This week’s readings really spoke to questions of what’s important in the practice of developing the digital humanities.  Suber’s chapter on Open Access (OA) makes a strong case about how OA helps forward academic scholarship.  Suber notes that some have raised concerns about the potential of OA to invite plagiarism, misattribution, and misuse of a researcher’s publication. But Suber believes the benefits outweigh the risks: OA provides researchers with the “widest readership,” whereas traditional scholarship may appear only in specialized journals accessible only to other scholars. OA increases the chances of a researcher’s work becoming truly influential through this universal sharing.  Also, OA removes the pressure to create marketable scholarship, which can inhibit researchers who focus on more niche areas of study less attractive to publishers. I related well to this particular point, as my avocational interest in archaeology has sometimes led me to hit paywalls and other access barriers, likely because a focus is too niche to be available commercially.  

Fitzpatrick adds relatable comments on OA too, describing the anxiety, in the early days of the internet, of sharing their writing to an open online audience, but later celebrating the larger community that grew around it.  Fitzpatrick admits that stakes of publicly sharing ideas are much higher today, particularly for women and people of color, as more hateful and racist voices have found their way into the public mix.  Still, Fitzpatrick argues that the true value of OA is in its public service of providing access, but that creators need to keep innovating to find new ways of engaging all digital consumers. I couldn’t agree more; as a teacher and in educational administration, I worked hard to increase student and teacher access to learning outside the curriculum, and technology was often the medium through which this happened, or it was the focus of actual learning. 

Gold, Michael and Karlin describe how the digital humanities makes this possible. They note how Manifold integrates technologies in a way that helps bridge connections between the traditional manuscript and the online digital platform to become a unique and engaging resource combining the best of both with the benefits of interactivity and universal access.  Again, looking back on my work in education, I can see engagement with ideas truly taking off with even young students when they are able to connect ideas and sources with Manifold and other platforms to learn and to share their understandings. Finally, the concept of “minimal computing” provides a practical check for digital creators, according to Risam and Gil.  Obsessing over the “latest and greatest” in software, online platforms, and more when working in the digital humanities may be overlooking what is truly “necessary and sufficient” for creating meaningful projects.  They offer four questions for digital creators to ask themselves to help “resist the deficit model” and focus on what’s really important, and frame their point with real-life examples that show how limitations can actually drive creativity and problem solving. Also, Risam and Gil note how sometimes, issues of access that arise (connectivity, background knowledge, etc.) can find solutions when developers take a minimalist approach.  I connected with the ideas in this article, again thinking back to my career in education, because I so often needed to find ways to “make it work” with limited budgets, older equipment and with staff professional development, as there frequently was not enough time or energy for teachers to learn entirely new systems; thus, creative solutions often emerged.  And I definitely can see how prioritizing the “tried and true” over the “latest and greatest” can help digital humanities developers cut through hype and put ideas front and center.