Skip to main content
Open Book Publishers

9. Are we ready to ‘screw around’ together? Barriers to institutionalisation of DH pedagogy in literature departments

Chapter of: Digital Humanities in the India Rim: Contemporary Scholarship in Australia and India(pp. 173–190)

Export Metadata

  • ONIX 3.0
    • Thoth
    • Project MUSE
      Cannot generate record: No BIC or BISAC subject code
    • OAPEN
    • JSTOR
      Cannot generate record: No BISAC subject code
    • Google Books
      Cannot generate record: No BIC, BISAC or LCC subject code
    • OverDrive
      Cannot generate record: No priced EPUB or PDF URL
  • ONIX 2.1
  • CSV
  • JSON
  • OCLC KBART
  • BibTeX
  • CrossRef DOI deposit
    Cannot generate record: This work does not have any ISBNs
  • MARC 21 Record
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 Markup
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 XML
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
Metadata
Title9. Are we ready to ‘screw around’ together?
SubtitleBarriers to institutionalisation of DH pedagogy in literature departments
ContributorRitam Dutta(author)
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0423.09
Landing pagehttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0423/chapters/10.11647/obp.0423.09
Licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
CopyrightRitam Dutta
PublisherOpen Book Publishers
Published on2024-11-06
Long abstractFounded on the philosophy of the constructivist and collaborative pursuit and production of new knowledge, pedagogy is at the very heart of Digital Humanities (DH). However, among the challenges for the institutionalisation of DH pedagogy, particularly in literature departments, is a dearth of sufficient literature on DH pedagogy—a concern echoed in “Where’s the Pedagogy?” by Stephen Brier (2012) among other scholar-practitioners of DH. As Hirsch (2012a) points out, the focus of the literature is predominantly “on the theories, principles, and research practices associated with the Digital Humanities—past and present—and not on issues of pedagogy”. Teaching is often “bracketed off” as an afterthought in the discussion on DH, which is a reflection of the practical realities of DH studies, particularly in literature departments. Hirsch argues that the bracketing off or complete exclusion of pedagogy in critical discussions of the Digital Humanities, as is often the case, reflects, and reinforces, the conflicting contrast between teaching and research of DH in academia. The chapter highlights the discrepancy between traditional pedagogical approaches prevalent in literature departments, especially in India, and the collaborative, hands-on methods intrinsic to DH practice. Traditional approaches often focus on the delivery of content from teacher to student, whereas DH emphasises inquiry-based learning, experimentation, and collaboration among peers and instructors. In the context of DH, a “pedagogy of digital experimentation” involves students actively engaging in making and doing, mirroring the work of DH professionals. This approach encourages collaborative exploration and discovery, aligning with the core tenets of DH, such as practice, discovery, and community. However, many literature departments are not prepared to embrace this approach, which involves what Ramsay (2010/2014) terms “screwing around” or “surfing and stumbling” as part of the research methodology. Shifting towards a pedagogy of active experimentation requires a significant paradigm shift, challenging traditional notions of teaching and learning. This shift may lead to discomfort or uncertainty for both teachers and students as they navigate unfamiliar territories. Bonds (2014) suggests that this discomfort arises from the need to co-produce knowledge in a constructivist manner, rather than passively receiving it. To bridge the gap between traditional pedagogy and DH practices, there needs to be a re-evaluation of entrenched ideas about teaching and scholarship. This re-evaluation should challenge limited perceptions of the teacher’s role and the connection between teaching and scholarship. Without this re-evaluation, Digital Humanities risks being confined to superficial applications like computer-assisted text analysis, rather than realising its full potential in higher education. Bringing pedagogy to the forefront of Digital Humanities in literature programs requires a fundamental reconsideration of educational practices and the roles of teachers and students. Embracing collaborative, experimental approaches can pave the way for the integration of DH into mainstream educational frameworks, fostering innovation and deeper engagement with humanities disciplines.
Page rangepp. 173–190
Print length18 pages
LanguageEnglish (Original)
Contributors

Ritam Dutta

(author)
Assistant Professor at the School of Liberal Studies at University of Petroleum and Energy Studies
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3089-778X

Dr Ritam Dutta works as an Assistant Professor at the School of Liberal Studies, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies. With almost 15 years of teaching experience in both India and the United States, he remains a dedicated educator. Dutta’s scholarly pursuits revolve around the intersections of literature, culture, education, and learning in informal cultural spaces. He is particularly interested in understanding the complex relationships between cultural practices, cultural spaces, cultural texts, records, and informal learning and education. His areas of interest are South Asian and Indian Youth Cultures, Literary Studies, Translation Studies, Career Adaptability Studies, Environmental Humanities, Place-Based Education, and Digital Humanities. He has published several research papers in peer-reviewed national and international journals and have presented in international conferences. He was a Fulbright Visiting Lecturer in the India Studies Program, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA from 2008–2009 and was a guest faculty in Centre for Studies in Book Publication and Department of Comparative Indian Languages and Literature, University of Calcutta from 2015–2017 and 2019–2020. Dr Dutta is also a life-skill educator and a communication coach. He has been twice awarded the prestigious international Blackboard Catalyst award in the “Teaching & Learning” and “Student Success” categories respectively for his innovative pedagogical practices in 2021 and 2022.

References
  1. Alexander, R.J. (2001). Culture and Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Education. Blackwell.
  2. Alvarado, R.C. (2012). The Digital Humanities Situation. In M.K. Gold (Ed.). Debates in the Digital Humanities (Vol. 1). University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/9781452963754
  3. Aoki, T.T. (1986/1991). Teaching as Indwelling between Two Curriculum Worlds. In W. Pinar, & R. Irwin (Eds). Curriculum in a New Key: The Collected Works of Ted T. Aoki. (pp. 159–165). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  4. Arms, W., & Larsen, R. (2007). Building the Infrastructure for Cyberscholarship. National Science Foundation.
  5. Ayling D. (2010). Designing Courses for Significant Learning. http://tlcommunityunitec.ning.com/profiles/blogs/designing-courses-for
  6. Bakhtin, M.M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. University of Minnesota Press.
  7. Batra, P. (2005). Voice and agency of teachers: A missing link in the National Curriculum Framework. Economic and Political Weekly 40(36), 4347–4356.
  8. Batra, S. (2009). Inequalities in elementary education. In P. Rustogi (Ed.). Concerns, Conflicts and Cohesions: Universalization of Elementary Education in India. (pp. 102–124). Oxford University Press.
  9. Bhaba, H.K. (1990). The third space: Interview with Homi Bhabha. In J. Rutherford (Ed.). Identity: Community, Culture, Difference. (pp. 207–221). Lawrence & Wishart.
  10. Bonds, E.L. (2014). Listening in on the conversations: An overview of Digital Humanities pedagogy. The CEA Critic 76(2), 147–157. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/cea.2014.0017
  11. Brier, S. (2012). Where’s the pedagogy? The role of teaching and learning in the Digital Humanities. In M.K. Gold (Ed.). Debates in the Digital Humanities (Vol. 1). University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/9781452963754
  12. Brinkmann, S. (2015). Learner-centred education reforms in India: The missing piece of teachers’ beliefs. Policy Futures in Education 13(3), 342–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210315569038
  13. Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674251083
  14. Burdick, A., Drucker, J., Lunenfeld, P., Presner, T., & Schnapp, J. (2016). Digital Humanities. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/digitalhumanities
  15. Cantu, D.A. (2001). An Investigation of the Relationship Between Social Studies Teachers’ Beliefs and Practice. Edwin Mellen Press.
  16. Chakrabarti, M. (1993). Tagore and Education for Social Change. Gian Publishing House.
  17. Chan, K.W., & Elliott, R.G. (2004). Epistemological beliefs across cultures: Critique and analysis of belief structure studies. Educational Psychology 24(2), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341032000160100
  18. Clarke, P. (2001). Teaching and Learning: The Culture of Pedagogy. Sage.
  19. Clarke, P. (2003). Culture and classroom reform: The case of the district primary education project, India. Comparative Education 39, 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060302562
  20. Clement, T. (2012). Multiliteracies in the undergraduate digital humanities curriculum: Skills, principles, and habits of mind. In B.D. Hirsch (Ed.). Digital Humanities Pedagogy: Practices, Principles and Politics. (pp. 368–388). Open Book Publishers.
  21. Collins, K.M. (2013). Ability Profiling and School Failure: One Child’s Struggle to be seen as Competent. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203802533
  22. Dagar, V., & Yadav, A. (2016). Constructivism: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Arts and Social Sciences Journal 7(4), 1–4.
  23. Diwan, R. (2016). State of Digital Humanities in India. Hastac. https://www.hastac.org/blogs/radhikadiwan/2016/10/12/state-digital-humanities-india
  24. Dutta R. (2015a). The integrated curriculum and the place(s) of learning in higher education: Notes from an Indian university campus. In F. Uslu (Ed.). Proceedings of INTCESS’15–2nd International Conference on Education and Social Sciences. (pp. 1394–1407). OCERINT.
  25. Dutta, R. (2015b). “Let’s Talk”: Promoting dialogue and answerability in critical humanities education with permeable curriculum and an āddā-based pedagogy. Kultura-Społeczeństwo-Edukacja 7(1), 35–59. https://www.doi.org/10.14746/kse.2015.1.3
  26. Dyer, C., Choksi, A., Awasty, V., & et al., (2004). Knowledge for teacher development in India: The importance of ‘local knowledge’ for in-service education. International Journal of Educational Development 24, 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2003.09.003
  27. Dyson, A. H. (1993). Negotiating a permeable curriculum: On literacy, diversity, and the interplay of children’s and teachers’ worlds. NCTE Concept Papers 9, 1–40. National Council of Teachers of English.
  28. Edmond, J. (2016). Collaboration and Infrastructure. In S. Schreibman, R. Siemens, & J. Unsworth (Eds). A New Companion to Digital Humanities. Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118680605.ch4
  29. Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal education. Journal of Science Education and Technology 16(2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9027-1
  30. Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research 38(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188960380104
  31. Fink, L.D. (n.d.). A self-directed guide to designing courses for significant learning. Teaching and Learning Community at Unitec. http://tlcommunityunitec. ning.com/
  32. Faull, K.M., & Jakacki, D.K. (2015). Digital learning in an undergraduate context: Promoting long-term student-faculty place-based collaboration. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqv050
  33. Fink, L.D. (2013). Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. John Wiley & Sons.
  34. Freire, P., & Ramos, M.B. (Trans.). (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum.
  35. Fyfe, P. (2011). How to not read a Victorian novel. Journal of Victorian Culture 16 (1), 84–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13555502.2011.554678
  36. Gold, M.K. (2012a). Day of DH: Defining the Digital Humanities. In M.K. Gold (Ed.). Debates in the Digital Humanities (Vol. 1). University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/9781452963754
  37. Gold, M.K. (Ed.). (2012b). Debates in the Digital Humanities (Vol. 1). University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/9781452963754
  38. González N., Moll L., Deborah N., Amanti C. (2005). Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing Practices in Households, Communities, and Classrooms. New Jersey.
  39. Gruenewald, D.A. (2003). Foundations of place: A multidisciplinary framework for place-conscious education. American Educational Research Journal 40(3), 619–654. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003619
  40. Gupta, A. (2006). Early childhood education, postcolonial theory, and teaching practices. In India: Balancing Vygotsky and the Vedas. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780312376345
  41. Hirsch, B.D. (2012a). Introduction: Digital Humanities and the place of pedagogy. In B.D. Hirsch (Ed.), Digital Humanities Pedagogy: Practices, Principles and Politics. (pp. 3–30). Open Book Publishers. https://www.doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0024
  42. Hirsch, B.D. (Ed.). (2012b). Digital Humanities Pedagogy: Practices, Principles and Politics. Open Book Publishers. https://www.doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0024
  43. Ives, M. (2014). Digital Humanities pedagogy: Hitting the wall and bouncing back. CEA Critic 76 (2), 221–224. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/cea.2014.0016
  44. Jakacki, D., & Faull, K. (2016). Doing DH in classroom: Transforming humanities curriculum through digital engagement. In C. Crompton, R. J. Lane, & R. Siemens (Eds). Doing Digital Humanities: Practice, Training, Research. (pp. 358–372). Routledge.
  45. Liu, A. (2009). Digital Humanities and academic change. English Language Notes 47 (Spring/Summer), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1215/00138282-47.1.17
  46. Liu, A. (2012). Where is the cultural criticism in the Digital Humanities? In M.K. Gold (Ed.). Debates in the Digital Humanities (Vol. 1). University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/9781452963754
  47. Liu, A. (2013). The meaning of the Digital Humanities. PMLA/Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 128 (2). https://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2013.128.2.409
  48. McClurken, J., Boggs, J., Wadewitz, A., Geller, E., & Beasley-Murray, J. (2013). Digital literacy and the undergraduate curriculum. In D.J. Cohen & T. Schienfeldt (Eds). Hacking the Academy: New Approaches to Scholarship and Teaching from Digital Humanities. University of Michigan Press. https://www.doi.org/10.3998/dh.12172434.0001.001
  49. Moje, E.B., Ciechanowski, K.M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly 39(1), 38–70. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.1.4
  50. Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice 31(2), 132–141.
  51. Munby, H. (1982). The place of teachers’ belief in research on teacher thinking and decision making, and an alternative methodology. Instructional Science 11(3), 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00414280
  52. Murray, P.R., & Hand, C. (2015). Making culture: Locating the Digital Humanities in India. Visible Language 49(3), 140–155.
  53. NCF. (2005). National Curriculum Framework. NCERT.
  54. Noddings, N. (2005). Place-based education to preserve the Earth and its people. In N. Noddings (Ed.). Educating Citizens for Global Awareness. (pp. 57–68). Teachers College Press.
  55. Nyhan, J., & Vanhoutte, E. (Eds). (2013). Defining Digital Humanities. A Reader. Ashgate Publishing.
  56. O’Connell, K.M. (2008). Freedom, creativity, and leisure in education: Tagore in Canada, 1929. University of Toronto Quarterly 77(4), 980–991. https://doi.org/10.3138/UTQ.77.4.980
  57. Pajares, F.M. (1992). Teacher’s belief and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research 62(3), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307
  58. Ramachandran, V., Bhattarcharjea, S., & Sheshagiri, K.M. (2008). Primary School Teachers: The Twists and Turns of Everyday Practice. Educational Resource Unit.
  59. Ramsay, S. (2010/2014). The Hermeneutics of Screwing Around: Or What Do You Do with a Million Books. (pp. 111–120). https://libraries.uh.edu/wp-content/uploads/Ramsay-The-Hermeneutics-of-Screwing-Around.pdf
  60. Ramsay, S. (2013). On building. In Defining Digital Humanities: A Reader (pp. 243–245). Ashgate Publishing.
  61. Ramsay, S., & Rockwell, G. (2012). Developing things: Notes toward an epistemology of building in the Digital Humanities. In M.K. Gold (Ed.). Debates in the Digital Humanities (Vol. 1). University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/9781452963754
  62. Rao, N., Cheng, K.M., & Narain, K. (2003). Schooling in China and India: Understanding how socio-contextual factors moderate the role of the State. International Review of Education 49(1/2), 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022969922200
  63. Raths, J. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and teaching beliefs. Early Childhood Research and Practice 3(1), 1–10.
  64. Rehbein, M., & Fritze, C. (2012). Hands-on teaching digital humanities: A didactic analysis of a summer school course on digital editing. In B.D. Hirsch (Ed.). Digital Humanities Pedagogy: Practices, Principles and Politics. (pp. 47–78). Open Book Publishers.
  65. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.). Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. (pp. 102–119). Macmillan.
  66. Richardson, V. (2003). Preservice teachers’ beliefs. In J. Raths & A.C. McAninch (Eds). Teacher Beliefs and Classroom Performance: The Impact of Teacher Education. Information Age Publishing.
  67. Sanger, M.N., & Osguthorpe, R.D. (2011). Teacher education, preservice teacher beliefs, and the moral work of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education 27(3), 569–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.10.011
  68. Sarangapani, P.M. (1999). The child’s construction of knowledge. In T. Saraswathi (Ed.). Culture, Socialization and Human Development: Theory, Research and Applications in India. (pp. 85–122). Sage Publications.
  69. Sarangapani, P.M. (2003). Constructing School Knowledge: An Ethnography of Learning in an Indian Village. Sage Publications.
  70. Schweisfurth, M. (2011). Learner-centred education in developing country contexts: From solution to problem? International Journal of Educational Development 31(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2011.03.005
  71. Schweisfurth, M. (2013). Learner-centred Education in International Perspective: Whose Pedagogy for whose Development? Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203817438
  72. Shanmugapriya, T., & Menon, N. (2020). Infrastructure and social interaction: Situated research practices in Digital Humanities in India. Digital Humanities Quarterly 14(3). http://digitalhumanities.org:8081/dhq/vol/14/3/000471/000471.html
  73. Sidorkin, A.M. (2004). In the event of learning: Alienation and participative thinking in education. (Faculty Publications Paper 12, pp. 1–11). Rhode Island College. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-2004.2004.00018.x
  74. Sneha, P.P. (2016). Mapping Digital Humanities in India: Vol. CIS Papers 2016.02. The Centre for Internet and Society, India. https://cis-india.org/papers/mapping-digital-humanities-in-india
  75. Svensson, P. (2010). The landscape of Digital Humanities. Digital Humanities Quarterly 4(1).
  76. Tagore, R. (2009). The Oxford India Tagore: Selected Writings on Education and Nationalism. U. D. Gupta (Ed.). Oxford University Press.
  77. Tatto, M.T. (1996). Examining values and beliefs about teaching diverse students: Understanding the challenge for teacher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 18(2), 155–180. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737018002155
  78. Taylor, S. (2013). Collaborative approaches to the Digital in English Studies. Computers and Composition 30, 180–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2013.06.003
  79. Vavrus, F. (2009). The cultural politics of constructivist pedagogies: Teacher education reform in the United Republic of Tanzania. International Journal of Educational Development 29, 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2008.05.002
  80. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.