De los métodos comunes a la heterogeneidad de las humanidades digitales.

Ernesto Priani Saisó

doi:10.62876/lr.vi49.7960

Authors

Ernesto Priani Saisó Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2908-0457

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62876/lr.vi49.7960

Keywords:

Epistemología, comunidades de práctica, métodos comunes, herramientas digitales

Abstract

The article reviews three paths taken in Digital Humanities (DH) to formulate an epistemology about the field. These paths are the community of practice, based on the ideas of Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger; the proposal of methodological commons, first introduced by Willard McCarty and Harold Short in 2002; and finally, the humanization of tools, methods, and digital infrastructure for the practice of digital humanities from diverse thinkers.

To do so, it begins with a detailed description of the tension caused by incorporating the digital into the humanities. It then examines the three aforementioned paths, identifying the concerns they address, what they have in common, and their limitations and challenges. Finally, the article concludes by highlighting what remains to be done in establishing an epistemology of digital humanities based on the three proposed paths and considering other factors that influence knowledge production in DH, such as the need to address the heterogeneous nature of its knowledge creation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Ernesto Priani Saisó, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Dr. Ernesto Priani Saisó. X: @epriani. www.ernestopriani.com Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Circuito interior, Ciudad Universitaria, S/N C.P. 04510 México, D.F. México.

References

Aristóteles. Ética nicomáquea. Traducido por Antonio Gómez Robledo. (Ciudad de México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1983).

Ascari, M. ‘The Dangers of Distant Reading: Reassessing Moretti’s Approach to Literary Genres’. Genre 47, no. 1 (2014): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1215/00166928-2392348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/00166928-2392348

Clements, Tanya E. ‘Where Is Methodology in Digital Humanities?’. En Debates in the Digital Humanities, editado por Matthew K. Gold y Lauren F. Klein. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2016). https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/read/untitled/section/cfa5a92d-0d35-4e3d-b632-85644039cb1c#ch14.

Dacos, Marin. ‘Manifiesto por unas Humanidades Digitales’. THATCamp Paris (2010). https://doi.org/10.58079/uo1y.

Dalbello, Marija. ‘A genealogy of digital humanities’. Journal of Documentation 67, no. 3 (2011): 480–506. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411111124550. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411111124550

Drucker, Johanna. Visualization and Interpretation: Humanistic Approaches to Display. (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12523.001.0001

Gombrich, E. H. Research in the Humanities: Ideals and Idols’. Daedalus 102, no. 2 (1973): 1–10.

Harpham, Geoffrey Galt. The Humanities and the Dream of America. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2011). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226317014.001.0001

Hughes, Lorna, Panos Constantopoulos y Costis Dallas. ‘Digital Methods in the Humanities’. En A New Companion to Digital Humanities, editado por S. Schreibman, R. Siemens y J. Unsworth. (West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2015): 150–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118680605.ch11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118680605.ch11

Masson, Eef. ‘Humanistic Data Research: An Encounter between Epistemic Traditions’. En The Datafied Society, editado por Karin van Es y Mirko Tobias Schäfer. (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2017): 25–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9789048531011-004

Moretti, Franco. ‘Conjectures on world literature’. New Left Review, no. 1 (2000). https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii1/articles/franco-moretti-conjectures-on-world-literature. DOI: https://doi.org/10.64590/hxj

Mounier, Pierre. Les humanités numériques: Une historia critique. (Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme, 2018). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/books.editionsmsh.12006

Priani Saisó, Ernesto. ‘La gestación del concepto de humanismo en la primera década del siglo XX en México’. Revista Figuras 2, no. 3 (2017): 28–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/fesa.figuras.2021.2.3.161

Saladino García, Alberto. ‘Humanidades: Concepto e identidad’. La Colmena, no. 3 (2017): 40–44.

Sánchez-Criado, Tomás. ‘Introducción: En torno a la génesis técnica de las ecologías humanas’. En Tecnogénesis: La construcción técnica de las ecologías humanas. (Madrid: Antropólogos Iberoamericanos en Red, 2008).

Schatzberg, Eric. Technology: Critical History of a Concept. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2018). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226584027.001.0001

Siemens, Ray. ‘Communities of practice, the methodological commons, and digital self-determination in the Humanities’. Digital Studies / Le Champ Numérique 5, no. 3 (2016). http://doi.org/10.16995/dscn.31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16995/dscn.31

———, Alyssa Arbuckle y Randa El Khatib. ‘The Digital Humanities Summer Institute (DHSI): Community Training Toward Open Social Scholarship’. En Digital Humanities Workshops: Lessons Learned, editado por Laura Estill y Jennifer Guiliano. (Abingdon: Routledge, 2023).

Unsworth, John. ‘Scholarly primitives: what methods do humanities researchers have in common and how might our tools reflect this?’. Conferencia presentada en Humanities Computing: Formal Methods and Experimental Practice, King’s College, Londres, 13 de mayo 2000. https://people.brandeis.edu/~unsworth/Kings.5-00/primitives.html.

Wenger, Etienne, Richard A. McDermott y William M. Snyder. Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2002).

Willard, McCarty y Harold Short. ‘Methodologies’. European Association for Digital Humanities (2002). https://eadh.org/methodologies.