Сообщение DHlab представила проект «VR-путешествие по Солнечной системе» на «Неделе космоса» появились сначала на DHlab.

Сообщение Лаборатория Digital Humanities СФУ представила VR-тренажёр «VR следж-хоккей: Вызов» на Всеармейском форуме «Преодоление» появились сначала на DHlab.

Winnie E. Pérez Martínez’s post on the Scholars’ Lab blog this week got me thinking. In “Breadth and Depth, a Self-Centered Dialectic,” she revisits how we discuss breadth and depth as two approaches to digital humanities professional development. In this framing, one that I have put forward myself, we can think of careers in DH as operating on two axes. On the one, we are expected to know a little about a lot of things. On the other, we are directed more towards narrow, specialist-level knowledge about a smaller subset of methods. Breadth vs. depth. Few careers really ask us to go entirely in both directions. More practically, we tend to specialize in a couple areas within DH and develop passing familiarity with many more.

For me, the dichotomy between breadth and depth was a way to help students map their career plans onto the different skills they might acquire. I thought of it as a way to free yourself from the need to be expert in everything. In her post, Pérez Martínez expertly shows how breadth and depth actually inform and lead to one another. There can be no one right way in. If you start deep, you might find yourself broadening, and starting wide can help you to focus in. What most resonated about Pérez Martínez’s post, though, was the way in which you can see an exceptional scholar and practitioner wrestling over whether they are enough, over whether they could ever develop the necessary skills they need to feel complete. Those anxieties never really go away. I feel them too. I recognized myself in Pérez Martínez’s post, and I couldn’t help but sense that the breadth against depth framing seemed to be having the opposite effect I would want, heightening anxiety rather than mitigating it.

Pérez Martínez proposes a broadening of the axes I had envisioned. Breadth and depth move beyond just X and Y, curling in upon themselves until they start to push outwards. The moment reminded me of the age-old dichotomy of “hack” vs. “yack” in DH work and how Laura Braunstein offered “stack” as an important third term. In addition to coding and technological critique as key parts of DH work, Braunstein’s intervention elevates “the often invisible technological, social, and physical structures within which scholarship is produced and disseminated.” For Braunstein, DH work is more than just the sum of what we do, it also consists of the structures we put in place to enable that work. In the same spirit and inspired by Pérez Martínez, I have been wondering what breadth and depth leave out, what they gesture towards within and beyond the teaching that we do.

Put another way, what is education if not just content? One point of comparison here is L. Dee Fink, whose Taxonomy of Significant Learning illuminates the various components of teaching.

Caption: L. Dee Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning as shared on Florida International University’s Center for the Advancement of Teaching.

Fink’s Taxonomy usefully illustrates all the things that lie beyond the subject matter in the courses we teach. Learning is more than consuming books, articles, or topics. Teaching is more than passing along skills and methods. If we think of DH merely as skill building, we live too much in the upper right of the circle. We leave out the rest of what makes DH experiences—and DH learning—significant for so many of us. We ignore the transformative mentoring that shows a variety of career options. We miss the collaborative practices that can change how we view our work in dialogue with others. We do not account for how true interdisciplinarity changes our perspectives on our own research processes. We need a new term to trouble the dichotomy between breadth and depth that can capture a more capacious view of what it means to practice digital research and teaching, one that goes beyond subject matter, methods, and skills.

I find this particularly urgent in the age of generative AI, a complicated set of technologies that threatens to instrumentalize education beyond recognition. What counts as methodological training if you can vibe code your way to a launched digital project? What counts as digital pedagogy if our students are secretly using chatbots as study partners? How do we make room for conversations about professional development that do not reduce people to a tidy axis of skill acquisitions?

What lies beyond the breadth and depth of what it means to be a digital humanist?

I would introduce a third term for DH professional development: “breath.” Breadth and depth ask us to think about what we can and cannot do, about the subject matter and methods of DH work. The terms ask us to think about the limits of our knowledge and our inability to pursue universal expertise. Breath asks us to reframe the conversation entirely. It is an invitation to pause and re-embed our work in the body. How do we feel about our labor? Who are the working souls in DH and how do we engage with them? How do we work or overwork our own body to the point of breathlessness? What is the lived experience of our labor that transcends the skills or methods? What are the affects—the joys, frustrations, traumas, triumphs—of DH work that cannot be captured by thinking in terms of skill acquisition? How do our energies map onto a living, breathing community of thinkers and doers beyond the work on the table in front of us? Where do we fit in?

Breadth and depth ask students to think about where they could be, professional development by way of spatial orientation. Breath invites students to consider where they are, to think of themselves as real people with real needs that need attending.

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about that canonical debate around depth vs. breadth in digital humanities (DH). I remember initially my reaction was feeling that “true” DHers should be both, that this was an aptitude anyone could and should develop in the spirit of the discipline.¹ After much method trial-and-error, I then grew frustrated that I hadn’t found “my thing” and disappointed to think I could only do DH in breadth, not depth. I was bound to a path instead of choosing one. Eventually, I decided I didn’t care for the division at all.

Lately, though, I’ve started wondering, what if the question has multiple axes acting simultaneously? What if breadth leads to depth, the opposite happens, or something else altogether? What if, instead of choosing a path, it emerges, for each one of us, from our own individual way of sharing, problem-solving, organizing, and researching?

In my “failing” to become an expert at one single thing calling out to me, I had no choice but accepting and recognizing the value of breadth, and inevitability of failure—another core DH moment—even if my perceived failure was personal in nature.² But the beauty of “rock bottoms” is that they create an opportunity for radical change because one’s ego is finally humble enough to give up on what isn’t working and engage in earnest reflection, even start over. ON/OFF. Unplug and replug. It’s a time to accept losses and reassess them against growth, assets, skills, experience, effort, connections. What did you learn in the process? In DH, the process is key.³

Through the process, I learned I’ve been wrong all along: depth & breath are really two sides of the same coin. What separates us should be instead the base principles for a constructive bridge uniting DH inquiry. I used to think that not knowing and being new to the tools of an environment was a disadvantage (breadth+1), but it turns out specialists (depth+1) often don’t remember what a beginner feels or needs, precisely because they have intimate knowledge of their fields. The specialist (depth+1) is always iterating over their craft, perfecting techniques or creating new ones, deeply connected to the innovations of peers, organizations, and entities influencing their work. Generalists (breadth+1), typically, pay attention to what’s going on in multiple fields, who’s working where, what is the budget distribution, how do you get more students in to apply for your programs, how do you process their applications. DH emerges from a delicate act of balancing out critical responsibilities among experts of both kinds, each deeply attuned to their own and each other’s tasks.

Revisiting this discussion with recent insights, I realized that, as far as the depth & breadth goes, I am through and through a digital humanist in breadth (of course, an oxymoron). This is how my brain works. I have a good instinct for quickly finding unusual connections between topics, and a curiosity for learning anything, so I end up knowing a little bit about many things, not much about anything at all. I used to badly resent this indecisiveness in my learning pattern, the inability to choose and stick to one thing passionately forever, but I have been reworking this perspective to understand that what I am is flexible, curious, nimble. This is a quality that makes me good at handling unknown situations, at learning how to learn new things on my own, and at translating that knowledge of the learning process to expert audiences.

And yet, over time, I have found myself going back to specific projects, questions, topics. I keep thinking about design, minimal computing, pedagogy, infrastructures, technology, small datasets, and collaborative work, for example, over and over again in recent years. These are now inescapable research areas for me. Won’t this path of ceaseless returning eventually lead to depth as projects grow and change from recurring personal concerns, interests? Maybe we all become breadth/depth hybrids if we spend long enough earnestly engaging DH work, which is kind of pretty, it means connection awaits at the center where both axes intersect.

This blog, in a lot of ways, is the result of putting into action my previous blog, and to get a better gist of what the workshop itself entailed, please see that blog.

In running a workshop on GIS mapping using 3D-printed maps and pins, one conclusion, point of error, questions to consider (call it what you will) came to mind: when practicing a Digital Humanities workshop aimed at teaching a specific digital tool without the digital, while also using Latinx materials, what is it that gets missed? Is it possible to do due diligence on both fields in a limited time with an audience of mixed knowledge? Does the digital tool come before the context of the world in which it is used? And why do these questions trouble me so much? Am I alone in my concerns?

By all of these questions, what I mean to ask, reworded, is there and does there have to be a difference between teaching the workshop I did in a future Latinx class with a DH section on the syllabus versus running a workshop with a general DH group on a Latinx topic while focusing not on the Latinx portion but instead the mechanics of a tool? Theoretically, in a Latinx topic class, the history and specifics of what is being plotted, which in this case were different Latin American migrant experiences in the country of Mexico, would already be explained in lectures and readings. There are no underlying assumptions of knowledge left open in the conversation fostered in a classroom with students. A general workshop functions a little differently, especially given time constraints and the fact that it’s a one-day event, and, at the end of the day, a single skill or specific point is valued.

Admittedly, in the last post, I left out the details of the sixteen flashcards in part because making them took a bit longer than I expected. Just like any other teaching material, the details and specifics mattered an unbelievable amount. So, I did what any literature major would do: I drew on my training and tried to ensure that the stories/narratives were as centered as possible. In practice, this means that nearly all the sixteen flashcards are snippets from documentaries, novels, memoirs, and government documents. This project, at its heart, was one of critical making, using 3D printing to embody the work of literary studies.

Once again, in a Latinx studies classroom, I would never run the workshop before spending time on the histories of Latin American migrations and the differences across decades. For example, in the early 2000s, into the turn of the second decade of the 21st century, there was an increase in unaccompanied children from across Central American countries fleeing gang violence, which was a direct result of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which is a different moment, with its own specifics, of a broader history (Arias 2012). What is being written about and documented reflects this period. Therefore, the flashcards also aim to reflect not only the different migrant experiences in Mexico but also who is migrating. In my previous blog post, I used Ana Patricia Rodriguez’s framework of accompaniment to argue that, by plotting the flashcards onto the map, a participant is also “positioned, if not prodded, to question the conditions.” The hope in a classroom is that students can see the differences across decades as they plot the snippets and be “prodded” to make connections. Turns out, in a workshop, this is slightly harder to pull off successfully.

Answers to my Questions

I didn’t realize just how much I would appreciate the act of running a workshop, the practice it would provide, and all the questions it would raise for me as a teacher. I say this not as a value judgment but as a point of improvement and awareness: in many ways, the workshop failed. I failed. And I love the fact that I failed. And next time I might fail again, and I might not, but I look forward to it nonetheless. Because in failure and in writing this blog, the answers to my own questions, at least for myself, become slowly clearer and clearer. So, I will now answer the questions using the experience of the workshop itself. What gets missed? I learned that if we center a digital tool too much and not the world it is situated in, the Latinx histories fall a little to the side. Once again, my failure. Is it possible to do due diligence on both fields? That one is a little harder for me because the reality is similar to Environmental humanities, where Priscilla Solis Ybarra, David Vazquez, and many more have demonstrated gaps of Latinx representation in other fields, but also a mirrored gap in Latinx studies. These gaps complicate one’s ability to do full diligence in a limited time. I repeat, my failure. Does the tool come before the world? On the day of this workshop, it did. In part because the intent of the workshop was to teach the tool, and I focused on that too. Why do these questions bother me so much? Question for a later day. Would I teach it differently in my future Latinx studies class? Absolutely.

As part of my tradition, a place of thanks. I am so very grateful to have had the opportunity to run this workshop and to find joy not only in critical making but also in failing. I want to not only thank my praxis group and those who were there for the workshop, but also my amazing advisors who encourage all my side-quests, even when they include ducks.

References

Arias, Arturo. “Central American-Americans in the Second Decade of the Twenty-First Century: Old Scars, New Traumas, Disempowering Travails.” Diálogo, vol. 15, no. 1 (2012): pp. 4-16.

Vázquez, David J. Decolonial Environmentalisms: Climate Justice and Speculative Futures In Latinx Cultural Production. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2025.

Ybarra, Priscilla Solis. Writing the Goodlife: Mexican American Literature and the Environment. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 2016.

Drew Macqueen learned about processing & geotagging photos, collaborating with a local artist & Library colleague to map & visualize photos of Virginia taken through the windows while riding trains throughout the state.

Will Rourk 3D-scanned one of the telescope domes at Fan Mountain Observatory last Thursday.

Over the weekend, one of the amazing student Technologists, Link did a clean and reorganizing of the resin 3D printer station. The printer gives off some nasty fumes, so she was able to procure an air purifier set up just for such printers. Unfortunately, the model available doesn’t directly connect with our Prusa SL1S. Link put the air filter in place, but had to resort to duct tape to get it ti connect to the resin printer. It didn’t work.

So when I came in this morning and saw the need for an adapter to the adapter, I knew what I was going to do today!

I spent some time thinking about the best options. An insert with magnets? But how does the original adapter stay put on the new adapter?

Well, there are screw holes, how about using them? Yep, that’s the ticket. Basically replicate the bottom of the original adapter so it can screw to the new, then add a whole bunch of magnets!

And it worked on the first try! I had to double up the magnets in order to make it strong enough to stay on, and the gasket printed in TPU could be a little bit thicker. But it was a great success!

The models are available on Printables.com for download and 3D printing.

On the heels of the knowledge gained from the last post figuring out the gear train numbers, I set out to model the gears and a holder.

And immediately I was confronted with an issue with my calculations.

The Problem

At the end of all my learning and calculating, I decided:

It looks like 36mm (servo) —> 12mm|36mm —> 12mm (pinion) 
has smaller gears and gives good enough range.

One thing I forgot to consider is the length of the servo horn that is used to connect the servo to the gear. I could do without it, but trying to design and print such a small toothed hole has issues. I have seen others try and filament 3D printing does not provide fine enough detail to mesh well with the servo gear. So using the supplied horn attachment makes things much easier.

The problem, is that the horn is about 22mm in length. If my gear is only 36mm in diameter, then the horn would stick out into the gear’s teeth!

Another sidetrack bump I had to overcome was the getting the dimensions of the servo horn. The dimensions I could fine online were unsatisfactory. So I measured one myself!

And went ahead and 3D modeled it and put the 3D model and diagram files up on printables.com for anyone to use.

With all of that info, I can then recalculate the gear train dimensions so it fits with the servo horn.

The Correct Gear Train

Servo motor → 46
              ↓
             20 (same shaft as) 46
                                ↓
                               20 (pinion)

Sidetracked Again!

The first day of modeling, I decided to jump the Fusion 360 train and try onshape.com. It’s a web based 3D modeling and CAD tool. It has been around since 2015, and is gaining ad time lately in many of the YouTube.com videos I see, so I thought I’d give it a try. I was prepared for some learning curves and to spend some time learning a new system, but two things got me to throw in the towel after a full day of working with it; 1) I couldn’t figure out how to do something pretty simple that would take 2 minutes in Fusion 360, 2) I didn’t care for the interface; it felt too unprofessional. If TinkerCad.com is the elementary school version of CAD, it looked like Onshape.com was the 9th grade version. I did love that it was browser based. And making double helical gears was a breeze! There’s a handy built in menu for all kinds of gears. Fusion 360 on the other hand is big L in gear making. You have to import 3rd-party scripts and I can’t get any of the fancy gear scripts to work.

Like many things, it was the fact that I could get things done much faster with the tool I already knew, and I was accustomed to the interface that led me back to Fusion 360.

Making the Gear Train

I had previous attempts at designing the gear train, but I decided to start from scratch since Fusion 360 doesn’t have an easy way to just change the size of gears when using the gear script plugin thing.

Servo Gear

So, first I designed the servo gear. Pretty easy to create a 46 tooth gear with the gear script plugin thing.

I designed a cut out, or inset, for the servo horn to fit inside. This is the easiest way to attach the gear to the servo. 3D printing these gears with filament would not have enough resolution to print the fine teeth needed to interface with the tiny default gear on the servo shaft. Much easier to use the included horn.

Combo Gear

The combo gear was pretty easy, too. Just make another 46 Tooth gear, then make a 20 Tooth gear and stack them on top of each other.

I set the diameter of the hole through the gear at 4.2mm. That’s big enough for a M4 bolt to go through, with just enough tolerance to allow the gear to spin but not wobble.

Pinion Gear

Another very simple gear to model. There’s nothing special about this, just a 20 tooth gear with a 4.2mm diameter hole.

Rack

The rack is pretty straight forward. I created a 20 tooth gear, then used one of those teeth to copy down the length of the rack.

Gear Holder

This was a little bit tricker. The gears were all prototyped in one go. The first print was great. This part took 7 tries so far.

I started by creating a new Assembly in Fusion. Then adding in the gears and aligning them as needed. I went with a stacked approach so as to keep the footprint as small as possible. I had previously modeled the servo motor, so I was able to add that in as well.

It was tricky to get the servo aligned with the servo gear, and then get each of the gears aligned with the ones the mesh with. In realized that if a part has the sketch turned on, then that shows up in the Assembly file. I used that to create a construction line on the servo gear and put a point where the center of the combo gear should be aligned to. Then I did the same on the combo gear to align the pinion. Then adding the holder, servo motor, and rack.

It was a lot of back and forth between the designs for the parts and the assembly to align everything correctly. But in the end I think it lines up well.

Spacers

After the first version, I realized that the gears needed spacers to keep them in place. The holder is wider than the gears. So modeling and printing a couple of spacers is pretty easy.

Somewhat Working

I connected everything up, bolted in the gears, and plugged it in. And it works… mostly.

As the video shows, the gears work, somewhat. There is a bit of jittering, which may be due to the code just rotating the gears back and forth. A more normal behavior would be moving from one angle to the next and stopping there. The servo is also not moving at a full 180°. More like 100°. This is only about 111mm of travel, not the 150mm we’re hoping for. It might be time to consider better quality servos. Perhaps some that move 270°.

It is also a pain to swap the servo motor. Perhaps a redesign is in order.

Missed the first two posts?

• Part I - Critical Making Project 2026
• Part II - Jump on the Gear Train

Funding provided through a generous grant from UVA Arts Council.

Are you a humanities student (3rd-year BA, MA, or PhD) using digital methods in your research or thesis? And would you like to present you work to fellow students? We’d love to hear from you!

We – Finn Pietrass and Thomas Rozendaal, student ambassadors at the Centre for Digital Humanities at Utrecht University – are organising a student colloquium: The Digital Humanities Dialogue for Students (date TBA). This event is designed to give students insight into how digital methods can be applied across different humanities disciplines, and to inspire students to explore these approaches themselves.

We are looking for 2 to 3 student speakers from the Faculties of Humanities who are interested in sharing their experiences with digital methods in their studies or a research project. Presentations will be short (approximately 15 minutes) and aimed at a broad student audience. No prior presentation experience is required.

Why participate?

• Present your research in a supportive, low-pressure environment

• Gain experience as a speaker in an academic context

• Discuss and exchange ideas with like-minded individuals

Sign up

Interested in participating or want to learn more? Get in touch via cdh@uu.nl. The deadline to sign up as a speaker is 12 April. We’d be happy to hear from you!

The post Call for student speakers: Share your digital humanities project appeared first on Centre for Digital Humanities.

Ronda Grizzle has been learning about recording & editing podcasts using Audacity & the Library’s media system, because she starts recording the “DH is People” podcast episodes this week. (Coming soon to a SLab social media account near you!)

Construction of the brand-new research facilities for the ILS Labs at Drift 10 is now in full swing. Renovations are progressing rapidly and the soundproof booths that will house the labs are currently being installed. The technical installation of the first labs is expected to start in April.

The labs of the Institute for Language Sciences (ILS) are used to study language development in babies and language processing and production in adults. Much of this research involves the use of sound stimuli, which makes soundproof laboratories essential.

Several parts of Drift 10 are currently being renovated and upgraded to accommodate the new facilities. The floors of both the ground floor and first floor are being fortified to support the booths and the ventilation system is being expanded. Once completed, the basement, ground floor, and first floor will house two biolabs, two eye-tracking labs, three phonetics/general-purpose labs, an interaction lab, and a head-turn-preference lab.

Although the move is only a short distance – from Janskerkhof 13 to Drift 10 – it is a major logistical project. To ensure that ongoing research can continue with minimal disruption, the labs will be relocated one at a time. Moving each lab will take several weeks, and the full relocation is expected to be completed by the end of 2026 or beginning of 2027.

• Take a look at the construction photos and the installation of the soundproof booths.
• You can also read the interview with National Geographic about research conducted in the ILS Labs.

The post New ILS Labs take shape at Drift 10 appeared first on Centre for Digital Humanities.

The Digital Humanities Center, in partnership with the Data Analytics Center, is excited to share our Call for Proposals for the 2026–2027 academic year.

Applications are due May 15, 2026.

Project teams should consist of one faculty and one graduate student as collaborators on humanities research in the University of Virginia. We welcome proposals that explore experimental humanities research through the use of high-performance computing resources. We encourage projects that challenge traditional understanding of digital humanities (or even what has been considered humanities research), involve ethical and philosophical issues raised by new technologies, or explore new opportunities for using high-performance computing tools and techniques to better understand the human record.

Find out more on our Fellowship Page!