After working with our own data and creating our own network this week, I learned that everything has to follow the same format in oder for it to work correctly. As we looked at our network on RAW, we started coming up with different questions and realized we needed more information/data in order to answer those questions. I’d imagine that this is how some, if not most of DHer’s research questions come about.
Data visualization and network analysis are important tools in the DH field when used appropriately and correctly. Like Scott Weingart said in his Demystifying Networks blog, “networks can be used on any project. Networks should be used on far fewer.”
Data visualization and network analysis provide an easier way to look at the information/data you gathered and help develop questions. I’m anxious to see if we will use it for our final project and if so, how we will use it. Will it work the same as our in class lab with raw? Will we come up with different questions/angles to our project along the way?
I also enjoyed looking at Kindred Britain this week. It’s nice to get a chance to explore different types of DH projects and see how much work and effort go into them. I think that’s also where humanists draw a line; more tools, less understanding, more effort. We talked a couple weeks ago about this ongoing battle between digital humanists and humanists and how they’re both limiting themselves from the benefits of the other. A traditional humanist might not understand the benefits of data visualization tools and creating a digital networks because it’s over their heads and it probably seems overwhelmingly difficult and complex. However, (coming from an inexperienced and beginner “DHer”) after working with these tools I can confidently say that they do have their benefits. Working with our own data and creating a network last week proved to me that these tools seem scary and complicated, but they don’t have to be. You’re providing with the data, you’re in charge, and these tools are just there to assist you.