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.