Distant Readings: An Additive Fixture to the Digital Pedagogical Classroom

Distant Readings are brief pieces of data sets, strung together, to create some-what cohesive conclusions on larger-scale literature. The data chosen is valid. The data visualization or artistry of the distant reading is clear and professional. But can Distant Readings stand on their own in the Digital Pedagogical Classroom? Or should the co-partner with the traditional Close Readings, for a more in-depth analysis of the literary text? Through the in class readings, which were purely text-based with some additional distant readings modules to help aid, one can find the important of these two aspects and how they can compliment each other in the classroom.

Distant Readings are engaging, drawing in the reader with visual aesthetics, small, concise data points and the openness to create a dialogue only using the provided information. This could deem revolutionary, having speculation unfold from a distant text analysis. In Ted Underwood’s “A Genealogy of Distant Readings,” he professes, “Here we reach a zone of persistent miscommunication between distant readers and their colleagues…. Instead of interpreting distant reading as a normative argument about the discipline, it would be better to judge it simply by asking whether the blind spot it identified is turning out to contain anything interesting,” (Underwood.) With this perspective, Underwood is communicating the Distant Readings are useful to objectively think about the Close Readings, rather than solely using the Distant Readings as the pinnacle of study within the classroom. Distant Readings can help students gain contextual information of the setting, plot, backstory, and characters while utilizing its aesthetic visualization to aid students in retaining the information for the close readings.

Defining the Free Aspect of the Digital Pedagogical Structure in the Classroom

Digital Pedagogy brings the Digital Humanities and resourceful technology to the educational classroom forefront. In term of the Digital Humanities’ approach to research and product, the subject matter of the class are free in exploration and student production. In the Digital Pedagogical classroom, the class structure should be outlined and guide students through the course while still expressing these Digital Humanities abilities to learn and create, freely.

Ryan Cordell presses upon the Digital Pedagogy issue of too much freedom in the classroom in his essay, “How No to Teach Digital Humanities.” Cordell states his humorous opinion, “In many ways, I think the way we often frame DH tries a bit too hard to achieve a Dead Poets Society moment: “your other teachers taught you literature with close reading and literary criticism, but in my class we’re going to disrupt that stale paradigm using computers. Now rip up your books and pull out your laptop!” This sense of educational liberation expressed here shows the superficial freedom of what the Digital Humanities appears to be but then Cordell goes on to express, “when those DH things are framed around particular skills, often within disciplinary structures. I would argue more and more that the way we should integrate DH into the undergraduate curriculum is as a naturalized part of what literary scholars or historians or other humanists do,” (Cordell.” This aspect here shows the smallest, yet most effective structure in incorporating Digital Pedagogy in the classroom that would positively influence classroom education but was also discussed with the student prior about what they would be interested in learning within the Digital Humanities course structure.

Cordell gives some pedagogical advice to structure the “free-reign” course of Digital Humanities. To “start small,” implements,  “Maintaining such disciplinary focus perhaps limits my students’ sense of the wider DH field, but it allows me to teach a few things well rather than teaching everything poorly,” (Cordell.) Cordell also suggests to “Integrate when Possible,” “Think Locally” for community building, and “Scaffold Everything,” to show, “ It is these latter skills that good digital humanities pedagogy must inculcate: not “how to use x tool,” though that is likely part of it, but more “understanding how x functions, delineating its affordances and limitations, and then imagining y or z,” (Cordell.) These techniques bring structure and purpose to the “free-thinking” classroom and provide a well-rounded approach to academic retention and learning.

While in the Digital Pedagogical classroom, with the ability to move freely within the structured pedagogical classroom, in Marta Effinger-Crichlow’s writing of “A Pedagogical Search for Home and Care,” they bring us to realize the human aspect in teaching young, intersectional students of the Digital Humanities. They give the example of sharing a morbid photo that resonates deeply with a student during class and how through discussion, comfort, and deep understanding, the students are able to share their deep thoughts, processed-opinions and feel safe expressing these views within the classroom. Having an educator create a classroom, such as this example, will foster more comfort and ideas being processed for the benefit of not only the pedagogical classroom but also it will reflect in the personal development of the students.

Through Cordell’s and Effinger-Crichlow’s assessment of their own pedagogical educator endeavors, it is clear that the “freeness” that superficially defines the educational style of the Digital Humanities and Digital Pedagogy is false. This openness within the curriculum is actually full of professional boundaries, structured lesson plans, and intention for engagement as well as informative retention. The use of Digital Pedagogy in the classroom and the professional world is essential for student’s educational, professional and person growth as humans and students of the world.  

The Importance of Relationship between Open Access Publishing and the Digital Humanities

Open Access Publishing is the opportunity to publish work free of costs, publisher, or restrictions. This tool is for anyone to access the work published, easily. Digital Humanists use the digital tool of open access publishing to promote their research and studies for the most important audience: the humans that look for and need these resources. Open Access Publishing serves as a beneficial technological tool not only for the Digital Humanists who work to get their works published but also for the human audience who seek to learn from these free, open source findings, online.

In Peter Suber’s writings of “Open Access,” he delves into the purpose served using Open Access Publishing as well as clarifying some misconceptions.  Open Access Publishing is not for the profit of the writer but rather for the benefit of the audience. The author of the piece has their copyrights of their products until they extend them over to a publisher, which then the writer would receive earnings. Some misconceptions clarified about Open Public Access are that there a copyright laws protecting the Open Public Access piece publishing, this is not an alternative to avoid peer review of a paper, as well as there is no money making agenda with Open Public Access, it was all free.

Johanna Drucker adds some thoughts in her piece, “Pixel Dust: Illusions of Innovations in Scholarly Publishing.” After sharing some skepticism on the romanticism of the Open Public Access reputation, she writes, “But humanities are not a luxury, and to show that they have a substantive contribution to make to the world we live in, we need to demonstrate their relevance to policy, politics, daily life, and business, not just rehash the same old bromides about critical thinking and imaginative life. The vitality of humanities is the lifeblood of culture, its resounding connection to all that is human makes us who and what we are. The preservation of cultural ecologies is akin to preserving ecologies in the natural world, it is, in fact, the human part of them. The humanities are us. Their survival is our survival,” (Drucker.) This powerful and thought-provoking conclusion here shows the importance of utilizing Open Public Access, to share with the public valuable, free-range research that will connect communities together, for the benefit of humanity. At no cost.

The Importance Frequent Accessibility and Free Narrative Space of the Digital Public Archive

In Cameron Blevin’s “Digital History Perpetual Future Tense,” they explore the idea for the concept of the digital world being an ever-prosperous place for published work of inclusive past, present and future history. With the accessibility of technology and the freedom and interest to publish unheard narrative, the digital archive is constantly a place to educate, learn and to use as research with open availability. This diversity in open narrative digital archives results in accurate information being research, produced, and published that will help in spreading correct information as well as creating a community of support for the studies.

Blevin makes a case for the online digital archive, stating, “ One could argue that online historical exhibits, collections, and archives reach larger and more diverse audiences than any other kind of humanities work. These digital history projects are some of the strongest rebuttals we have for critics who bemoan the humanities’ eroding position in society or growing irrelevancy in the digital age,” (Blevin) This factor is true having these intricate sites publically displayed with a passionate driven to display the authentic histories that are rarely vocalized displays a strong argument for the importance of digital archiving and it’s accessibility. Putting these values into perspective can illustrate how important the digital archive’s accessibility and inclusivity is in it’s production of it’s open narratives, research topics and community conversation. The narratives and research are brought from passion, inquiry, reclamation and a hope for connection.

The Fear of Impersonality and Misrepresentation in Data

In Jennifer Guiliano and Carolyn Heitman’s study, ”Difficult Heritage and the Complexities of Indigenous Data,” they explore the issue of researching, collecting, producing and publishing Indigenous data that is equally representative of Indigenous cultures as it is also personal and informative, representing heritage and information. Guilano and Heitman bring the reader into many perspectives on their methods as well as quandaries faced in their field of study. They press upon the complexities of data for benevolence, the accessibility or lack of data due to colonial oppression, as well as altering data. These concerns bring the fear of uncertainty, impersonality and being misrepresented when the data being collected is incredibly vulnerable and personal, especially due to continuous systematic oppression.

Guiliano and Heitman give examples of these concerns immediately, stating, “The humanities, social sciences and physical sciences embrace a data culture that takes as its starting point the notion that data (and knowledge) should proliferate and circulate widely for the public good. For scholars working in Native American and Indigenous communities (as well as other minority communities) data can be dangerous. Data have been used to promote policies of genocide, inflict trauma, and fragment communities, all of which have had far-reaching consequences across generations,” (Guiliano, Heitman, pg. 2.) This vulnerability of not only discussing indigenous data but than also exposing this data can be incredibly sensitive and crucial for the survival of these populations. They continue to emphasize, “What’s more, Indigenous communities are “determined to pre-serve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system… Native American and Indigenous scholars have widely documented the effects of colonialism as violent and virulent practices that led to widespread disease, genocide, trauma, and displacement. So too have they documented how governmental efforts to expand throughout the American continent relied upon physical death and cultural destruction of Indigenous peoples,” (Guiliano, Heitman, pgs. 2-3.) With this viewpoint being illustrated, it is shown how personal this data is and how crucial it is to accurately represent the data for not only out of respect but also for the safety of the people at risk.

Separately, in relation to the use of data visualizations representing data, for example indigenous data, it could be deemed as a impersonal if utilized improperly. This data shared is very crucial to Indigenous culture and their well-being. If it is misrepresented or poorly conducted in its representation, the data visualization will be poorly received in it’s inaccuracy, dehumanizing factors and could possibly incite violence. Reading these article, a possible solution that could assist in properly relaying this information to the public, for the peer review, maybe the subjects sharing their data should review the interpretations of the data before it’s published.

Decolonizing Mapping in the Digital Humanities

Yarimar Bonilla and Max Hantel bring light to pre-colonial and post-colonial history and mapping in their essay, “Visualizing Sovereignty: Cartographic Queries for the Digital Age.”  They press upon the United States’, British, French and Spanish control over The Caribbean, and how this factors skews the accuracy in pre-colonial history, territories, mapping of the Caribbean, and the continuous justification of these factors due to modern, post-colonial control. The need to decolonize mapping is essential to give accurate information about the world as well as justice to humanity that has been great affected by colonialism.

For a portion of their essay, Bonilla and Hantel focus on the Caribbean history and mapping. They highlight, “This history of fractured, uneven, contested, and negotiated sovereignty continues to shape the region as a whole, and at present the majority of societies in the Caribbean are not independent nation-states but rather protectorates, territories, departments, and commonwealths … In addition, the Caribbean also holds a large number of nonsovereign enclaves: military bases, privately owned islands, semiautonomous tourist resorts, free-trade zones, tax havens, wildlife preserves, satellite launching stations, detention centers, penal colonies, floating data centers, and other spaces of suspended, subcontracted, usurped, or imposed foreign jurisdiction that challenge the principles of bounded territorial authority associated with the Westphalian order,” (Bonilla, Hantel.) This shows how overtaken the Caribbean is taking over by foreign powers and their politics, that the land’s procession is inauthentic to it’s origin. This brings a morphed view of what the Caribbean really appears, naturally, and perpetuates colonial values over people and their respective land.

With the Digital Humanities in mind, the multitudes of research done and created to academically share is such an incredible step forward in promoting not only a decolonization and recognition of colonial values in mapping, but it also gives the opportunity for people who’s genetic lineage has been affected by colonization to reclaim their territory and history, even digitally. Bonilla and Hantel include modern data mapping visualizations that include Claudio Saunt’s “The Invasion of America: How the United States Took Over an Eighth of the World,” and Vincent Brown’s, “Slave Revolt in Jamaica 1760- 1761: A Cartographic Narrative.” Both of these intricate types of maps bring alive important concepts in history that have been silenced due to colonial rule of the narrative. Utilizing the Digital Humanities and digital mapping and resources, people can use these tools to create invaluable content that will change the historical narrative to a historically accurate and inclusive narrative.

The true work behind Digital Humanities and Epistemologies

The work in the Digital Humanities ranges into many different fields. This includes: research, writing, interviewing, editing, data visualizations, digital pedagogy, text mining, data analysis, site creation, Java Script and much more. In Stephen Ramsy’s and Geoffrey Rockwell’s work, “Developing things: Notes towards an Epistemology of Building in the Digital Humanities,” they explore the quandaries of, what determines a Digital Humanities? Are Digital Humanities defined by their research and conclusive writings? Or should they be solely defined in the creation of the digital content they create in addition to their research? These factors delve into a focus or epistemologies, or a personal, professional and valid investigation, which correlate in the fact that in gaining authenticity for such specification of a digital humanities source, should the creators been innovative and create new resources for the Digital Humanities?

Ramsy’s and Rockwell’s text goes back and forth trying to determine the appropriate protocol for determining how a Digital Humanists should be classified. In their argument, it’s new media journalists vs. technology innovators Vs. scholarship and funding. They go onto express for the literary sorts, “But in more recent times, people writing conventional books and articles about “new media” seldom worry that such work won’t count. People who publish in online journals undoubtedly experience more substantial resistance, but the belief that online articles don’t really count seems more and more like the quaint prejudice of age than a substantive critique,” (Ramsy, Rockwell.) In regards to the technological creators, they emphasize, “They are scholarly editors, literary critics, librarians, academic computing staff, historians, archaeologists, and classicists, but their work is all about XML, XSLT, GIS, R, CSS, and C. They build digital libraries, engage in “deep encoding” of literary texts, create 3-D models of Roman ruins, generate charts and graphs of linguistic phenomena, develop instructional applications, and even (in the most problematic case) write software to make the general task of scholarship easier for other scholars. For this group, making their work count is by no means an easy matter,” (Ramsy, Rockwell.) These hardships of uncertainty of gaining traction and anxiety stems from a clear line of what constitutes effective work in the Digital Humanities.

Ramsy and Rockwell go onto to explain that, “ For nontenure-line faculty and staff (e.g., those working in DH research groups and centers), the problem of evaluation is at least theoretically solved by a job description; if it is your job to build things in the context of the humanities, success at that task presumably resolves the question of what counts in terms of evaluation and promotion. Grant funding, too, has functioned in recent years as a form of evaluation.” This determination shows how broad the Digital Humanities field could be and yet how complex the production and the acceptance of work into scholarship can become in the process.

Kim Gallon’s essay, “Making a Case for the Black Digital Humanities,“ gives the reader the point of view of the rationalities there are to be a Black Digital Humanists and the role that is played in Digital Humanities. Focusing on this certain epistemology, Gallon expresses that; “The racialization of black people’s humanity therefore poses a fundamental problem to the digital humanities as it is generally defined,” (Gallon.) She draws the importance of her research, stating, One of the essential features of the black digital humanities, then, is that it conceptualizes a relationship between blackness and the digital where black people’s humanity is not a given. The black digital humanities probes and disrupts the ontological notions that would have us accept humanity as a fixed category, an assumption that unproblematically emanates in the digital realm. The black digital humanities, then, might be defined as a digital episteme of humanity that is less tool-oriented and more invested in anatomizing the digital as both progenitor of and host to new—albeit related—forms of racialization. These forms at once attempt to abolish and to fortify a taxonomy of humanity predicated on racial hierarchies.” The support of funding for research and development of in the Black Digital Humanities is essential for this field to thrive in data, research, technological development, archiving and solidifying a connected community with resourceful information.

The book, “Introduction: Why Data Science needs Feminism,” penned by Catherine D’ Ignazio and Laura Klein, is an epistemology focusing on data intersectionality and the crucial role women play in the data world.  This reading centers on the many struggles that women face, in daily life, but also in the professional and data world. These women, the authors focus on, are under an intersectional umbrella, explaining the trails and tropes that an array of women have in gaining traction, rightful credit and scholarship for their works. These credits or professional opportunities are commonly given to men. 

After reading these incredibly thought-provoking articles, I can come to an open-ended conclusion that Digital Humanists start the conversation, or the epistemology. The works being created, with literary or technological, are on-going pieces that have peer reviews, can be altered, can have additions, and can be updated in accordance to on-going research on the subject. On the matter of inclusivity and gaining traction to receive grant funding to effectively conduct the research, Universities should be more inclusive when reviewing and deciding on who should be funded in their research.

After researching proper methods in text analysis and text mining, a new concept for a Digital Humanities grad student like myself, I decided to retire my original idea of using text mining to make the claim that Calpurnica, the Finch family’s maid, from Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird, should be considered more of the voice of reason in the literature’s narrative than the Atticus Finch, the narrator’s father. This idea is to be best used for another type of project in the near future. Instead, I decided to refocus and research the difference in text between the Teen Vogue magazine issues of pre-2020 to the Teen Vogue magazine issues of 2021. Teen Vogue magazine, at its core, is a publication dedicated to expose a younger audience to a worldwide view of fashion, celebrity news, health, and artistry. Of course, generational differences come into play as well as with the magazine also including technology advances, major current events, inclusivity, psychology, fashion, and trends in the teenage world.  I wanted to see if this new political stance that the current 2021 Teen Vogue had a stark difference or connection to previous Teen Vogues of the past.

Finding pre-2020 Teen Vogue digital archived publications was a bit difficult. Although there were bountiful technological resources in pre-2020, archiving print publications into a digital platform wasn’t a common phenomenon to procure for future findings in research. I did manage to find a few archived pre-2020 Teen Vogue publications that were digitally archived. These 2011 Teen Vogue issues, however, contained no real focus on politics or injustice, as 2021 Teen Vogue. Instead the focus is rather on celebrities, fashion, make-up, dating and horoscopes. The pre-2020 issues are also not as inclusive in exposure and narratives in regards to celebrities, makeup and fashion representing more white figures.

Combing through a few online published articles from Teen Vogue’s 2021 issues was easily accessible. The focus had shifted, significantly, to reflect current events, in a very strong approach to inform the readers of injustice in politics. Teen Vogue’s online archive was well organized and detailed. I used Voyant to help organize and clarify my data to come to this conclusion.  I focused on a few current 2020-2021 articles, with most varying from politics, the 2020 Covid-19 Pandemic, and inclusive narratives ranging from race, culture, sex and identity in addition to fashion, celebrity, health and dating.

In addition to the text mining process, I did some outside research on the range of change with the new scope of publications and current events to find a huge conflict of interest in this new change of direction. This new change of direction stems from a major Public Relations crisis resolution, from Teen Vogue Magazine team, taking charge of the narrative of the magazine after the former editor in 2020 published inappropriate and racists tweets on Twitter. This discovery has led my own conclusion in a different direction comparing Teen Vogue of pre-2020 to Teen Vogue of 2020-2021 with this addition pre-text of the firing of Teen Vogue’s editor over racist remarks, seeing that instead of just adding a political aspect to their editorial, Teen Vogue Magazine has now added an inclusive narrative, ranging from not only it’s topics that to relate and educate a broader audience, but also it’s own writers, contributors and subjects, to stand in solidarity, understanding , and pride with their wide-range of young readers around the world. This differs very much from the pre-2020 narratives of Teen Vogue Magazine, that did not press upon any of these subject matters in regards to inclusion.

Below or some links to some archived pre-2020 Teen Vogue Magazine Articles:

Below are archived links to recent articles of the current 2021 Teen Vogue Magazine archive: