Rogers explains that humanities graduate training can lead to careers outside of the academy with meaningful public impact. She argues that an expanded understanding of postgraduate success can foster more equitable and inclusive systems in and around the academy, which involves shifting the current mindset about career opportunities so that humanities PhD students consider a faculty career as one option among many. Her proposal addresses labor issues and training for faculty careers, as well as the stakes of the career diversity movement, which she thinks can be understood as a social justice project. She concludes with a list of ten ways to build a university worth fighting for at the individual and the structural levels, aimed at students, faculty members, and administrators. 

Croxton contends that the time is ripe for a convergence between DH and e-Learning, which would provide opportunities to reach a broader audience of learners, and allow students to earn a degree without having to attend campus. She believes that, with thoughtful course design and pedagogy, integrating DH in an e-Learning context can provide satisfying teaching and learning experiences that may supersede those achieved in the traditional face-to-face classroom. The author relies on social cognitive theory and social constructivist theory to explore how learning occurs in online courses. These two theories were used to design two online DH courses at a university in the southeastern region of the United States. Croxton concludes that applying sound pedagogical principles grounded in educational theory can develop students’ professional identities, promote higher order thinking, and allow students to learn in a convenient context that also aligns with careers in DH. 

Open access seeks to make scientific literature free for readers; however, several obstacles prevent students and scholars from receiving all the benefits it offers. One of these is the lack of information literacy, which is the ability to locate, evaluate, and use information effectively. This essay will explain why the lack of these skills is an obstacle to open access and how this condition excludes students and scholars.

These two groups do not always develop sufficient informational skills, so they make mistakes when accessing and using academic information, which limits the benefits they can receive from open access. Among these cases are, for example, the uncritical use of Google Scholar, the lack of knowledge when using digital scholarly tools or when conducting searches on academic search engines, the sharing of academic papers on academic social networks with disregard for copyright, and the publication in predatory journals.

To address these issues, universities can implement or improve information literacy programs, so they promote open access while ensuring that their communities enjoy the virtues of free access to scholarly literature.

Walsh et al. investigate DH education and research as practiced in information school (iSchool) contexts worldwide. They analyze university websites to identify which types of DH degrees are offered, the course descriptions of 426 DH courses, and the presence and content of DH courses within iSchools. The authors found that master’s degrees are the most common model of DH education, especially in Europe. Their course analysis findings suggest that there are two main clusters of topics in DH courses in general: one related to digital topics (such as software programming, statistical data analysis, and web applications), and another cluster related to humanities topics (such as critical digital media, digital art, and cultural heritage). On the other hand, iSchools themselves offer 34 DH courses in 26 institutions, usually a single DH course or an introductory course followed by an advanced one. Since iSchools are so diverse, the authors believe that it is difficult to suggest a common curriculum for DH programs in iSchools. However, the disciplinary and methodological diversity of DH allows iSchools to offer a credible DH program even if it differs from programs in other institutions.

Veletsianos argues that OERs, especially open textbooks, are a worthwhile response to consider during the shift to digital modes of teaching and learning, but he warns that, without scrutiny, such efforts may reflect or reinforce structural inequities. This scrutiny includes examining who creates OER, who is and who is not represented in them, and who is cited in OER to avoid reproducing structural inequities. Veletsianos concludes that OERs can be a mixed blessing, expanding inclusion and equity in areas like the cost of textbooks, but furthering inequities like a possible lack of diversity in the creation of OERs.

Wiggins explores how instructors can teach DH when technology and the digital evolve so rapidly. To address how to incorporate the fast pace of DH in a pedagogical setting, he suggests thinking of DH courses as methodology courses, and creating courses with a backward design, where instructors first decide on the main objectives of their course, and then they work backward to develop a plan for meeting these objectives. This approach allows to teach collaboration and project management to students so they can plan and work ethically on DH projects. Wiggins concludes that instructors should look beyond DH and toward other disciplines for inspiration on how to teach a constantly evolving field.

McGrath describes digital public humanities in specific contexts to document how digital spaces and tools should vary depending on audiences and objectives. He uses the collaboration between his graduate-level course on public digital humanities and the Providence Public Library as a case study to document the benefits of approaching digitization and publication through the lens of public humanities. McGrath argues that digital public humanities should require institutions to reassess their approaches to staffing and training, their ideas about labor and expertise, and their methods of collaboration. Furthermore, he encourages public humanities practitioners who are new to digital initiatives to learn from the people, projects and publications that have been debating the value of public and digital humanities efforts over the last few decades.