In each article preceding the discussion of DH, Race, and Alterity, I found one major theme peeping through: Accessibility. Not just accessibility of reading content, but accessibility in understanding and creating content. If DH is going to be universal and accomplish the goals of delivering high quality resources to all, DH needs to give more than just access to viewing content.
Is DH making its material accessible to as many people as possible, and if so, how is this being done? In The User, the Learner, and the Machines We Make Alex Gil forwards the idea that minimal computing is a way towards accessibility. Citing Google’s search box, which is quite minimal until one looks at the massive amounts of code used to run this one box. Yet, is minimal computing a good starting off place for accessibility? More precisely, is everyone speaking the same minimal computing, as Seyers’s article expands the minimal computing definition. McGrail’s Open Source in Open Access Environments touches on this question of overcomplication in community college settings. Is minimal computing helping community college students or developing a difficult entry point to DH? How can DH ideas reach more people and truly be accessible without collapsing the integrity of the work studied?
Central to this issue of accessibility are race, gender, and international DH work. In The (Digital) Library of Babel Alex Gil states, “a humanities gone digital brings not the future, but a new past.” Digital Humanities can create new understandings by bringing together populations from culturally and socially disparate backgrounds to create new and interesting discussions about the world. Yet Alex Gil states we need to take care of our own tents first. The United States has its own struggles representing both gender and race equally within Digital Humanities. Focusing on how to support our local tent is necessary to developing DH both at home and internationally. Perhaps this local approach can be developed within collegiate frameworks of DH. Yet still to be answered is the question: How do we make DH accessible to all?
Houston Symphony Orchestra has a massive mission statement: In 2025, the Houston Symphony will be America’s most relevant and accessible top-ten orchestra. Yet when Mark Hanson became executive director of the symphony in 2010, he noticed that the majority of the symphony audience was white. In Houston, which is 33% Anglo, 41% Hispanic, 18% African American, and 8% Asian, not engaging with multiple cultures means not being relevant or accessible. In The Houston Symphony Diversity and Inclusion Case Study Mark Hanson states, “The Symphony can be as welcoming and as open as humanly possible but without intentional and deliberate strategies that address this feeling experienced by many from the African-American community, our organization and more importantly our art form will continue to remain unintentionally exclusive.” To become more inclusive they went straight to the source and developed three leadership councils filled with people from the communities they were trying to reach. The Houston Symphony Orchestra has since developed bilingual concerts, an African American chorus to perform for orchestra concerts, a Spanish composer series, free community tango concerts, and more to engage with their community. Though it is solely a musical organization, the Houston Symphony Orchestra is dealing with the same issues as Digital Humanities. The Houston Symphony Orchestra believes searching for answers at a community level will help them succeed in becoming one of the top 10 nationally recognized orchestras, but for DH, which is often thought of as a more national/international endeavor, would a local focus be acceptable? Since the potential for DH is so expansive, should inclusivity in DH begin at a local or meta level?