Revisiting "The Digital-Humanities Bust": A Reflection on Progress Since 2017

In October 2017, The Chronicle of Higher Education published Timothy Brennan’s provocative article, The Digital-Humanities Bust, which took a critical stance on the digital humanities (DH). Brennan questioned the tangible outcomes of significant investments in DH, arguing that despite over a decade of funding and enthusiasm, the field had failed to deliver substantial scholarly advancements. His critique was, in part, a response to the wave of institutional enthusiasm for DH, which had been framed as an essential modernization of the humanities. However, as digital humanities scholars well know, the field has continued to evolve, making significant contributions that challenge Brennan’s conclusions.

Notably, The Chronicle of Higher Education has recently resurfaced Brennan’s 2017 critique, prompting a timely re-evaluation of the state of DH today. Why would an article from 2017 be featured again in 2024? Is this an indication that some still view DH as a failed enterprise, or is it an opportunity to reflect on the progress the field has made? While the original article captured valid concerns about the institutionalization of DH, a look at developments over the past several years suggests that DH has not only persisted but expanded in ways that would have been difficult to predict in 2017.

Advancements in Digital Humanities Since 2017

While Brennan argued that DH had little to show for its promises, the years following 2017 have witnessed notable progress. Innovations in artificial intelligence, enhanced textual analysis, digital preservation efforts, global collaborative platforms, and pioneering interdisciplinary research have reshaped the field.

Integration of Artificial Intelligence

One of the most transformative developments in DH has been the advent of large-scale language models, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and other natural language processing (NLP) tools. These AI-driven technologies have significantly enhanced the ability to analyze ancient texts, automate content generation, and facilitate digital research in ways previously unimaginable. AI now plays a crucial role in various DH projects, from reconstructing lost texts to providing real-time translations of historical documents. The integration of AI into humanities research has not only expanded analytical capabilities but has also introduced new ethical and philosophical questions about authorship, interpretation, and the nature of scholarship itself.

Enhanced Textual Analysis

Machine learning and deep neural networks have become increasingly sophisticated in their application to textual analysis within DH. Researchers now employ computational models for entity extraction, authorship identification, and semantic analysis, making it easier to detect patterns in large textual corpora. One of the key advancements in this area has been addressing challenges related to training data availability and domain adaptation, allowing for more accurate and nuanced readings of historical and literary texts. These tools have been particularly useful for scholars working on underexplored archives, helping to unearth connections between texts that may have been previously overlooked.

Preservation of Digital Literature

Another major development in DH has been the expansion of digital preservation initiatives. Projects like The NEXT Museum, supported by institutions such as Washington State University, are dedicated to archiving and maintaining net art, electronic literature, and digital games. The importance of preserving born-digital cultural artifacts has grown alongside the increasing recognition that many works of digital literature are at risk of being lost due to rapidly changing technologies. Unlike traditional print materials, digital texts often require specific software and hardware environments to remain accessible. Efforts to ensure the longevity of these works reflect a broader commitment within DH to safeguard cultural history in the digital age.

Global Collaborative Platforms

The growth of global collaborative platforms has also been a defining feature of DH’s progress since 2017. One such platform, ISIDORE, was initially launched in 2009 but has continued to evolve, aggregating vast scholarly resources to promote open science and interdisciplinary research in the humanities and social sciences. These platforms have made digital humanities more accessible by providing scholars worldwide with open access to datasets, tools, and publications. The collaborative nature of these digital repositories has strengthened international research efforts and fostered new forms of academic exchange.

Academic Contributions and Interdisciplinary Research

Beyond technological advancements, DH has also seen a surge in innovative interdisciplinary research. Scholars such as Katherine Elkins have pioneered work that bridges AI and literary studies, using sentiment analysis to explore narrative structures in ways that challenge traditional literary criticism. These kinds of interdisciplinary approaches have broadened the scope of DH, demonstrating that computational methods can complement and even enhance traditional humanities research rather than replace it.

Why Revisit Brennan’s Critique Now?

The reappearance of Brennan’s article in The Chronicle of Higher Education raises intriguing questions about the continued skepticism toward DH. One possible reason for revisiting this critique is the ongoing debate about the role of technology in the humanities. While DH has undoubtedly advanced, some may still question whether these developments constitute a true paradigm shift or merely an extension of existing scholarly methods.

Another factor may be the broader concerns about the direction of higher education itself. As universities continue to grapple with financial constraints, changing student demographics, and debates over the value of the humanities, the question of whether DH represents a meaningful investment remains relevant. Some critics may still see DH as a trend that failed to produce the revolutionary impact once promised, while others may argue that it is precisely through digital methodologies that the humanities can remain vibrant in an increasingly technological world.

Finally, revisiting Brennan’s critique could serve as a call to self-reflection within the DH community. While significant progress has been made, challenges remain—particularly in terms of ensuring that DH remains inclusive, critical, and methodologically rigorous. Digital humanities should not be reduced to a set of tools or funding initiatives; rather, it should continue to engage with fundamental questions about knowledge production, interpretation, and cultural preservation.

Conclusion

Brennan’s 2017 article painted a pessimistic picture of digital humanities, portraying it as a field that had overpromised and underdelivered. Yet, the advancements in AI, textual analysis, digital preservation, and interdisciplinary research over the past several years suggest that DH has not only endured but thrived. While criticisms of DH remain valid in some respects, the field has undeniably contributed to new ways of understanding and engaging with the humanities.

The decision by The Chronicle of Higher Education to feature this article again in 2024 invites us to reconsider both the successes and limitations of DH. Rather than viewing this as a sign that DH has failed, it can be seen as an opportunity to reflect on its evolution, highlight its achievements, and chart a course for its future. As digital humanities continues to grow, its greatest strength will likely lie in its ability to adapt, integrate emerging technologies, and maintain a critical engagement with the humanities’ core intellectual traditions.