Shared publicly  - 
This is a "noob's" view on digital humanities. He claims that the reason for why academics refrain from digital academe is that they "don't know the language" and that they "don't even know what to ask for". For him the problem was that he felt completely lost and therefore didn't even know what kinds of questions to ask.

He thinks academe needs 'clearly marked pathways to access', "disciplinary protocols" and that the "expected means by which those elements of professional life are effectively accessed by beginners" have to be clearly stated.

Alright. Maybe I have to do away with my pipe dream academics embraced the ideas of learner autonomy and lifelong learning and lived up to it.
As for 'being lost' and that: it's not that digital academe were some kind of secret society hiding in the bushes. In fact, it's really the exact opposite.
If you want to learn about Twitter - google it, find some howto video everyone can understand and within minutes you will be ready to put your newly acquired knowledge to use. Same goes for virtually every other tool as well.

Is there really something like "expected means" of effective access? I don't think so, because everyone is entitled to their own working habits: what I deem to be "effective" might totally balls up your mode of operation.
Personally, I don't "expect" anything from anyone when it comes to HOW they put digital tools to use; to me, the only thing that matters is that they do. At the end of the day, this "how" ain't exactly rocket science and where a youtube search might already clear things up I am somewhat alienated by the kind of attitude that underlies this blog post.

Please don't mistake me as uncooperative or arrogant here - I will always be glad to help "noob" colleagues out where I can - but in my mind the complaint about exessive demand and disorientation in the face of digital technologies does not go together with my idea of an academic - at least not where a couple of simple Google searches would do the trick.

I appreciate that "noobs" do come out with blog posts like this, as I really wonder what holds people away from a digital, networked and open approach to academe and I guess with blogs like this the discussion can engage so thanks to whoever wrote it.
Today my faculty group focused on the Digital Humanities here at Messiah College had a great session with Ryan Cordell from St. Norbert’s College. Ryan blogs regularly for ProfHacker at the...
Laura Gibbs's profile photo
Eeek, I find it so embarrassing when academics don't want to shoulder a burden of newness and learning. I mean, it's fine if they choose not to (everybody has limited time), but to complain about it publicly like this - ouch.
Moreover, I think the author is being unfair to characterize DH as somehow different from any other field in what it demands, both the actual knowledge (important) and social knowledge - it's the problem of social knowledge that bugs me: as with ALL academic fields, there is a clannish, clubby, "insider-ness" about DH. Of course, they are just like all other academic fields in that regard. With DH, though, I would hope for better... some people in DH are all about democratizing access, reaching out to new audiences, etc. (which I like), but some are just using DH as a way to build a new scholarly elitism. Scholarly elitism bothers me in ANY field, not just DH.
So, what really gets my goat about this blog post, is that the author seems to be blaming the democratizing aspects of DH as making it obscure ("I think some of the laudable democratic ethos in DH work and culture may contribute to this obscurity") - ARGH, I would say just the opposite.
Add a comment...