Update designing-database-nodegoat.md

Revise handling of quotation, line 47.

Author: anisa-hawes

en/lessons/designing-database-nodegoat.md

@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ Transforming a research object into data involves some translation work: we must
 
 Those who do research in the humanities often encounter difficulties at this stage, because the very notion of 'data' does not clearly align with disciplinary practices in these fields. In history, anthropology, or literary studies, we think of the phenomena we study in flexible, open-ended, and uncertain terms. We are accustomed to reflecting on the researcher’s subjectivity and placing contingency at the center of our analyses. We analyze political, social, and cultural phenomena as complex objects that are difficult to reduce to a 'dataset'. As Miriam Posner described [in her 2015 lecture, "Humanities Data: A Necessary Contradiction"](https://perma.cc/BBC5-MBEC):
 
-> [We], humanists have a very different way of engaging with evidence than most scientists or even social scientists. And we have different ways of knowing things than people in other fields. We can know something to be true without being able to point to a dataset, as it's traditionally understood.[^2]
+> [H]umanists have a very different way of engaging with evidence than most scientists or even social scientists. And we have different ways of knowing things than people in other fields. We can know something to be true without being able to point to a dataset, as it's traditionally understood.[^2]
 
 Thus, researchers in the humanities may find it counterintuitive to read their sources, documents, or ethnographic notes with the goal of extracting information and arranging it into the fixed, discrete, structured categories typical of a spreadsheet. This process may even appear too simplistic and reductive: how can a political tradition, the affective dimension of a local cultural practice, the conceptual issues of modern philosophy, or the psychology of a literary character be translated into 'data'?