In Norway, the term digital humanities is not really established, although a lot of work has been done here that could well be called digital humanities – at the University of Bergen a few projects that come to mind are the classics: Wittgenstein Archives, which digitized and organised all Wittgenstein’s nachlass, Knut Hofland and Gisle Andersen’s Nyord i norsk, an engine that goes through Norwegian newspapers every day and finds new words, or Stadnamnsamlinga by the Nordic scholars in my own department, where recordings of how people say local place names throughout Western Norway are systematised, transcribed and made searchable. The computational linguists just down the hall from my office do amazing work, for instance building digital infrastructure for language research and much more that I should find out more about. I think projects like Dag Elgesem and Andrew Salway’s blog mapping should count, too, although some might say this is social science or communication studies rather than the humanities. And of course I would include our own ELMCIP Electronic Literature Knowledge Base and the work we’re doing with the data there using network analysis, word clouds and visualisations.

Today I’m at a seminar at the University of Oslo called “What are Digital Humanities?“, organised by the very enterprising PhD student at ILOS Annika Rockenberger.

Espen Ore’s talk about the history of digital humanities in Norway asks why this rich tradition hasn’t led to a strong field of digital humanities in Norway today. Of course, it wasn’t called digital humanities back then, but there has been work on computing in the humanities since at least 1972. Humanistisk data was a journal published from 1973 until 1991, and in the second issue there is a list of humanities computing projects in Norway. Of course all issues have been digitised: charmingly scanned many years later so you can see the tears and dogears in the physical copies.

The front page of the second issue of Humanistisk datablad.
The front page of the second issue of Humanistiske data, 1/1974. This issue includes an overview of humanities computing projects in Norway at the time.

Espen Ore worked just down the hall from me at my first job, when I was a research assistent on the Lingo project building a MOO for learning about Shakespeare. NAVFs edb-senter for humanistisk forskning was a national institution (with a still-existant sister: NSD) but became part of the University of Bergen in 1992, as Humanistisk datasenter, with a lot of external funding and some base funding from the Faculty of Humanities. Then in 2001, the Faculty of Humanities cut the funding, and Humanistisk datasenter was renamed Aksis and had to rely entirely on external funding. The remnants are now Uni Digital, though I don’t think there’s a lot of continuity there. Perhaps the multi-disciplinarity of humanities computing was what led to its lack of visibility. Or perhaps its project-based nature, and the fact that the many excellent projects were never closely integrated into a single department or curriculum – it remained outside of the university proper, as it were.

My talk was about the work we’re doing with the ELMCIP Knowledge Base and was largely based on the visualizations Scott has been doing this spring, although I also talked about the project we did in Amsterdam in January graphing the books people buy about the digital humanities on various Amazons in order to get a picture of the field. Here are the slides, which are a very lightly edited version of the slides as Scott made for the HASTAC conference in April.

Tomorrow the group here will be discussing how to move forwards with the digital humanities in Norway. Should it even be called the digital humanities? In Germany the chosen term is e-humanities instead, apparently pretty much as a token of opposition to the Anglo-American provenance of “digital humanities”. I think we should be pragmatic about it: digital humanities is a term that works right now. Another term will work in ten years time. But in any case, humanities projects that use digital methods need to become more visible in Norway – simply having a website with a list of examples would be a huge advance. Perhaps a Norwegian or Nordic chapter of the European Association for Digital Humanities would be good. Hearing the history of how the digital humanities (or humanities computing) were strong and then pretty much disappeared in Norway I think getting more digital humanities into undergraduate curricula in various disciplines is important. We have one digital humanities course at the University of Bergen, but we should aim to develop a series of web-based tools that make it easy to integrate digital methods into humanities courses.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. Annika Rockenberger

    Thanks Jill for your blog post! You did outrun me on this (but there was a lot of mousse au chocolat left over I had to look after).
    We are forming an official Research Group for Digital Humanities at the University of Oslo’s Faculty of Humanities right now. Regarding a Nordic countries network for DH: we are going to have our first big meeting in October here in Oslo where we discuss that issue. Consider yourself invited!
    All best,
    Annika

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

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.