Advertisement

Digital Humanities in the German-Speaking World

  • Monika GänßbauerEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Digital Culture and Humanities book series (DICUHU, volume 1)

Abstract

The topic of digital humanities provokes widely varying views in the German-speaking world. In Germany digitalization efforts are often limited to a regional scale. This paper presents several examples of digitalization in the humanities: the use of audio sources, weblogs, big data, and simulations. The paper also examines the dissemination of practices of digitalization in the German-speaking world. Some experts note structural problems for digital innovation in Germany. Others make a plea for the realization of achievable tasks. The third part of the paper focuses on the general discussion of digitalization in Germany. Several authors see Germany in a “digital hibernation.” Prominent intellectuals such as Hans Magnus Enzensberger, Frank Schirrmacher, and Harald Welzer have on the other hand become harsh critics of digitalization.

Keywords

Digital humanities in Germany Audio sources Big data Critics of digitalization Digitalization in the German-speaking world Digital play Weblogs 

References

  1. Blatter, M., Noti, D., & Schmidt, P. (2015). Generationen Z und Y zur Mediennutzung in der Schule. In M. Blatter & F. Hartwagner (Eds.), Digitale Lehr- und Lernbegleiter (pp. 28–47). Bern: hep.Google Scholar
  2. Cramer, F. (2014). Enzensberger’s rules for the digital world: Defend yourselves! [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://networkcultures.org/blog/2014/03/03/enzensberger/
  3. Crane, G. (2015). The big humanities, national identity and the digital humanities in Germany. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/obcmpzh
  4. Draeger, J., & Müller-Eisele, R. (2016, February 25). Transforming education in the digital age. The European Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.theeuropean-magazine.com/joerg-draeger%2D%2D2/10758-revolution-at-schools-and-universities
  5. Enzensberger, Hans-Magnus. (2014, February 28). Wehrt Euch! Enzensbergers Regeln für die digitale Welt. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/enzensbergers-regeln-fuer-die-digitale-welt-wehrt-euch-12826195.html
  6. Graham, C. (2017). ‘Modern Day Presidential’: Donald Trump defends use of social media in Twitter storm. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/01/modern-day-presidential-donald-trump-defends-use-social-media/
  7. Haber, P. (2011). Digital past. Geschichtswissenschaft im digitalen Zeitalter. München: Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
  8. Handke, J. (2014). Patient Hochschullehre. Vorschläge für eine zeitgemäße Lehre im 21. Jahrhundert. Marburg: Tectum.Google Scholar
  9. Handke, J. (2015). Handbuch Hochschullehre digital. Leitfaden für eine moderne und mediengerechte Lehre. Marburg: Tectum.Google Scholar
  10. Heynders, O. (2015). Writers as public intellectuals. Literature, celebrity, democracy. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Hirsch, B. D. (2012). Digital humanities and the place of pedagogy. In B. D. Hirsch (Ed.), Digital humanities pedagogy. Practices, principles and politics (pp. 3–30). Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Jungherr, A. (2015). Analyzing political communication with digital trace data: The role of Twitter messages in social science research. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kergel, D., & Heidkamp, B. (2015). Forschendes Lernen mit digitalen Medien. Ein Lehrbuch. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  14. Klumpp, D. (2014). Strukturprobleme für Innovation im digitalen Neuland. In D. Klumpp et al. (Eds.), Überwiegend Neuland. Positionsbestimmungen der Wissenschaft zur Gestaltung der Informationsgesellschaft (pp. 181–202). Berlin: Edition Sigma.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. König, M. (2015). Herausforderung für unsere Wissenschaftskultur: Weblogs in den Geisteswissenschaften. In W. Schmale (Ed.), Digital humanities (pp. 57–74). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
  16. Köstlbauer, J. (2015). Spiel und Geschichte im Zeichen der Digitalität. In W. Schmale (Ed.), Digital humanities (pp. 95–124). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
  17. Kurz, S. (2015). Digital humanities. Grundlagen und Technologien für die Praxis. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Lembke, G. (2017). Breaking through behavioral routines. Retrieved from https://cosplaymade.wordpress.com/2017/05/30/breaking-through-behavioral-routines/
  19. Lüber, K. (2016). Study on digital literacy. German pupils mediocre. Retrieved from https://www.goethe.de/en/kul/med/20693523.html
  20. Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2013). Big data. A revolution that will transform how we live. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  21. Morozov, E. (2014, July 14). The rise of data and the death of politics. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/20/rise-of-data-death-of-politics-evgeny-morozov-algorithmic-regulation
  22. Natascha Zowislo-Grünewalt et al. (2015). Web 2.0 als‚ religion? In: Grimm, Petra et al. (Eds.). Anonymität und Transparenz in der digitalen Gesellschaft (pp. 209–230). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
  23. Peters, O. (2013a). Introduction. In O. Peters (Ed.), Against the tide. Critics of digitalisation (pp. 7–14). Oldenburg: BIS.Google Scholar
  24. Peters, O. (2013b). The admonisher: Susanne Gascke. In O. Peters (Ed.), Against the tide. Critics of digitalisation (pp. 123–134). Oldenburg: BIS.Google Scholar
  25. Peters, O. (2013c). The debate instigator: Frank Schirrmacher. In O. Peters (Ed.), Against the tide. Critics of digitalisation (pp. 147–159). Oldenburg: BIS.Google Scholar
  26. Peters, O. (2013d). The dramatist: Botho Strauß. In O. Peters (Ed.), Against the tide. Critics of digitalisation (pp. 161–172). Oldenburg: BIS.Google Scholar
  27. Reimann, D. (2008). Developing a learning environment for drama with hypermedia. In R. Mason & T. Eça (Eds.), International dialogues about visual culture, education and art (pp. 131–139). Bristol: Intellect.Google Scholar
  28. Rötzer, F. (1997). Virtueller Raum oder Weltraum? Raumutopien des digitalen Zeitalters. In S. Münker & A. Roesler (Eds.), Mythos internet (pp. 368–390). Frankfurt A.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  29. Schaller, M. (2015). Arbeiten mit digital(isiert)en Quellen. In W. Schmale (Ed.), Digital humanities (pp. 15–30). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
  30. Schmale, W. (2015). Einleitung. In W. Schmale (Ed.), Digital humanities (pp. 9–14). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
  31. Simanowski, R. (2001). Autorschaften in digitalen Medien. Text+Kritik, 152, 3–21.Google Scholar
  32. Sprenger, F., & Engemann, C. (2015). Internet der Dinge. Über smarte Objekte, intelligente Umgebungen und die technische Durchdringung der Welt. Bielefeld: Transcript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Strauss, W., Denzinger, J., Wolf, M., & Li, Y. (2004). Knowledge spaces: Cultural education in the media age. Retrieved from http://netzspannung.org/about/tools/intro
  34. Thaller, M. (2012). Controversies around the digital humanities: An agenda. Historical Social Research, 141, 7–23.Google Scholar
  35. The Way of Lao Tzu. (1963). (W.-T. Chan, Trans.). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Walach, T. (2015). Stimmen hören. Audioquellen als digitale Objekte. In W. Schmale (Ed.), Digital humanities (pp. 31–44). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
  37. Welzer, H. (2016). Die smarte Diktatur. Der Angriff auf unsere Freiheit. Frankfurt: S. Fischer.Google Scholar
  38. Wenkel, R. (2017, June 9). Germany in the digital slow lane. Deutsche Welle. Retrieved from http://www.dw.com/en/germany-in-the-digital-slow-lane/a-39187166
  39. Wirth, U. (1997). Literatur im Internet. Oder: Wen kümmert’s, wer liest? In S. Münker et al. (Eds.), Mythos internet (pp. 319–337). Frankfurt A.M.: Edition Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ErlangenErlangenGermany
  2. 2.Stockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations