I want to make a (fuzzy) distinction between two species of DH projects: field-scale infrastructure and workflow-scale applications.
Field-Scale Infrastructure
I have the impression that many DH researchers, and even those outside of DH, simply equate DH projects with field-scale infrastructure. These are the large, domain-specific projects, often funded (in Europe at least) by the European Research Council. Their output might be built for specific research groups and they tend to work with large amounts of data. Some typical examples include VERITRACE, MELT, or KITAB-Transform. They are wonderful.
Workflow-Scale Applications
There is a different category of project that I like to think of as workflow-scale. These are web or desktop applications — small, focused ones — that aim to support research workflow, e.g., manuscript analysis, academic note-taking, reference management, or transcription tools. They are usually domain-general — useful to anyone conducting scholarly research.
For whatever set of reasons — their smaller size, lack of ERC or national funding — they are not usually supported by major funding bodies. Maybe they are seen as less important, more incidental, or the work of one person. But these tools tend to be more practical for a larger number of users. Instead of providing new data to a group of scholars in literature or history of philosophy, they could make all humanities scholars more productive by providing them new tools at their fingertips. Yet they often slip through the funding cracks.
Who Cares?
Maybe this is all as it should be. I like both kinds of projects and would not want to see one replace the other. But the funding imbalance — and thus the prestige associated with one and not the other — is striking. And unfortunate.
Takeaway: Both types of DH projects are valuable, but recognising and supporting workflow-scale applications could make humanities research more efficient and impactful.