This article was much more realistic than the others we have read and asks similar questions to those that have cropped up in class.  Obviously the field of history, humanities, and academia are changing as a result of the digital era.  This may not always be for the better, but historians, and humanities professionals in general, have an opportunity and a responsibility to preserve what is traditionally important while taking on digital tools.

The term “hegefox” was discussed and I think it perfectly describes the conundrum and perhaps the solution.  Levis in the 60s and the author speculated on how we, the professional, could deliberate over new technologies and evaluate them properly.  How the humanities could thrive in a new environment without both losing the precious pillars of our profession and/or becoming obsolete.  The idea of the hegefox was his suggestion, we must preserve traditional methodology and also incorporate new digital tools.

The author presents the same question I have been asking myself,   “…to what extent will those of us who care about the humanities be allowed to fret about the present state and future of our disciplines in the same way that Leavis wondered about what can and should be done, without being considered “highbrow,” elitist snobs?”  It is just as important, I would argue, for the hedgehog to respect the fox as it is for the fox to respect the hedgehog during this debate.  Those who want to dive head first into quantitative research and digital analysis without considering the importance of traditional methodology do not allow for the evaluation necessary for viable and long lasting solutions.

I wonder if the digital age, because of the fast pace in which it evolves, produces a moment in which we must chose.  Instead of being able to evaluate and progress, will the humanities have to let go of the past and embrace a future that steps further and further away from the “human” element?  Social media, as mentioned at the beginning of the article, has driven people both closer and further from one another–we may be losing part of our human connection.  Is this what will happen to the humanities?

This article made me look closely at the database work that we have been doing.  How did people feel about the primary sources after working with them in a database?  I saw that it would be possible to come to new conclusions, draw correlations I may not have seen before, and work with large loads of data; but I also felt distant from the subject matter, the period of time, and my own connection with the material.  Maybe because this method is new to me? Maybe not.