Pages 6-7

Collaboration is not always good. It separates the interpreter/scholar from the designer/programmer who implements the scholarly methods. Willard McCarthy notes that the introduction of software "separated the conception of the problems (domain of the scholar) from the computational means of working them out (baliwick of the programmer) and so came at a significant cost.” As computing is introduced into research, it separates consumption, implementation, and interpretation in ways that can be overcome only through dialogue and collaboration across very different fields. Typically, humanities scholars know little about programming and software engineering, and programmers know little about humanities scholarship. Going it alone is an option only for the few who have time to master both. The rest of us and up depending on others.

Indeed, a major advantage, in terms of methodology. Bias is introduced in myriad ways, but that one way would likely have a much deeper effect than many others.

Really interesting idea: do an analysis of humanities researchers in general (DARIAH) and Holocaust researchers in specific (EHRI). One is very heterogeneous, the other very homogeneous (at least in terms of working conditions and, broadly speaking, data sources).

description of "arts and humanities researchers"

Benardou, Agiatis, Panos Constantopoulos, and Costis Dallas. 2013. “An Approach to Analyzing Working Practices of Research Communities in the Humanities.” International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 7 (1–2): 105–27. doi:10.3366/ijhac.2013.0084.

"it is wise to avoid generalizations and to concentrate instead on showing how interactions between coworkers, specifically the orchestration of information exchange and coauthorship, are grounded in local culture."

Hawhee: why do I buy the "profound," the "most profound" as a description of sensory knowledge?

Is it not the task of simplifying, that the research denies herself, when dreaming of showing the full complexity of a phenomenon to it audience?