On this page, John and Mark keep a to-do list of project-related research tasks.
Has “the digital” altered History more dramatically than it has altered English? To answer this, we’re going to need to do more reading in digital history, and revisit histories of History, like Novick’s classic, That Nobel Dream.
Do Richards and the American Studies types confirm or complicate our account of the humanities to 1935? We’ve already sketched out the reading program in the posts.
Can the organizational dynamics of the Humanities be thought of as problems of scale? And, where did dollars and students really go during the post-60’s growth of interdisciplinary studies programs? This is a statistics gathering task.
To Mark’s question, “Should we try to demonstrate this hypothesis?“, I would add the further question: “How exactly would we demonstrate this hypothesis?” I wonder if a few posts weighing what would count as evidence are indicated.
In my last post, I noted parenthetically, (I’ve gathered some materials on this early phase of communications research and I think I remember you saying you knew someone who’d spent time looking into this seminar?). I should put together a post on this stuff.
A book report on N. Katherine Hayles’s How We Think would seem to be in order.
Given the disciplinary specialization issues raised in Mark’s post on Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System stats, a literature review of the relationship between professionalism and differentiation would seem to be in order.