Is coding a must today?

Nowadays there is a widespread belief that everyone, including humanities students and scholars, should learn to code. The advocates of this idea outline that coding helps develop a structured logical thought process, a different way of viewing the world, and also gives one the tools to write software for themselves. While learning to code has numerous advantages, I do not believe that everyone should learn to code, especially students from fields which are not directly related to programming, like the humanities. However, this should not let they stay behind. If their research area, or academic and professional interests involve technology, computer science, or a related field they should definitely learn to code and master a programming language. What is more, there are numerous technological tools that humanities scholars can use in their research which are not coding per se.

Don’t get me wrong I am very familiar with the benefits of coding. When I was 15, I started working on my first job: writing python software to test a newly developed medical sensor, a task which made me dive deep into Bluetooth, serial communications, and data visualization. After that, I also worked on my own device which used computer vision, and I also developed a website for a start-up. Through my experience, I learned that CS demands a lot of logic and rigor, and it provides a great framework for thinking about and approaching different situations, as it aims to find a single algorithm to solve a multitude of problems. However, I feel like this does not apply to great part of the humanities. After all, CS deals with numbers, statistics and quantitative data, while the humanities deal with creativity, feelings, culture and qualitative data. The latter cannot be properly modeled by a computer and is better if analyzed by a human who knows the nuances and the context of that information. For instance, knowing the social, economic and political background of an area is of paramount importance while analyzing sources in fields such as history and philosophy. What is more, in literature a scholar can find themselves analyzing the symbolism of a novel or poem, something that a computer cannot do with ease.

Critics might claim that computers have already analyzed essays, poetry, and emotions. For instance, there is a study on the correlation between language and depression, which was made possible by computers. However, that type of software is extremely complex and is usually written by PhDs in CS/Data Science, as they demand advanced statistical models and terabytes of data to be accurate. Sometimes computers are very counterintuitive, and even the simplest of tasks look complex. For example, the following code simply uses a data structure to count the number of times a word was used in a text:

private void addEntireString(String word, Node parentNode){
    if(word.length() > 1){
      Node recursiveNode = new Node(word.charAt(0), 0);
      numberOfNodes++;
      addEntireString(word.substring(1), recursiveNode);
      parentNode.children.add(recursiveNode);
    } else {
      Node recursiveNode = new Node(word.charAt(0), 1);
      numberOfNodes++;
      parentNode.children.add(recursiveNode);
    }
  } 

Whenever a computer needs to analyze language and emotion, or whenever a humanities study demands to work with terabytes of data or AI, I believe the best is for computer scientists to work together with humanities scholars. This way, the studies will benefit from the best of both worlds.

In his essay, Kirschenbaum raised an important question on whether humanities students could replace a language requirement for their graduate degree with demonstrated proficiency in a programming language. I agree with Kirschenbaum when he claims that, “A computer language will not replace the comparativist’s need to know Spanish or French or German, or the budding medievalist’s command of Latin and Greek.” As speaking a foreign language can enable scholars to read and interpret their sources without the need of a translation (which may even jeopardize the credibility of their work). However, I don’t think programming languages can replace real languages for digital humanities. Foreign languages are tools to communicate with other people, they are needed to collaborate with other scholars and researchers. On the other hand, programming languages only communicate with computers. While foreign scholars might know what you code does just by reading it, they might not understand the documentation that answers why your code exists, why it does what it does, and why you made certain choices while developing it.

Most importantly, there are numerous tools that humanities students can use for their research that are not directly related to coding. The most obvious one is Google. One can find a wide variety of papers, essays, and sources online. What is more, historians can use 3D modeling tools to recreate ancient artifacts, authors can have a personal WordPress blog to publish their short stories, musicians can use a drum-clicking machine or autotune, and artists can draw on tablets and use 3D modeling software. Nowadays, there is a variety of tools within reach of a computer, and I strongly believe that it is of paramount importance that people of the digital arts and humanities make good use of those. Scholars need to master technology if they want to succeed nowadays, but that technology might not come in the shape of programming per se.

So if your research or area of interest does not involve coding, do not spend too much time learning it. However, make sure to make the most of the technology available to you, and master the tools that have a direct impact on your studies.