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.