Tag Archives: Meta-omphaloskepsis

What should we talk about on this blog?

There has been some discussion offline (over lunch etc.) as to what sorts of things we might want to discuss in this blog, which should be relevant both to colleagues at KCL and to anyone with an interest in Digital Humanities. Here are some of the suggestions we came up with a few weeks ago (some of these have already been written about). In a way, it doesn’t matter who starts the conversation, because I would expect the post to largely be posing the question, and the comments thread to be where answers and opinions really come out. Please add suggestions at will.

  • Who is Digital Humanities?
    (not “what is” because that’s a silly question…)
  • What is the audience for a Digital Humanities blog?
  • What is the agenda of a Digital Humanities blog?
  • Why blog in the Digital Humanities?
  • What does Digital Humanities research look like?
  • What does Digital Humanities publication look like?
  • What does Digital Humanities work look like?
  • What does Digital Humanities teaching look like?
  • What does Digital Humanities “service” look like?
  • What should Digital Humanities tools look like?
  • How do you have a research agenda when you don’t have a tenured job?
  • What is new in the Digital Humanities?
  • What does “new” mean in the Digital Humanities?
  • Does DH have a special role in arguing for the value of the Humanities?
  • Is a blog the right venue for this sort of conversation?
  • How do we make DH relevant to Humanities and Computer Science academics at the same time?
  • What is a “work in progress”? Is anything ever “finished”?

Really just pick something and write about it off the top of you head. We’ll all chip in. Don’t worry about whether someone else has already picked the topic, because your two paragraphs will be different from my two paragraphs anyway. (And of course, these suggestions are in no way prescriptive or exclusive.)