The Ups and Downs of Digital Humanities

This past Thursday's conversation somewhat clarified the Humanities 2.0 and the Bass and Rosenzweig article. What I found exciting and illuminating in Humanities 2.0 was brought into perspective with "Rewiring the History and Social Studies Classroom." By this I am referring to the focal point (for me at least) of Humanities 2.0. This would be the word PROCESS:
"Digital Humanities...honors the quality of results; but it also honors the steps by means of which results are obtained as a form of publication of comparable value."
Ok. So here we have a wealth of knowledge to be obtained by simply starting something, because knowledge assumes and manifests itself in multiple forms. In the quest for more knowledge about a particular subject, in this process, must we follow a specific path that leads toward a specific goal?
Process can imply that you are leading to a particular result, but it can also mean a series of actions conducing to an end. This is the definition I prefer. Process is not honored in the university environment, but rather the product is. This is not new. Our university master's program requires of us to crank out 100 pages or so of product. What ends up happening (at least is happening to me) is that the student becomes so consumed with the end result: the term paper, the seminar paper, the thesis, the forms, the margins and watermarked paper that they forget that we're here to obtain more knowledge about a particular subject that peaks our interest, in whatever form that might take. Or at least that's the assumed goal. Or my goal, or something. If more knowledge is in fact our goal, then focusing on process (by way of using technology, and blogs, and digitilizing the Humanities and bringing a benefical element to the classroom,thereby enhancing the overall classroom experience) is able to offer many more doors and detours in which we can obtain knowledge about a particular subject, many subjects, or every subject.

And yet this is very idealistic. This is more of a mentality that one can assume. How applicable integrating the mentality of process into the classroom depends on the values of the institution. As Meagan pointed out in class, how is it possible to assess these processes, or the creations achieved with technology? You have this thing, this end result which make take the shape of a blog, or a website, or something, but how do we assign any value to it?

Bass and Rosenzweig ask the same question, but in a more formal manner. Their article manages to break down parts of the manifesto, and realistically apply it to the classroom setting. The article is not without questioning: "How will a new assignment alter the overall balance of a course? How do new approaches manifest themselves throughout a curriculum or a school?"
This article manages to keep the main questions of Digital Humanities in focus: what are we trying to accomplish in the classroom, and can technology make this possible?

These are the questions faced whilst enrolled in this New Media class: what is it that we are doing? I'm hoping to fall back on the process mantra, and hope that throughout this semester to find something I value...just a thought.