MITH is pleased to announce that we are accepting applications for the Fall 2020 Winnemore Digital Humanities Dissertation Fellowship. The Winnemore Fellowship provides support to a University of Maryland graduate student whose dissertation engages with digital humanities or new media and the arts and humanities. 

Eligible graduate students must be enrolled in an appropriate terminal degree program (Ph.D. or M.F.A) at the University of Maryland and must agree not to accept any other form of financial support from the University or other fellowships of $2,000 or more during the term for which this fellowship is awarded. Winnemore Fellows are provided a stipend of $9,929 and a $1,509 contribution toward health insurance fees. Fellows are also provided with work space at MITH, consultation with MITH staff about their project, and technical support (including server space) where applicable.

Fellows are expected to be in-residence throughout the duration of their fellowship.  They are encouraged to attend MITH events such as Digital Dialogues, contribute to the intellectual community of MITH, share their work on the MITH blog, participate in professional development opportunities, and be engaged with the digital humanities more broadly. 

Interested applicants should submit:

• a cover letter that includes your name, program/department, college, email, phone, title of dissertation, and advisor’s name, phone, and email. The cover letter should also include the date that you completed coursework and any other degree requirements, the date that you passed your prospectus/proposal examination, the date you advanced to candidacy, and the proposed date for your dissertation defense. All dates should include month and year;
• a current short CV;
• a 250-word abstract written for a general audience including your name and the title of your dissertation or project.
• the proposal itself, which should be no longer than three pages and which should specifically address the following points:
  • the project that you will work on if awarded the fellowship;
  • how the use of advanced technology would help achieve your research goals and contribute to the intellectual outcome
  • a statement of work completed to date;
  • a detailed timetable or work plan for duration of the fellowship including the projected date of completion.
• two confidential letters of recommendation, including one from your dissertation director that outlines how the applicant’s advisor will support the student’s effort for the duration of the fellowship in addition to the merit of the applicant.

A committee composed of digital humanities faculty and staff will review applications. Proposals should specify how a Winnemore Fellowship would be crucial to the dissertation or equivalent project’s development. The committee will place emphasis on projects that center the perspectives of underrepresented or oppressed groups and such proposals are highly encouraged. Also encouraged are projects addressing complex ethical issues inherent to engagement with new media, cultural heritage data, and the digital humanities.

We encourage applicants to consult with MITH regarding their applications. All application materials should be sent in PDF format to Purdom Lindblad, by 11:59 PM Tuesday, November 5, 2019. Announcement of the Winnemore Fellow will be made by Friday, December 13, 2019.

The post Call for Proposals: Winnemore Fellowship – Updated Deadline appeared first on Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities.

It has been an honor for me to be a part of the Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities (MITH) community this spring 2019 semester as the Winnemore Dissertation Fellow. The fellowship has directly supported me this semester as I wrote the draft of my second dissertation chapter, which I sent to my advisor in May upon completion. It was a privilege to have the opportunity to present my research to an audience of scholars at MITH in April and to receive immediate feedback on the project (the video can be accessed here). In the days following this talk, I was able to participate in a public discussion at MITH with Robert Sonderman, a retired Regional Curator for the National Park Service (NPS) who specializes in document and object storage for the NPS, moderated by Ricardo Punzalan and Mary Alexander (co-directors of the Museum Scholarship and Material Culture Program at the University of Maryland iSchool). Discussing my own research in both of these venues served as an opportunity for me to receive invaluable feedback on my own project, and also to contribute to a constructive dialogue. In this blog post, I will take the opportunity to discuss further what the Winnemore fellowship afforded my research, and I will attempt to use this post demystify the dissertation research and chapter writing process for dissertating PhD candidates by providing some productive suggestions that helped me to write this chapter, and that I hope will help future dissertating PhD students.

No one tells you how to write a dissertation, nor can they. Rather, it is a process of continual writing, feedback, and of course subsequent revision. Writing this chapter was an opportunity for me to integrate the lessons I learned from committee members’ remarks on my previous chapter. My project, which sits at the convergence of digital studies, critical information science, and cultural studies, engages with a wide scope—knowing what I wanted to argue at the beginning of the chapter was essential. Chapter writing takes twists and turns—in my previous chapter, when a fascinating informational trail led my attention, I quickly followed it. Yet, a chapter needs clear structure, and a cohesive core argument. A clear (roughly) 50-page chapter must tell a story in a transparent manner—in writing this chapter, controlling those urges to tunnel too far down any single rabbit hole was vital (as fascinating as each of those holes may be…) When writing this current chapter, I began with a regimented outline and schedule (much more so than in my first chapter)—this proved to be essential in my own writing process, which helped me adhere to a single argument. Becoming more self-aware of my own writing process—knowing what habits work, what my own limitations are, and what I can improve on immediately—helped me to make this my most productive dissertation-writing semester, by far. This structure materialized in the formation of my chapter: I divided my chapter into four clear sections from the outset. While I did change some supporting evidence for each of the four sections, I was sure to keep the overall argumentative approach of the chapter intact, which has helped me to write a coherent argument across a 50-page chapter, as opposed to the conference paper length (6-10 pages) or seminar paper length (20-25 pages) graduate students in my field typically prepare for. Writing four connected conference papers proved to be the better model for writing this chapter, advice imparted to me by a committee member. Without falling too deep into the specifics of my chapter, picking four major keywords to ground each section was one technique I adopted to structure my writing. In my case, the entire chapter focuses on programmable storage media, which I read as digital containers. The sections that connect this chapter revolved around four keywords that speak to the concept of ‘containment’—vectors, planes, systems, and circulation. (There was some controlled shift in these terms over the semester, though the ideas behind them remained intact). Each of these terms focused on selected examples of containment, which follow their own trajectory—from physical objects like punched cards and NAND flash memory to virtualized instantiations like Docker containers and containerization within larger cloud compute services. Having regular access to MITH developers like Ed Summers, who I was able to discuss technical concepts with and receive feedback from, substantially helped to deepen my analyses and accelerate the writing process.

In graduate school, time feels like an indulgence—at the dissertation phase, time to visit sites in the field, take notes, conduct interviews, read recent publications, and parse through this mountain of information is impractical without the temporal-freedom to do so. In my five years in my PhD program (and the preceding two years I spent in my MA program), this has been the sole semester I have been funded to support my research (in opposition to compensation for teaching or for working as a faculty research assistant, or RA), which I have been able to use to direct my full attention to my scholarship, an experience that I will remain endlessly grateful for. I decided that with this rare open chunk of time to devote fully to my dissertation, the best use of this time would be to maximize my attention on facilities at the center of my research, many of which are nearby and within the greater Washington, DC area. Moreover, it is the kind of deep dive into research that is near impossible to balance with typical teaching obligations of two courses per semester. Site visits, interviews, and archival research are among the most time intensive aspects of dissertation research, but I knew they would also be the most fruitful for me. So, I arranged site visits at the Library of Congress (Washington, DC), the Library of Congress offsite storage facility (Ft. Meade, MD), the Severn Library offsite storage facility here at the University of Maryland (College Park, MD), the Smithsonian Museum Support Center (Suitland, MD), an Amazon fulfillment center (Richmond, VA), and the Library of Congress National Audiovisual Conservation Center (NAVCC in Culpeper, VA). Moreover, I also conducted phone/skype discussions and recorded interviews remotely with scholars or representatives from the University of Pittsburgh, ReCAP (a major library consortium), and the NAVCC. Over the summer I have plans still to visit sites including ReCAP, the National Archives, and a second Amazon fulfillment center (another location, which is built around a different logistical system). Outside of these major discussions, I had conversations or email exchanges with many other individuals willing to make the time to speak with me about their work. As for almost all scholars and students, regular conference attendance is essential, and my experience at the Society for Cinema and Media Studies (SCMS) conference this spring further informed my chapter and served as an outlet to discuss my project in both formal and informal conversations. Scheduling as many of my essential visits as early as I could (at the beginning of the fellowship) was necessary, since finding a time that worked for everyone was often more logistically difficult than expected. Knowing that the work I did this semester would have been in a word, impossible, with a full-time graduate teaching schedule at the University of Maryland has made me value the research that has come out of this semester. The research has shaped the entirety of this chapter and it has provided me with a rich trove or research material I will continue to mine in the future. To manage my time, the resource the fellowship afforded me this semester, scheduling long-term (week by week for the semester) and short term (daily & weekly writing goals and reading deadlines), while consistently sticking to these strict, self-imposed deadlines served as a crucial mechanism of self-accountability.

Much of my own work attempts to speak to the hidden roles of containers as information storage objects and their placement within larger infrastructures—the containerization of information surrounds us, bundling together documents in boxes and binding together bits and bytes whirring on hard drives. In this same vein, I hope that this post helps to demystify the process of dissertation chapter writing. In the past four months I have written a full dissertation chapter (the second of four chapters)—writing this chapter and reflecting upon my experience has helped me come to a great many realizations about my own writing style, how to overcome perceived writing limitations, and putting these understandings into practice. My hope is that these humble suggestions will help out another dissertating PhD candidate and provide them with some support during a time that is often a rich time of learning from others, but when writing can feel very solitary. Yet, this is a position that most scholars have previously gone through, which deepened their understanding of their research projects, and helped formed the intellectual foundation of future job applications, book projects, and meaningful careers.

Many excellent resources exist, among those let me suggest Joan Bolker’s Writing Your Dissertation in Fifteen Minutes a Day as a helpful, practical aid that is worth checking out from your local library. I would also like to thank everyone who made this possible: Trevor Muñoz, Purdom Lindblad, Ed Summers, Stephanie Sapienza, Raffaele Viglianti, Grace Babukiika, and Ricky Punzalan for their wonderful support at MITH and the iSchool. I would like to thank my entire committee for their support of my project for this fellowship, and I would like to thank the many librarians, archivists, faculty, and private industry workers who were willing to take the time out of their day to discuss my project and their professional insights to it.

The post My Time as a MITH Winnemore Dissertation Fellow appeared first on Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities.

Eligible graduate students must be enrolled in an appropriate terminal degree program (Ph.D. or M.F.A) at the University of Maryland and must agree not to accept any other form of financial support from the University or other fellowships of $2,000 or more during the term for which this fellowship is awarded. Winnemore Fellows are provided  a stipend of $9,929 and a $1,509 contribution toward health insurance fees. Fellows are also provided with work space at MITH, consultation with MITH staff about their project, and technical support (including server space) where applicable.

Fellows are expected to be in-residence throughout the duration of their fellowship.  They are encouraged to attend MITH events such as Digital Dialogues, contribute to the intellectual community of MITH, share their work on the MITH blog, participate in professional development opportunities, and be engaged with the digital humanities more broadly.

Interested applicants should submit:

• a cover letter that includes your name, program/department, college, email, phone, title of dissertation, and advisor’s name, phone, and email. The cover letter should also include the date that you completed coursework and any other degree requirements, the date that you passed your prospectus/proposal examination, the date you advanced to candidacy, and the proposed date for your dissertation defense. All dates should include month and year;
• a current short CV;
• a 250-word abstract written for a general audience including your name and the title of your dissertation or project.
• the proposal itself, which should be no longer than three pages and which should specifically address the following points:
  • the project that you will work on if awarded the fellowship;
  • how the use of advanced technology would help achieve your research goals and contribute to the intellectual outcome
  • a statement of work completed to date;
  • a detailed timetable or work plan for duration of the fellowship including the projected date of completion.
• two confidential letters of recommendation, including one from your dissertation director that outlines how the applicant’s advisor will support the student’s effort for the duration of the fellowship in addition to the merit of the applicant.

A committee composed of digital humanities faculty and staff will review applications. Proposals should specify how a Winnemore Fellowship would be crucial to the dissertation or equivalent project’s development. The committee will place emphasis on projects that center the perspectives of underrepresented or oppressed groups and such proposals are highly encouraged. Also encouraged are projects addressing complex ethical issues inherent to engagement with new media, cultural heritage data, and the digital humanities.

We encourage applicants to consult with MITH regarding their applications. All application materials should be sent in PDF format to Purdom Lindblad, by 11:59 PM Friday, November 2, 2018. Announcement of the Winnemore Fellow will be made by Monday, November 19, 2018.

The post 2019 Winnemore Dissertation Fellowship Call for Applications appeared first on Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities.

Hannes Meyer in Europe and Mexico: Building, a Poetics of Displacement
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
11:30am to 1:00pm
Tawes Hall 2115 (Faculty Lounge)
Lunch will be served

Please RSVP to Gerard Passannante if you plan to attend.

Architect and Bauhaus Dessau director Hannes Meyer (1889-1954) lived and worked in Switzerland, Germany, the Soviet Union, and Mexico. His career was shaped by political persecution, resistance, and efforts to construct more egalitarian and just societies. This presentation argues that Meyer’s itinerary illustrates especially clearly architecture’s poetic relationship with space and time, a relationship defined more by disjuncture and interruption than coherency and continuity.

The post Ryan Long Vambery Lecture: ‘Hannes Meyer in Europe and Mexico: Building, a Poetics of Displacement’ appeared first on Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities.

This project has been an incredible learning experience for me, and I couldn’t have completed it without the generous support of the MITH staff, whose support, guidance, and expertise were invaluable throughout the process.

The post Announcing the Transgender Usenet Archive! appeared first on Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities.

One of the biggest challenges of working with Usenet Collections is their sheer size. For my five newsgroup collections, the average message count is between roughly 50,000 to 100,000 per collection. (To place that in context to recent news stories, presidential candidate HIllary Clinton’s private email server held 62,320 total emails.) Though it’s not too sizable in storage terms (all five collections add up to about 1 GB total), it’s definitely a lot of data for a close discourse analysis. Complicating the process further is that many of the messages held in these collections also aren’t relevant to my specific research questions. That’s also a lot of information to hold in a single location, particularly as an archive. Unlike the anonymous “generous donor” who initially collected all of the various newsgroup messages, I’ll be making deliberate, intentional choices regarding what to include, how to present the messages, and what information should be indexed. Given this, I’ve moved to using the term “collections” to describe the data as it is now.

I’ve also been slowing my pace a bit in order to think carefully about what the archive might look like. Recently, I’ve focused my energy on spending a lot of time with the data, in order to get a better sense of how it should be structured, the technical challenges I might face, and what ethical questions I should consider. Part of this process has been doing a lot of scraping, counting, and visualizing, in order to put my numbers in (some) perspective. Now, these aren’t perfect tools, but I have been able to identify the active posters, cross-posting habits, and a rough network of posts using “cisgender” and variants of the term.

I’ve put all of these visualizations up on my site, with some description about their significance and my collection methodology (with links to the modules on GitHub). From these exercises, I’ve learned that these newsgroups were similar to non-transgender newsgroups in poster activity, with a small handful of highly active posters who make up a sizable chunk of the messages collected. Users primarily posted to one or two newsgroups at a time, and there are some interesting differences in both what’s recorded in the collections and how users cross-posted. There’s not a lot of crossposting between the two newsgroups with “transgendered” in the name, alt.transgendered (AltT) and soc.support.transgendered (SST), but there is a lot of cross-posting between SST and alt.support.srs (SRS). In contrast, the two major crossdressing groups, alt.fashion.crossdressing (AFCD) and alt.support.crossdressing (ASCD) have almost equal patterns of single newsgroup posting and cross-posting between themselves. These differences raise interesting questions I hope to address in a close analysis using the archive, once it’s launched in the next few weeks.

However, I also wanted to spend a little more time talking about my initial network analysis, because I think it’s indicative of some of complexities of working with Usenet data. One of my key research questions is how Usenet facilitated the spread of the term “cisgender.” As far as I’ve found, the term or its variants don’t appear in movement publications during the 1990s. However, it eventually became ubiquitous in transgender discourse. How could that be, if it wasn’t in active use in print publications? This takes me to the internet, the other major (recorded) hub of transgender discussion at the time.

The term’s origins are unclear, and its corresponding Wikipedia (the unofficial arbiter of its history) reflects this lack of clarity. The page did at one point cite two Usenet users, Carl Bujis posting in soc.support.transgendered in 1996 and Dana Leland Defosse, posting in alt.transgendered in 1994, as separately originating the term.¹ However, the validity of these claims were challenged as not being from “reliable sources” and subsequently removed. Usenet connections are made elsewhere as well: In the official Oxford English Dictionary (OED) definition, the earliest use example cited is from Usenet. For my research, I’m not particularly interested in finding a definitive origin point, but I am curious about what might have facilitated the sudden increase in use.

This leads me back to Usenet. As I noted in my post contextualizing Usenet, part of why spam was such an issue was how (relatively) easy it was to post and cross-post to multiple groups. This meant posts could spread widely and possibly be seen by a sizeable audience. Curious about how widespread the term was in the collected I collected information on all posts (identified by their unique Message ID) that used the term and its variants (cisgendered, cis-gender, cis-gendered, and cis), and the posts referenced in the “References” header (or previous posts in the conversation).² The References header is by no means a perfect tool, though. According to the documentation, the References header in Usenet messages was supposed to “allow messages to be grouped into conversations by the user interface program.” However, programs were required to include only “a reasonable number of backwards references” if the list got too long. Thus, not all of a conversation was recorded in the header. Furthermore, some messages weren’t collected at the poster’s request, so their trace exists in a unique Message ID with no data.

Nevertheless, the network I built (visualized using the OpenOrd layout) gives you an idea of the amount, activity level, and connections between posts. Each node is a unique posting. Nodes are sized and colored according to their degree of connection to other nodes, and labeled using their Message ID. Posts with just a Message ID and no extra information (original/reply, year, etc.) were not held in any of the collections.

What does this show? Firstly, that the term appeared frequently on Usenet in several venues: ASCD and SST. I’ve specifically chosen appeared instead of “used” because Usenet posters often quoted each other using big chunks of one another’s text. So, a term could appear in many posts, but only in quotes and not by the individual poster. So the term gains visibility even if it isn’t adopted by others. Furthermore, big numbers don’t always equal long threads (as far as the collections show). While several posts sparked a high level of conversation (large nodes), most were short threads or single responses. Lastly, activity is date-limited: The vast majority of post activity occurs between 1996-2006—right around when social media platforms like Myspace and Facebook really begin to take off. Most surprising to me, however, was the high incidence of posts in crossdressing groups. What little literature that exists on trans Usenet focuses on AltT and SST as the “big two” of Usenet, but AFCD and ASCD were active and influential in their own right. In ASCD in particular cisgender and variants appear the most, even though the group isn’t mentioned in the print archives as a major hub of discussion.

In multiple ways, then, making this network challenged either popular received knowledge about “cisgender” or my own assumptions about what trans Usenet looked like. The numbers can’t tell the whole story, though. Understanding how these posts connect to each other requires a close discourse analysis of individual posts and the connections I’ve visualized here. Otherwise, it’s just a bunch of nodes on a graph: attractive to look at, but not meaningful in any particular way. Instead, this kind of project requires meeting big data with a fine-grained attention for detail that attempts to get at the content of discussions, in order to give those “big data” numbers meaning and context.

¹ My data collection actually raises questions about the received narrative for who “first” uses “cisgender.” In 1994, 5 months after Defosse posts, another user posts in the same newsgroup about “cis-gendered, narrow-minded people,” with no clarification as to what the term means.

² Prior to collecting my data, I also checked each message’s content against an automatically generated list of possible common misspellings. However, this process produced no hits.

The post Visualizing Poster Activity on Usenet appeared first on Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities.

“If only one life is saved by the creation of this group, wouldn’t it be worth it?  It’s only a communications medium, and people are needlessly losing their lives and wasting their potential in self-destructive, maladaptive, denial-bases coping strategies.  The loss to our society is great, and needless…If it gets us talking, it can’t be bad.” – Anonymous, SST — an early history (part 2) (soc.support.transgendered)

You wouldn’t have the transgender movement as it is today without the Internet. Widespread public internet access played a key role in the transgender movement’s growing visibility at the national level during the 1990s. Access to the Internet mitigated many issues that had limited other organizing efforts, like geographic limitations and the sometimes-lengthy publication arc of print media. From the earliest days of Fidonet, trans individuals have made spaces for discussion and resource-sharing online. Some of these spaces were hosted on Usenet, a decentralized, worldwide discussion system founded in 1980 and organized around topic-specific newsgroups. Usenet, as a communications network, is an influential predecessor to modern social media platforms and the origin point for now-common bits of contemporary Internet vocabulary like “spam.”

Amongst its many newsgroups was a small collection of important transgender-related forums, the five most active being alt.transgendered, soc.support.transgendered, alt.support.srs, alt.support.crossdressing, and alt.fashion.crossdressing. As the anonymous poster in the opening quote notes, these spaces offered folks the opportunity to communicate and find support, without falling into “maladaptive” coping strategies. Discussions were active and sometimes highly contentious, as posters—some of them major figures in transgender political activism at the time—discussed and debated key issues of the day in transgender politics.

These newsgroups are at the center of my project as a Winnemore Digital Dissertation Fellow for this year. As a Fellow, I’ll be building a public archive of posts from these five groups using the Bookworm API and data from the Internet Archive’s Usenet Historical Collection. This archive will form a key part of my work, a case study focused on how posters use the term “cisgender” in their discussions. These groups are one of the few archival locations where participants regularly used the term, and several origin narratives point to different newsgroups as being the where it was first used. For my project, however, I’m not interested in origins so much as the specific contexts it was used in and how posters connected this use to their broader understandings of “transgender community.” This follows the focus of my larger dissertation, which explores the affective and structural meanings assigned to “community” in English-language transgender discourse online.

Beyond my own project, though, I’ll also be thinking and writing about the mechanics of Usenet-related research in general. Archival Usenet research can face significant barriers and raises important ethical questions about the afterlife of data. Over the coming year, I’ll be writing and posting about my process here on the MITH blog, my own blog, and (occasionally) on Twitter. Some of these posts will be about the technical and ethical challenges of the project, offering a window into I’m thinking through them. I’ll also be sharing some of my early findings and other interesting things I encounter in the archive during my research.

The post “If it gets us talking, it can’t be bad:” Building the Transgender Usenet Archive appeared first on Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities.

During the fellowship, Dame will work on the second chapter of his dissertation, which focuses on the ideological meaning of “cisgender” and its role in shaping community sentiment in Usenet discourse. As part of this project, he will develop and launch an archive of posts from several major transgender-related newsgroups, held in the Internet Archives’ Usenet Historical Collection.

Using Critical and Multi-Modal Discourse Analysis, Dame analyzes how users past and present construct “transgender community” in discourse, and the impact of platform-specific affordances on these discussions. Each chapter draws on a different site, including 1990s movement publications, archival data from Usenet newsgroups, ethnographic interviews with transgender-identified individuals, informational websites, and Tumblr. Throughout these different sites, he argues community’s use as a guiding heuristic, and the accompanying emphasis on the term’s positive affective associations, obscures key differences, disconnects, and inequalities amongst discourse participants.

Dame’s work tackles core Digital Humanities questions on the roles organizational architecture, metadata, and standardization play in guiding the flow and direction of discourse. His work and writings on the Transgender Usenet Archive also offers new methodological insights into working with early Usenet discourse in archival form. You can read more about Avery on his MITH staff page here.

The post MITH Welcomes Avery Dame as the 2016-17 Winnemore Fellow! appeared first on Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities.

Click here for information on how to apply for the 2016-17 Winnemore fellowship. Applications are due by 5:00 pm on Friday April 22, 2016.

The post Call for Applications: Winnemore Digital Humanities Dissertation Fellows Program 2016-17 appeared first on Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities.

During his fellowship year, Oliver will work on his project, “‘The Living Book of Knowledge’: Visions of the Moving-Image Encyclopedia,” which traces the history of attempts to create an encyclopedic archive of recorded movement, from the late nineteenth century to the present. Related to the attempts to create these repositories is the matter of their consistent failure, since there has never been a robustly functional moving-image equivalent to the print encyclopedia. An overarching question will be whether the digital age promises a realization of the long-held dream of a moving-image encyclopedia, especially since the allure of an all-encompassing collection of knowledge is as powerful as ever thanks to networked computing systems underlying contemporary attempts to create a storehouse of total knowledge, as in Google’s pledge to archive “all human knowledge” via its recently unveiled “Knowledge Vault.”

As a complement to his research, Oliver will consult with MITH staff to develop design documentation about and technical requirements for how aspects of prior encyclopedic film projects could live again via digital tools or platforms. In particular, this research will focus on the Encyclopedia Cinematographica collections of both film and textual components at the Internet Archive and the Human Studies Film Archive, as well as currently extant projects with a similar ambition, in particular the Encyclopedia of Life.

Please join us in welcoming Oliver to our team!

The post Please welcome Oliver Gaycken as MITH’s newest Vambery Fellow! appeared first on Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities.