Last spring dh+lib published the special issue “Making Research Tactile: Critical Making and Data Physicalization in Digital Humanities,” which featured seven case studies on ways critical making could be integrated into a digital humanities (DH) research practice. This follow-up special issue features concrete ways we can integrate critical making into our (library) instruction. Given the library’s role in technology instruction and data literacy–as well as its function as a space that embraces creative methods–we wanted to provide some explicit examples of teaching methods that can work in everything from a technological one-shot to a more embedded instructional model. If you want to know more about what data physicalization is and why it is a great tool for DH, please see the introduction to that previous issue. 

Technological instruction without computers 

Teaching data, or other technological instruction, through crafting can strengthen our pedagogy in many ways. Russell and Hensley warn of the dangers of “buttonology” and focusing our instruction too much on the interface of specific tools (2017). When we do this, we risk not teaching students how to think computationally, and instead how to navigate specific software, which could become immediately outdated when something new is released or when that software is no longer available. And as Cammeron et al. show us, a minimalist and low-tech pedagogy can more quickly get students thinking about technological concepts (2024). This can also help address technological anxiety and frame assignments as more “fun” for students who are less drawn to doing humanities work digitally, which can foster students’ curiosity to pursue the topics further. 

Over-emphasizing programming languages or computer software perpetuates limited notions of what counts as technical skill. Adopting a more expansive view of technology to include things such as weaving, sewing, paper arts, and more, enables us to honor and value the broad range of skills, experiences, and interests our students bring with them into our classrooms. By situating these technical and creative skills in larger contexts beyond the digital, our digital or data literacy instruction can appeal to a more diverse range of learners. Put another way, de-emphasizing the coding aspects of technological instruction opens up learning spaces to a wider range of people, including women, BIPOC, LGBTQIA, and economically-disadvantaged students, who, because of past negative experiences or stereotypes, may not gravitate toward programming-oriented topics or classes. In this way, we see this approach as one of many interventions, such as Girls Who Code, to expand and make more accessible technological instruction. We hope this issue inspires you to imagine more accessible and inclusive approaches to your digital humanities instruction that are rooted in this expansive view of technology.

In this issue

This issue consists of eleven data physicalization case studies, specifically situated in instructional contexts. Like our previous issue, these case studies take inspiration from cooking blogs: each piece includes a narrative describing the authors’ experience doing the work and a set of instructions to try doing it yourself. We’ve also collected these instructions into their own zine, which you are free to print, share, and remix. 

Within the issue, you will find projects that use a wide range of crafting methods, from beading to circuit building. We encourage you to take inspiration from these examples, but do not feel limited by them. If there is a type of craft or making you are most comfortable using, there is probably a way to use it for this type of work too! We hope this special issue can serve as an invitation to join us in this work. Please try any of the projects in the issue, post pictures of what you make using #DHMakes—a hashtag many folks in the community have been using—and if you find more readings on this topic, or write one yourself, add it to our Zotero group for resources on data physicalization.

Citations

Cammeron, Malcom, Carter, Caroline, Pérez Martínez, Winnie E., Stephen, Samantha, and Brandon Walsh. 2024. “A Way In: Digital Pedagogy Training with Speculative, Low-Tech Workshops” Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, vol 24.

Russell, John E., and Merinda Kaye Hensley. 2017. “Beyond Buttonology: Digital Humanities, Digital Pedagogy, and the ACRL Framework” College & Research Libraries News, December. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.78.11.588.