I urge another element in this discussion, especially in the context of young faculty: academic recognition. Learning new technologies and finding effective ways to integrate them in scholarship and teaching will likely involve large investments of time and energy, leaving less of each for traditional (and well-understood) disciplinary work. All young digital humanists, including those who can build on prior investment in these technologies (perhaps made during graduate school), will stand for evaluation by tenure and promotion panels that include persons without personal exposure to these new methods. Even those senior faculty who support the digital humanities movement (which might not be everyone) need a well-founded context for making those evaluations. We need to insure that quality work in digital humanities receives appropriate recognition, and that young faculty members who pursue these new approaches receive the thoughtful advice they need as they make progress in their academic careers at their institutions.

I want to raise awareness, not an alarm. These issues can be addressed by pro-active action, such as updating disciplinary statements of criteria for tenure and promotion, and through effective faculty mentoring. But I think a discussion by our group would be timely.

I really like that idea of a sound off!

Wow. May I say a prayer, right now, that your worry about “doing this kind of work without becoming overwhelmed as the ‘go to’ person (or one of a few) for tech advice” is a worry with merit.

In my college, if you dare to do something with a computer in the humanities, everyone seems to regard you as some sort of freak and looks upon your work as commuters might look upon an avante guard sculpture erected over the middle traffic lanes of the freeway, (i.e. “What the hell? It just better not get in my way!”)

I’m usually mid-sentence about what I do when I see their eyes glaze over.

Has anyone found a way to get those who fear DH to start grasping it? What is your strategy?

One thing I’d add in passing is that what I find to be the differences between my LAC and my grad institution is at least partially similar to the differences to be found between Hollywood and indie film production (which I did in the 90s): with the former, there’s usually money to hire a specialist to do the thing you need to do, so no one really does anything new; with the latter, there’re just not enough resources to do that, so you end up doing a lot of new things you’ve never tried before.

While this means you can’t hit the ground running with a complex idea, you get to become generally proficient in more skills/practices, and that has its own rewards that I personally love.

But yes, I’d like to hear what everyone has to say about what’s available at their institutions. Perhaps we could even post such info to the blog? (Though I don’t know if there are any non-tenured folks coming who might be shy about such recording.)