Abstract
This chapter reflects on our experiences in deciding to forge a collaborative team in the context of an individualistic culture in the humanities at large, both historically and in terms of contemporary protocols in hiring, promotion, and tenure. We offer some insights into both sides of the question–to DH or not to DH?–while highlighting what MAPP has given us. We speak to the opportunities and challenges of this new kind of academic work and list some practical tips for those who decide to embrace it.
Keywords
So much of the enormous labour of proving the solidity, the likeness to life, of the story is not merely labour thrown away but labour misplaced to the extent of obscuring and blotting out the light of the conception. The writer seems constrained, not by his own free will but by some powerful and unscrupulous tyrant who has him in thrall, to provide a plot, to provide comedy, tragedy, love interest, and an air of probability embalming the whole so impeccable that if all his figures were to come to life they would find themselves dressed down to the last button of their coats in the fashion of the hour. The tyrant is obeyed; the novel is done to a turn. But sometimes, more and more often as time goes by, we suspect a momentary doubt, a spasm of rebellion, as the pages fill themselves in the customary way. Is life like this? Must novels be like this? (Virginia Woolf, ‘Modern Fiction’, 1925b (1984, p. 160))
Our whole system of book publishing, which rests on the premise that we promote people who publish, is spiraling out of control. Indeed, the whole system needs to be changed. (Lindsay Waters, ‘Rescue Tenure from the Tyranny of the Monograph’, (2001, para. 1))
On or about Labour Day Weekend, September 2015, Mary Carmichael sat in the glow of a campfire in Napa Valley, enjoying a camping trip organized by her child’s daycare leaders. With the children nestled safely in their tents, one attendant adult keeping watch, the other partners gathered around the fire to do what adults in Silicon Valley do best: swap stories about their workplaces; their histories; their journeys west. In no time, they were in the thrall of a Facebook employee, dishing on office life with ‘Zuck’ (as intimates refer to its famous founder, Mark Zuckerberg). Soon enough, the circle talk got around to Mary; when asked what her work was about, she launched into a synopsis of her monograph, as if this were a job talk not a campout. Whether this was the reason for what followed was not clear, but some communication had misfired, something had been lost in translation. ‘What’, said Mr. Facebook, ‘exactly is a monograph?’ Alarmed, she found herself trying to describe this mythical beast, without actually using the word ‘book’. This just confounded matters. After a meandering and obfuscating attempt at some definition, the spell was broken. ‘Oh’, he replied, ‘I get it! A monograph is a book that never gets written!’
With thanks to Virginia Woolf for inventing Mary Carmichael in A Room of One’s Own (1929).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Recent DH criticism has been drawn to the metaphoric power of the broken book in efforts to bridge the history of the codex as the prima facie object of humanist research with the dawn of the digital era. See Laura Mandell 2015. Mandell claims for her monograph the mantle of manifesto, arguing ‘[i]n this manifesto, I want to break open the book to look inside to find out what might predispose us to attentiveness and resistance in the medium itself’ (p. xi).
- 2.
For a longer discussion of these questions, see Chapter 5.
- 3.
Woolf herself liked to use paratextual apparatus ironically to point out just how collaborative writing was and how inadequate were the conventions for honouring it. See Southworth 2012.
- 4.
Such mathematics still hold sway with regards to an author’s written submissions for the purposes of assessment in, for instance, the UK Research Excellence Framework.
- 5.
Works Cited
Altick, R.D. (1950 and 1987) The Scholar Adventurers (Columbus: Ohio State University Press).
Bérubé, M. (2006) ‘How a Plan Evolved’, Inside Higher Ed, December 8, https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2006/12/08/how-plan-evolved, date accessed 1 February 2016.
Burdick, A., J. Drucker, P. Lunenfeld, T. Presner, and J. Schnapp (2012) Digital_Humanities (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Duhigg, C. (2016) ‘What Google Learned from its Quest to Build the Perfect Team’, New York Times Magazine, 25 February, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html, date accessed 1 March 2016.
Ede, L. and A. Lunsford (1990) Singular Texts: Plural Authors: Perspectives on Collaborative Writing (Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press).
Flanders, J. (2012) ‘Time, Labor, and “Alternate Careers” in Digital Humanities Knowledge Work’, in M.K. Gold (ed.) Debates in the Digital Humanities (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press), pp. 292–308.
Gardiner, E. and R.G. Musto (2015) The Digital Humanities: A Primer for Students and Scholars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Gilbert, S. (2011) Rereading Women: Thirty Years of Exploring Our Literary Tradition (New York: Norton).
Hinnov, E., L. Harris, and L. Rosenbaum (eds.) (2013) Communal Modernisms: Teaching Twentieth-Century Literature and Culture in the Twenty-First-Century Classroom (Basingstoke: Palgrave).
Hutcheon, L. and M. Hutcheon (1995) ‘“All Concord’s Born of Contraries”: Marital Methodologies’, Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature, 14.1, 59–64.
Hutcheon, L. and M. Hutcheon (2001) ‘Presidential Address 2000: She Do the President in Different Voices’, PMLA, 116.3, 518–530.
Kirschenbaum, M. (2012) ‘What is Digital Humanities and What’s It Doing in English Departments?’ in M.K. Gold (ed.) Debates in the Digital Humanities (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press), pp. 3–11.
Koestenbaum, W. (1989) Double Talk: The Erotics of Male Literary Collaboration (New York: Routledge).
Laird, H. (2000) Women Coauthors (Urbana: University of Illinois Press).
Lewis, J.P. (2004) Team-Based Project Management (New York: Beardbooks).
London, B. (1999) Writing Double: Women’s Literary Partnerships (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).
Lunsford, A. and L. Ede (2012) Writing Together: Collaboration in Theory and Practice (New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s).
Mandell, L.C. (2015) Breaking the Book: Print Humanities in the Digital Age (Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.).
Pannapacker, W. (2013) ‘Cultivating Partnerships in the Digital Humanities’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 5/17/2013, 59.36, A39–A40.
Schreibman, S., R. Siemens, and J. Unsworth (2004) Companion to Digital Humanities (Oxford: Blackwell).
Siemens, L. (2014) ‘Building and Sustaining Long-term Collaboration – Lessons at the Midway Mark’, Scholarly and Research Communication, 5.2, http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/153/305, date accessed 2 April 2016.
Snow, C.P. (1959) The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Southworth, H. (2012) ‘Virginia Woolf’s Orlando Preface, the Modernist Writer and Networks of Social, Cultural and Financial Capital’, Woolf Studies Annual, 18, 76–108.
Waters, L. (2001) ‘Rescue Tenure From the Tyranny of the Monograph’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 20 April, http://chronicle.com/article/Rescue-Tenure-From-the-Tyranny/9623, date accessed 1 February 2016.
Wernimont, J. and J. Flanders (2010) ‘Feminism in the Age of Digital Archives: The Women Writers Project’, Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature, 29.2, 425–35.
Whitsun, R. and J. Whittaker (2013) William Blake and the Digital Humanities: Collaboration, Participation, and Social Media (New York: Routledge).
Willson Gordon, E. (2009) Woolf’s Head Publishing: The Highlights and New Lights of the Hogarth Press (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press).
Woolf, V. (1929, 2005) A Room of One’s Own M. Hussey (ed.) (New York: Harcourt).
Woolf, V. (1941) Between the Acts (London: Hogarth Press).
Woolf, V. (1984; 1925b) ‘Modern Fiction’ in The Common Reader: First Series Annotated Edition Andrew McNeillie (ed.) (New York: Harvest/HBJ).
Woolf, V. (1985) The Diary of Virginia Woolf, Volume 5: 1936–41 Anne Olivier Bell and Andrew McNeillie (eds.) (Boston: Mariner).
Greenblatt, S. (2002) ‘A Letter to MLA Members’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2 July, http://www.chronicle.com/article/A-Letter-to-MLA-Members/46144, date accessed 8 March, 2017.
Gilbert, S. and Susan Gubar. (1979) The Madwoman in the Attic (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).
‘Writing on C.J.M. Hubback.’ http://www.modernistarchives.com/content/writing-cjm-hubback.
Montgomerie, W. (1946) Scottish Nursery Rhymes (London: Hogarth Press).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Battershill, C., Southworth, H., Staveley, A., Widner, M., Willson Gordon, E., Wilson, N. (2017). Reflections on Collaboration. In: Scholarly Adventures in Digital Humanities. New Directions in Book History. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47211-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47211-9_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47210-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47211-9
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)