What
is Digital History?
Thomas,
William G. “What is Digital Scholarship? A Typology.”
In this post, Thomas provides
categorization for digital scholarship. In categorizing such scholarship,
Thomas hopes to promote discussion regarding digital scholarship reviews. According
to Thomas, digital scholarship falls into one of three categories: interactive
scholarly works (ISWs), digital projects or thematic research collections
(TRCs), and digital narratives. ISWs are
“hybrids of archival materials and tool components” that provide a
methodological argument based on a “historiographical concern.” TRCs combine
tools and archival material “framed around a historiographically significant”
problem and contain primary sources based on a specific historical
them/research question. Digital Narratives are “born digital” works of
scholarship that contain arguments “embedded within layers of evidence and
citation.” Digital narratives differ from traditional ebooks in that they are
nonlinear and contain “hypertextual structures.”
Thomas, William G. and Douglass Seefeldt.
“What is Digital History.” Perspectives
on History. May 2009.
In
this article, Thomas and Seefeldt look at three areas of digital history.
First, as they consider “What is Digital History?” they suggest that it differs
from traditional scholarly practice in the ways that it “might be understood
broadly as an approach to examining and representing the past that works with
the new communication technologies of the computer, the internet network, and
software systems” (Thomas and Seefeldt). After defining digital history, the
authors look at the next stages of digital history and then the future of
digital history. Considering the future of history, while the authors
acknowledge that digital tools might challenge the traditional methods of
historians, scholars should embrace new methods available through the use of
digital technology.
Cohen, Daniel J., et al.
"Interchange: The Promise of Digital History." The Journal of
American History, Vol. 5, No. 2., 2008: 452-491.
In
this article, authors Cohen, Frisch, Gallagher, Mintz, Sword, Taylor, Thomas,
and Turkel discuss the promises of digital history. Written as a transcription
of an interview, this article as a whole various methodologies, technologies
(such as Zotero), the bridge between traditional and digital history, the
institutional resources needed to develop the field of digital history, open
access, research, and more. Looking at the first part of the article
specifically, the JAH defines digital history as “as anything (research method, journal article, monograph, blog, classroom
exercise) that uses digital technologies in creating, enhancing, or
distributing historical research and scholarship” (453). In discussing the
origin of the term, Thomas notes that himself and Ayers were likely the first
to use the term in their essays about The
Valley of the Shadow project. For a specific definition, Thomas shares that
digital history is both “an open arena of scholarly production” and “a
methodological approach” using new technologies to form new research questions
about the past (454). Looking at the promise of digital sources, Turkel notes
that such sources can be easily created, altered, duplicated, transmitted,
stored, separated, and more (454). Joining the conversation, Cohen highlights
the abundance of sources as a result of digital technology. From Mintz’
perspective, digital history has developed through a number of stages; Mintz
argues that the world is currently experiencing stage 3, which is based on
active learning and collaboration through wikis, social media, and more.
Cohen, Daniel J. and Roy Rosenzweig.
“Promises and Perils of Digital Technology.” A Guide to Gathering, Preserving, and Presenting the Past on the Web.
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005.
In this chapter, the authors argue
that there are both pros and cons to using digital technology in digital
humanities. Considering the pros, the authors argue that digital technology
offers great opportunities. First, digital technology provides more storage
capacity than ever before. Second, digital technology is more accessible as it
can easily make sources available to the public. Third, digital technology is
flexible in that as a medium, it allows scholarship to take a variety of forms
including texts, pictures, sounds, etc. Fourth, digital technology supports
diversity as it engages with a number of authors, people of different
ethnicity, gender, etc. Fifth, digital technology provides manipulability as it
allows individuals to research strategically (like word searches on JSTOR).
Sixth, digital history provides interactivity as it allows communication
between students, teachers, parents, and more. Seventh, digital history has an
element of non-linearity in the way that digital history allows individuals to
look at history in new ways both narratively and spatially. In addition to the
promises of digital history, the authors list several problems with the field.
First, there is the issue of quality as often times the internet provides links
to inadequate sources. Second there is the issue of durability as digitized
items can become out of date and be unable to function with current technology.
Third, there is the issue of readability as it is sometimes difficult to
identify a thesis within digital history projects. Fourth, there is the issue
of passivity as a result of interactivity given that often times such
interactivity comes in the form of yes or no decisions, keeping the user from thinking
critically and processing the scholarship. Fifth, there is the issue of
inaccessibility given that 2/3rds of the world does not have access to the
internet.
Ayers, Edward L. “The Past and
Futures of Digital History.” University of Virginia, 1999.
In this essay, Ayers discusses the
both the history and the future of the field of Digital History. Ayers explains
that while society as a whole as embraced digital technology, it is “unusual
for a historian to pursue the full implications and possibilities of the new
technology” (Ayers). In discussing the future of the field, Ayers explains that
history, ironically, might be better suited for the use of digital technology
than other fields in the humanities. For example, Ayers argues that in the
field of history, writing has never been better, computers are growing
professional communication, publishing is now available online, and the community
is experimenting with technology like digital archives, and more. Furthermore,
he suggests that due to developments in technology, hypertext, hypermedia, and
an interest in social science might unite. He concludes by saying, “Only
historians can decide whether history will participate in the intoxicating
possibilities of a true hypertextual history, of a reconstituted social science
history, of an entirely new kind of immersive history. Only we can decide if we
want to make use of any of the tools that are being created for purposes far
from our own current practice” (Ayers).
What is Spatial History?
White, Richard.
“What is Spatial History?” Spatial
History Lab. February 1, 2010.
In his article, Richard White first explains how
Stanford’s Spatial History Project operates outside of normal historical
practice being that it is collaborative, uses visualizations, depends on
computers, is open ended, and contains a conceptual focus on space. Then, after
sharing Lefebvre’s idea that humans produce space over time, White discusses
Lefebvre’s triad of spatial practice, representations of space, and
representational spaces. Spatial practice “involves the segregation of certain
kinds of constructed spaces and their linkages through human movement” (2).
Representations of space are the “documents of city planners, politician,” etc.
(2). Finally, representational spaces are “space as lived and experienced
through a set of symbolic associations” (3). Yet, according to Richard White,
the most important aspect of spatial history is movement, being that “Spatial
relations are established through the movement of people, plants, animals,
goods, and information” (3). While White acknowledges that maps are important
to spatial history, maps are static while movement is “dynamic” (3). Thus,
spatial historians must embrace the use of new technologies like ArcGIS that
help to visualize movement and allow scholars to better study physical space
(inches, feet, miles, etc.) and relational space (the time it takes to travel
between locations, the cost of travel, etc.). Most importantly, White argues
that spatial history is more than simple visualization, rather, “it is a means
of doing research” to generate new questions (6).
Thomas, William G. “Is the Future of
Digital History Spatial History?” Newberry
Library Historical GIS Conference, March 2004.
Analyzing
the future of digital history in relation to spatial history, Thomas first
shares the thoughts of Janet Murray, a leading critic of new media and
narrative. According to Murray, the four keys to a successful narrative online
are based in the fact that “work must be participatory, procedural,
encyclopedic, and spatial” (1) Then, after looking at the spatial history
projects like Paul Carter's The Road to Botany Bay: An Exploration of
Landscape and History, Thomas
shares that according to Carter, spatial history “advances exploratively, even
metaphorically, recognizing that the future is invented” (3). Overall, Thomas
argues that spatial history purposes to “recover contingency in its description
of the past,” deconstruct the hegemony of linear narrative, present multiple
perspectives, reject the positivism of empirical methodologies, and more (5). Perhaps
most powerfully, Thomas notes that spatial history purposes to “spatialize
history,” not “historicize space” (5).
No comments:
Post a Comment