Three concepts rose to the surface from the assigned readings and class conversation: the topic of questions, the selection of sources, and the purpose of audience. Trevor Owen’s article emphasized the flexibility of order regarding questions. He pointed out that scholars can begin with an archive and allow the questions to arise from spending time with the content or they can bring queries to an archive. He emphasizes several times the continual process of asking research questions; they are “statements about your inquiry that are iteratively refined through the process of defining what you are working on” as well as why one does the work they do. It was refreshing to hear the experiences shared in the classroom from colleagues that reflected Owen’s argument. Several peers shared stories of forming and reforming questions to create a cohesive and unique project.

Rachel Sagner Buurma and Anna Tione Levine’s paper challenge me to examine and consider the sources I choose and cite. Something I struggle with as an information addict is the endless web and reservoir of knowledge the internet contains. Digital collections from every imaginable archive, personal reflections on every topic under the sun, and stores selling all available items appear in front of me on my screen. The infinitude of links can overwhelm me. This is the paradox of sources that I wrestle with as I think about Buurma and Levine’s description of diverse methods for organizing data. Once I’ve narrowed down my focus to a specific set of sources, and cited the digital ones, how do I best conceptualize and analyze the story(ies) they tell? I thought the conversation regarding historians’ use of digital archives fascinating, especially learning that many times online sources are circumvented in the citational practices. I’ve only recently begun to use digital projects for my own research papers so I can’t claim to be an expert or to be on higher ground than any other scholars. It makes me wonder how long it takes a society, or specifically academics, to shift its perception and acceptance of new mediums and modes of knowledge transmission.

Both Sheila Brennan and Shawn Graham’s texts helped refine my thinking about audience. I’ve never been good and “positioning” or “selling” myself or my ideas online or via social media. Something about having to consider “the audience” makes me feel inauthentic, even though I intellectually know it’s necessary. Brennan’s article clarified the importance of first defining who will engage with the digital humanities project or work and how doing so with generosity and care enables the research to reach those who will find it helpful or interesting. Graham’s book skillfully enacted how to write for an audience; it was stimulating to engage with something written with thoughtful intention for its readers. I appreciated hearing the professor share his example of “failing gloriously” when someone published something right before he did that included very similar sources and stories about which he’d written. Learning how to pivot and be flexible with our work is something we’re not often taught in academia.