I enjoyed reading these brief articles, they raise interesting points and call to attention important issues in this field.

First, the natural debate between the “I code, you code, we code…Why Code?” and the “Learn to Code; Learn Code Culture” articles. The idea that coding is a skill that must be learned for the legitimacy of the work has apparently inspired some debate. Personally, I believe that the Luddite view, to use the author’s words, that not knowing everything about coding is ok, is the minimum involvement necessary. For a digital humanist, at the very least, one needs to understand the concept, and at least enough of the technical aspect to facilitate being properly informed about new practices and developments in the field. And, not that everyone always has to learn everything there will ever be to know, but I also believe that learning as much of the technical skill and culture as possible can only be beneficial. The technical part of digital projects could only be limited, their effectiveness stunted by limited understanding. Collaboration is and will remain to be an important aspect of the digital humanities, but expanding the knowledge and skill base of each individual can only help the field, not hurt it.

Now, concerning the “Some things to think about before you exhort everyone to code” article, this proves exactly why learning the culture of coding is important. Based on my very limited involvement with CIS people, I had no reason to believe that there was such a large gender gap in the world of coding. In conversations and discussions since reading this article, I’ve learned that my experience is atypical. As strange as it sounds, I wouldn’t have known that, it was necessary to avoid sticking solely to the technical readings so that I may understand the world those technical skills are used in. And, it presents a possible future study: women’s digital history, an examination of the gender gap in the world of coding in general or the digital humanities specifically.

Argamon & Olsen

This article does an excellent job highlighting the potential for computers as tools in the humanities. Similar to the Gibbs and Owens article, it shows the use of computers to help brainstorm and articulate research questions. One particular example of this from the article is the new connections discovered between Diderot and d’Alambert’s Encyclpédie and the Journal de Trévoux. With the discover of new connections and historical questions to be asked, who’s to say that we won’t discover new connections in centuries old texts, or even millennia-old texts?

It also seems to me that there may be potential in using machine learning to examine content or stylistic differences and similarities in unattributed historical writings. There are numerous texts written by that pesky anonymous person. Without machine learning, these writings may remain unattributed to any particular author and instead continue to be wondered about. Such tools may not be able to definitively tell us who wrote what, but they may be able to provide insight and provide us with new potential authors to theorize about. In large enough bodies of work from a similar time period, could such a tool help us discover if not one author, perhaps a style linked to an institution or an organization? Could such a discovery help to discuss and/or further develop certain hegemonic theories?

One other brief (instead or risking beating a dead horse…with an already-dead horse) point that Argamon & Olsen are careful to make: new technology can lead to new interpretations of the past, however, any new interpretations must still be researched and developed by professional historians, as context must be acknowledged, especially in new historical connections.

Kramer

I agree with Kramer’s argument that now, during the emergence of the digitization of the humanities, is the time to reconsider how we think about and approach the interpretation of history. Not that we have to completely change and revolutionize the practice of history, but an incorporation of a new way of thinking could definitely freshen up the field and the methods used to define the field. Regarding the increasing significance of the digital archive, thinking of digital and physical archives as a historiography in and of themselves is an important step to building a dynamic fluidity between not only primary and secondary sources, as Kramer asserts, but also between scholarly works of history and public history as well.

Porsdam’s article raised an interesting point, one that I have not considered much. How do we balance the need for more scientific methods and the values of the humanities? I had only briefly heard of Snow and Leavis before this article and I don’t think I really appreciated at the time the importance of their debate. Obviously, the bridging of the gap between the ‘two cultures’ is crucial to the development of digital history.

Again, a new example of one recurring theme of the class is present in the readings. In this gap-bridging, there is a focus on the “process rather than the finished product” in history. This methodological transparency was mentioned in the Gibbs and Owens reading as well, but the risk of wide engagement of the general untrained public in history needs to be tempered with the training of traditional historical academia. The problem with this is that, as Porsdam states, “the humanities have come to be seen today as out of touch with life outside the walls of the university. This has in turn led to an attempt to move more students into vocational training in order that higher education may be reserved for more elitist-minded students.”

A bridging of this gap may involve redefining the humanities through a vocational filter. As humanistic research becomes more digitized, there may be a more blue-collar (or maybe ‘less-elitist’ is a good enough way to say it) association with the humanites. The trick then, I think, is the balancing of elitist-associated academic methods and training with the less-elitist and more general-interest public’s engagement. Stated differently, the problem, perhaps, is less about balancing the current methods of the humanities and the sciences and more about altering how we view these two cultures.

The Gibbs and Owens article raised a couple of interesting points to consider. First is the use of data to help determine historical inquiries. This is an obvious benefit of data, even quick glimpses at tables or Ngrams, as Gibbs and Owens state, can help a historian to ask questions that will eventually lead to the doing of history.

However, as the preponderance of data becomes more and more significant and as that data continues to change, it is important to note the importance of “methodological transparency”. Historical work must include the process by which conclusions were reached based on the evidence, the data. This is important going forward; technology will be ever-evolving and so “we must continue to teach each other how we are using and making sense of data.” I think this will also become relevant more and more for past work. As history is published outside the traditional monographic form, that work will remain as is. A website will function as it was meant to at the time it was created, but over time, websites will come to function differently. The methods and forms must remain transparent, so that our future historians will fully appreciate today’s work about the past. Otherwise, today’s work may come to be judged different hegemonic lenses which could confuse a work’s conclusions.

This is closely related to the second point, which is indicative of a recurring theme discussed in the semester’s readings: that of the need for understanding historical context. Gibbs and Owens discuss the term ‘user’ and it’s usage over time. When eliminating certain associated words, it was clear that the word ‘user’ came up much more than in the context of technological advances. Someone without the professional historical training might have fallen into a trap. Thus, once again, it is important to maintain the standards and training that guide a professional historian through research.

The readings for week 3 I think contribute to our previous discussion about who has the authority to do history.

While reading I paid particular attention to a quote from the Erickson reading, saying that among the challenges of research and writing over a period of years is keeping information in context of originating sources and distinguishing between the information of different sources. In keeping with our previous discussion over the role of professional historians, I think this is one aspect of the training that helps keep the practice of history safe from the dangers we previously discussed.

Hitchcock’s article discusses the potential devaluing of a professional historian’s authority as archives become more accessible digitally. He raises some valid points, such as questioning the opinions and views of those who established archives in the past, but ultimately discusses the changes in the practice of researching and writing history.

Hitchcock sees new digital modes of access to information as potential challenges to authority presently enjoyed by professional historians; Erickson presents new digital methods of organizing research as an incredible potential benefit to the historian in researching and presenting authoritative work. Of course, these are both true; there is always a chance that paradigms will change and new methods can increase accuracy and efficiency. However, new doesn’t mean flawless. Amateur historians need to be careful to remember the importance of context and professional historians could do well to remember that amateur historians could provide many useful contexts to consider as well.

The readings for week 2 focused on the role of lay public-created historical narratives in doing history. One of the more important points I think was discussed was Wolff’s point that the lay public often relates historical narratives in an attempt to promote specific worldviews (this of course implies that trained historians are less susceptible to this, though certainly not invincible). Wolff’s discussion of Wikipedia and the entry on the Origins of the American Civil War included how certain editors engaged in fierce web debates over the validity of their contributions to this period of history and how their arguments revealed possible views on the world today. This is an important point to make, as shaping history to promote beliefs about current events is something that is dangerous to the study of history.

I was reminded of a time my cousin argued that public support for the United States entering World War II was overwhelming on the belief that the U.S. was need to defeat the Axis nations. He argued this as a parallel which justified the modern day wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In my years exposed to the academy and professional historians, being required to read for classes, etc., I know that public at the time had mixed to negative feelings regarding the U.S. entering the war, but here was a completely different interpretation of history, no sources presented, being presented to argue in favor of completely different wars in completely different contexts.

A valid question arises from this story and the articles of Wolff and Madsen-Brooks: because it shapes a worldview, is it less valid? Now of course, in my story, I know from historical texts that my cousin’s assertion is not true, and though he didn’t present sources, maybe he’d read other historical texts that examined similar data and resulted in different arguments.

I found an additional article, titled Digital Archives: Democratizing the Doing of History by Cheryl Mason Block (found on Google Scholar searching ‘digital history’). The article details a study of graduate students who were middle school history teachers and having them use a digital archive and hypertext documents to write a research paper. The resulting find was that history becoming more learner-oriented. As these students searched through documents in random sequence (not page by page like with traditional books) the students sought information that they had been exposed to, but knew less about (the information had been often omitted from their school’s textbooks) and wished to know based on what they liked to teach.

This is important because of the potential for an individual’s beliefs about history to influence what they learn. If my cousin wanted to justify a modern war by examining the date through a hypertext document, he might miss information that otherwise would prove his argument wrong. While hypertext documents have an incredible potential for teaching history, people picking and choosing evidence (or not examining all the evidence in sequence) could lead to more information being presented as history, as in the Wikipedia article on the Origins of the American Civil War. People like User 172 and my cousin have searched historical documents and primary sources, but information presented in a hypertext format could lead to inaccurate information being debated as history.

To me, this highlights the importance of trained historians, those who know how to examine sources, place the sources in context of other sources, and draw conclusions by acknowledging the many contexts. As with any tool, digital history should be used appropriately and carefully, with the proper instruction preparing you to use it.

The week 1 readings explore the common theme of digital history altering what is today the typical methods of doing history. The book has been the typical, authoritative presentation of history, but the advent of digital history has become a challenge to this default authoritativeness. Digital history is challenging the authority positions enjoyed by the book and the historian, but also the notion of who will be recognized as legitimate historians: professional historians, anyone with an internet connection and an interest in history or a synthesis of the two?

Dorn sees digital history as a challenge to the conventional methods of arguing about history. He states that digital history can be used to redraw the boundaries of the discipline, taking the process of doing history (question, (primary source) research, writing, editing, peer-reviewing, rewriting, editing, publishing) public via a wide range of digital history projects, from online archives to interactive maps to complementary websites. These projects would make doing history more inclusive and more visible to those normally excluded from the process of writing books.

Tanaka sees digital history and this redrawing of the discipline’s boundaries as the study of history returning to and/or incorporating past methods of doing history. By incorporating different viewpoints, social organizations, and understandings of time, history can become more understanding of context and “ethical” as opposed to strictly chronological, as it has become under the relatively new professional historians.

Naturally, there are inherent benefits and risks of history becoming more open. Professional historians have studied extensively, not just facts and dates, but also the research process. They know how to react to primary sources and how to appropriately reach conclusions based on those sources while also maintaining an awareness of other secondary scholarship. Anyone with an internet connection can write history, but this process of knowing how to read primary sources is often overlooked, and as such, untrained historians could reach controversial, problematic, even false conclusions. That’s not to say trained historians are immune to such shortcomings, but it is less likely with more training in the historical process.

Ultimately, I think untrained historians can contribute, many of them significantly and extensively, to the process of doing history. However, as their path to learning how to write history has not been critiqued and reviewed by professional historians, their writings and contributions need to be more closely examined before being taken into full consideration.