Invisible interpretations: reflections on the digital humanities and intellectual history

Much has been made of the digital humanities, yet it remains an underexplored field in relation to intellectual history. This paper aims to add to the little literature which does exist by offering a survey of the ideas and issues facing would-be practitioners. This includes: an overview of what the digital humanities are; reflections on what they offer intellectual history and how they may be problematic in regard to, first, accessing texts, and second, analysing source material; a conclusion with three reflections on future best practices – to be sceptical of digital sources, to be reflective of methodologies and how they may need to be modified when engaging with the digital humanities, and to embrace more directly the methodological, statistical, and technical aspects behind digital humanities. The aim is not to provide all the answers – at this stage that is impossible – but to be part of an emerging and ongoing discussion

Historical geography II: Digital imaginations

In my second report discussing the state of historical geography, I review some of the ways historical geographers have made use of digital technologies and digital media. I also highlight how digital data, research, and presentation are affecting related humanities disciplines and inspiring their practitioners to engage more fully with geographic concepts of space, place, and cartography. I argue that information technologies and digital media can deepen the place of historical geography in the academy and in the public’s eye.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

Practicing Geohumanities

The age-old confrontation between two cultures—humanities and science—obscures the fact that their traditions are fundamentally similar in several respects. A primary source of the continuing fracture between the two cultures might simply be practitioners’ preference for exclusionary ontological or epistemological worldviews, expressed most directly through the differing discipline-based standards of evidence that practitioners deploy or are willing to accept. In this article, I consider the nature of practice in the nascent geohumanities by uncovering the tracks of recent convergences in geography and the humanities, and by reflecting on case studies from my own recent work. Three aspects of transdisciplinary scholarly dialogue are highlighted: the standards of practice, the quality of work produced, and the ensuing pedagogy. I suggest ways of replacing the opacities of intellectual difference with the transparencies of recognition; how the outcomes of transdisciplinary practice might be judged; and practices in the transdisciplinary classroom.人文与自然这两种文化间历久弥新的冲突，掩盖了两者的传统在本质上有若干相似面向的事实。这两种文化之间持续摩擦的主要来源，可能纯粹关乎实践者偏好排他性的本体论或认识论之世界观，且绝大部份直接透过实践者所部属或愿意接受的不同领域根据的证据标准表现之。我透过揭露晚近地理学与人文学科的趋同历程，并反思我自身晚近工作的案例研究，以此考量晚近地理人文学科实践的本质。我将凸显跨领域学术对话的三个面向：实践的标准、生产着作的素质，以及随之而来的教学法。我提出以认可的透明度取代知识差异的晦涩、跨领域实践成果的评量方式，以及跨领域课堂中的实作。La interminable confrontación entre dos culturas—humanidades y ciencia—oculta el hecho de que sus tradiciones son fundamentalmente similares en varios respectos. Una fuente primaria de la fractura persistente entre las dos culturas podría ser simplemente la preferencia de los practicantes por las visiones ontológicas o epistemológicas excluyentes del mundo, expresados de manera más directa a través de estándares discrepantes de evidencia, de origen disciplinar, que los practicantes despliegan o que están inclinados a aceptar. En este artículo, considero la naturaleza de la práctica en las nacientes geohumanidades, poniendo de manifiesto las huellas de recientes convergencias en la geografía y las humanidades, y reflexionado sobre estudios de caso de mi propio trabajo recién desarrollado. Hago énfasis sobre tres aspectos del diálogo erudito transdisciplinario: los estándares de la práctica, la calidad del trabajo producido, y la pedagogía resultante. Sugiero la manera de remplazar las opacidades de diferencia intelectual con las transparencias de aceptación; cómo podrían juzgarse los resultados de la práctica transdisciplinaria; y las prácticas en el aula transdisciplinaria