Curating the Baldwin Hall Excavation

Anthropology Professor Laurie Reitsema and her Human Osteology class took on a critical project for the campus community in their work on the Jackson Street cemetery and the Baldwin Hall excavation.

In 2015, human remains were found during the construction of the Baldwin Hall expansion project. Work was halted while experts including Southeastern Archaeological Services, and members of the Anthropology department, including Reitsema and several of her graduate students meticulously recorded the location of the remains, likely bodies originally buried in a forgotten section of the Old Athens Cemetery, excavated the individual bones, and removed them safely from the dig site.

Graduate students sort and catalog materials found in the excavation

In preparation for the bones’ reburial in 2017, Reitsema and her Human Osteology class analyzed and catalogued the remains. This work requires careful attention; from documenting the original location of the remains to sorting through dust, rocks, and wood to extract every possible piece of material and finally photographing all of the co-located remains.

Students cataloging skull fragments

The class examined the materials in three groups looking for evidence that might tell us more about the lives these people might have lived. They looked for signs of disease and infection, information regarding diet and nutrition, and their activity patterns as evidenced in stress on the bones themselves. The amount of information one can glean from bones alone is astounding. Evidence of everything from abscessed teeth, to injury, to syphilis can be seen in these fragments. Using comparison data sets the students were also able to make basic conjectures on what types of work these Athenians might have done based on the stress to the long bones of the legs and arms.

Image of students presenting on the probable diet and nutrition of the population in a classroom

Students presenting on the probable diet and nutrition of the population

For the students this project provided an invaluable opportunity to do fieldwork in their own backyard. As Anthropology graduate student Rachel Horton explained, “The importance of this work is that these bones represent a lived experience lost to history. We are helping to bring that history to life.”

Reitsema’s class has worked closely with teams of experts and their findings will be combined with ongoing research including DNA testing. All of these findings will be released together as the additional research is completed.

Once complete, this work will join our “Death and Human History in Athens” Digital Humanities project that now includes student investigations of local Athens cemeteries from five classes at the University of Georgia. This project is ongoing and we will continue to add information as it is available.



Read More

Study in a Second Discipline: Amelia Opie and DH

amelia_opieThis semester English Professor Roxanne Eberle has been awarded the opportunity to work in the Provost’s Office Study in a Second Discipline program to gain skills in the Digital Humanities. Over the course of the semester Eberle has worked in conjunction with Digital Humanities Coordinator Emily McGinn, and Assistant Professor in Digital Humanities and History, Scott Nesbit, in a directed study to learn more about the methods, issues, and tools in the digital humanities.

The main focus of this endeavor is to gain skills in TEI and XML with the goal of creating a digital edition of Amelia Alderson Opie’s letters. Opie was a well-known poet, tale writers, and novelist, whose work appeared in print from 1790-1844. She was contemporaries with Mary Wollstonecraft, William Godwin, and Lord Byron.

This project stems from Eberle’s decades long interest in Opie. Her research has led her to countless archives looking for Opie’s correspondence and she has transcribed hundreds of handwritten letters. Now, with this collection in hand, she has been working in the DigiLab to digitize these transcriptions and mark them up using TEI. The final project will be encoded in such as way as to identify Opie’s correspondence networks and her unique language use.

Eberle has now completed a schema for encoding her letters, and in the Spring (release date June 21, 2017) she will create a prototype for her digital edition using a subset of 16 letters that best exemplify Opie’s larger body of correspondence. She hopes to connect her set of TEI encoded letters with other archives of correspondence from the Romantic Period including the Romantic Circles project and the Shelley Godwin Archive.

Eberle will discuss this exciting project in the Digi Colloquium in January (details to follow).

Learn more about Eberle’s work.


Read More

Brand Yourself: A how-to guide for grad students


Joey Stanley leading the professionalization workshop

This week the DigiLab offered a workshop on building a digital identity for grad students. Maintaining a clear, cohesive digital profile is increasingly necessary in a competitive job market, but it can be overwhelming to sift through all the options. The goal of this session, led by Linguistics PhD student and DigiLab research assistant Joey Stanley, along with Digital Humanities Coordinator Emily McGinn, was to help grad students navigate all of their options and help them take control of their online professional identity.

The presentation discussed a variety of methods for increasing visibility and for engaging in professional conversations in the digital world. While these spaces may be different depending on the discipline, what’s most important is to create a single place where all of one’s separate accounts from places like LinkedIn,, and Research Gate can be consolidated. The main objective of the workshop was for each participant to set up this space before they left. With both Stanley and McGinn on hand for extra assistance, each participant was asked to choose a platform they were comfortable with and to get started building their own space. By the end of the session, grad students had accepted the challenged and set up their own websites. Some opted for a free Word Press or Wix account. One even took the challenge to the next level and built his own website using Jekyll and GitHub.

Setting up a consolidated web presence does not have to be expensive, or complicated, or difficult. This workshop provided the space, the time, and the resources to help these grad students get started. For those interested in doing the same check out Joey’s notes on the session or download the slides here.

If you’re interested in this session or others like it, let us know. We’d love to continue the conversation. Contact Emily McGinn at for more information.




Read More

Build a Better Project: Digi Colloquium Review

— Joey Stanley, PhD student in Linguistics and DH Grad Assistant

I recently presented on how to build a digital humanities project from scratch, going from primary sources to visualizations of data. I also showcased a piece of software called JMP (“jump”) that I like to use for quick-and-dirty visualizations. Before we get to the fancy software though, we have to step back and consider where our information is coming from.

Primary sources vary considerably. In my own research I’ve drawn from audio recordings, census records, digitized books, ethnographic observations, and online material, but you might also use newspapers, images, maps, or archeological records in your own research. It all depends on your field, your project, and the questions you would like to get answered. Step one is to find the primary sources that are best for this project.

Since we’re talking about digital humanities, it’s important to figure out how to best use computers to draw information from these sources. It’s not simply enough to digitize your data: scans offer no benefit over original records other than portability. You might want to type everything up, which does allow records to be easily searched (using control+F). Your sources may already be scanned but there’s still a wall between it and the answer to your research question.

The key part is that you need to find the structure in the source, and to do this you have to think of it as a potential spreadsheet. These potentially massive tables are organized into rows and columns, with one “observation” for each row, and one “property” per column. This allows you to look at the information for each observation by scanning the cells in each row, while also letting you look at the various properties of all the observations by looking down each column.

For example, in Scott Nesbit’s historical preservation course in spring of this year here at UGA, they looked at runaway slave ads from the early 19th century in Georgia. Interested in the people mentioned in the ads, they decided to set up their spreadsheet with one person per row with the information about each person (name, description, escape location, ad location, etc.) in columns. In my own research on vowel sounds in the Pacific Northwest, I might set up my spreadsheet with each vowel sound in a recording as its own row, with various acoustical measurements and information about neighboring sounds and words as columns.

While you’re setting up your spreadsheet, you have to keep in mind the different data types, because the way we think about the price of a house is different than how we think about its color. The two main data types are quantitative variables and categorical variables. So a house worth $300,000 is twice the value of one worth $150,000. But a house painted white is not inherently better than one painted blue. Here, the value of the home is a quantitative variable because it’s numeric, and the difference in values is meaningful. The color is a categorical variable because the values are arbitrary and there’s no meaningful difference between them.

Sometimes with categorical data, you’ll have way too many different observed values. If you surveyed a thousand houses for example, you might find white, eggshell, baby powder, white smoke, cream, ivory, and ghost white. An architect or designer might be interested in these nuanced differences, but if you want to see if white houses sell faster, it might make sense to collapse all these down to just “white.” The key here is to have a good reason for doing so, something that makes sense in your project. Convenience is not a good enough reason, and neither is forcing the statistical model to work. Whatever choices to make to smooth out the distinctions in your data must be documented and reported in your final write-up.

Once a spreadsheet has been set up, and filled with all the information you’d like to study, it’s time to start visualizing and analyzing the data. This is why data types are important: the kinds of things you can do with your data depend on the data types you have in your spreadsheet. For example, if you want to do a chi-squared test, you’re going to need some categorical variables, but if you want to do a regression analysis, you’ll need quantitative variables. Similar for visualizations: a scatterplot or box-and-whisker plot needs quantitative variables while a bar plot can be used with categorical variables. I’ve helped students in the past who wanted to do some sexy visualization or fancy statistical method they saw in a paper one time, but once I looked at their spreadsheet I had to break it to them that they just didn’t have the right kind of data to do it.

Something to keep in mind. It’s always easier to go from more specific data to more general. Just like with the shades of white houses, you can usually collapse a categorical data type into fewer groups. You can even turn numbers into categories, such as height measurements going from feet and inches to simply “tall”, “average”, and “short.” However, keep in mind that you can’t go the other way, from more general to more specific, without going through your primary data again. If all you wrote down was that the houses were “white,” and later you found out that cream colored houses are important, you’re going to have to go past the houses again and rerecord their color. So in my opinion, always be as specific as possible when collecting your data, because it’s a heck of a lot easier to generalize your data than it is to go back and regather new information.

The critical part of this is that in the end, after you’ve collected your data and you’ve got a spreadsheet set up and you’ve explored what’s going on using visualizations, you’ve got to be the human and the researcher and explain what’s going on. Computers are great and they can help us out a lot, but they ultimately can’t do the most important step: interpreting and explaining your data. That’s where you need to put on your thinking cap and apply all this knowledge you took out student loans to get.

Using computers in humanities research is fantastic. They can save you an incredible amount of time, and they allow you to do things you never thought possible, opening your eyes to new research questions. Great care has to be put into a digital humanities project every step of the way, but the payout is well worth the effort.

View the slides from the presentation.

Read More

Hearing Hot Corner: The DigiLab Audio Field Kit

Part 2 of “The Hot Corner Project”

A project of Alexander M. Stephens (M.A. ’16)

In addition to the three oral histories about Hot Corner in the Russell Library Athens Oral History Project, Broderick Flanigan and I have conducted additional interviews specifically for the Hot Corner documentary we are producing through the DigiLab. We’re using the DigiLab Audio Field Kit to record our conversations. There are lots of great resources out there for people new to sound recording. is one of my favorites for folks interested in radio, podcasts, and audio documentaries. And Doug Boyd, of the Nunn Center at the University of Kentucky and the Oral History in the Digital Age project, provides excellent resources for people working in the area of oral history. For starters, see Best Practices, information about tools, and Doug’s digital oral history blog. I am not going to go into too much detail about technique here, but I do want to use this post as a primer on the specific equipment we’re using, which will be available to students and faculty working through the DigiLab in the future.

Here is a list of the equipment in the Field Kit, which all fits inside in a mall Ruggard backpack:


  • Tascam DR-100MKII digital audio recorder
  • Rode NTG-3 shotgun microphone (with foam windscreen)
  • Auray Universal Shock Mount
  • Auray Universal Hand Grip
  • Two Audio-Technica AT899 lavalier microphones
  • Rycote 18cm Classic-Softie Windshield
  • Kopul Studio Elite 4000 XLR microphone cables
  • Two Sandisk Extreme SDHC cards (one 16GB and one 32GB)
  • Transcend USB 3.0 Multi-card reader


I’ll start with some basic concepts in sound recording. In my occasionally-professional opinion, the three biggest factors in getting good sound are 1) distance, 2) positioning, and 3) ambient (or surrounding) noise. (There are many resources for more information about sound recording and production online. This American Life has a comic book tutorial and, again, has lots of tips.)

  • As a general rule, the closer the source of the sound is to the microphone, the better it will sound on the recording. If you want it to sound like someone is right there in the room with you when you listen back to the recording, don’t be shy with the microphone(s). Get close—no more than a foot away in most cases. A shotgun mic can be held somewhat farther away.
  • While it’s crucial to get the mic close to the speaker, don’t put it right in front of the speaker’s mouth. That may lead to distortions in the recording known as “plosives,” or it could pick up a person’s breathing or other mouth noises that aren’t (usually) desirable in an interview. The built-in mics on the Tascam and the Rode shotgun mic are “directional” mics, meaning that they pick up sound coming at them from particular directions. The lavalier mics are “omnidirectional,” meaning that they pick up sound in all directions. With directional mics, you’ll want to position them “off-axis” from the source of the sound. That means holding them at an angle to the speaker’s mouth. When I am holding the Rode shotgun mic, I usually find a comfortable way to hold it so that it is pointing directly at the speaker’s mouth but slightly upwards and at about a 45-degree angle. If you use a mic stand or a boom pole, you may want to position it off-axis and above the speaker so that it is pointed down at their mouth. As for the Audio-Technica lavalier mic, clip it on the speaker’s shirt about 6-8 inches below the mouth. For more on lavalier placement, see this video from Rode.
  • There are endless sources of unwanted ambient noise that could interfere with the quality of your recording. Some common ones are air conditioning and heating systems, fans, refrigerators, fluorescent lights, and wind. Your task is to be aware of these sorts of sounds. People don’t usually notice these noises, but with a good mic and headphones, they become obvious. This is why wearing headphones while recording is KEY for ensuring the highest sound quality. It can be awkward to talk with big headphones on at first, but you’ll be glad when you don’t have to worry about a strange buzzing noise or a microwave beeping incessantly when you go to edit your recording. Headphones that cover your ears are usually better for isolating what is coming through the recorder than earbuds, but buds are better than nothing. Some radio producers will ask people to unplug refrigerators or turn off fans during interviews. I don’t usually go as far as the refrigerator, but if you do, make sure to plug it back in before you leave! I would recommend asking people to turn off air conditioning units in the room or fans for the duration of the interview, however, because those things are surprisingly loud.


  • When you’re recording inside, use the foam windscreen. It will provide a buffer for some unwanted noises and the whooshing sounds that can occur while moving the mic quickly. When it comes to recording outside, wind can be a major problem. Fortunately, you have the Rycote Classic-Softie windshield. Use it! Always. It is easy to forget about wind noise, but try recording outside with headphones on and no windscreen—the sensitivity of the shotgun mic will be pretty obvious, even in a mild breeze. Honestly, it wouldn’t hurt to keep the Rycote windshield on even when you’re recording inside. You’ll also want to be aware of “handling noise,” which can come from someone touching the cable or the mic itself. The shock mount and hand grip will help with this with the shotgun mic. With a lavalier mic, this sort of noise can come from someone’s shirt rubbing on the mic or even a beard rustling against it. Also ask that people avoid touching or messing with the cable to the lavalier mic, as that can create noise.
  • Sometimes you want ambient noise, but for most interviews you will want to minimize it. Recording in a quiet environment and neutralizing ambient noise will make it possible to get a low “noise floor” on your recording. The noise floor is the baseline sound on your recording. When you don’t have lots of other sound, you place the mic close to the source of the sound, and you position the mic correctly, you can turn down the gain/input level on your recorder and get that magic quiet that allows people’s voices to shine through on the recording. In contrast, a high noise floor often distracts from the speaker’s voice and can make editing difficult when trying to put together clips that have varying levels of noise.

The tips above are meant to provide you with some basic knowledge about how to approach recording an interview. Now, I’ll go into more specifics about the recorder and the two types of mics in the kit.

Post2_Image3The Tascam DR-100MKII has become the recorder of choice for many oral historians and radio producers looking for a high-quality and affordable recorder with dual XLR inputs. The Tascam has lots of settings, which can be adjusted depending on your needs. The “Limiter” and “Low Cut Filter” switches on the back of the recorder are two important settings to think about. You’ll also want to adjust your “Record Settings.” For most projects, WAV files at 16-bit/44.1kHz will be sufficient. For archival projects, you may want to record in 24-bit/96kHz. Doug Boyd from the Nunn Center has some great tutorials on getting started with the Tascam Watch the video before doing anything with the recorder, follow his setup instructions, and check out his other videos for more useful information. The Tascam records to SD cards, and two SanDisk Extreme cards are included in the kit.

The Tascam will record two channels at once. If you have two microphones connected to the XLR inputs, one mic will register on the Tascam screen as the left channel and the other as the right channel. This enables you to isolate the sound for each mic (and thus for each speaker). The decibel levels of the sounds coming in through the mics can be controlled with the dial on the right-hand side of the recorder. Monitoring and adjusting your levels is really important. Practice adjusting the levels of each mic before your first interview, because it can be a bit tricky on the Tascam. I like my levels to peak between -12 dB and -6 dB, which is a little high, and recommendations on that vary. You want consistent, audible sound, and monitoring your input levels will help you get it. If you are interested in how levels really work and why they matter, see this Transom tutorial on levels.

The dual-XLR connections on the Tascam are great because of the sound quality they provide and because they enable using what is called “phantom power,” which a lot of microphones require, including the Rode NTG-3 shotgun mic in the kit. After you turn the recorder on, connect the microphone(s), and turn on phantom power by flipping the switch on the back of the Tascam. Turn off phantom power before connecting or disconnecting the microphone. Leaving phantom power on while connecting or disconnecting could damage the mic (at least according to the manual for the Tascam). The recorder has two built-in microphones, which are good but not great. They can be used in a pinch, perhaps if there are multiple people sitting around a table talking and you aren’t going to be able to manage a microphone throughout the whole recording. As long as everyone is reasonably close to the recorder and the setting is quiet, this will work well enough. Keep in mind that using the built-in mics on the Tascam won’t sound nearly as good as a recording with the external microphones.


The Rode NTG-3 is an excellent, professional-quality shotgun microphone. Shotgun-style mics are directional and meant to be pointed at the source of the sound. It will reject sound from the sides and pick up sounds coming towards the end of the microphone. A lot of podcasts and radio programs are using this type of mic for field interviews nowadays, and so are we. The Auray shock mount and hand grip enable you to quickly move the microphone without creating handling noise, and thus pick up the voices of more than one speaker or isolate (to an extent) sounds that might be important for conveying information about the interview setting (clippers in a barber shop, for instance). If you are recording narration for a documentary-style story or commentary for a podcast, I recommend using the Rode mic on a stand and adjusting the position until you think it sound best. I’d start by placing the mic above your mouth (pointed at it), about 8 inches away, and off-axis.



  • The two Audio-Technica AT899 mics included in the kit are high-quality lavalier microphones. If you are conducting a traditional sit-down oral history interview (with just two people), these two mics are the way to go. Put the battery in the power module for each mic and connect each one to an XLR input on the Tascam. See my note above about lavalier mic placement, and make sure to adjust the levels for each mic based on the loudness of each speaker.

Broderick and I are using both types of external mics to record our interviews, since there are two of us and we want to pick up multiple voices. I connect the Rode mic to the left XLR input on the Tascam. I hold the Rode during the interview and move it to point it at the person speaking—either Broderick or the person with whom we are talking. I connect a lavalier mic to the right XLR input and clip it to my shirt so that my questions are recorded clearly (it’s hard to point the Rode mic at myself). Of course, this is just one way to approach it. As you get familiar with the mics and their pros and cons, you will be able to figure out what will work best for your needs. One thing to watch out for with this method is the interference that can be created when the cables cross.

Post2_Image6Finally, after you are done recording, do not play back anything on the Tascam itself. Doing this could potentially corrupt the file. If you need to remove the card before you are ready to transfer the files, slide the switch on the side of the card to the “lock” position and put the card in the case. As soon as possible, use the Transcend card reader to transfer the files to a computer or external hard drive. Make sure the files are backed up before you erase anything from the card. The surest way to clear files from the card is to use the “Format” function when the card is in the Tascam recorder.


So, there it is: a primer on recording good sound using the equipment in the DigiLab Audio Field Kit. Take some time to watch and read the tutorials I linked to in this post. Take time to practice and make sure everything works before going out to do an interview! And, please, wear your headphones!


Aleck Stephens is a Graduate Research Assistant with the Willson Center Lab for Digital Humanities and is completing this project under the guidance of Professor Steve Berry of the UGA History department.

Broderick Flanigan is an artist and activist in Athens whose work brings narrative and art together. Check out his website

Read more about the Hot Corner Project


DIGI logo


For more information about the DigiLab or starting a new digital project contact the Emily McGinn, Digital Humanities Coordinator at UGA

Read More

Join the new Faculty Learning Community for Digital Humanities Pedagogy

This fall we are launching a new Faculty Learning Community (FLC) on Teaching and Learning with Digital Humanities. Through this community we hope to provide an introduction to Digital Humanities to faculty members who are interested in learning more about these emerging technologies and methods. The group will discuss syllabus design and how to successfully scaffold digital assignments into humanities classes. In addition, we will explore the links between digital pedagogy and digital research and develop methods for beginning a digital research project. The FLC will be guided by Emily McGinn the Digital Humanities Coordinator here on campus and will meet in the DigiLab on the third floor of the Main Library.

Space is limited, please submit an application to CTL by 5pm on Friday August 25th.

For more information contact or

visit to view other FLCs available for the fall.


Read More

Mapping Occupation

Gregory P. Downs and Scott Nesbit launch Mapping Occupation, a new site that gives historians the first detailed look at where the U.S. Army went during the long occupation of the American South after Confederate surrender.

Read More

C-Span films American history classes in DigiLab

The DigiLab hosted a film crew from C-Span here to capture lectures from Professors Stephen Berry and Scott Nesbit for their Lectures in History series. Berry and Nesbit are the first UGA Professors to be included in the series which features lectures on American History from academics across the country.


CSpan films Professor Nesbit’s class

Professor Nesbit, Assistant Professor in Environment & Design and History, brought his Introduction to Historic Preservation class (HIPR 4000) to the lab for a discussion on the politics of monuments including those in and around Athens.

Professor Berry of the History department, presented a lecture for his HIST 4090: Death and Dying in American History class. This class operates alongside of Berry’s latest digital humanities project CSI:Dixie that examines over 1500 coroner’s reports from South Carolina spanning from 1800-1900.

“Lectures in History” airs at 8pm and midnight ET each Saturday night. After a program airs, it is also available online. These lectures are expected to be available for viewing in May.


To learn more about Digital Humanities at UGA contact Emily McGinn, Digital Humanities Coordinator, at
Read More

“DIGI@UGA” Day launches major initiatives in digital humanities

The Willson Center, in partnership with the UGA Libraries and the UGA Press, will launch its new Digital Humanities Lab on April 17 at 2 p.m. on the third floor of the main library as part of DIGI@UGA Day.

The day’s events will include the announcement of a new interdisciplinary undergraduate certificate program in digital humanities, a Digital Humanities Symposium, the opening of the UGA Digital Arts Library’s Textual Machines exhibit and, at 5 p.m., a public reception at the new home of the Willson Center, 1260 S. Lumpkin St.

The field of digital humanities emphasizes the building of tools and resources such as digital archives, Web applications and mobile applications and their use in the service of advancing humanistic knowledge and making it available to the public.

The Willson Center Digital Humanities Lab, known informally as the DigiLab, will be a state-of-the-art instruction space as well as an incubator and publicity hub for nationally recognized digital humanities projects. Opening for use this summer, it will be outfitted with flexible workspaces for individual or collaborative projects and with advanced technological resources.

The Digital Humanities Research and Innovation certificate program will bring together courses taught across a range of humanities disciplines—including English, history, classics, geography, Romance languages, theater and film studies, historic preservation, art and music—under the course prefix DIGI. The program will begin this fall.

The DigiLab and the DIGI certificate program both grew out of the Digital Humanities Initiative, a Willson Center Faculty Research Cluster chaired by Stephen Berry, Gregory Chair of the Civil War Era in the history department; William Kretzschmar, Harry and Jane Willson Professor in Humanities in the English department; and Claudio Saunt, Richard B. Russell Professor in American History and chair of the history department.

“This is the culmination of great work by a great many,” said Berry, who chairs the DigiLab’s steering committee. “Expanding on the pioneering digital humanities projects of Bill Kretzschmar and Barbara McCaskill and in partnership with UGA Libraries, UGA Press and everyone at the Willson Center, we are taking a dramatic leap forward for faculty and students who want to step away from the lecture hall and build things together.”

The launch event and symposium will take place in the reading room on the third floor of the main library, opposite the DigiLab. After opening remarks by organizers of the DigiLab and DIGI certificate programs, the symposium will feature talks by visiting scholars and innovators in digital humanities. Detailed information on the speakers is below.

The Textual Machines exhibit, showcasing holdings from the Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library and the Digital Arts Library, including early modern movable books, modern artists’ books and electronic literature, will be on display April 17 and 18 from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. in the DigiLab. It is presented as part of the concurrent Textual Machines Symposium, a collaborative effort of the Digital Arts Library and the Symposium on the Book. For more information on the exhibit and the symposium, visit the Digital Arts Library’s website.



Jacob Eisenstein is Assistant Professor in the School of Interactive Computing at Georgia Tech, where he leads the Computational Linguistics Laboratory. Eisenstein is an expert in machine learning approaches to understanding human language and is especially interested in non-standard language, discourse, computational social science, and statistical machine learning.

Stephen Kidd is Executive Director of the National Humanities Alliance (NHA), which works to advance national humanities policy by cultivating support for humanities funding in the executive and legislative branches of the federal government; advocating for policies that advance humanities research, programming, preservation, and teaching; convening its members, government officials, and policy experts to develop policy initiatives; and promoting engagement with and appreciation of the humanities among the general public. More than 140 organizations are currently members of NHA, including scholarly associations, humanities research centers, colleges, universities, and organizations of museums, libraries, historical societies, humanities councils, and higher education institutions.

Joan K. Lippincott is Associate Executive Director of the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI), a joint program of the Association of Research Libraries and EDUCAUSE. CNI is a national leadership organization focusing on best practices for teaching and learning, assessment, learning spaces, faculty collaboration, and the advancement of scholarly communication and intellectual productivity in a digital age.

Stephen Ross is Associate Professor of English and Cultural, Social, and Political Thought at the University of Victoria and president-elect of the Modernist Studies Association. He is the head of several digital initiatives including the Modernist Version Project, which generates data from modernist texts and produces digital editions of modernist novels; the Routledge Encyclopedia of Modernism, which will go live in 2016; the related Linked Modernisms Project, a searchable archive that will display the vectors by which modernist memes, techniques, themes, approaches, materials, and ideas traveled and retraveled the world; and the Open Modernisms Anthology Builder, which will allow users to assemble custom anthologies of modernist materials for use in teaching and research, to save them, and to share with others.

Will Thomas is the John and Catherine Angle Professor in the Humanities and chair of the history department at the University of Nebraska. The founding director of the Virginia Center for Digital History at the University of Virginia, he co-founded the Nebraska Digital Workshop and Forum on Digital Humanities and has led the development of digital history initiatives at UNL. His own digital work has been supported by the American Council of Learned Societies and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Read More