Previously, I have helped with sections of proposals for company projects, usually as supporting research or collecting information about partnerships or collaborators. The experience of needing to propose a justifiable project and theoretically sell why it should happen, and how one might go about doing it, was an enlightening experience. I found the ideation process challenging, making sure that it fit into the context of the class and the Digital Humanities. I am personally not a fan of needing to suggest a project on my own, so trying to evaluate the usefulness of a project idea proved to be the first and most daunting challenge. After finalizing an idea (many were abandoned) I found following the Digital Humanities Research Institute Project Lab helpful in thinking through the proposal. The National Endowment for the Humanities articles were also helpful, but I realized it was making my experience more complicated and I needed to focus on what would be feasible for a semester-long project. Keeping in mind the time scale helped me narrow down the scope after receiving the in class feedback. I had not done many field scans before this and found it to be difficult, but also vital. First, I was just impressed by a lot of what I found, but also it was great to break down the components I felt were like what I would write about in the proposal and where I felt my proposed project could diverge.

Going forward, I would probably continue to use the Digital Humanities Research Institute Project Lab when working through a project. I found the experience of drafting a project proposal to be a great skill to add to my toolset. I also have a deeper understanding of the less glamorous side of developing something and have immense appreciation for the team members who are responsible for drafting proposals to get funding for projects and initiatives.

There were a few articles from the social media week that were not discussed in class as much as “A Life Lived in Media”. 

Three of the readings dealt with Blackness and the Digital space. Interacting with academic writing and research about Blackness is unfamiliar, but incredibly affirming. The piece Signifying Shade as We #RaceTogether Drinking Our #NewStarbucksDrink “White Privilege Americana Extra Whip” was refreshing and called out the co-opting of culture by corporations in a way that felt qualitatively impactful. Within the last year, I realized there were large portions of my LGBTQ+ knowledge that had been sanitized through corporate intervention. The way I understood certain cultural actions and language to just be of my generation was largely extracted from this community. This was starkly felt after watching Paris Is Burning and having a better context for where certain terms of endearment and evaluation came from. Seeing that extraction of Black communication online for marketing strategy as a serious point of research was fascinating. I am familiar with using Twitter (also sometimes called X) as a litmus for a portion of the public’s opinion, but the way author Toniesha L. Taylor describes scraping Twitter hashtags, and running it through tools like Voyant to find meaning or a trend was illuminating. 

The reading “Is Twitter Any Place for a [Black Academic] Lady?” was a bit of a frustrating read. As grateful as I am that academics and researchers like Marcia Chatelain share publicly, there are certainly times when I wish women of color did not bother. Seeing the vitriol and harassment they receive online for stating an opinion or sharing information is such a disheartening experience. The piece gave me a better understanding of some contentions academics who decide to do work in the public encounter. Where I felt that Kathleen Fitzpatrick’s Generous Thinking: A Radical Approach to Saving the University is a great guideline and food for thought on “public academics”, Chatelain gives a realistic anecdote of just why it is so difficult to have these two worlds meet, and with a intersectional lens. The rigid understanding of research and the limited space for outreach seems like a worthy place for evaluating our higher education systems. Individual academics should not feel that their cultural work is not valuable or that it can directly diminish their academic value to the institutions they work for. While I have limited understanding of all facets of how the academic landscape works, it seems folks are yearning for sustainable, paying options besides tenure or perhaps reevaluating the criteria for it.

One portion that was impactful in the piece was the perception of teaching. That being a good teacher, one student remembers and appreciates, works against being a scholar. Our crisis in K-12 teachers feels like a direct implication of this devaluing of teaching. I’m not sure what needs to happen to culturally shift this perception, but academics as a whole suffers from that rigidity. 

Having Amanda Licastro come and speak for the pedagogy week was a perfect expansion of that week’s readings. Frankly, doing social annotations was a stressful activity for me. Forming something useful to add to a conversation digitally comes less natural for me and having my thoughts memorialized is the thing intrusive thoughts feed on. That being said, after reading “Breaking Boundaries With Social Annotation: An Interview With Amanda Licastro” and having her discuss the affordances around using social annotation in coursework, I wish it were implemented more often in K-12 settings. Having students get used to engaging in constructive discourse around a shared piece of media is a usual skill and might make traversing social media and other digital public spaces an overall better experience. I have read a lot about media literacy and I think techniques and methods like social annotation should probably enter these conversations more in how we teach students to engage and conduct themselves online.

I also thought the insights instructors can gleam from what students discuss in this format is such a great way to get data on how the media for class is being received and perhaps make real time adjustments easier.

While I heed and agree with the concerns Monica Brown and Benjamin Croft raise in “Social Annotation and an Inclusive Praxis for Open Pedagogy in the College Classroom”, especially regarding power and microaggressions in the online space, the promise of this tool seems like something we should encourage. I think about the ways students can be made to feel they have little control of lessons and how using open pedagogy and social annotations can validate their knowledge creation and allow them to feel agency in the classroom. 

After spending the semester reading about the theoretical, ethical, and pedagogical approaches to digital humanities scholarship, I was eager to put my learning into practice. In conceiving of my final project, I felt overwhelmed by the possibilities available to me: initially, I was interested in writing a paper about participation as a fulcrum upon which DH sits, demanding public engagement while also interrogating public contributions to DH scholarship. After attending Software for Artists Day at Pioneer Works, I couldn’t stop thinking about a project I’d seen at the event: the creators of BannerDepot2000 explained how their website could create poems using a random selection of web ad banners from the 1990’s. They showed me an example, and proclaimed, “here’s a poem!”. Their certainty made me uneasy. How did they know that this random collection of text was a poem? Who gets to decide what can be qualified as poetry? My reflections on the randomly generated poem inspired me to pivot my final project away from a paper and towards an interactive interpretive tool for poetry online. I wanted to test how people decide that something has literary meaning. Are we always looking for meaning, category, and symbolism? Is interpretation inevitable? In constructing my project, I also thought about a symposium I attended at the NYU Center for the Humanities in September called “Re-Interpretation: Hermeneutics in the Age of AI” which called into question how artificial text and cultural outputs will challenge and change our understanding of interpretation. I wanted to revisit some of the questions raised in this symposium, and thought that my project might allow for a more in-depth look at authorship and meaning in relation to text. 

I decided to pursue a project that used public records as the basis of poetic generations, hoping to critique how we regard bureaucratic language as having a singular interpretive purpose. By invoking the carceral system, I also wanted to explore the political and literary consequences of censorship: since this is a topic I work closely with through my job, I wanted to apply a more critical lens to the mechanisms of cultural censorship. While writing my narrative, I found that the environmental scan most helped me to clarify my project’s purpose. In researching other projects that questioned poetic form, found poetry, and repurposed language, I was able to develop a much stronger critical framework for my proposal. Instead of feeling intimidated by other projects — as I’d expected to feel — I was encouraged by other people’s work to trace back threads of inquiry that I might not have thought were important otherwise. 

The part of my final project proposal that leaves me with questions still is the actual execution of the project. While it’s simple to imagine a website, the technical skill that will go into creating a website is beyond my scope. Even though I identified programmers as part of my project staff, I am still not really sure what those programmers will do: what coding language will be most effective? How will text actually be scraped from digital, public records? Although I don’t have the coding skills to create a website right now, I hope that, over the course of the next semester, I can learn more about how to write code so that I can be a better project teammate in the future.

My final seminar paper is titled “Introducing TikTok to Digital Humanities Scholarship”. The following is my updated abstract: 

This paper explores TikTok’s transformative role in Digital Humanities, moving beyond its perception as just an entertainment platform to a valuable tool for community engagement and knowledge exchange. It analyzes TikTok’s impact on various aspects of Digital Humanities through several focused sections. The first part discusses digital community-building within the Mexican-American community, highlighting TikTok’s facilitation of authentic expression and challenge to traditional narratives. The next section examines knowledge validation and sourcing on TikTok, emphasizing its embrace of lived experiences that disrupt conventional academic hierarchies. The paper then explores TikTok’s influence on visual authenticity and knowledge transformation, showcasing its unique visual and interactive features. The final section evaluates TikTok as a medium for digital public scholarship, considering its effects on academic communication, community engagement, and knowledge dissemination. Overall, the paper positions TikTok as a significant scholarly subject within Digital Humanities, advocating for its inclusion in academic discourse to enrich and diversify the field.

I didn’t want this paper to be too similar to my other research projects I have going on in psychology that are also related to TikTok so I ended up doing more of a general exploration of how my experiences sharing knowledge on TikTok connect to digital humanities scholarship. There’s some terms that I used in my paper that I’m not sure I would keep using because they feel a bit strange to me like “democratizing” and “inclusivity” and “diversity” because I feel like they have become so common in neoliberal academic scholarship that typically takes on more of a reformative approach to reshaping education as opposed to completely dismantling its oppressive structures. I prefer to use more abolitionist language, but I also wanted to use the language that was similar to the course readings so that’s why I used them. 

I feel like I struggled with coming up with a structure for this paper but once I started to just write down all of the connections I saw it was actually a really enjoyable paper to write. I also think that maybe engaging with and creating more theoretical work in DH just isn’t for me which I as surprised about. I’m usually a big fan of writing and reading theoretical work in critical-social psychology and get less excited reading empirical papers/research that describes more hands-on projects but with DH I feel like it’s the opposite. I think I just need to accept that the ideal balance for me as a researcher as I continue in my PhD program will be analyzing digital empirical data and using psychology scholarship to theoretically make sense of it. 

Hope y’all enjoy your break!

I was revisiting a lot of the readings from the social media week while writing my final paper. I realized that there’s a few that weren’t that relevant to my final project paper but are highly relevant to my other research projects so I thought I would share them with y’all. 

I’m currently drafting a research proposal for a study that aims to explore the significance of social media’s role in shaping the language and identity of Mexican-Americans.  I think Deuze and colleagues (2012) work will be really helpful in getting scholar who aren’t as familiar with social media in my field to understand the significance of my project. They suggest that media devices and consumption have become foundational features of our everyday lives, and that we need to better understand and navigate our increasingly media-saturated world. Additionally, the they argue that we no longer live with media, but in media and propose a “media life perspective” that starts from the realization that the whole of the world and our lived experience in it are framed by, mitigated through, and made immediate by media. This is something that is really key for me in using the digital landscape as a site for psychology research. 

In developing a methodological framework for creating interview questions for my study, I’m thinking of drawing on Taylor’s (2012) exploration of the unique rhetorical traditions within African American communities and the use of advanced data analysis techniques in studying language and communication patterns. Taylor argues that language and signifying are powerful tools of relationship and relational belonging in the African American community, and that the grammar of Blackness requires invention and reinvention through language to survive oppression and government violence. Additionally, Parham (2019) further argues that understanding the digital as both descriptive and generative of African American experiences of memory, space, and time resets the chronology for what we typically postulate as the technical device emergence of “the digital.” By integrating these perspectives into the research design, my study can shed light on how social media contributes to the evolution of relationships with identities and labels within the larger context of how Mexican-Americans navigate and resist the ongoing colonial violence. My hope is that insights gained from this study can contribute to a better understanding of the psychological and phenomenological aspects of social media use within the Mexican-American community, specifically in the context  of processes of decolonizing and re-indigenization.

When I was living in Korea, I was inspired by the multi-dimensional traditions surrounding poetry and literature there. Poetry readings were often accompanied by live musical performances. Visual artists would display paintings, photographs, or calligraphy interpretations alongside the poems, fusing textual and visual art. There were also playful poetry writing games and activities that engaged broader audiences.

This was in stark contrast to the often more solitary, cerebral reception of poetry in the US, which can come across as esoteric or inaccessible. I started thinking about how to make poetry more interactive, accessible, and enjoyable for others.

Later, while working for a literature festival, I realized poems themselves create spaces. For four years (until the pandemic), we would choose a poem to anchor the entire festival. Based on the themes in the poem, we would curate programs, speakers, and school activities. The conversations I overheard during the festivals were illuminating. Discussing a poem on the concept of hometown sparked exchanges about people’s personal histories. Another year, highlighting a poem on identity led to passionate discussions about purpose and meaning.

The poems acted as springboards into broader dialogues and shared experiences. Poetry became a co-created space for human connection.

This project was inspired in part by these experiences. Conversations with Alex opened up new possibilities for using technology to make poetry a more visceral, accessible medium.

Despite technology’s pervasive and growing relevance in today’s society, adult education remains solely focused on improving math and reading skills. Simultaneously, the digital humanities and related fields like human computer interaction and ethical computing all encourage a humanist approach to technology that doesn’t always reach technology’s most novice users because of the foundational knowledge required. Pursuing a digital humanities approach to adult education offers a solution that first, incorporates digital literacy into adult education, alongside math and reading, and secondly, offers a critical lens through which every learner can begin to examine the digital tools we are increasingly expected to use everyday.

My paper started with a foundational examination of adult education and digital literacy and then considered what a digital humanities approach in these areas might look like, arriving at three guiding principles, designed to be generative in nature:

• Personalize and Contextualize
• Dialogue Does It
• Practice Makes Progress

These principles are then used as a lens to explore the digital humanities in practice in settings like those commonly offering adult education and digital literacy (i.e. resource-constrained with populations of emerging technologists). Ultimately, a digital humanities approach to adult education and digital literacy is argued to be an opportunity to firmly make good on the intended promises of all of these disciplines, within the context of the increasingly digital age in which we live and for a growing population of new technologists, all of who are poised to assume the competencies and responsibilities of shaping that world.

The concept for my project was inspired by a profound understanding of the Puerto Rican diaspora to which I belong. Immersed in large communities of diasporic Puerto Ricans, I’ve observed recurring themes and elements within our shared experiences, including a common desire to return to the island. The articles on mapping and archival techniques influenced how I envisioned my project, opening up possibilities for what could be achieved through this process. It will be exciting to start this project in the future and see what new digital tools come along in the process.

My project sets out to create an interactive map to trace the Puerto Rican diaspora’s movement to the US mainland, inspired by the participatory nature of “queeringthemap.com.” The idea is to let people pin their family’s origins, encouraging widespread participation through partnerships with Puerto Rican communities and events. The aim is to make the map a public tool for sharing data and showcasing the diaspora’s diverse roots across the US. It’s a digital humanities effort that combines public engagement with scholarly pursuits, offering a new lens on the diasporic narrative by analyzing Puerto Ricans’ collective memories and experiences. By providing a platform where individuals can document their stories, this project helps to fill the gap in understanding and visualizing the Puerto Rican migration story, linking academic research with the lived experiences of a vibrant culture. This work complements existing resources like https://puertoricosyllabus.com/, placing Puerto Rican studies within the digital humanities framework.

The article on Minimal Computing suggests using only the technologies that are necessary and sufficient for developing digital humanities scholarship under constrained environments. While I agree with the rationale, I believe the issues are more nuanced.

In the article, the authors cite the example of WordPress versus a static site generator. They argue that WordPress was the right choice–while sacrificing security and maintenance–was easier to use. This example was presented as a binary but glossed over nuanced discussion of the tradeoffs. Rather than a binary choice between static sites or WordPress, creative solutions like automating file uploads to Jekyll sites can achieve simplicity for users while enabling flexibility. More than focusing on the specific technologies used, the focus should be on balancing complexity strategically.

Considerations beyond technical access are also crucial, including literacy, cultural norms, and geography. Framing minimalism solely as a reaction to technology maximalism overlooks contextual factors and imaginative space in between. Discussions should revolve around project objectives and community priorities.

Technology can organize information, reduce labor, and enhance access. A minimalist approach suits some scenarios but may miss opportunities. Thoughtfully applied technology can spotlight complexity and access as needed.

Dwelling on “what do we need? what do we have? what must we prioritize? and what are we willing to give up?” limits the discussion on what is possible. More open, future-minded conversations around possibilities better serve identifying genuine requirements. Neither maximalism nor minimalism is universally optimal and in digital spaces, a more open, considered approach might be more constructive.