We are in a time period when the paper and digital book struggle for the top spot, much the way scrolls and printed books competed for it during the print revolution. Our practice will truly change when the scale tips to reflect the desire of the majority of historians to engage and use digital technology. I see no reason to disbelieve that a hundred years from now, books will be collectors items. This will make digital research, books, writing, and interpretation completely normal in the history profession.
Obviously I have questions and concerns about the professional aspects of this change, because I hope to make a living in the history profession, quite soon. I absolutely want to be proficient, and do history in the traditional sense because it is the way to become an expert and to be respected in my field, right now. However, I have no intention of being left behind as the generations after me use digital tools in a native way to become historians. So here I am, learning how to be a digital historian, too. Wish me luck!
Reading Highlights
Tanaka: Our relationship with time has influenced our interpretation of history. Our version of historical practice started in the 18th century. Our sense of history is linear. Temporality is another way to interpret history. Human society is temporal, technology is linear. There is a tension here that makes some historians uncomfortable (?). This tension underlies problems of historical interpretation. Historical expertise is now so specialized that we become inflexible specialists, unable to interpret the bigger human experiences of history .
Dorn: Digital history is just another historiographical development. Digital history is growing and maturing. Primary sources and the “data objects” tied to them, publishing platforms, and the first-mover advantage should give historians confidence in their academic use of digital tools. We are starting to legitimize digital historical scholarship, annotation, professional recognition (tenureship). Dorn lists several “tools” used in digital history right now. They are tools for argumentation; teaching and learning; artifact and event presentation. Dorn makes an excellent point: these tools match up well “to the traits of existing scholarly infrastructure for historians.” It is up to us to evaluate the scholarly work in creating the tools and infrastructure. (italics mine). Major issue: collaboration vs lone scholar reviewed by small group of experts. Digitization allows for transparency and collaboration. How do we make that scholarly?
Hughes: I consider this compilation of articles a deep dive into the state of digital history in 2008. There were many digital history/archaeology issues in this compilation which I had never encountered before. The experts at this conference were in the thick of it, reporting on their projects and experiences. I will just note the three ways Information and Communications Technology (ICT) “methods […] were being used to create new knowledge in history and archaeology” (193). By 1) addressing research questions otherwise unable to be resolved. 2) Asking new research questions. 3) Facilitating and enhancing existing research. I would like to know how things have progressed in the last seven years, and I think this course will help me figure that out.