Machines. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2002. Print.
31 Herrmann, Sebastian M. Data Imaginary: Literature and Data in Nineteenth-Century US Culture. Heidelberg: Winter, 2022. Print.
32 Holtzbrinck Publishing Group. “About Us.” Holtzbrinck Publishing Group. Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH & Co., n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2022. https://www.holtzbrinck.com.
33 HumanitiesCommons. n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2022. https://hcommons.org.
34 “HuMetricsHSS.” HuMetricsHSS. HuMetricsHSS: Humane Metrics Initiative. HuMetricsHSS, 2022. Web. 28 July 2022. https://humetricshss.org.
35 Informa Group. Annual Report 2021: Digital & Data Acceleration.” London: Informa Group, 2022. Web. 12 Sept. 2012. https://www.informa.com/globalassets/documents/investor-relations/2022/informa-annual-report-2021.pdf.
36 John Wiley & Sons. “Form 10-K.” 2022, 1-111. Web. 12 Sept. 2022. https://s27.q4cdn.com/812717746/files/doc_financials/2022/q4/Wiley-10K-Annual-Report.pdf.
37 Johnson, Jessica Marie. “Markup Bodies: Black [Life] Studies and Slavery [Death] Studies at the Digital Crossroads.” Social Text 137 36.4 (2018), 57-79. Print.
38 Kartheus, Wiebke, and Dorothea Schuller. “Open Access in English and American Studies.” Open Access Network. open-access.network, 18 July 2022. Web. 26. Sept. 2022. https://open-access.network/en/information/subject-specific-open-access/english-and-american-studies.
39 Kirschenbaum, Matthew. “What Is Digital Humanities and What’s It Doing in English Departments?” Debates in Digital Humanities. Ed. Matthew K. Gold. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2012: 3-11. Print.
40 Kreutzer, Till. Open Content: Ein Praxisleitfaden zur Nutzung von Creative-Commons-Lizenzen. 2nd ed. Bonn: Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission e.V., 2016. Web. 24 Sept. 2022. https://irights.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Open_Content_-_Ein_Praxisleitfaden_zur_Nutzung_von_Creative-Commons-Lizenzen.pdf.
41 Lamdan, Sarah. Data Cartels: The Companies That Control and Monopolize Our Information. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 2022. Print.
42 ---. “Your Journals Are Spying on You: Research Surveillance in Library Products.” Videotaped Presentation, Indiana University Bloomington Libraries, 22 Oct. 2021. Web. 12 Sept. 2022. https://media.dlib.indiana.edu/media_objects/76537m18z
43 Lee, Maurice. “Evidence, Coincidence, and Superabundant Information.” Victorian Studies 54.1 (2011): 87-94. Web. 25 June 2016. https://doi.org/10.2979/victorianstudies.54.1.87.
44 McPherson, Tara. “Why Are the Digital Humanities So White? Or Thinking the Histories of Race and Computation.” Debates in Digital Humanities. Ed. Matthew K. Gold. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2012: 139-60. Print.
45 Monks-Leeson, Emily. “Archives on the Internet: Representing Contexts and Provenance from Repository to Website.” The American Archivist 74.1 (2011): 38-57. JSTOR Web. 15 Dec. 2022. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23079000.
46 Moretti, Franco. “The Roads to Rome: Literary Studies, Hermeneutics, Quantification” New Left Review 124 (2020): 125-36. Web. 16 Dec. 2022. https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii124/articles/franco-moretti-the-roads-to-rome.
47 Morrison, Toni. Beloved. 1987. New York: Vintage Classics, 2007. Print.
48 O’Donnell, Daniel. “‘There’s No Next about It’: Stanley Fish, William Pannapacker, and the Digital Humanities as Paradiscipline.” Dpod Blog. Internet Archive, 22 June 2016. Web. 13 Dec. 2022. https://web.archive.org/web/20160310141643/http:/dpod.kakelbont.ca/2012/06/22/theres-no-next-about-it-stanley-fish-william-pannapacker-and-the-digital-humanities-as-paradiscipline/.
49 Pannapacker, William. “The MLA and the Digital Humanities.” The Brainstorm Blog: The Chronicle of Higher Education Online. Archive.org, 28 Dec. 2009. Web. 28 Sept. 2022. https://web.archive.org/web/20121004134824/http:/chronicle.com/blogPost/The-MLAthe-Digital/19468/.
50 Picadio, Doug. “Fingerprinting: What Is It, and How Can I Use It.” Presentation. Pure International Conference, Barcelona, 10 Oct. 2017. Web. 12 Sept. 2022. https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/525613/Day1_Sala3_11_50_D_Picadio.pdf.
51 Pooley, Jefferson. “Surveillance Publishing.” The Journal of Electronic Publishing 25.1 (2022): 39-49. Web. 15 Dec. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3998/jep.1874.
52 Ramsay, Stephen. “On Building.” Defining Digital Humanities: A Reader. Ed. Melissa Terras et al. Farnham: Ashgate, 2013. 243-45. Print.
53 RELX Group. “Annual Report and Financial Statements 2014.” London: RELX Group, 2015. Web. 3 Oct. 2022. https://www.relx.com/~/media/Files/R/RELX-Group/documents/reports/annual-reports/2014-annual-report.pdf.
54 ---. “Annual Report and Financial Statements 2021.” London: RELX Group, 2022. Web. 12 Sept. 2022. https://www.relx.com/~/media/Files/R/RELX-Group/documents/reports/annual-reports/relx-2021-annual-report.pdf.
55 Roth, Camille. “Digital, Digitized, and Numerical Humanities.” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 34.3 (2019): 616-632. Web. 13 Dec. 2022. https://academic.oup.com/dsh/article-abstract/34/3/616/5161109.
56 Schöch, Christof. “Big? Smart? Clean? Messy? Data in the Humanities.” Journal of Digital Humanities 2.3 (2013): 2-13. Web. 13 Dec. 2022. http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/2-3/big-smart-clean-messy-data-in-the-humanities/.
57 Siems, Renke. “When Your Journal Reads You: User Tracking on Science Publisher Platforms.” Elephant in the Lab. Zenodo, 14 Apr. 2021. Web. 12 Sept. 2022. https://zenodo.org/record/4683778#.Y1A0xi8RpQI.
58 Smith, Henry Nash. “Can ‘American Studies’ Develop a Method?” American Quarterly 9.2 (1957): 197-208. JSTOR Web. 15 Dec. 2022. https://doi.org/10.2307/2710743.
59 University of Oxford. “OA Publication Routes.” Open Access Oxford. The University of Oxford, 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2022. https://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/open-publication-routes/.
60 Wilkinson, Mark D., et al. “The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Data Management and Stewardship.” Scientific Data 3.1 (2016). Web. 15 Dec. 2022. https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201618?ref=https://githubhelp.com.
61 Wise, Gene. “‘Paradigm Dramas’ in American Studies: A Cultural and Institutional History of the Movement.” American Quarterly 31.3 (1979): 293-337. JSTOR Web. 15 Dec. 2022. https://doi.org/10.2307/2712378.
62 Wissenschaftsrat. “Empfehlungen zur Transformation des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens zu Open Access.” Köln, 2022. Web. 26. Sept. 2022. https://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/2022/9477-22.html.
63 Wouters, Paul. “Eugene Garfield (1925–2017).” Nature 543 (2017): 492. Web. 12 Sept. 2022. https://www.nature.com/articles/543492a.
64 Zuboff, Shoshana. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: Public Affairs, 2019. Print.
