Our first German-French Master Class in Digital Humanities will take place next week at the German Historical Institute in Paris. Organization team, experts, and probably also the participants are actively preparing this week-long event that will bring together scholars and students willing to experiment with new pedagogic formats.
You can already find on the blog of the German Historical Institute:
There is more preparatory material coming up, and during the Master Class itself, we will be realizing videos of key moments such as of the 2-minute-pitches prepared by the participants we are all very much looking forward to. Stay tuned, also on twitter under the hashtag #dhmasterclass !
While the conference (which I also mentioned in my previous post) is aiming at a manifesto-esque text production on the future of digital scholarly publishing, I had to leave this morning and promised a contribution in the form of a blogpost. The following hence recapitulates the content of my presentation of yesterday, some of the following discussion (partly integrated in my argument to make it more explicit), and puts these in the wider context of the topic addressed at Gut Siggen.
I could have talked about reputation, about peer review, about blogging, but there were other experts to talk about that. As I was presenting in the theoretical section, I assumed it was expected from me to go to the bottom of a few basics, so I chose to speak about the concept of author and whether there still was an author as we understand it in the world of digital publications. Continue reading “Fight for gold, excommunications and vampires: a day in the life at Gut Siggen”
After the TEI Conference in Vienna and the ESTS/DiXiT conference in Antwerp, I am now staying at Gut Siggen for a conference (rather: work session) on digital scholarly publications this week. It took me a while to find a spot with stable internet access between these thick, old walls but finally found it (and luckily, it comes with a comfortable chair).
Although I won’t be able to enjoy it fully since I have to head back to Berlin tomorrow morning, the concept of the seminars held here is in many ways attractive: one week by the sea to talk, argue, discuss one topic with a group of selected people in an enchanting setting…
This afternoon, I will give a short lightning talk on authorship, in which I will try to sum up some of the papers I gave or publications I contributed to in the last couple of months. Continue reading “By the sea”
There is this hate/love affaire between DH and the TEI, which seems to me to be best expressed in the way DH scholars call the TEI the “de facto standard”. It’s not the standard you’d wish, but it is recommended, especially by the funding agencies who give money to DH projects. Also, it works, you can actually do things with the TEI that won’t disappear tomorrow. Of course, it is sooo heavy machinery compared to the time and funding you actually get from the funding agencies. But bummer. De facto, it is the standard. Continue reading “The de facto standard”
During the #dhd2016 conference as well as in the course of our study on research practices in the humanities, I could do nothing but note that MS Word remains one, if not the most important digital tool for today’s humanists (I mentioned it in this blogpost in French and in this one in German). Humanists use MS Word to draw schemas and tables, to bibliography, basically for every major research activity.
Hearing this, I was confident that things had changed since my dissertation time. By then, I wrote the whole opus in plain TeX (and will never thank enough my then-boyfriend for developing the macros), because it was clear from the onset that it would become so huge MS Word would not manage it properly. By two volumes of 500 pages each and complex cross-referencing paragraphs along the work, it definitely made sense not to stick to MS Word. Continue reading “Why I still hate MS Word 18 years later”