I am available to run workshops on digital text analysis, corpus stylistics, and digital humanities. Additionally, in 2015 I was the Social Media fellow for University of Strathclyde’s English Studies, where I have  given workshops on getting started with Twitter, blogging, and social media engagement more generally.

Please contact me (heathergfroehlich at gmail dot com) if you are interested in arranging such an event. This page provides links to materials from workshops I run.

20 May 2014
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

Using AntConc: Digital Humanities Workshop #3
One of four digital humanitites workshops running in Spring 2014, introducing students from the faculty of Humanities to digital tools for their research. I will be discussing the popular concordancer program Antconc. [Handout]

17-19 February 2014
University of Helsinki (Finland)

Digital Humanities and Corpus Linguistics (#daftpunkDH)
Monday, 17 February: Drag and drop it, zip – unzip it, view it, code it: What are Digital Humanities [slides]
“Digital Humanities” has been gaining much traction as a buzzword in higher education. Are the digital humanities a method, a theory, or a social movement? Or is it a shifting mode of humanistic inquiry wherein traditional humanities work is supplemented by computer-assisted queries? In a roundtable format, we will discuss the role of the digital in, and alongside, more traditional humanities work.

In Kirschenbaum’s 2010 [reproduced 2012] essay “What are Digital Humanities and what is it doing in English departments” he addresses the varying ways that English departments are the ideal space for digitally-inflected humanitistic inquiry, but are English departments the only place in which this can thrive? Are English departments the best place for this kind of inquiry? What can the digital humanities learn from their contemporaries in computer science, history, languages? What can these groups learn from digital humanities?

Recommended reading:
Kirschenbaum, Matthew (2012). “What are digital humanities and what’s it doing in English departments?”. Debates in the Digital Humanities, ed. M.K. Gold.

Underwood, Ted (2011). “Why we don’t actually want to be the next big thing in literary studies”. The Stone and the Shell.

Wilkens, Matthew (2012) “Canons, Close Reading, and the Evolution of Method”. Debates in the Digital Humanities, ed. M.K. Gold.

Tuesday, 18 February: What do you do with millions of words? [slides]
With the rise of digitized collections of historical documents, we suddenly have a lot more information than we know how to address as linear readers. This is a practical, hands on approach to doing digital humanities research: What can a computer tell us that a human reader can’t, and how does the human inform and guide the computer-aided analysis? Building on principles of corpus linguistics, I will introduce Docuscope, a rhetorical analysis software, and address ways of approaching very large corpora with computer-aided analysis. In this workshop we will discuss other possibilities for Docuscope in use, such as custom dictionary building, visualization, ways other tools can supplement Docuscope’s output, and data management. Special attention will be given to issues surrounding scaling up from Shakespeare to a corpus of Early Modern drama to all of EEBO-TCP and developing subcorpora, all with regards to the difficulties and benefits of using progressively larger datasets.

Recommended Reading:
Ishizaki, Suguru and David Kaufer (2011). “Computer-aided Rhetorical Analysis”. Applied Natural Language Processing and content analysis: Identification, Investigation, and Resolution, ed. Philip McCarthy and Chutima Boonthum. Idea Group Inc (IGI), 275-291.

Hope, Jonathan and Michael Witmore (2010). “The hundredth psalm to the tune of ‘Green Sleeves’: Digital Approaches to the Language of Genre”, Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 3 pp. 357-90.

Witmore, Michael. (2010). “Text, The massively addressable object”. Wine Dark Sea.

Wednesday, 19 February: Write it, cut it, paste it, save it: Digital Humanities Projects [slides]
In this session we will discuss digital humanities projects, where we will critically interrogate what makes a good digital humanities project and what constitutes a bad digital humanities project. I aim to address issues of project management and execution alongside the various tools and environments available. We will address various contexts for digital humanities projects, building off Monday’s discussion, with a particular focus on the overlap between corpus linguistics methodology and other digitally-inflected approaches to humanities scholarship. Can these two approaches be synthesized? Should they be?

Recommended reading:
DH2013 Accepted Abstracts (From the annual conference, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA, July 2013)

13 January 2014
The New World of Words: Corpus approaches to Text

NUDHL, Northwestern University (USA)
More info:
Resources: Slides

7 March 2013
Digital tools for scholars of literature & history: an overview

(with Jonathan Hope at the University of Strathclyde):
>>  a digital text analysis bibliography & related resources, covering:
what is digital humanities / what are some resources / who are some people
>> a set of prerequisites for a digital text analysis project
>> a collection of exemplary digital editions, as crowdsourced from twitter (download .docx file)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s