Originally focusing on developing digital tools and the creation of archives and databases for texts, artworks, and other materials, “digital humanities are at the leading edge of applying computer-based technology in the humanities. It has brought new powers of analysis, comparison and understanding to a range of research areas” (Berry, 2019). With the application of digital practices to areas such as literature, history and philosophies some critical questions and concerns have arisen. For years, numerous scholarists have attempted to examine and analyse these topics, among them being William G. Thomas and Trevor Owens.

In “What We Think We Will Build and What We Build in Digital Humanities”, William G. Thomas identifies his key takeaways from working on the digital humanities project “The Railroads and the Making of Modern America”. Thomas proposes that a gap exists between the intention and execution of projects due to the lack of standardized procedures for creation in the digital humanities space. Moreover, he pinpoints the accounting for heterogeneous document types in digital archives, the enablement of cross-discipline scholarly teams, and the adjustments to digital scholarship structure as key areas in which the humanities scholarly practices will change with the application of digital practices.

Thomas’ perspective on the evolving field of digital humanities has allowed me to consider the massive impact that technology can have on a field of study. Digital tools and practices have the potential to truly highlight the weaknesses and in so doing provide the means for improvement for any scholarly system. I believe that technology by removing the boundaries set by physical location creating access to vast amounts of data and information has changed problem-solving and research as we know it, making it possible for solutions that are merely shadows of the initial problems to be considered a job well done to the researcher.

Within that same realm of discussion, Trevor Owens addresses the need for further consideration in the design process as it relates to humanities scholarship. He recommends that digital humanists who design software should formalize their process by simply refining the brainstorming that would have occurred prior to coding onto paper rather than re-encoding arguments into text as some would suggest.

Owen’s take on reflective reporting has provided a refreshing view on a somewhat controversial topic. Personally, having done some reflective writing myself, I have come to see the practice as a rather tedious one to be avoided at all cost. However, by shining a light on the benefits of reflective reporting to reflective designers, I have been able to make parallels to my own experience. For instance, the comments written into pieces of code by other programmers has enabled me to gain a better understanding of the functioning behind a program and has been a major contributor to my learning of some essential programming techniques. The practice of program documentation through commenting, which has become like second nature to me, is not so different from that which is being proposed by Owens so he has really allowed me to reconsider my view on reflective reporting.

All in all, the field of digital humanities is so vast and can be applied to so many areas it is unsurprising that a range of discussions can be had as to the requirements of researchers and the procedures that can occur while conducting a humanities’ project. William G. Thomas and Trevor Owens have provided quite enlightening takes on this evolving field and have truly impressed upon me its beauty, thus encouraging my excitement to learn more.