<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Kharris on Journal of Digital Humanities</title><link>https://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/author/kharris/</link><description>Recent content in Kharris on Journal of Digital Humanities</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/author/kharris/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Explaining Digital Humanities in Promotion Documents</title><link>https://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/1-4/explaining-digital-humanities-in-promotion-documents-by-katherine-harris/</link><pubDate>Sat, 01 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/1-4/explaining-digital-humanities-in-promotion-documents-by-katherine-harris/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;In preparing my tenure and promotion dossier I was advised that I needed to explain my fields and contextualize my work in a more accessible way. Without many models for doing this, I made up my own rules, then tore apart my dossier, then re-assembled it, then tore it apart again (this happened 3 more times), then revised my narratives (this happened 6 more times). I received some well-meaning but conflicting advice and ultimately had to make up my own mind about how best to sell Digital Humanities, scholarly editing, and Digital Pedagogy to my colleagues. I received much help from the twitter-verse, but I really wish that a storehouse or consulting arena existed for this kind of professional documentation. As a Digital Humanist, I do so much that’s ephemeral but integral to my work. This is true with Digital Pedagogy and scholarly editing, too.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>