Slashdot Mirror
Hacking as Scholarship
FatherBusa writes "I am a professor of English who specializes in what is usually called "humanities computing"--a discipline concerned with creating and theorizing about the use of computers in humanities research (the homepage for the Association for Computers in the Humanities has some info). I was recently asked to join a working group charged with the task of establishing a peer review process for scholarly software projects in the humanities and stumbled across the Guidelines for Evaluating Work with Digital Media in the Modern Languages put out by the Modern Language Association (the main professional organization for language and literature studies in North America). Hackers working in humanities departments may want to give it a read. It's an interesting statement that speaks to the (sometimes difficult) process of getting "tools" and other sorts of digital work evaluated as academic scholarship in promotion and tenure processes."
University of Michigan requires 16 credits in Humanities for C.Eng. and C.Sci. students.
Actually, the more I think about it, I guess I do see the relevance. Problem is, while it might be useful to get your hacking and other "tools" (as they are called") evaluated towards credits, is it a worthwhile battle? I, for one, tried to get Acadamia to accept my digital work accepted for project work, and didn't have much luck. I am, however, in Landscape Architecture, which is an oldskool field -- perhaps a bit behind the technology of today. Maybe the case is different in other fields (such as humanities, for example) where such digital media might be more acceptable as a form of research?
While you are right about one thing: I'm not sure either how appropriate this piece is for Slashdot. However, hackers are in the humanities classrooms more and more. You might look at the programs offered at Rennsselaer Polytechnic's Language, Literature and Communications department which is involved in different technology based programs. Meanwhile, I have a degree in computer science theory and am working on a PhD in English. And I know of others who are "hackers" and English types.
As a social scientist (somewhat removed from humanities, but close enough), I've come to really value the role that computing can play in non-traditional fields. While some institutions have come to respect it as a component of any research, it's nice to see articles actively promoting computation, and in particular, elite and elegant computation, in soft research. Despite the stereotype that the only tool required for humanities students are books, the volume of information available now has reached a point where computer-based data mining and high-level analysis algorithms are necessary in order to provide anything resembling a thorough presentation.
Up to this point, that sort of work, no matter how exceptionally coded, has been seen as just another research tool. I'm very supportive of any effort to arrange for scholarly recognition of code written in support of research. Just as in the sciences, a tool, once written, can be used again and again to further study. Furthermore, a well-crafted program or script can be of more value to the field than the initial data it returns, if only because it makes one more avenue of investigation available to future researchers.
In summary, I'm glad to see that some of the fields that have traditionally relegated computation to the sidelines are beginning to recognize that there is academic and scholarly value in more than just the data that comes from computers. The development of research tools in the soft sciences may in time come to be almost as important as it is to the hard sciences.
~Cloudmark
"Be proud to be a fighter" - Martial Arts Adage