The conceptual ecology of digital humanities Alex H. Poole Department of Information Science, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to dissect key issues and debates in digital humanities, an emerging field of theory and practice. Digital humanities stands greatly to impact the Information and Library Science (ILS) professions (and vice versa) as well as the traditional humanities disciplines. Design/methodology/approach – This paper explores the contours of digital humanities as a field, touching upon fundamental issues related to the field’s coalescence and thus to its structure and epistemology. It looks at the ways in which digital humanities brings new approaches and sheds new light on manifold humanities foci. Findings – Digital humanities work represents a vital new current of interdisciplinary, collaborative intellectual activity both in- and outside the academy; it merits particular attention from ILS. Research limitations/implications – This paper helps potential stakeholders understand the intellectual and practical framework of the digital humanities and “its relationship” to their own intellectual and professional work. Originality/value – This paper critically synthesizes previous scholarly work in digital humanities. It has particular value for those in ILS, a community that has proven especially receptive to the field, as well as to scholars working in many humanities disciplines. Digital humanities has already made an important impact on both LIS and the humanities; its impact is sure to grow. Keywords Collaboration, Humanities, Project management, Pedagogy, Interdisciplinarity, Digital humanities, Sustainability, Cyberinfrastructure Paper type Conceptual paper Neither the traditional nor the digital humanities can succeed alone as well as they can together (Hayles, 2012, p. 61). The general crisis is that humanistic meaning, with its residual yearnings for spirit, humanity, and self […] must compete in the world system with social, economic, science-engineering, workplace, and popular-culture knowledges that do not necessarily value meaning or, even more threatening, value meaning but frame it systematically in ways that alienate or co-opt humanistic meaning (Liu, 2013, p. 419). We are all digital humanists now (Ell and Hughes, 2013, p. 24). Introduction Numerous digital humanities scholars see their field as unprecedentedly robust. They point to new publications, funding, journals, organizations, projects, positions, networks, centers, and institutes (Alexander and Davis, 2012; Greetham, 2012; Jewell, 2008; Klein, 2015; Meister, 2012; Nowviskie, 2015; Siemens and Sayers, 2015; Svensson, 2012b). Waltzer (2012) deems digital humanities a legitimate scholarly foundation while Liu (2012, 2013) characterizes digital humanists as nearly legitimate partners with so-called traditional humanists. But to many traditional humanists, digital humanities seems at best intriguing, at worst irrelevant (Alvarado, 2011). The field seems in a liminal state, neither fish (discipline) not fowl (interdiscipline) (Svensson, 2016). Fish (2012) chides digital humanists for claiming at once to represent a “beleaguered minority” and the “saving remnant.” Ayers (2013) quips of his own innovative work, “I’m not sure you’re a pioneer if nobody follows you.” Suffice it to say, both optimism and skepticism permeate the field (Klein, 2015). Journal of Documentation Vol. 73 No. 1, 2017 pp. 91-122 © Emerald Publishing Limited 0022-0418 DOI 10.1108/JD-05-2016-0065 Received 22 May 2016 Revised 10 August 2016 Accepted 18 August 2016 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm 91 Ecology of digital humanities