Visual Historiography Project Update - Title/Abstract/Sources/Draft Storyboard

Title: Adobe Flash and the Demise of Digital History Projects

Abstract: Adobe Flash and the Demise of Digital History Projects aims to explore the effects of Adobe Flash Player's end of life in 2020 on various digital history projects. Many projects created using Adobe Flash were rendered no longer usable as Adobe ceased development on the program in December of 2020 - while most of these project developers still have the data associated with their projects, the visualizations of projects that used Flash Player are completely gone or inoperable. A timeline will visualize the lifespan of these projects, beginning with development, including the publication/live date, and finishing with the ending as Flash became obsolete. Information from the digital historians behind these projects will be included to provide detail and perspective; as digital historians rely on digital technology, the perils of software obsolescence are proven substantial as the demise of these projects show.

Primary Sources: 

Scott, Jason et al. “Flash Animations Live Forever at the Internet Archive.” Internet Archive Blogs, November 25, 2020. https://blog.archive.org/2020/11/19/flash-animations-live-forever-at-the-internet-archive/.

Scott, Jason et al. “Flash Back! Further Thoughts on Flash at the Internet Archive.” Internet Archive Blogs, November 23, 2020. https://blog.archive.org/2020/11/22/flash-back-further-thoughts-on-flash-at-the-internet-archive/.

Secondary Sources: 

“University of Virginia Library Digital Curation Services,” Digital Curation Services, https://web.archive.org/web/20141010164712/http://www.digitalcurationservices.org/sustaining-digital-scholarship/valley-of-the-shadow/.

Cohen, Daniel J. and Roy Rosenzweig. “Promises and Perils of Digital History”. George Mason University, 2006.

Ferster, Bill. Interactive Visualization: Insight Through Inquiry, MIT Press, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucf/detail.action?docID=3339532.

Howard, Jennifer. “Born Digital, Projects Need Attention to Survive.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 22, 2020. https://www.chronicle.com/article/born-digital-projects-need-attention-to-survive/.

Mladentseva, Anna. "Responding to obsolescence in Flash-based net art: a case study on migrating Sinae Kim’s Genesis." Journal of the Institute of Conservation 45, no. 1 (2022): 52-68.

-art-related, but still relevant. Ideas of opening projects to include general humanities rather than just history.

 “Thoughts on Flash - Berkeley Haas.” Accessed November 23, 2022. https://haas.berkeley.edu/responsible-business/blog/posts/thoughts-on-flash/.

Storyboard/Presentation: 

Blog Post 11: Project Ideas for Visual Historiography

As touched on in my last posting, it is so much harder to practice digital history than it is to read about it. I think what makes it so difficult is the multitude of directions you can go in visualizing a theme - but choosing one method that is perfect for that theme is another story. 

In looking through the sample topics, I am very drawn toward the Promises and Perils of Digital History and the disadvantage of proprietary software. I feel like a bulk of what we have read centers around the profession's growth, and with that, it is impossible to ignore the advantages and challenges that permeate digital history - from the openness of accessibility to the failure of technology. One thing we have noted in class is the obsolescence of Flash, which rendered many, many digital projects unusable. If I were to need to get specific, I wonder if tracing the demise of Flash projects, and perhaps other widely used software within digital history, would provide insight into the much larger narrative theme of technology within the field. Digital history relies on technology, which is ever-changing. We are constantly upgrading, and I have my doubts that we will create "perfect" software that will never be replaced or moved to obsolescence. What implications would this have for future digital history projects?

I am going to attempt to use the ASSERT model to lay the groundwork for my (very tentative) visualization of technology and obsolescence within the field.

Ask a question: 

How pertinent is the issue of technological and software obsolescence to the field of digital history?

Search for evidence to support the question: 

“University of Virginia Library Digital Curation Services,” Digital Curation Services, accessed September 12, 2022, https://web.archive.org/web/20141010164712/http://www.digitalcurationservices.org/sustaining-digital-scholarship/valley-of-the-shadow/.

Mentions problems of technological change that affected the usability of a digital project.

Cohen, Daniel J. and Roy Rosenzweig. “Promises and Perils of Digital History”. George Mason University, 2006.

Mentions preserving digital history and preventing the loss of your work.

Structure that information to answer the question:

If I were to research and collect examples of various obsolete/unusable digital history projects, I could present some sort of graph or chart.

Envision ways to answer the question using data:

I am thinking of something that shows a project's length of work and research, length of being live on the internet, and then the time that the project became unusable due to software/technological obsolescence. If there are a lot of projects, this would prove that technology presents a meaty peril to digital historians.

Represent the data in a compelling visualization:

In showing the lifespan of projects, I feel like maybe a timeline like this could work.

Here, we could see how long these projects lasted. Monographs and print history arguably last forever, while digital history faces a special problem in relying on technology in an age where it is always changing.

Tell a meaningful story using the evidence to answer the question:

With technology changing frequently and consistently, the need to preserve and back up digital history projects is integral - there are several digital history projects unusable because of these issues.

Blog Post #10: Revisiting/Revisioning the Historiography of "History in the Digital Age"

I will say this has been the most challenging blog post to tackle - it is one thing to study, critique, and review digital history projects and the visual synthesis of large data sets, but it is another to put it into practice. I don't know that I have yet trained my mind to see the large themes of digital history, themes that could be interweaved into some interactive visualization to show the progress of digital history into where the practice stands today. However, I think breaking the question down into simple ideas will help!

Can we create timelines, spatial histories, or network graphs that explore the "canonization" of certain pioneering scholars/centers/projects and the influence of more recent revisionist histories?

I think, to answer the "can" we create a visualization or digital project to convey these important aspects of digital history, yes. I think what is hard about this is determining the "canonization" - sure, we have talked about some very important figures, like Ed Ayers, important projects, like the Valley of the Shadows digital archive, and centers, like the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media, but I struggle with the idea that these are completely canonized within the realm of digital history. Just as in traditional historiography, we constantly break down methods and theories in lieu of newer thought processes, and as time goes on, no one method can be truly acceptable as the method. Maybe this is where the revisionist voices come in. I also do not think I could agree with one specific person, center, or project being considered the example of digital history. As such, a digital model would need to include a multitude of different, important projects and peoples, which could become cumbersome, and would require a model that could house this information.

Where would revisionist voices come in?

In "Complicating a "Great Man" Narrative of Digital History in the United States," Sharon Leon touches on some of the apprehension I have for making a digital history project surrounded by "canonized" practices. If we did focus on the digital history of big names, like Ed Ayers, Roy Rosenzweig, Dan Cohen, and Stephen Brier, what if we are missing the important contributions of women and other minority players? Leon claims these women were very much there, in the production of digital history, but are often not included in these large surveys.(1) Would a digital history project need to include a specific section or disclaimer for this lack of inclusion in the writings and surveys of our canonized players? Leon also calls for a broader definition of digital history work, as the current one may exclude important contributions.(2) 

Jessica Johnson brings up another concerning point in the treatment of black digital practice - in aiming to computerize and synthesize from the deaths of black slaves, the commodification and calculation of black bodies becomes a natural practice for the digital humanities; some things should remain unquantifiable.(3) How would we include pertinent issues such as these within our projects?

In Exploring Big Historical Data and the same issue of computational methods being used in information overload - where contextual information can become overlooked with a focus on big data synthesis. (4)

How might we "visualize" this historiographical revisioning of the field and its history?

Given these revisionist issues of inclusivity, unquantifiable subjects, and overload of big data synthesis, perhaps a timeline of projects, peoples, and centers, moving along chronologically would be a good way to show growth and discourse, as it was happening. Maybe you could start with the Valley of the Shadows, moving forward to include new canonizations, new revisions to the method. We can see how things progressed - and we can include the challenges that arose in a way in which the historiography makes itself known. Trying to visualize these large themes is challenging, but I do think a timeline could convey thought processes and methods better than a computational method alone.

Works Cited: 

1. LEON, SHARON M. “Complicating a ‘Great Man’ Narrative of Digital History in the United States.” In Bodies of Information: Intersectional Feminism and the Digital Humanities, edited by Elizabeth Losh and Jacqueline Wernimont, 344–66. University of Minnesota Press, 2018. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctv9hj9r9.22.

2. LEON, SHARON M. “Complicating a ‘Great Man’ Narrative of Digital History in the United States.” In Bodies of Information: Intersectional Feminism and the Digital Humanities, edited by Elizabeth Losh and Jacqueline Wernimont, 344–66. University of Minnesota Press, 2018. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctv9hj9r9.22.

3. Johnson, Jessica Marie. “Markup Bodies: Black [Life] Studies and Slavery [Death] Studies at the Digital Crossroads.” Social text 36, no. 4 (2018): 57–79.

4. Graham, Shawn, Ian Milligan, Scott B. Weingart, and Kim Martin. Exploring big historical data: the historian’s macroscope. 2016.

Blog Post #9: Interactive Visualization / Bill Ferster's ASSERT Model

In taking from the book’s own description in his preface of Interactive Visualization: Insight Through Inquiry, “interactive visualization permits the modeling of dynamic expressions of data and information that draw from a number of disciplines to inform the final representation, including design, psychology, perception, computer science, statistics, human interface design, and literature.”[1] In this form of historical interpretation, users are invited to interact with primary sources presented to them in a manner that encourages individual understanding – an aspect I have always found important to implementing public history tools to the larger subset of information visualization. Moving into the introduction of Interactive Visualization, the breadth of what this digital history subset has to offer is dutifully covered – from computer-generated simulations of the Voyager trip to the use of radial networking maps – to help the reader understand where the field was, and where the field is going (contributing to the timelessness of the book’s information.)

It is also here where Ferster introduces many key terms and concepts important for interactive visualization, as well as his ASSERT model:

·       Ask a question

Here, the researcher is tasked with crafting solid questions, off of which the rest of the ASSERT model will fall into place. The authors outline the importance of understanding your audience, their knowledge desires and technological capabilities and having a navigable scope of interest. Ferster also provides several methods (the three-part query and graphical mapping) of generating palatable questions for research – which I find useful not only for digital humanities but just the research process in general.  

·       Search for evidence to support the question

Sources take on a variety of forms, and Ferster breaks down each category of source materials to help better contextualize what an interactive visualization can offer historical interpretation. Just as a thesis topic relies on available source material, so does a prospective visualization. Some evidence will be more effective than others.

·       Structure that information to answer the question

The way in which your chosen data is selected and then structured is integral to formulating a successful interactive visualization. Here, the authors also note useful applications that will help organize and structure data for you, such as Excel and Google Docs. I will say it was comforting to recognize technology I already use on a daily basis being used to create concrete digital projects!

·       Envision ways to answer the question using data

Now that you have your question and the data you are going to use to support it, envisioning ways in which this information can be presented is your next step. Tufte’s 6 Fundamental Principles for Analytical Design provide excellent starting points for envisioning your visualization (such as tracing causality or the original intentions of the documents provided).

·       Represent the data into a compelling visualization

Here we can exercise usability and aesthetic expertise to showcase our questions and data structures. In understanding the various practices of interpretation and perception, digital historians can work to create strong, user-friendly, visually and emotionally captivating projects that support the individuality promoted by interactive visualization. I enjoyed how in-depth this chapter was, even delving into color schemes and the effect certain hues have on the understanding of the subject material.

·       Tell a meaningful story using the evidence to answer the question

Put everything together. This chapter explored the narrative treatment of the data to be visualized, through an understanding of the narrative flow, basing storytelling and representations. Good visualizations house good data sources and research methodology, but also employ meaningful storytelling to answer the lingering “so what?” question.

I particularly enjoyed the chapter on accessibility; while the ASSERT method itself promotes user stability and open interpretation; open access is an entirely different beast to conquer. The authors discuss the implications of the Section 508 Act on historical visualization and the need to implement accessibility for disabled users, as well as provide alternative forms of information dissemination so that all audiences can access that information.[2] This specific need for accessibility is one well-suited for interactive visualization, as the modes of representation are much more variable than those provided by traditional monographs.

---

[1] Ferster, Bill, and Ben Shneiderman. Interactive Visualization: Insight Through Inquiry. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012, pg. xiii

[2] Ferster, Bill, and Ben Shneiderman. Interactive Visualization: Insight Through Inquiry. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012, pg. 246.

Blog Post #8: Digital History Project Review - Take One (Draft/In Class Presentation)

 Cold War International History Project Digital Archive

https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/

The Cold War International History Project Digital Archive, founded in 1991 and maintained by the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, focuses on acquiring and translating various Cold War documents from archives around the world – uncovering new sources as global archives release documentation to the public, offering fresh new insights into the history of international diplomacy and relationships. These efforts to provide public access to emerging documents allow students, scholars, and the interested public to “reassess the Cold War and its contemporary legacies,” an indispensable resource for historians researching twentieth-century international relationships and the insights of the conflict on a global scale.

In March of 2013, the Wilson Center for Scholars instituted a new digital archive collection dubbed Digital Archive: International History Declassified, an archive that housed more documents than the original CWIHP site did, while also facilitating the addition of more documents expected to be declassified as time went on.

Source materials include a wide array of Cold War topics, such as the fall of the Berlin Wall, Chinese global diplomacy and approaches, and the impact of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident – while also providing various sources on lesser-known aspects of the Cold War, such as the history of the Brazilian Nuclear Program, diplomatic implications of the 1988 Seoul Olympic games, and even documents on the existence of ice hockey during the height of the Cold War. Documents come from over one hundred archives worldwide and are translated by CWIHP scholars from twenty-four different languages.

With such an impressive scope of topics covered, the site also features several different search mechanisms that make the site extremely navigable and user-friendly. In simply browsing the collection, users can choose to explore documents by location, where a world map featuring hyperlinked regions takes the user to a page with only sources related to the selected region.

Documents by location.

Users can also explore global documents by year, in which they are presented with a clickable timeline, and then also by most common subjects. The archive has also created several different collections where various document types related to a specific subject, such as “Local Nationalism in Xinjiang, 1957-1958” are grouped and organized chronologically – users can then click on the specific document they want to read or sift through detailed summaries of each different source within the collection. The archive also provides thematic databases; users can choose a theme, navigate through a timeline of events, and parse through research material related to the theme they have chosen (such as Nuclear History or Chinese Foreign Policy.)

Documents by year or most common subject.

This user-friendly navigation is the archive’s most useful feature: the site provides an excellent tool not only for historians researching niche aspects of the Cold War but also for teachers and professors as an educational tool. The simplicity of the search mechanisms, while also extremely thorough in possibility, allows the site to access a large public audience. Nonspecialists, unsure of what keywords to search for, can make efficient use of the project’s curated collections and hyperlinked maps and timelines. Furthermore, on the site’s homepage, columns for the most recently added documents and newly created collections allow visitors to see the firsthand acquisition of newly declassified documents and the implications these documents have for larger historical themes and narratives.

While the archive is a highly beneficial tool for historians and the public alike, the curated collections and themes sometimes feel unfinished – with such important topics, like Yuri Gagarin and the First Human Space Flight having only 20 applicable documents, and South Korean Nuclear History having only 26 – mostly consisting of texts that have always been widely accessible. As time goes on, however, and more declassified materials become available for translation and acquisition, these collections and themes may become more full-figured; this one issue is possibly out of the archive’s hands, simply because they are working with what is currently available to them.

The archive’s about section claims that “the Digital Archive is a resource where students, researchers, and specialists can access once-secret documents from governments and organizations all over the world,” and the project does just that – and more. In providing public access to sources, translating foreign documents, and housing such navigable, palatable search mechanisms, The Digital Archive: International History Declassified provides anyone with an interest in Cold War implications and relationships the ability to research these narratives to the fullest extent possible. Expectantly, this archive will only continue to grow as more classified documents become available to the public, and this efficient online format perfectly facilitates this anticipated growth.

Blog Post #7: Spatial History / The Spatial Turn

Spatial history applies methods of spatial analysis to study the human past – spatial history “makes space an explicit part of analysis” and encourages quantification and systematic empirical analysis to historical questions. At the root, spatial history is a form of doing research; it can generate research questions that would often go unasked in lieu of traditional history.[1]

The “Spatial Turn” in history refers to the use of spatial history tools to establish new research questions about human experience, while also referring to the need to study space as an integral part of history altogether.[2] As it stands, traditional history methodologies have cultivated a lackluster understanding of space and its inherent relatedness to the human experience – understanding historically accurate boundaries and physical geography will reveal dimensions of historical reality not yet revealed through our current modes of analysis.

Examples of these unasked questions are provided in the three case studies we read about: “Teaching the Salem Witch Trials,” “Scaling the Dust Bowl,” and “Geographies of the Holocaust.” “Teaching the Salem Witch Trials,” considers the geographic explosion of witchcraft accusations, allowing room for questions of economic discourse and interpersonal workings that often get overlooked for the traditional, broad analysis of the trials at large.[3] Using computational tools and GIS technology, interpretation from various different data forms permits large-scale cross analyses that establishes a larger narrative picture – in this case, familial records, gender statistics, and economic backgrounds posed better nuanced questions about the Salem Witch Trials.

In “Scaling the Dust Bowl,” this same amalgamation of different data sets and geographical information challenge the traditional explanations of the Dust Bowl (overplowing by farmers) by visualizing the space where massive dust storms took place, leading to conclusions that illustrate many counties faced extensive dust storm damage, even if the area was not prone to overplowing.[4]

Finally, in “Geographies of the Holocaust,” widescale analysis of various different data sets – most notably to me, Nazi blueprints of concentration camps – again provided nuanced details of the Holocaust and the space in which it took place.[5] Questions of reality versus ideality pop up in response to the visualization of camps versus what they should have looked like, and patterns of planning and implementation can be analyzed by historians to establish a better narrative picture.

In studying place and space, and in utilizing GIS and other computational tools to visualize the subject at hand, these projects show how the turn towards spatial history has facilitated a more detailed look into well-studied historical questions – and created more in the process.[6] Traditional methodologies lacking a focus or inclusion of space may not understand questions of geographic effect, and therefore would not provide the most detailed narrative possible. GIS allows for the analysis of different, larger data sets (which traditional methodology makes difficult to do) and permits these new questions and perspectives to arise.

Furthermore, the visualizations created by GIS technology are a massive win for teaching history. Monographs and books may not always house the best representation of data and narrative argument – maps, graphs, charts, and other visualization tools can place people directly within the environment they are being told about – some GIS creations are animated and can display patterns of human history in real time, some are manipulative and movable by the user, and some included hyperlinks to related information so that the user can learn more about what is in front of them.[7] For education, especially at the K-12 level, visualizations and digital tools like this are integral towards encouraging historical understanding, as well as promoting the need for more digital interaction in analog subjects like history.

As with any new methodology or technology, there are always downfalls to consider – in GIS, one being the cost to house computational software capable of analyzing large data sets, the innate error of results being reflected as more accurate than they are, and data will only be as accurate as the set it comes from.[8] Where traditional methodology relies on interpretation and analysis for conclusions, GIS relies on sheer data and then its subsequent analysis, the conclusion of which is not reliant on each other. However, this error of reliability is not endemic to spatial history of GIS technology and affects traditional history as it stands today.  Overall, spatial history requires a focus on space in order to analyze historical narratives, calls for empirical standardization and quantitative analysis: marking a great, thorough addition to the profession that will only move history and historians further into the digital age.

---

[1] Anne Kelly Knowles, “Introduction,” Social Science History 24, no. 3 (2000) pg. 452.

[2] Anne Kelly Knowles, “Introduction,” Social Science History 24, no. 3 (2000) pg. 452, 453.

[3] Benjamin Ray “Teaching the Salem Witch Trials,” In Past Time, Past Place: GIS for History, edited by Anne Kelly Knowles, 19–32, (ESRI Press, 2002).

[4] Geoff Cunfer, “Scaling the Dust Bowl,” In Placing History: How Maps, Spatial Data, and GIS Are Changing Historical Scholarship, edited by Anne Kelly Knowles and Amy Hillier, 96–121, (ESRI, Inc., 2008).

[5] Anne Kelly Knowles, Tim Cole, and Alberto Giordano, “Introduction,” In Geographies of the Holocaust, 1–13, (Indiana University Press, 2014).

[6] Richard White, "What is Spatial History?" Spatial History Lab 1 (2010).

[7] David Rumsey and Meredith Williams, “Historical Maps in GIS,” In Past Time, Past Place: GIS for History, edited by Anne Kelly Knowles, 1–16 (ESRI Press, 2002).

[8] William Thomas III, “Is the Future of Digital History Spatial History,” (2004).

Blog Post #6: Reviewing Digital History - The American Historical Review

The reviews in the AHR Exchange were a great step towards implementing digital history into the rigorous peer review process of the historical journal – by asking reviewers to follow the same guidelines they follow for book reviews and providing a method of publication on discourse and discussion on digital humanities, the AHR has presented a routine for digital history review that seemingly had not existed before.

Before discussing the reviews of the digital history projects, I will provide my own. Digital Harlem: Everyday Life, 1915–1930 provides an apt, interactive overview of the spatial and temporal relationships that permeated Harlem during the timeframe – specifically about everyday life as reported in newspapers, police reports, and case files. The site allows the user to delve into specific areas and topics, generate results based off entered parameters, and read pre-constructed informational themes about life in Harlem to a specific degree or encounter; overall, I found the site incredibly interesting as a visual source bank. One is free to interact with visualized source materials in order to come up with their own conclusions.

Slave Revolt in Jamaica, 1760–1761: A Cartographic Narrative, in the same way as the Harlem project, visualizes a historical event through an animated thematic map, allowing the user to consider the strategies and impacts of the slave insurrection. Users can click certain dates on an interactive timeline that provides an animated visual of slave movement, as well as an accompanying source material that provides written insight as to what was happening at that moment. You can follow along with the movements of the slaves – an excellent way to showcase historical themes that get lost in words but are better spoken in visualizations.

Just as the structure of a book review promotes, the reviewers of the digital history projects focus on the arguments of the projects, quality of and analysis of source materials, presentability, and use of evidence by the projects’ designers.

In his review of the Harlem project, Joshua Sternfeld takes issue with the lack of concrete conclusions provided, as well as the inherent focus on crime and police reports. He claims that this focus relegates daily life in Harlem solely “on street corners and avenues,” rather than as a complex place of many historical agents and changes.[1] He feels historians should view the project in good light for its use of digital history tools, but that the translation of a monographic focus when combining multitudes of data should pose a cautionary concern for historians looking to use this newfound medium.

This lack of concrete conclusions is conversely applauded in Natalie Zacek’s review of Slave Revolt in Jamaica, 1760–1761: A Cartographic Narrative, where she notes that the interactive nature of the map, along with the access to archival grade sources, allows for users to exercise an agency over the narratives presented that is rarely seen in traditional history projects. This, along with the website’s accessible language and navigable landscape, make the project perfect for a versatile audience – both academic and public.[2] Both project creators responded with the same desire to allow for users to establish their own conclusions based off the materials provided, believing that the accessibility of the internet should only mean better accessibility and shared authority to historical information.

This accessibility is further touched on by Jessica Marie Johnson in her AHR interview – concerns over source accessibility and the periphery of history on the matters of social justice only make sharing authority with the public over historical narratives even more important.[3] This specific issue of accessibility, shared authority, and the perceived lack of conclusions discussed by Sternfeld were my main concerns during the readings. As a student on the public history track, we are ingrained pretty early in our studies of the power that shared authority and source accessibility can have in promoting civic literacy and historical engagement. Traditional history methods have unfortunately failed to reach the public audience – historians have long grasped at the authority of determining the narrative conclusions of the evidence they interpret. I believe that digital history projects provide the most compelling, far-reaching way we can allow an audience, a user, to view source materials, understand spatial and temporal themes in a visualized presentation, and then cultivate their own conclusions based off of the information they have parsed; what Sternfeld views as detrimental is actually an incredibly important asset of getting history outside of the ivory tower.

Overall, the inclusion of digital history projects within the AHR and its rigorous review program is a great step in allowing the digital method to find a place within the profession altogether. The closer we get to a consensus of acceptable digital practice, the closer we get to a solid profession.

---

[1] Joshua Sternfeld, "Harlem crime, soapbox speeches, and beauty parlors: digital historical context and the challenge of preserving source integrity," The American Historical Review 121, no. 1 (2016): 143-155.

[2] Natalie Zacek, “Reading the Rebels and Mining the Maps: Digital Humanities and Cartographic Narratives,” The American Historical Review 121, no. 1 (2016): 167–75.

[3] American Historical Review, “Jessica Marie Johnson on the History of Atlantic Slavery and the Digital Humanities,” AHR Interview, published through Libsyn, February 17, 2021. https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/american-historical-review/ahr-interview.