Tags

, , , , , ,

Digital humanities help very much to identify and define standards in the context of digitization in many humanities areas. The analysis of digitized data is very important. New applications and digital methods generate a shift to answer new research questions and this is substantial outcome for many research areas. Although digital humanities is well-established and explored subject, it can be said that this area is not completely internationalized yet. On one hand, countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Italy have dominated in digital humanities activity. On the other hand, countries in other regions such as Asia, Africa and Latin American countries are still encountered serious lag and less attention to this sphere.

Physical centres in digital humanities according the globe

Physical centres in digital humanities according the globe

Post-Socialist countries have very interesting specifications. Lets look at it in details. In the countries such as Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia modern technology is developing very rapidly. Although, it should be noted that digital humanities area is quite far behind from United States and Western Europe despite the level of technological innovations in those post-social countries. As mentioned in [1] Estonia was the first with paperless governmental processes and the electronic ID-card. This country has many large-scale digitization projects in libraries and archives since early 2000. This digital archival system becomes publicly available via Internet. Good example is Estonian Literary Museum and its archival system Kivike. To generalize the situation as Schnapp and Presner stated the digital infrastructures for the humanities collections is created but these technological advantages are not properly used by researchers so that they can develop tools and environments they need.

It is safe to say that nowadays English has become a global digital and scholar language. As a result of this, Anglo-American language is dominated in the field of digital humanities. This situation places non-native speakers and scholars working outside the Anglo-American academic context and this become a big drawback. As Fiormonte suggests in [2], it probably also has led to the relative scarcity of such scholars in this discipline positions in non-native English countries. As author states in [3] the digital humanities multicultural revolution did not happened yet because this field is still geographically concentrated in US and Western Europe. Language barrier is a main drawback and according to Clavert “…Digital Humanities, though claiming to be new and revolutionary, are structured in a very classical way for an academic field, where those who master the English language and the English speaking and impact factor based academic journals are the most visible (and the most quoted).”

Geographic repartition of DH 2012 reviewers

Geographic repartition of DH 2012 reviewers

‘humanidades digitales’ is a trending term in Spain but it still suffer from invisibility form international community. Landmark projects Admyte (from 1970), BOOST/Philobiblon (from1980s) and Miguel de Cervantes Digital Library are a good examples that Digital Humanities has a long history in spanish-speaking world. But this world is still suffered from the same problem which mentioned in [2]. As it is beyond Anglophone digital humanities it still stays in shadow, which needs to broad international resources accomplished by conferences or publications.

In conclusion, using the information obtained from different sources, we review digital humanities in different development stages based on Estonia and Spain examples. As shown by the example of Estonia, the only well-developed digital technology infrastructure is not enough and we need more research to better utilize technological resources to benefit from DH. The Spain example is closer to the ideals. Country has a great cultural, scientific and technical capabilities but the language barrier is still a problem. Finally, the Anglophone disposition makes DA more limited and hamper the rest of the world to equally share and understand it.

References:

  1. Sarv, Mari, Kulasalu, Kaisa. “Digital humanities in Estonia: digital divide or linguistic isolation?” n.d. http://dharchive.org/paper/DH2014/Paper-453.xml
  2. O’Donnell, Daniel Paul, Bordalejo, Barbara, Risam, Roopika, Spence, Paul, González-Blanco, Elena. “Global Outlook::Digital Humanities: Promoting Digital Humanities Research Across disciplines, regions, and cultures” n.d. http://dharchive.org/paper/DH2014/Paper-795.xml
  3. “L’histoire contemporaine à l’ère numérique” n.d. http://histnum.hypotheses.org/1546
  4. “Government as a data model : what I learned in Estonia” n.d. https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/31/government-as-a-data-model-what-i-learned-in-estonia/
Advertisements