Gratifying to see Natalie Houston's Profhacker article on her experience at DHSI, "Report from DHSI 2012" this morning. My favorite part articulates the constructive frustration expressed by so many speakers at the colloquium, "Every researcher, no matter what the field, comes up against things that don’t work, or hypotheses that don’t turn out to be accurate, or archives that don’t hold the information you hoped they would. But there hasn’t always been space within humanities discourse for exploring those obstacles. DHSI created a supportive environment for productively learning from what doesn’t work as well as from what does."
And yes, for all of the DHSI goodness, I agree with Natalie that it is also good to return home.
I'm finishing two essays at the moment - both concerning digital editions (two separate projects). One is due tomorrow and the other is ... well, overdue is a polite way of phrasing that. Working on these simultaneously has made me hyper-conscious of the dangers of repetition and tripping over one's self when writing about research. Until now I'd take on one writing project at a time. I'd be interested to know how other scholars (digital or otherwise) juggle their work in multiple formats/multiple outlets.