Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 108

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why Are the Digital Humanities So White? or Thinking the Histories of Race and Computation

Mcpherson, Tara·2012·Debates in the Digital Humanities

Abstract

This chapter argues that the difficulties encountered in knitting together discussions of race with technological productions within the digital humanities (or in studies of code) are an effect of the very designs of our technological systems—designs that emerged in post-World War II computational culture. These origins of the digital continue to haunt scholarly engagements with computers, underwriting the ease with which we partition off considerations of race in our work in digital humanities and digital media studies. The chapter draws analogies between shifting racial and political formations and the emerging structures of digital computing in the late 1960s to highlight the ways in which the organization of information and capital in the 1960s responds—across many registers—to the struggles for racial justice and democracy that so categorized the United States at the time.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5749/minnesota/9780816677948.003.0017

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 20 references

Cited by

See all 108

Metadata

Authors
Mcpherson, T.
Venue
Debates in the Digital Humanities
Published
2012-01-01
Pages
139-160
Cited by
108
References
20

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Why Are the Digital Humanities So White? or Thinking the Histories of Race and Computation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5749/minnesota/9780816677948.003.0017
The paper
Mcpherson, T. (2012). Why Are the Digital Humanities So White? or Thinking the Histories of Race and Computation. Debates in the Digital Humanities. https://doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/9780816677948.003.0017

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.