In this article, we contend that the podcast serves as an alternative method of
conducting and pursuing academic research in an increasingly collaborative,
increasingly global era.
Circulating Spaces: Literary and Language Worlds in a Global
Age, a podcast series created, produced, and published by the authors, acts as our
case study. The podcast models a complex network of relations by highlighting topics
and featuring guests who co-exist within academic and public
(often understood as
non-academic) spaces. These networks help to reshape our understanding of the
publics
of academia by breaking down the binary between the public and academic.
They point toward ways in which more nuanced networks of affinity between the academy
and the public may be constructed and negotiated by embracing the digital and the
open. Finally, we locate our work within the fields of digital scholarship and the
Digital Humanities more specifically in order to understand the work accomplished by
non-traditional forms of scholarship.A note on author attribution: Christian
Howard-Sukhil and Samantha Wallace originally drafted and equally contributed to
the ideas expressed in this article. Ankita Chakrabarti, who joined the project
team a year after the initial collaboration, was instrumental in ensuring that
these ideas coalesced, especially given the new presentation of materials in
Season 2 of Circulating Spaces. Christian
Howard-Sukhil and Samantha Wallace were co-hosts and co-producers for Season 1 of
Circulating Spaces; Christian Howard-Sukhil and
Ankita Chakrabarti were co-hosts and co-producers for Season 2 of Circulating Spaces.
Argues for the academic value of the podcast as a non-traditional research methodology
Because of the digital revolution... all kinds of things are
happening [in humanities research], and [Circulating
Spaces] is one example... [Circulating
Spaces and its] ecosystem of literary worlds are creating new
mechanisms for both doing and disseminating research and having conversations
about it that didn’t exist when I was a graduate student. So [Circulating Spaces — and podcasts like it – are] the wave of the
future.
Susan Stanford Friedman, Circulating
Spaces Episode 6, 38:35-39:08
Highlighting the renewed impetus for the kind of collaborative humanities research made
possible by Digital Humanities initiatives, Susan Stanford Friedman describes how the
ecosystem of literary worlds
— including the attendant
technologies or media that make the production of literature possible — is
revolutionizing the academic mechanisms for both doing and
disseminating research.
Digital Humanities scholarship poses foundational
questions regarding how new forms of digital media can inform, challenge, and change the
ways we do scholarship in the academy.See, for instance, [N. Katherine Hayle’s How We Think](#hayles2012); [Ted Underwood’s Why Literary Periods
Mattered](#underwood2013); [Matthew Kirschenbaum’s
The .txtual Condition: Digital Humanities, Born Digital
Archives, and the Future Literary](#kirschenbuam2013); [Alix
Keener’s The Arrival Fallacy: Collaborative Research
Relationships in the Digital Humanities](#keener2015); [Tom Schofield, Mitchell Whitelaw, and David Kirk’s Research through Design and Digital Humanities in
Practice](#schofield2017); and [Matt Erlin’s Digital Humanities Masterplots.](#erlin2016) In this
article, we consider how the podcast, as an emerging form of scholarship and research in
the academy, engages with these central inquiries of the Digital Humanities. We offer
our own experiences in creating, producing, and publishing the podcast series,
Circulating Spaces: Literary and Language Worlds in a Global
Age, as a case study, and we reflect on how the podcast has amended our
practices as researchers, editors, and scholars. Specifically, we leveraged theories
developing in the field of world literature with the affordances of the podcast as a
medium to create a series of podcast episodes that attempts to deconstruct the existing
binary between the public and the academy within academic thought. Circulating Spaces models a complex network of relations by highlighting
topics and featuring guests who co-exist within these spaces. In turn, precisely because
it allows us to consider (and serve as engaged participants in) the more complex lives
of the actors involved within the multiple ecosystems of literary worlds, we contend
that the podcast serves as an alternative method of conducting and pursuing academic
research in an increasingly collaborative, increasingly global era.In this way,
podcasts participate in other forms of emerging digital scholarship - such as TEDx
Talks, blogs, and Twitter - which enable academic conversations to reach the broader
public.
We begin by looking at the development of the podcast as a distinct form of media that
emphasizes consistency in presentation style and theme in order to develop an audience,
within the academy as well as beyond it. We then turn to discussing
Circulating Spaces as a case study that intervenes within
discourses around public humanities: it helps to reshape the publics
of academia
by breaking down the binary between the public and academic; and to point toward ways in
which more nuanced networks of affinity between the academy and the public may be
constructed and negotiated by embracing the digital and the open. Finally, we locate our
work within the fields of digital scholarship and the Digital Humanities more
specifically in order to understand the work accomplished by non-traditional forms of
scholarship.
Part 1: Podcasts as Media
A. Characterizing the Podcast’s Form and Affordances
The term podcast
is an amalgam of the words iPod and broadcast, and
technically speaking, the podcast is simply a digital audio file that people can
download from the Internet. But in recent years, the podcast has developed into a
distinct form with its own set of rules. The most essential rule of successful
podcast production is to make the show interesting enough to keep an audience’s
attention. Charli Prangley writes, Building an audience is
all about consistency. Consistency in the topics you talk about. Consistency in
the style of photographs on your blog. Consistency in the frequency of when
you'll post new content. And for podcasts, consistency in your show
format
. As Prangley notes, most podcasts are serial, and
each podcast series tends to explore or develop a topic or theme from different
angles (similar to a TV series, which features the same characters often engaging
in similar activities or facing similar tasks).
There are currently three primary podcast forms: the solo podcast, the
storytelling podcast (both fiction and non-fiction), and the conversational podcast
(featuring at least one host and one or more guests).There are two other
accepted forms, the hybrid
(which combines aspects of the various other
forms), and repurposed content
from other kinds of media productions.
For more information, see Mark Leonard’s The Seven Most
Common Podcast Formats. While there are thus several
different styles of podcasts, each of these has developed into a recognizable form
that has its own set of rules or conventions. The solo podcast may seem similar to
the standard academic lecture. Yet the need to keep an audience engaged across
multiple broadcasts without listening aids (such as an accompanying PowerPoint or
other video supplements) has resulted in a change to the strategy of delivery:
hosts of solo podcasts often use the platform to speak to their audience in a much
more informal yet sustained way. Rachel Corbett of
PodSchool has emphasized the need for solo podcasters to continuously
vamp up the energy of their shows, stating that a solo podcast is
a very intimate way to get to know your audience because you
are...talking directly to your audience...[The audience] need[s] to feel like
they know you and that they can trust you
(
[Different Types of Podcast 8:09-8:25,
11:17-11:24](#corbett)). But this style of podcast
can be
tough
to create because it can be difficult
to get
that energy and to get that conversational style happening (
[Different Types of Podcast
11:27-11:36](#corbett)). This presentation style differs markedly from that of the
academic lecture, which often features a live audience that can see and respond to
the presenter’s gestures, facial expressions, and any supplementary visual
aids.
The storytelling podcast includes both non-fiction storytelling (such as the
investigative journalism of
This American Life or
Serial) and fictional storytelling. Both of these
formats differ from audiobooks in that they incorporate a variety of sound effects
and voices rather than relying upon a single narrator. Corbett explains that
storytelling podcasts include
the added element of sound
design,
such as grabs of interviews, ambient sound, phone
conversations, and more (
[Different
Types of Podcast 20:38-20:42](#corbett)). Specifically referring to
fiction storytelling podcasts, Corbett states:
[These
podcasts necessitate] more than just somebody reading the story into a
microphone. It’s got to be audio storytelling. ...You need someone who’s going
to do a voiceover and really in some ways act out the story rather than just
reading it
(
[Different Types
of Podcast 22:32-22:43, 22:51-22:57](#corbett)).
Circulating Spaces is an example of the last type,
the conversational podcast. The conversational podcast has several different
formats, including the interview show and the panel discussion, but each of these
generally involves some combination of hosts and guests who dialogue about a topic
or event. In the conversational form of the podcast, the host(s) tend to remain
fairly constant throughout a podcast series; guests, on the other hand, generally
change from episode to episode. The goal of the conversational podcast is to
generate discussions new and interesting enough to retain the audience.
B. Podcasts in the Academy
A number of studies have outlined the usefulness and efficacy of podcasts as
pedagogical tools. Khe Foon Hew identifies the most common use of the podcast in
the academy as a method for distributing course content. Instructors can share
podcast recordings of lectures or supplementary materials
for students to review subject material at their own time and place
. As one might expect with this use of podcasts,
Simon Fietze has argued that because students can listen to podcasts multiple
times, podcasts can help students assimilate the contents of
lectures better and more efficiently
. These conclusions certainly stand to
reason. However, scholarly analyses of podcasts have largely been limited to
understanding how the podcast — which has been strictly considered as a means of
communicating information — impacts students’ retention of that information. In so
limiting the purpose of podcasts within higher education, these analyses often
relegate podcasts to mere recordings of lectures or information that can then be
used to assist in content retention and distance
learning
.
Yet more recently, there have been shifts toward scholarly analyses of the podcast
beyond its uses within a pedagogical context.
Podcasting: New
Aural Cultures and Digital Media (2018), an edited collection of
interdisciplinary essays, and
Podcasting: The Audio Media
Revolution (2019) are two recent academic works responding to what is
being termed as the
golden age
of podcasting. The former is among the first
such collections to critically examine the podcast within the context of digital
media and cultural studies. The latter work studies several prominent podcast
series in order to probe the distinctive characteristics of the podcast form. Both
volumes argue for the uniqueness of the podcast as a creative medium and its
consequent potential for influencing the way knowledge is produced and
communicated; they also explore the specific meaning-making frameworks employed by
the medium.
This shift in direction of inquiry is important, since podcasts encompass a
diverse range of production strategies. Some of the most popular literary
podcasts, for instance, include
The New Yorker’s
Fiction Podcast series, which is hosted by Deborah Treisman and regularly features
a reading by and discussion with a contemporary author;
Dear
Book Nerd (2014-2016), which was hosted by librarian Rita Meade and
brought in guests to answer listeners’ questions about reading, writing, and
publishing practices; and TinHouse and KBOO’s
Between the
Covers which is hosted by David Naimon and features in-depth interviews
with contemporary American writers. Thus, given the changing face of the podcast
and its increasing use to promote and disseminate scholarly content, it has become
necessary to reassess the role and affordances of the podcast within the
academy.
In the last ten years, academic podcasts such as the
University of Oxford Podcasts: World Literature series (2012-2016)
have begun to extend the function of the podcast out beyond the walls of the
academy. An example of an early form of the academic podcast, this series was
simply a collection of recorded guest lectures, and the character of these
lectures is explicitly academic. The series focused on different kinds of world
literature, such as
world literature and the Pan-Asian Empire
and the
status of African literature.
Yet even though it reproduced live
lectures in recorded form, the
University of Oxford Podcasts:
World Literature series differs from that of other recorded lectures in
that its aim was not to aid in
student course-material retention, but
rather to disseminate these lectures by well-known academics to a larger audience
beyond the University of Oxford community. The series also capitalized on the easy
(and free) circulation of the podcast as a medium to increase these lectures’
circulation. In doing so, the creators used the digital affordances of the podcast
to expand the usefulness of the podcast beyond the university classroom. The
podcast thus fulfilled an aim of what we might consider public humanities, the
engagement of a broader and more diverse set of publics.
Public Work, a podcast series at Brown University
produced and hosted by Jim McGrath and Amelia Golcheski, offers an alternative
conception of the purpose of the podcast by focusing explicitly on public
humanities engagement. By doing public humanities outreach,
Public Work revolves around
education, research,
and public engagement initiatives that connect individuals and communities to
art, history, and culture.
Rather than either recording or
disseminating university lectures, this podcast series attempts to engage public
communities in conversation on both local and regional levels by broadening the
scope of educational research and the range of focal institutions. In doing so, it
also brings the community into the academy.
As podcasts like
Public Work evidence, the podcast is
now a tool used widely by both academic and non-academic institutions; as such,
the podcast has intimate ties to the field of public humanities, particularly
given the fact that it can be circulated easily and without much cost to
subscribers (if its producers so choose). Given both this changing understanding
of the podcast as a distinct medium with its own set of rules and the podcast’s
unique role in connecting the academy and the wider public, we launched
Circulating Spaces to consider questions of longstanding,
but increasingly vital, significance: As academics, to whom is our research
useful? In other words, who are we in conversation with? How can we involve
non-academics in our research? In the production of the podcast, we observed the
mutually reinforcing confluence of three fields — public humanities, world
literature, and the Digital Humanities (DH) — which together offer a vision for
altering the future of humanities scholarship by encouraging more collaborative
work and research methods.
Part 2: Circulating Spaces as Case Study
Circulating Spaces (2017-2019) was hosted, recorded, and
produced by the authors of this essay, Christian Howard-Sukhil (née Howard), Samantha
Wallace, and Ankita Chakrabarty. The podcast ran for two seasons and has twelve
episodes. Season one (episodes one through seven) was co-hosted by Christian
Howard-Sukhil and Samantha Wallace. Season two (episodes eight through twelve) was
co-hosted by Christian Howard-Sukhil and Ankita Chakrabarty. The episodes continue to
be freely accessible on iTunes and the project website.
Circulating Spaces is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license, which gives users
the right to freely share or redistribute the podcasts with proper attribution, as
well as to adapt the material (as long as the adaptations are distributed under
the same license). For more information, please visit the Creative Commons CC-By
page ([https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)). We have also worked to
ensure the long-term preservation and sustainability of the Circulating Spaces podcast episodes and website. About such long-term
preservation needs, Claire Carlin writes: Besides archiving
in multiple repositories, long-term curation requires preservation not only of
static data such as XML files but also of the experience of using a given web
application and its associated tools
. We have accordingly stored the podcast
episodes in multiple locations and ensured their accessibility through several
platforms. For instance, the podcasts are stored through the University of
Virginia’s Mandala Collections (see [https://mandala.shanti.virginia.edu/](https://mandala.shanti.virginia.edu/)) and through a private Amazon Web
Services (AWS) account. The podcasts can also be accessed and downloaded through
the project website ([www.circulatingspaces.com](http://www.circulatingspaces.com)) and through iTunes ([https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/circulating-spaces/id1334697425?mt=2](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/circulating-spaces/id1334697425?mt=2)).
The look and feel
of the website are being preserved through two different
archiving sources: the Internet Archive (see [https://web.archive.org/web/2019*/https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/](https://web.archive.org/web/2019*/https:/pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/))
and the University of Victoria’s private research computing server (the Circulating Spaces website was downloaded to the UVic
server in June 2019 by Matt Huculak as part of the Digital Humanities Summer
Institute course on Project Endings).
Each episode features a new guest (or guests) who is asked to speak about her
relationship to the field of world literature, her background within various
disciplines, how her work intersects with conceptions of the public,
and (one
author’s favorite section) about new literature she recommends. Our guests have
included Erin Bartnett, then a literary agent, now an editor for
Electric Literature; Brandon Butler, the University of Virginia’s
Director of Information Policy and an attorney whose expertise includes copyright and
fair use; A.D. Carson, a hip-hop artist and Professor of Hip-Hop and the Global South
at the University of Virginia; Lã Linh Chi, a Vietnamese-English teacher and
translator; Amitav Ghosh, an award-winning English-language writer; Susan Stanford
Friedman, Professor of English and Women and Gender Studies at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison; Favianna Rodriguez, a transdisciplinary artist and social justice
advocate; and Nathan Rostron, editor and marketing director of the publishing
company, Restless Books. Because the technology required to host a recorded interview
— a working microphone, some sort of transition technology (such as Skype or Zoom), a
computer, and recording software — were relatively accessible, we were able to
interview a wider range of guests than we would have been able to had we been
restricted to in-person interviews; such accessibility allowed us to connect to a
wider network of people and practitioners around the globe.
In each episode, we aimed to produce an atmosphere of casual conversation with each
of our guests. We hoped our interactions felt intimate, off-the-cuff, and unrevised,
as if we were over coffee and in-person discussing issues important to us. This tone
is immediately evident in the podcast episodes: where a transcript might not, the
audio recording picks up our pauses and hesitations, fluctuations of laughter,
collisions of speech, the vagaries of sound traveling across several different mics
and recording devices, and verbal ticks, in addition to the content of our comments.
Guests changed their minds or revised mid-speech. Some of their ideas were, in this
way, very clearly works-in-progress. Furthermore, in editing the episodes after each
recording, we strove to retain the verisimilitude of our conversations by leaving in
any awkward pauses and verbal ticks, as well as our guests’ unscripted responses. We
did so in order to reproduce the effect of a casual conversation, but also to
co-construct a work that differs in kind and in style from the more manicured prose
of, say, an academic essay. These conversations gain from retaining their
unrevised
style in that this stylistic messiness
comments on the
(often unmarked and therefore invisible) number of revisions that go into a work of
scholarship. Our unrevised conversations thus allowed us to embark on work that felt
more spontaneous and less polished than our written academic work.
Circulating Spaces was produced as a part of the
Graduate Student Public Humanities Lab at the Institute of the Humanities and Global
Cultures at the University of Virginia. The Graduate Student Public Humanities Lab
was founded in 2017 to address the gap we saw dividing our scholarly work from the
broader public. The Lab aims to develop collaboration among departments; to address
the issues dividing the University of Virginia from the city of Charlottesville
through working groups dedicated to specific projects in the community; and to
provide a common space for scholars and the wider community to generate lively
discussion, research, and advocacy initiatives.
In August, 2017, Charlottesville
and the University of Virginia, the home institution of the podcast’s principle
investigators, became host to alt-right, men’s rights, and white supremacist
groups, protesting the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee, commander of the
Confederate States Army. For the principle investigators of Circulating Spaces, this event highlighted the pressing need to think
through radical division all the more strenuously, and to theorize more nuanced
networks of affinity and difference based on a more complex understanding of
public.
In doing so, the Lab sought to interrogate the way
the
public
is perceived as separate from the academy and often simplified within
this binary through a lack of nuance by examining this term as a construct: What is
the
public?
How is it separate from
the academy?
In what ways do the
public and the academy inform one another? In what circumstances is this opposition a
false binary, and in what circumstances is it an important distinction to make?
Posing questions about the perceived gap between the public and the academy links our
inquiry with the work of public humanities. The aim, as Sheila Brennan points out in
Public, First is to
place
communities, or other public audiences, at their core.
A field that arose
within the last fifty years, public humanities is most commonly understood to have
developed in response to
conservative critiques of the
obscurantism and leftism of the academy
. Public humanities, initially at least, [
aspired] to democratize humanistic knowledge by transforming the
capacities of academic humanists and their work in and out of the
university
. While in its earliest stages it was used to convince
academics to write for an audience broader than other academics, by the late 1990s,
it was academics who were leveraging the phrase to advocate for
alternative methods of engagement against reigning paradigms of humanistic
inquiry
. What this meant was engaging in more research with
practical
applications. As Robyn Schroeder writes, academics
moved, quickly, to learn from the methods of social scientistic
ethnographers, oral historians, and journalists, as well as from curators, museum
educators, genealogists and documentary film makers, and to aggregate those
knowledges together under the public humanities
tent
.
The rationale for public humanities is still alive and well. In the twenty-first
century, public humanities has itself become a formal field of academic study, with a
home within elite institutions such as Yale and Brown, and in which students can
receive advanced degrees. Additionally, it continues to inflect arguments around the
role of the humanities within society. In her recent book
Generous Thinking, Kathleen Fitzpatrick in invokes the spirit of public
humanities as a way of repairing the perceived current divide between the academy and
the public, a divide that she characterizes as rampant with anti-intellectualism:
In public scholarship, members of our chosen
communities enter into our projects not just as readers but as participants, as
stakeholders, and as partners. Public scholarship allows the venues for
engaging with those communities to expand beyond the monograph or the journal
article to include a range of forms in which the publics with / whom we work
can engage directly with the materials of our fields.
Fitzpatrick lists alternative
spaces
of scholarly engagement beyond the traditional modes of academic
publications to include museum and gallery exhibitions, interactive web archives and
other community-oriented publication models that are currently being developed, and
notes that the inclusion of such spaces diversify the possibilities of building
connections and networks. Thus, as contested as it is ambiguous a term,
public
humanities
continues to depend on — as it interrogates — a perceived dialogue
between the academy and the
public
— the circulation of humanistic knowledges
between grounds and people.
Circulating Spaces reassesses and expands the concept of
public
by exploring what it means to engage with literature as a
global-scale community. We were interested early on in illuminating the complicated
network of the academy and its counterparts that our podcast guests chart. It is not
only literature, but also
people who circulate in, out, and around
institutions adjacent to the academy, as many of our guests on the show articulate when
describing their career trajectories. The podcast’s self-conscious positioning at the
intersection of public humanities and world literature provided
Circulating Spaces with both its raison d’être and its conceptual
framework: the former provided the goal of expanding the concept of what constitutes
a
public
by developing a more complicated theory of the
public
through
recent developments in the field of world literature.
Circulating Spaces not only uses the affordances of the
form of the podcast to inform its content. It engages with the conceptual and
theoretical paradigms developed recently in the field of world literature — focusing
on circulation, motion, and (trans)nationalism — in order to reconfigure the form and
function of the podcast within the academy. According to the Warwick Research
Collective,
Global
/world
literature in its
pre-eminent contemporary formulation pushes intrinsically in the directions of
commerce and commonality, linkage and connection, articulation and integration,
network and system. It thereby distances itself, explicitly or implicitly, from
the antecedent lexicon of post
-theory, which had been disposed to
emphasize not comparison but incommensurability, not commonality but
difference, not system but untotalizable fragment.
Similarly, Alexander Beecroft, through
his concept of
ecologies
of world literature, sees most scholars of world
literature not as articulating
competing models for
understanding how literature circulates, but rather [as articulating] different
concrete answers, emerging in specific contexts, to the same set of problems about
the interactions between literatures and their environments
. In short, by reinterpreting the scope of the
public humanities through conceptions developed in world literature,
Circulating Spaces not only bridges the divide between
academic podcasts (such as the
University of Oxford Podcasts:
World Literature series) and public humanities podcasts (such as
Public Works), but it actively connects the dots between
academic institutions and those of us who work within and circulate around them.
Guided by this world literature model,
Circulating
Spaces likewise attempts to point toward ways in which networks of
affinity between the academy and the public may be constructed and negotiated. All
too often, the
public humanities model
creates a hierarchical relationship in
which the academy intervenes in public spaces in order to share research or offer
their insights on an issue. We oppose this hierarchical model and instead advocate
for a more connected and fluid understanding of the ways in which individuals
circulate around various institutions linked with the academy.
Circulating Spaces presents a model of the academy that is not unilateral
(as if
the academy
were one, static space), but that instead highlights the
ways individuals circulate around various institutions connected to the academy. For
instance, we saw how Sarah Rodriguez moved from the University of Virginia to an
elementary school classroom; how Erin Barnett transitioned to a literary agency; and
how Brandon Butler went from law school to a university library. As we traced a
rhizomatic network of connections between guests, ideas, and world literature texts
made possible through the technology of the podcast, it became ever clearer to us
that the divide between the academy and the public was not only a false divide, but
one that is not intellectually productive or even necessarily accurate. For example,
despite moving out of academia, many of our guests, such as Erin Bartnett, Sarah
Rodriguez, and Brandon Butler, have careers that intersect with the academy. Their
circulation — and the ideas they take with them — belies the strict divide between
the
academy
and the
public.
People, ideas, and spaces, as world
literature theory has argued, are much more fluid.
Part 3: Toward a New Vision of Scholarship
While the public humanities and developments in world literature have informed the
purpose and scope of
Circulating Spaces, the Digital
Humanities (DH) provide us with a useful model for how to frame the kind of
scholarship that podcasts like
Circulating Spaces can
accomplish. At first glance, it might appear that discussions about the podcast — an
innately digital medium — belong more broadly to the field of digital scholarship
rather than the Digital Humanities. After all, at many institutions, DH is subsumed
under the larger initiative of digital scholarship. Loyola Marymount University, for
instance, describes the relationship between digital scholarship and the Digital
Humanities thus:
Digital scholarship (DS) and Digital
Humanities (DH) are scholarly activities that involve the extensive use of
digital methods and tools to conduct research, analyze data, and present
scholarship. ...Digital humanities may be seen as falling under the umbrella of
digital scholarship. It involves using digital tools and methods to analyze,
synthesize, present and teach humanities scholarship.
According to definitions such as this, DH is a
subset of — and differentiated from — digital scholarship more broadly simply on the
basis of its focus on humanities subjects.
Circulating
Spaces, which broadly considers issues related to global literary
circulation, would thus only be a DH project because the production strategy is
digital even as the subject matter of the podcast is humanities-based.
But there is an additional element of DH scholarship that expands the function of
this field. That is, more than simply using technology to focus on or address
humanities-based questions, DH has a charge to reflect critically upon how digital information technologies influence perspectives in and
on research in the humanities
. Alan Liu puts this imperative in slightly different
terms by highlighting the need of Digital Humanities work to both assist mainstream humanities critique
and to use technology self-reflexively as part of the very condition, and
not just facility, of critically knowing and acting on culture today
. Thus, while
Circulating Spaces
may participate in DH and be classified as a DH project simply in reference to its
method of production and entanglement with humanities-related questions,
Circulating Spaces is more explicitly enmeshed in the work
of DH through its questioning of how the podcast as a tool helps us reevaluate
scholarly processes and the production of humanities scholarship.
In fact, DH scholars have long discussed the need to expand what
constitutes scholarship, especially when it comes to tenure and promotion
review.See, for instance, the special issue of Journal
of Digital Humanities, Closing the Evaluation
Gap, that deals with this topic (Fall 2012, Issue 1.4); the American
Historical Association’s Guidelines on the Evaluation of
Digital Scholarship; the College Art Association and the Society of
Architectural Historians’ Guidelines for the Evaluation of
Digital Scholarship in Art and Architectural History; Joseph Raben’s
Tenure, Promotion, and Digital Publication; the
Modern Language Association’s Guidelines for Evaluating Work
in Digital Humanities and Digital Media; and Cathy Davidson’s How Can a Digital Humanist Get Tenure? In
Episode 3: Public and Digital Spaces, Brandon Walsh, the
Head of Student Programs in the University of Virginia’s Scholars’ Lab, discusses how
digital technology is changing how we conceive of humanities scholarship.
Walsh
defines the digital humanities as research or teaching that
engages with technology in some way
. Digital humanities work is not only
the use of technology in the pursuit of humanities
questions
— it is also humanities-based
interrogation of technology
. As Walsh puts it, DH scholarship not only
gives you a different means of
disseminating things,
but it also requires that
you...think in a different way
. For Walsh, this means specifically
that he thinks more
publicly.
He explains more fully:
Over the past several years that I’ve been working in Digital Humanities,
probably the most profound shift in how I work is that it’s all public all the
time. So whenever I teach or am working and thinking through a problem, I try
and think about how I might reframe that for a public audience, like either in
a blog or gathering my materials together so that other people can see them.
And that’s not something that I was necessarily thinking about during the rest
of my time as a graduate student. …Working in an increasing digital space for
me has meant that you have to be willing to put yourself out there.
By being, as Walsh puts it,
public all the time,
Digital Humanities has pushed
Walsh to consider public engagement with his own research. As we’ve argued, a model
for academic work that is
public
shouldn’t merely be public-facing; it should
make visible the intricate connections between people and ideas.
Friedman too points out in her episode
that fields such as Digital Humanities and world literature urge us to rethink and to
alter our academic practices. Acknowledging the move toward collaborative scholarship
in the humanities, she states that efforts are currently under way to support more
communal academic projects.See, for example, the MLA’s Prize for a Scholarly
Edition, which supports collaborative projects. However, while journals,
including
PMLA, increasingly feature author
interviews,
For examples of author interviews in PMLA, see Raymond Williams’s interview with Gabriel García Márquez
(The Visual Arts, the Poetization of Space and Writing: An
Interview with Gabriel García Márquez in PMLA 104.2: 131-140); Z. Esra Mirze’s interview with Orhan Pamuk
(Implementing Disform: An Interview with Orhan
Pamuk in PMLA 123.1: 176-180); and Jean E.
Howard’s interview with Lynn Nottage (Interview with Lynn
Nottage in PLMA 129.4: 847–849).
which could be compared to the work of podcast interviews (esp. see
[Circulating Spaces, Episode
10](#howard2018g), which features an interview with author Amitav Ghosh), these published,
written interviews are short (generally running between three and six pages) and tend
to polish the voices of both author and interviewer. Additionally, the work of the
interviewer in researching and preparing questions often receives only a passing
acknowledgment.
This is precisely where the affordances of digital humanities can come into play.
Podcasts like
Circulating Spaces offer a different take
on ideas of community engagement and conversation in terms of academic publishing.
Indeed, the form of conversation afforded by the podcast stands in counterpoint to
the model of the single-author scholarly monograph, which continues to be the
gold-standard for academic work despite shrinking university library budgets and
rising costs associated with traditional publication. The processes of research and
publication
occur almost simultaneously during the creation of the podcast
itself. This is significant because the podcast’s immediacy and informality suggest a
model of
publication
that is less hierarchical than traditional scholarly
publishing. Even the sheer number of contributors to
Circulating
Spaces challenges the traditional model for authorship of traditional
humanities research. More so, podcast interviews record voice intonation and pauses,
providing a richer experience and giving voice to both interviewer and interviewee
alike. The immediacy and informality of the voices in such conversations not only
distinguish the podcast from the traditional scholarly monograph, but also put into
relief the otherwise invisible work of drafting and revision that goes into the
scholarly monograph. In short, the podcast does work that the scholarly monograph
does not — work that should not replace, but rather stand as a companion to the
scholarly monograph.
Podcasts, given the relative ease of collaboration even across distances, also lend
themselves well to community or collaborative development. Llinares, Fox, and Berry
locate the transformative potential of the collaborative podcast within the medium’s hybridity of thought, sound and text
. These features perhaps
even foster a reinvigoration of the dialectic, an exchange of ideas beyond what is
possible in purely written form — be it in a magazine or academic journal.
Podcasting, for us, taps into something fundamental about oral communication,
argument and even the tension between subjective and objective knowledge that has
been amplified in the digital age
. In addition to being visibly co-produced
projects, the conversational nature of the podcast captures the popularity of oral
forms of communication in the digital age.
Taken together, the podcast’s public, communal, and conversational affordances make
it possible for subsequent episodes to build on the preceding episodes’ conversations
with relative ease. In this manner,
Circulating Spaces
brings together Favianna Rodriguez, an interdisciplinary artist (
Episode 11: Designing Global Activism) and Amitav Ghosh, a novelist and
climate-change activist (
Episode 10: The Climate of World
Literature) into conversational proximity. Ghosh expresses surprise and
dismay at the conspicuous absence of climate change in contemporary global fiction,
and he stresses the critical need for contemporary fiction to engage in the discourse
of climate change in the present time
.
During the following episode, with Ghosh’s comments in mind, the co-hosts asks
Rodriguez to comment upon the role of climate change in her artwork. Rodriguez
concurs with Ghosh’s assertion that there is a lack of art about non-human subjects
. She further states:
We can help to transform the current course, and in order to do that
we need to just feel our stories in relation to nature...This is why, actually, I
am so serious about creating art with plants and with climate, and I am a beacon
now because I want to share these stories
. Rodriguez’s interest in the imagery
of nature in contemporary art resonates strongly with Ghosh’s call for contemporary
fiction to wake up to the realities of the time, as evidenced by her enthusiastic and
hearty endorsement of Ghosh’s emphasis upon the necessity of storytelling in helping
combat climate change. The conversations in the podcast episodes thus become
multi-directional, not simply in terms of the movement of ideas and opinions, but in
the very process of conceptualization. In this way, each conversation can become
intricately connected to the larger conversation that the podcast series, as a whole,
constructs.
Finally, podcasts such as
Circulating Spaces participate
in the
new scholarly digital ethos
in another distinct
way, namely, through their commitment to open access
. If
digital technologies make dissemination relatively easy, and if, as we’ve argued, the
networks between the academy and neighboring institutions are constituted by
individuals who circulate between these institutions, do we not have an obligation to
make the results of our academic labor open and accessible to as broad a public as
possible? Shouldn’t we honor, through open accessibility, the collaborative
relationships established by work like
Circulating Spaces?
Brandon Butler, the University of Virginia’s Director of Information Policy, breaks
down the case for open access in
Episode 5: Copyright and Open
Access:
We now have… two things that make possible what was not
possible before. We have the technology to make all knowledge instantly and
very, very cheaply, essentially freely available to anyone, anywhere. And we
have a community of people...who make knowledge for a living and who don’t
expect to get paid by the readers who read it... So, we can have a publishing
system that does not need to pay authors. All we have to do is find a way to
finance the marginal cost of distributing something on the Internet. And it’s
nothing!... And so, all [open access does is] put two and two together, and say
all scholarly literature should be freely available on the web to anyone with
an internet connection.
We agree with Butler and
argue that the open sharing of scholarship will be mutually beneficial, especially as
it pertains to scholarly work such as a podcast, which can be produced with low
overhead cost, is relatively cheap to maintain, and can easily be made open access,
that is, freely available without the cost of subscription.
For a foundational
manifesto of open access values, see the Budapest Open Access
Initiative. Doing so will help encourage collaborative research;
adequately reflect and make visible the complex network of people and ideas that
circulate in the broad ecosystem of humanities work; and encourage, as Walsh
indicated, scholars to consider broader audiences for their research, in a time in
which the value of the humanities is often debated.
This typically conservative
view of the role of the humanities is not new, and as referenced in the discussion
on the origin of public humanities, was a critique to which the public humanities
sought to respond by demonstrating the wide applicability of humanities-based
research. Organizations like Humanities in Action, a branch of the National
Humanities Center, continue to make the case for the importance of the humanities
by highlighting how humanities research and teaching provide valuable perspectives
on topics of public concern. See, [https://action.nationalhumanitiescenter.org/what-are-humanities/](https://action.nationalhumanitiescenter.org/what-are-humanities/). With
that in mind, efforts are underway to develop more open-source platforms. The
Manifold Scholarship platform, for example, jointly developed by the University of
Minnesota Press, the GC Digital Scholarship Lab at the Graduate Center of the City
University of New York, and Cast Iron Coding (Portland, OR), is a particularly
promising open-source platform that offers a framework of academic publishing that
is focused on community engagement while encouraging discussion between
readers. As Walsh, Friedman, and Butler all imply, scholars in fields as
diverse as world literature, public humanities, and the Digital Humanities are all
pointing individually toward this conclusion.
The material affordances of the
digital, of course, are not just limited to the podcast. Picking up the idea of
community, open access, and collaboration enabled by digital humanities, in Episode 3: Public and Digital Spaces, Christian
Howard-Sukhil relates new developments in digital literature – which she defines
as literature that is created on and for digital
devices
– to the growth of new digital spaces, or the networks of people that are created through technological
applications,
e.g., communities in spaces such as online chatrooms . In other words, digital
humanities and digital literature more broadly open themselves up to community
engagement and development. It is a work in progress.
Coda
As the outcome of an academic lab model of collaborative research, we have
not been particularly mindful about the number of subscribers
Circulating Spaces gained during the course of its production. While
statistics detailing subscribers, downloads, etc., can be helpful indicators of the
growing influence of a podcast, our criteria for
success
was based on the
production process itself — the development of the theoretical framework for the
podcast, constructing the episode outlines and the interview questions, and
networking and collaborating with a diverse group of individuals all working broadly
within the humanities.
Circulating Spaces has also
established networks of connection which continue to persist and can be worked upon
and expanded in the future.
While our assessment of the podcast’s participation in this new way of thinking of
and conducting research has been largely celebratory — indeed, we consider
collaboration as well as research and publication that is more democratic and
spontaneous to be of obvious positive value — it is important to consider the
shortcomings and limitations of such projects as well. We want to be particularly
cognizant of and transparent regarding how the academy has structured our own social
networks and therefore the curation of guests on a podcast such as
Circulating Spaces. As academic scholars with institutional
funding, the very creation of
Circulating Spaces is
fundamentally grounded in a North American system of institutional support, which,
although fortuitous for us, is not accessible to anyone seeking to replicate such a
project. As a result, we want to acknowledge our own roles in creating these
networks, which are not neutral, but inflected by our own positions within the
academy. Indeed, on a practical level, we observed how much easier it was to work
with guests in a domestic context (and even easier when they were at our home
institution) than with our international guests: the further the distance, the
spottier the sound quality, the more difficult to schedule a time to speak or to
guarantee the compatibility of computer equipment. The inertia of the metropole is
strong. Our attempts to deconstruct the binary of academic versus its public by
constructing a more nuanced network of relations were tempered by this gravitational
pull toward the University of Virginia’s resources, including, most importantly, its
human resources. We hope, however, that beginning to make connections between
far-flung guests within our own localized networks here will enable future audiences
to make similar connections and expand the network out beyond our hub at the
University of Virginia.
In
Teaching Community, bell hooks writes,
One of the dangers we face in our educational systems is the loss...
of a feeling of connection and closeness with the world beyond the academy
.
Circulating Spaces
models a more open, collaborative model for the humanities through the practice of
the Digital Humanities, the theories of world literature, and the spirit of public
humanities. We have seen how the affordances of the podcast have shaped our
conversations — and by extension, our research — while also enabling us to theorize
and practice more nuanced relationships between what is
academic
and what is
public.
We reconnect with the
world beyond the academy
even as we
show that this world is not, in fact, separate from the academy. These connections
are increasingly important for the future of humanistic studies. While
Circulating Spaces itself provides a modest, two-season long
run of conversations between academics, teachers, librarians, artists, and more, as
we have hoped to demonstrate in this essay, it suggests the potential for much
broader and robust work with the podcast as a form of research that participates in
the creation of these feelings of connectivity and closeness.
About Digital
Scholarship. Loyola Marymount University: William H. Hannon Library. May
1, 2020. Web. [https://libguides.lmu.edu/digitalscholarship](https://libguides.lmu.edu/digitalscholarship).
Beecroft, Alexander. An Ecology of World Literature: From Antiquity to the Present
Day. London: Verso, 2015. Print.
Brennan, Sheila A. Public, First. Ed. Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein. Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 2016. Web. [https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/read/untitled/section/11b9805a-a8e0-42e3-9a1c-fad46e4b78e5#ch32](https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/read/untitled/section/11b9805a-a8e0-42e3-9a1c-fad46e4b78e5#ch32).
Budapest Open Access
Initiative. Web. [https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read](https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read).
Carlin, Claire. Endings: Concluding, Archiving, and Preserving Digital Projects for Long-Term
Usability.
KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation
Studies 2.1 (2018), Article 19: 1-4.
Clement, Tanya E. Doing DH as/or Digital Scholarship: An Ethnography of Scholarship, Properly
Done.
The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy (Oct.
2018). Web. [https://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/doing-dh-as-or-digital-scholarship-an-ethnography-of-scholarship-properly-done/](https://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/doing-dh-as-or-digital-scholarship-an-ethnography-of-scholarship-properly-done/).
Cohen, Daniel J. and Joan
Fragaszy Troyano. Closing the Evaluation Gap. Journal of Digital Humanities 1.4 (Fall 2012). Web. [http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/1-
4/closing-the-evaluation-gap/](http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/1-4/closing-the-evaluation-gap/).
Corbett, Rachel. What
are the Different Types of Podcast?
PodSchool. Web. [https://rachelcorbett.com.au/podcast-types/](https://rachelcorbett.com.au/podcast-types/).
Davidson, Cathy. How Can a Digital Humanist Get Tenure?
HASTAC (September 2012). Web. [https://www.hastac.org/blogs/cathy-davidson/2012/09/17/how-can-digital-humanist-get-tenure](https://www.hastac.org/blogs/cathy-davidson/2012/09/17/how-can-digital-humanist-get-tenure).
Erlin, Matt. Digital
Humanities Masterplots.
Digital Literary Studies 1.1 (2016). Web. [https://journals.psu.edu/dls/article/view/59753](https://journals.psu.edu/dls/article/view/59753).
Fietze, Simon. Podcast in Higher Education: Students’ Experience and Assessment.
2010 International Conference on e-Education, e-Business,
e-Management and e-Learning (2010). Web. [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5432395](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5432395).
Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. Generous Thinking: A Radical Approach to Saving the
University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2019.
Guidelines for Evaluating Work
in Digital Humanities and Digital Media.
Modern Language Association. Web. [https://www.mla.org/About-Us/Governance/Committees/Committee-Listings/Professional-Issues/Committee-on-Information-Technology/Guidelines-for-Evaluating-Work-in-Digital-Humanities-and-Digital-Media](https://www.mla.org/About-Us/Governance/Committees/Committee-Listings/Professional-Issues/Committee-on-Information-Technology/Guidelines-for-Evaluating-Work-in-Digital-Humanities-and-Digital-Media).
Guidelines for the
Evaluation of Digital Scholarship in Art and Architectural History.
College Art Association and the Society of Architectural
Historians (January 2016). Web. [https://www.collegeart.org/pdf/evaluating-digital-scholarship-in-art-and-architectural-history.pdf](https://www.collegeart.org/pdf/evaluating-digital-scholarship-in-art-and-architectural-history.pdf).
Guidelines on the Professional
Evaluation of Digital Scholarship by Historians.
American Historical Association. Web. [https://www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/digitalhistory-resources/evaluation-of-digital-scholarship-in-history/guidelines-for-the-professional-evaluation-of-digital-scholarship-by-historians](https://www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/digitalhistory-resources/evaluation-of-digital-scholarship-in-history/guidelines-for-the-professional-evaluation-of-digital-scholarship-by-historians).
Hayles, Katherine N. How We Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2012. Print.
Hew, Khe Foon. Use of Audio
Podcast in K-12 and Higher Education: A Review of Research Topics and
Methodologies.
Educational Technology Research and Development 57.3
(June 2009): 333-357. Web. [https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ840203](https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ840203).
hooks, bell. Teaching
Community: A Pedagogy of Hope. New York: Routledge, 2003. Print.
Howard, Christian, and
Samantha Wallace. Episode 1: The Life of a Literary
Agent. Interviewee: Erin Bartnett. Circulating
Spaces: Literary and Language Worlds in a Global Age, Nov. 2017. Web. [https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/](https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/).
Howard, Christian, and
Samantha Wallace. Episode 2: Teaching World Literature.
Interviewee: Olivia Milroy and Sarah Rodriguez. Circulating
Spaces: Literary and Language Worlds in a Global Age, Nov. 2017. Web. [https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/](https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/).
Howard, Christian, and
Samantha Wallace. Episode 3: Public and Digital Spaces.
Interviewee: Brandon Walsh. Circulating Spaces: Literary and
Language Worlds in a Global Age, Jan. 2018. Web. [https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/](https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/).
Howard, Christian, and
Samantha Wallace. Episode 4: The Task of the Translator.
Interviewee: Lã Linh Chi. Circulating Spaces: Literary and
Language Worlds in a Global Age, Jan. 2018. Web. [https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/](https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/).
Howard, Christian, and
Samantha Wallace. Episode 5: Copyright and Open Access.
Interviewee: Brandon Butler. Circulating Spaces: Literary and
Language Worlds in a Global Age, Feb. 2018. Web. [https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/](https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/).
Howard, Christian, and
Samantha Wallace. Episode 6: The State of Literature in a Global
Age. Interviewee: Susan Stanford Friedman. Circulating Spaces: Literary and Language Worlds in a Global Age, April
2018. Web [https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/](https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/).
Howard, Christian, and
Ankita Chakrabarti. Episode 7: Animating Literature: The Art of
Manga. Interviewee: Nao Yazawa. Circulating Spaces:
Literary and Language Worlds in a Global Age, Sept. 2018. Web. [https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/](https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/).
Howard, Christian, and
Ankita Chakrabarti. Episode 8: Performing Hip-Hop.
Interviewee: A.D. Carson. Circulating Spaces: Literary and
Language Worlds in a Global Age, Oct. 2018. Web [https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/](https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/).
Howard, Christian, and
Ankita Chakrabarti. Episode 9: Restless Readers and Global
Publishing. Interviewee: Nathan Rostron. Circulating
Spaces: Literary and Language Worlds in a Global Age, Nov. 2018. Web. [https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/](https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/).
Howard, Christian, and
Ankita Chakrabarti. Episode 10: The Climate of World
Literature. Interviewee: Amitav Ghosh. Circulating
Spaces: Literary and Language Worlds in a Global Age, April 2019. Web.
[https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/](https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/).
Howard, Christian, and
Ankita Chakrabarti. Episode 11: Designing Global
Activism. Interviewee: Favianna Rodriguez. Circulating Spaces: Literary and Language Worlds in a Global Age, May
2019. Web. [https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/](https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/).
Howard, Christian, and
Ankita Chakrabarti. Episode 12: The Visual Languages of
Storytelling. Interviewees: Upamanyu Bhattacharyya, Isha Mangalmurti, and
Kalp Sanghvi. Circulating Spaces: Literary and Language Worlds
in a Global Age, July 2019. Web. [https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/](https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Circulating_Spaces/podcasts/).
Keener, Alix. The
Arrival Fallacy: Collaborative Research Relationships in the Digital
Humanities.
Digital Humanities Quarterly 9.2 (2015). Web. [http://digitalhumanities.org:8081/dhq/vol/9/2/000213/000213.html](http://digitalhumanities.org:8081/dhq/vol/9/2/000213/000213.html).
Kirschenbaum, Matthew. The .txtual Condition: Digital Humanities, Born Digital Archives,
and the Future Literary.
Digital Humanities Quarterly 7.1 (2013). Web. [http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/7/1/000151/000151.html](http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/7/1/000151/000151.html).
Koenig, Sarah. Serial. Web. [https://serialpodcast.org](https://serialpodcast.org).
Leonard, Mark. The
Seven Most Common Podcast Formats: With Examples.
Medium (June 2017). Web. [https://medium.com/@mark_leonard/the-seven-most-common-podcast-formats-87bbc3ecf40d](https://medium.com/@mark_leonard/the-seven-most-common-podcast-formats-87bbc3ecf40d).
Liu, Alan. Drafts for
Against the Cultural Singularity (book in
progress).
Alan Liu (blog). May 2, 2016. Web [https://liu.english.ucsb.edu/drafts-for-against-the-cultural-singularity/](https://liu.english.ucsb.edu/drafts-for-against-the-cultural-singularity/).
Márquez, Gabriel García and
Raymond Williams. The Visual Arts, the Poetization of Space and
Writing: An Interview with Gabriel García Márquez.
PMLA 104.2: 131-140.
McGrath, Jim and Amelia
Golcheski. Public Work: A Public Humanities Podcast.
Web. [https://blogs.brown.edu/publicworkpodcast/](https://blogs.brown.edu/publicworkpodcast/).
Meade, Rita. Dear Book
Nerd. Web. [https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/book-riot/dear-book-nerd](https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/book-riot/dear-book-nerd).
Merhi, Mohammad I. Factors Influencing Higher Education Students to Adopt Podcast: An Empirical
Study.
Computers & Education 83 (2015): 32-43. Web. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.014](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.014).
MLA Prize for a Scholarly
Edition.
Modern Language Association. Web. [https://www.mla.org/Resources/Career/MLA-Grants-and-Awards/Award-Submissions-and-Nominations/Competitions-for-MLA-Publication-Awards/Biennial-Prizes-with-Competitions-in-2019/MLA-Prize-for-a-Scholarly-Edition](https://www.mla.org/Resources/Career/MLA-Grants-and-Awards/Award-Submissions-and-Nominations/Competitions-for-MLA-Publication-Awards/Biennial-Prizes-with-Competitions-in-2019/MLA-Prize-for-a-Scholarly-Edition).
Naimon, David. Between
the Covers. TinHouse and KBOO. Web. [https://tinhouse.com/podcasts/#about](https://tinhouse.com/podcasts/#about).
Nottage, Lynn and Jean E.
Howard. Interview with Lynn Nottage.
PLMA 129.4: 847–849.
Pamuk, Orhan and Z. Esra Mirze.
Implementing Disform: An Interview with Orhan Pamuk.
PMLA 123.1: 176-180.
Podcasting: New Aural Cultures and Digital Media. Ed. Dario Llinares,
Neil Fox, and Richard Berry. London: Palgrave Macmillan (2018).
Podcasts: World
Literature. University of Oxford, 2017. Web. [https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/keywords/world-literature](https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/keywords/world-literature).
Prangley, Charli. 6 Popular Podcast Formats: Which One is Right for You?
Tradecraft 9 (September 2017). Web. [https://convertkit.com/podcast-formats/](https://convertkit.com/podcast-formats/).
Raben, Joseph. Tenure,
Promotion, and Digital Publication.
Digital Humanities Quarterly 1.1 (2007). Web. [http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/1/1/000006/000006.html](http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/1/1/000006/000006.html).
Schofield, Tom, Mitchell
Whitelaw, and David Kirk. Research through Design and Digital
Humanities in Practice: What, how and who in an archive research project.
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 32. suppl_1 (April
2017): i103–i120. Web. [https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqx005](https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqx005).
Schroeder, Robyn. What is Public Humanities?
Day of Public Humanities (May 2017). Web. [https://dayofph.wordpress.com/what-is-public-humanities/](https://dayofph.wordpress.com/what-is-public-humanities/).
Spinelli, Martin, and Lance
Dann. Podcasting: The Audio Media Revolution. New York:
Bloomsbury (2019).
This American Life. Web.
https://www.thisamericanlife.org.
Treisman, Deborah. Fiction Podcast. The New Yorker. Web. [https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/fiction](https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/fiction).
Underwood, Ted. Why Literary Periods Mattered: Historical Contrast and the Prestige of English
Studies. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2013. Print.
Warwick Research Collective. Combined and Uneven Development: Towards a New Theory of
World-Literature. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2015.
Print.