The virtual AHA panel, “Future Directions in Research and Training for Digital History,” focused on the emergence of digital history methods parallel to analog history methods, discussing not only the need to practice digital history in the midst of the digital age but also to recognize the “growing pains” of the field so that the profession can maintain credibility in an age where credibility is hard to enforce. Issues of narrative-adverse computational methods, algorithm bias, and contextual ignorance touched on during the panel are reflected in current and recent digital history research.
In “For the Love of People: Berkeley's Rainbow Sign and the
Secret History of the Black Arts Movement,” Tessa Rissacher and Scott Saul
showcase the use of self-publishing web platform services, like WordPress, to
present primary and secondary source materials to the public for intimate
interaction – “dramatizing the complexities of primary sources through the
affordances of digital media” so that lesser-seen or hidden narratives can come
to light; a phenomenon that could be lost through the use of computational, data-driven analysis.[1]
Rather than use computational methods to speed up the process of historical
analysis, “For the Love of People,” instead slows down the process of
historical analysis to encourage consumers to focus on the granular of the narrative
they are being shown, to emphasize the value and hidden meaning of minute
details.
In touching on the state of computational methods in digital
history, Zoe Genevieve Leblanc argues that equipping historians with the skills
necessary to perform digital history will better help historians navigate the lackluster
professional historical job market. Rissacher and Saul support this sentiment by showing how free web-hosting services provide more accessible outlets for historical analysis, allowing professionals to perform research outside of the academic stage, possibly supported by private or public funding.
Teaching methods of digital history not only means understanding
methods of computational history and data analysis but also source analysis in
the age of source abundance. In “Improving Lynching Inventories with Local
Newspapers: Racial Terror in Virginia, 1877-1927,” Gianluca De Fazio discusses
the importance of utilizing local historical source information when establishing
data-driven databases – specifically in the case of lynching catalogs. De Fazio
specifically points out “overcounting” in terms of white lynching data points, mostly
driven from the inventories of national and state publications, which fuzz up
data and allow lynch-apologists to defend their arguments of non-racially
motivated lethal mob violence; this inappropriate use of source material being
a huge deal in the historical narrative presented altogether.[2]
Ian Milligan defends this in his AHA presentation, expressing concern for general
society’s inability to parse through source materials and understand algorithmic
bias and mediation: who is presenting this information, and why might they be presenting
it in this way? Why would national newspapers present a different narrative
than local newspapers about the same issue?
Another direction that digital history seems to be taking is
in presenting historical information through the use of digital outlets. Historians, research teams, universities,
and even museums are becoming more receptive to the digital age, and presenting source
analysis to the public has begun to take on digital forms. Both Ian Milligan
and Lara E. Putnam discuss this important development – pushing for an increase
in digital literacy enrichment and the inclusion of the public, not only
historians, in synthesizing digital source materials. Part of this digital
literacy is learning how to use digital formats; another is understanding how to
interact with historical source materials in general. In “Talk-Back Boards and
Text Mining: New Digital Approaches in Museum Visitor Studies,” Josh Howard
argues that this inclusion of museum-goers and consumers in historical conversation
is not only integral to source synthesis but also provides an invaluable data
point to museums about the level of interaction their current exhibits prompt.
Even more importantly, these talk-back boards can be presented digitally,
allowing users to become more familiar with the technology they may not encounter
in their everyday lives, but also provides the option of immediate data
collection, rather than the older method of paper and pen writing.[3]
As each article shows, the “scholarly primitives” of
historical research are not lost on digital methods. In fact, the marriage of traditional
history and digital history methods would establish a unique and efficient process
of historical research, while also allowing for better public inclusion and digital literacy
– a trend that digital history seems to be pushing in the ever-booming digital
age.
[1] Tessa
Rissacher and Scott Saul, “‘For The Love of People’: Berkeley's Rainbow Sign
and The Secret History of the Black Arts Movement,” Current Research in Digital
History, August 23, 2019,
https://crdh.rrchnm.org/essays/v02-13-for-the-love-of-people/.
[2] Gianluca
De Fazio, “Improving Lynching Inventories with Local Newspapers: Racial Terror
in Virginia, 1877-1927,” Current Research in Digital History, August 23, 2019,
https://crdh.rrchnm.org/essays/v02-04-improving-lynching-inventories/.
[3] Gianluca
De Fazio, “Improving Lynching Inventories with Local Newspapers: Racial Terror
in Virginia, 1877-1927,” Current Research in Digital History, August 23, 2019,
https://crdh.rrchnm.org/essays/v02-04-improving-lynching-inventories/.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment