Blog Post #2: The Pasts and Futures of Digital History

 As defined in the JAH Interchange discussion, digital history is a method of historical analysis that uses computational and communications technology to present and interpret historical narratives and sources. Only recently emerging as a subfield in the 1990s following a global technological explosion, the field has found itself in an odd state of development and acceptance within the stages of traditional history – a state further fueled by the lack of instruction and well-versed standards that exist for the subfield. Traditional, well-established, and mid-career historians find themselves at odds with the technological methods of digital history, just as a person who grew up without technology feels when using phone applications and self-help kiosks. Since this subfield is so new, it is hard to incorporate its methodologies into traditional curriculum and professional training.

Regardless of the lack of associative standards and practices that exist for digital history, the medium provides an excellent and new approach to interaction. Open-source tools, such as websites, archival programs, coding applications, and more, not only allow historians to pursue their topics and narratives with limited funding but also provide the opportunity for community involvement and shared authority – by publishing work on a communicative platform that fellow academics can comment and interpret from, historians now have the opportunity to promote inclusive history. This specifically has wonderful implications for the subfield of public history, allowing people to form their own interpretations based on the sources provided, allowing historians to present multi-faceted narratives that were previously ignored, and generally opening discussion on historical themes in a more palatable manner than dense monographs have previously provided.

Traditional history, not to be dismantled by any means, was founded on the analysis and research of great problems, great ruptures, and great men. Traditional historical academia, usually written in heavy, impenetrable prose, can often push a single-minded narrative that much of the public would be unwilling to challenge, or even worse, unwilling to read because it is solely geared toward an academic audience. Digital history and communicative technologies allow historians to leave this “ivory tower” of information dissemination. Narratives, unwritten about or unread about, can now be communicated to a larger audience, allowing for previously ignored narratives and stories to break through.

While digital history is able to provide inclusive narratives and analysis, this accessibility is also part of its perils: much of the public does not have access to digital tools, such as computers or the internet, and this version of history may not be as accessible to them as a published book may be. Some sources cannot be digitized, and access to them may still be challenging to get – while digital methods have helped bring inclusivity to narratives and practice, there are still many problems to address.

Born digital sources, digitized sources, and digital archives are another reason digital history is a prominent development in the field. Now, documents that would have required a trip to an archive, sometimes in a different country, can be accessed through a simple Google search. At the same time, born-digital records force the historical profession to embrace digital technology altogether. Recent historical events will have primarily digital records to accompany them, whereas our primary sources have mainly consisted of written materials and paper documents. How would we be equipped to handle the millions of emails by the Clinton administration, alone, without digital history tools?

Another issue to consider is this ability to Google everything, even in historical research. Context is integral to source analysis, but with text and keyword searches, historians are now able to find exactly what term or event they are looking for without having to read the whole source. This can create a monster of analysis, where sources can be used to push a certain argument out if its actual historical context – which is extremely concerning. This same concern applies to the advancement of pseudo-historians, who can now use monster of source analysis and research out of context to push and publicize historical narratives that may just be entirely incorrect; more concerningly, these individuals using sources out of context allows for the dissemination of harmful misinformation on the very digital platforms we are asking historians to use.

Realistically, all of these issues boil down to one solution: training and education. Historians encouraged to use platforms and methods they do not know how to use are likely going to avoid using them. We have already discussed in class how interdisciplinary measures and better curriculum involvement would help close this knowledge gap, but in other ways, if historians were more open to using public-facing platforms to publish their work (not even necessarily fancy, computational applications, but things like Facebook and Twitter), academically trained professionals could spread accurate information and engage the public in helpful civil discourse. Wouldn’t it be a lovely world if source-based information made waves around Facebook, rather than screenshots of screenshots of Wikipedia pages being reposted every minute of every day?

Sources:

Brennan, Sheila. “Digital History.” The Inclusive Historian's Handbook, August 23, 2019. https://inclusivehistorian.com/digital-history/.

Cohen, Daniel J.; Frisch, Michael; Gallagher, Patrick; Mintz, Stephen; Sword, Kirsten; Taylor, Amy Murrell; Thomas III, William G. and William J. Turkel. “Interchange: The Promise of Digital History” in Journal of American History (95)(2): 2008. pp 452-491.

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

Leon, Sharon. "Returning Women to the History of Digital History." 6floors [bracket] (2016).

Seefeldt, Douglas, and William G. Thomas III. "What is digital history? A look at some exemplar

projects." (2009).