It’s been more than three years, since the first European Manifesto to the Digital Humanities was written at THATCamp in Paris in May 2010. In the meantime, Digital Humanities journals, networks, research labs, and centres have been established, new methods and software have been developed, and lots of blog posts, articles, and even several books have been written on the topic. As a result, it seems to be impossible to think of academia without having the term on the back of one’s mind these days.
However, the situation of the Digital Humanities is still precarious in at least two ways. One was recently addressed by a manifesto that emerged in the context of the conference Research Conditions and the Digital Humanities: What are the Prospects for the Next Generation? which took place at Paris on June 10-11: The precarious situation of young researchers working in the field of the Digital Humanities due to a lack of institutional acknowledgment of their working methods and publishing practices by, amongst others, senior researchers and funding agencies.
Besides the 31 participants of the conference, some 50 researchers have signed the manifesto confessing “Yes we digital” up to now. Will you be the next? You digital?
The other precariousness is related to the concept itself. All these brave efforts made so far haven’t clarified the meaning of “Digital Humanities”: Is it a new discipline? A new approach? The salvation of the humanities? Just a buzzword to obtain subsidies? Or a project waiting openly for critical researchers to be adopted?
If you want to support “Yes we digital”, please click and sign here.