Great post! As we discussed before, universities are great because of their safe space. But as we noticed all too well in class, this ‘safe space’ does not always come natural.
In the beginning of your post, you mention that the field of DH is already clearly defined. I see this differently. This course only made me realize how undefined the field of DH is (as this website stresses all too well: http://whatisdigitalhumanities.com/) and how much it is searching for an identity. DH is now a much more blurry concept for me than it was at the beginning of September (not sure whether that was the purpose of the course).
While you could still take part in a discussion on how to define DH, my question is whether this will actually help the field further along? We spend already 4 hours (and many more actually) in class discussing definitions of DH and — as many of the blogs of our colleagues reflect- it is still not very clear what DH now actually entails.
Articles such as those by Scheinfeldt on whether DH scholars actually need to answer questions (http://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/18) give me the impression that this field is still on the level of ‘boys playing with toys’ (as you like to say! :P). When a field does not evolve further than just this “playground”, can it actually evolve into a credible academic field? Maybe after discussing the value of an academic field such as DH in being able to answer questions and solving (or trying to solve) problems, we can come to a clearer definition of what the field itself entails.
I know this view might be a bit extreme, maybe you can provide some counterarguments to balance it! (I don’t want to fall into my echo chamber!)