“Digital Humanities must have, and even encourages, failures.”
Burdick et al. “One: From Humanities to Digital Humanities,” in Digital_Humanities (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012), 3.
This passage grabbed my attention since I was particularly intrigued by the author’s advocacy for a “generative” approach to digital humanities, characterized by rapid prototyping, iterative development, and an acceptance of productive failure. This experimental mindset felt innovative to me, especially in contrast to the traditional academic culture I was accustomed to, where the focus is often on producing flawless final products. The generative approach instead promotes learning through failure, an idea that resonates deeply with me!
In scientific fields like chemistry and mathematics, iterative refinement is a significant part of the process. For instance, changing concentrations during a neutralization titration or adjusting the scope and quantity of data during statistical analyses are standard practices. These fields values a problem-solving mindset where feedback loops drive optimization. In contrast, my experiences in literature and history felt more linear, with an emphasis on creating a single, polished final product. These disciplines often focus on detailed preparation and minimizing mistakes before presenting the final work. This contrast between the iterative processes of STEM and the structured finality of the humanities may be why I found the integration of trial-and-error methodologies in DH from STEM into Humanities particularly fascinating. Failures in this context are not seen as setbacks but as opportunities for learning and growth. My growing fascination with design thinking and the philosophy of fallibilism further deepens my appreciation for the iterative, experimental nature of Digital Humanities. By analyzing what didn’t work, we gain insights that can lead to improved designs and more robust methodologies.
As I explore Digital Humanities, I am particularly eager to document and analyze my own processes. Experimenting with new tools and methods in DH provides an excellent opportunity to reflect on successes and failures, learning from each iteration and using these insights to refine future approaches. Case studies of successful DH projects that went through multiple iterations and failures before achieving their final forms would provide a rich area of exploration. I am also drawn to the idea of design as an intellectual method within DH, especially about how these methods might bridge the gap between STEM and the humanities.
Tags: blog post, digital arts and humanities, Reflective Blog Post
