When I went to the lighting talks on the first day of NYCDH Week, most projects were of the platform and tool building variety. I was very impressed by these projects, but it was Professor Brier accepting his award and discussing his work quantifying coal strikes had such an immediate effect on me. Clearly, I am fascinated by evidence of larger forces acting on events. While contributions to tools, platforms, and other forms of humanities analysis offers a necessary work for the academic community. Like the development of statistical models and other quantitative devices employed by the social and hard sciences, these projects allow future scholars to pursue their hypotheses and other work. Further, building these projects with others in mind means we will seek universality and customization, rather than fitting the work to a particular end.

In class, I found the evaluation process fruitful. There were interesting project proposals. It was clear that clarity and detail are very valuable. My own proposal felt underdeveloped, but still got many useful questions. One realization I had is just how much information I had absorbed on the subject of lynching that others may not know.

A DH project of the argumentative variety requires extensive knowledge of a topic. It is also often a two-step process, requiring first the accumulation and of data, then the design or use of an analytic tool. Given that interest in DH, and not a specific discipline or topic is what unifies the class, such projects are not ideal. (Though I can’t help but think that there are enough Modernists and folks who are interested in 20th century poetry.)

Another thought I had is that unless a project is really developed and all but perfect in design, we can expect to make considerable changes once a team is assembled to work on it, despite the tight schedule. This makes a tool or platform project more attractive, because it requires less extensive learning or catch up from the team.