Blog Post #4: Digital Humanities Outside the Center

 The promises and perils of digital history outside of the institution are very similar to those within – open access resources, collaboration, and public discourse are all promises that digital history can provide. Both digital history within the institution and outside the institution can also discuss previously ignored narratives buried by traditional history, while both settings promote community inclusion; shared authority and increased immersion is still possible, even without institutional support.

In terms of perils, one is the traditional academic form of graduation and promotion within history departments. Orthodox tenure and its requirements do not necessarily include digital history projects, even if they are as time consuming and rigorous as book writing, and the same goes for thesis projects.[1] As digital history itself is struggling to become a widely practiced form of history, digital history projects, both within and outside of the academy, sometimes fail to hold as much weight as a traditional historical project does.

Both settings struggle with funding – some institutions are unable to ascertain enough funds to maintain operation, and outside projects fail to find funding, if not self-supported. Labor is an issue, where teams of students and volunteers are not always readily available to work on projects, but also maintain them for future use. While not all universities have centers created explicitly for digital history tools and projects, this struggle would be even more difficult for teams outside of the institution. Without centralized support, digital history projects could run into a lot of loose ends, ultimately unable to come together.

One aspect mentioned in People, Practice, Power: Digital Humanities Outside the Center, is the discourse between state-level universities and small, local community colleges and schools.[2] The introduction notes that the editors failed to gain any submissions from these small institutions – telling of the field’s projective costliness. Digital history, in its technological requirements and curricula necessities, places itself among discontinuities of privilege and disadvantage. While traditional history and archival research are mostly available (I say mostly because I know that not everyone has access to the archive – but common online resources better facilitate a traditional history project than a digital one) to small institutions, digital tools and instruction are just not. These “institutional chasms” present perils to digital history practice altogether.[3]

Furthermore, as digital history is still an emerging field, there is really a lack of accepted practices. If a small, community institution or outside organization wants to adopt digital history methods, investing in the technology and instruction required is a hard bullet to bite when things are constantly changing. As discussed in People, Practice, Power: Digital Humanities Outside the Center, perhaps establishing a consistent practice and set of standards among the digital history profession would lead to better adoption of it across small and large organizations.[4]

Focus on this practice and how it can be applied inside and outside of the classroom are touched on in “A Generative Praxis: Curation, Creation, and Black Counterpublics,” where the praxis is defined as documentation, preservation, and presentation – where documenting communities within open-access spaces, preserving images and videos of communities holistically, and presenting these materials within context to the public are the keys for creating transformative digital work.[5] These practices all reinforce points we have discussed in earlier readings; community involvement, narrative inclusion, and public discourse are foundational to digital history as a substantial form of doing history. Collaboration with the public also allows for support outside of the institution, while the establishment of a solid practice and methodology, with engaging examples of projects being successfully undertaken with this methodology, will further prompt historians to adopt digital history tools.

While institutional support seems more likely to substantially support digital history projects, the same issues of funding, labor, credibility, and practice permeate digital projects outside of the institution. The same solutions are prescient – collaborating with the public, establishing a set idea of practice, and understanding the gaps of privilege and disadvantage that inherently lay at the feet of digital history and technological tools and advancements. Working together and reaching outside of the academy, as we have mentioned before, will better facilitate digital history – whether within the academy or outside of it.

---

[1] Scot A. French, "VisualEyes This: Using Visualization Tools to Engage Students in Historical Research and Digital Humanities R&D," in Quick Hits for Teaching with Digital Humanities: Successful Strategies from Award-Winning Teachers (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2020

[2] McGrail, Anne B, Angel David Nieves, and Siobhan Senier. People, Practice, Power: Digital Humanities Outside the Center. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2022, pg. xviii.

[3] McGrail, Anne B, Angel David Nieves, and Siobhan Senier. People, Practice, Power: Digital Humanities Outside the Center. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2022, pg. 160.

[4] McGrail, Anne B, Angel David Nieves, and Siobhan Senier. People, Practice, Power: Digital Humanities Outside the Center. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2022, pg. 142.

[5] Chambliss, Julian C., and Scot French. "A Generative Praxis." Volume 39, Scholarly Editing 39 (2022).