How do we define the term “digital humanities?” Dave Parry writes in Chapter 24 of Debates in the Digital Humanities that establishing a clear definition is a difficult task. However, when describing their work, ‘digital humanists’ can be understood as scholars who use “digital devices to perform critical and theoretical observations that are not possible with traditional pencil or typewriter aided analysis” (p. 8). Digital tools, including computers, provide a new lens for theoretical and critical textual analysis. We can use computers for more elaborate projects, analyze more data, and present visualizations that were not possible before the digital age. Parry stresses that using computers and digital tools for humanities research does not alter the “values and ideals of the field” in any way: it simply means that we can do our work more quickly, more efficiently, and on a larger scale than ever before (p. 11).

In Parry’s view, there are two ‘digital humanisms:’ one where digital tools such as computers are applied to the traditional means of humanities research, and another where these ‘new media’ digital tools (social media, digital games, etc.) are studied on their own terms (p. 17). While many conservative scholars might prefer the first approach, I believe that social media and digital games can provide valuable information and insight, as they are utilized by so many people in all age groups and walks of life. One of Parry’s revelations is that “we live in a world that is so thoroughly digital it is impossible, at this point, to talk about the nondigital” (p. 24). We live in a world of text messages, Instagram influencers, Canvas courses, and digitized books. Most research involves digital information: it has affected all aspects of human culture. Whether we view “the humanities” and “the digital” as separate or as inseparable, it cannot be denied that the discipline has changed.

Eileen Gardiner and Ronald G. Musto explain in their text, The Digital Humanities: A Primer for Students and Scholars, that we have used the same tools in the humanities for hundreds of years. Rhetoric and grammar are the tools we use in constructing texts, along with material tools such as pen, ink, and paper. Gardiner and Musto stress that although the main focus is still on the analysis of traditional texts and documents, scholars need to convert these into digital form in order to create data for modern analysis (p. 72). They list various text-based tools such as Microsoft Word and PDF documents for textual analysis and annotation, conversion and decoding, editing and processing, mining, recognition, visualization, and transcription.

Data-based tools include Database Management Systems (DBMS) and mapping tools for collecting and managing digital data. Image/sound-based tools for image creation, editing, and processing include software such as Photoshop, 3D-modeling and printing, along with video and audio processing tools. According to Gardiner and Musto, outcome-based tools such as blogging, brainstorming, collaboration, communication, organization, publication and sharing, peer reviewing, and searching (Google, etc.) depend on the scholar’s goals.

I have utilized many of these tools in my own research, and am continuously learning how to use new tools for analysis. Looking at how technology has changed scholarly research, even over the last twenty years, is incredible. Although some may resist, we must embrace these new tools, learn how to utilize them, and take our research to new heights in this new age of humanities research.