During the #dhiha6 conference, we tried out different formats in order to foster exchanges. One of them were the Lounges, which I mentioned in an earlier post. In the lounges, participants could actively contribute to predetermined setups by commenting texts, answering questions, letting ideas emerge. This setting was interesting in that it allowed the participants to move from one lounge to another, to stay longer in one and less in another, to smell the atmosphere and move on or sit on a couch for half an hour. In the lounges, the participants turned into Parisian flâneurs.
At the #dhiha6 conference, I was in charge of the Open Peer Review Lounge together with Pierre Mounier. We had transfered all the blog posts written in the context of the #dhiha6 blog carnival to the Open Peer Review blog platform hypothes.is and opened them to comments. The visitors could sit at a computer and leave comments on the blog posts. You can find them under the URL: www.dhiha6.org.
I have spent what feels like the last year and a half trying to make the hermeneutical added value of digital methods audible to Literary Studies scholars in my field – and I have failed. These discussions always reach a point of no-return when I am being asked to give an example, offer one such example, and the example is then considered a specific case which does not tell much about the hermeneutical value of the whole. I have had this conversation over and over again and I keep wondering: Why is it that digital methods are being granted the ability...