Ever since I came across the Digital Methods Initiative website I’ve wanted to attend one of their summer schools in Amsterdam, where they hack out new tools to do digitally native research on digitally native materials. They have an impressive range of tools with a lot of documentation, but I still wanted more. But two weeks in Amsterdam sadly doesn’t mesh too well with not wanting to leave the kids for that long, so I was thrilled when Yra van Dijk introduced me to Richard Rogers in Amsterdam last December, and even more thrilled with Richard and his colleague and wife Sabine Niederer agreed to come to Bergen and host a miniature workshop for us here.

Richard gave an excellent talk on what Digital Methods is to start with, then we discussed projects we were working on and, after lunch, talked about ways we might go about using digital methods in our projects and had a hands-on go at their Google Scraper tool (Lippmannian machine). Basically all the machine does is query Google for incidents of one or several key words on one or several sites – but by being able to do this across many sites at a time you save a lot of time. I had some fun comparing counts of the terms “electronic literature” and “digital literature” on a few e-lit sites. Lots of ideas and inspiration – if you haven’t yet explored their site and tried out some of the tools they’ve developed I would highly recommend it.

Richard’s book on Digital Methods is forthcoming on MIT Press next February. I’ve read a chapter and it’s good! You can find a lot of material about digital methods on the website right now, too, of course.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. […] Rogers and Sabine Niederer came up from Amsterdam to run a mini-workshop for us here in Bergen last June, which gave us an excellent sampling of how they work. Since then, we’ve been slowly been […]

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.