Just some passing thoughts today. I say passing because I’m more preoccupied with completing three final projects for the semester. One more week to go and the spring semester of ’08 is history!
Nevertheless, in the past few days, I’ve been thinking about digital history as a practice. Is it really ok to say that by virtue of being a recognized historian, and having created a webpage, does this make one a digital historian? The more I think about it and the more I delve into the entire process behind webpage design, I have to say… I don’t really think so.
Let’s take the example of the book. Academia has pronounced the manner in which a (or “an” – yes, I’ve seen it as being acceptable both ways) historian should go about compiling research and writing. If you don’t meet a certain level of expectations, you don’t get published. However, there are publishers outside the academy who aren’t as discriminate (a good thing and a bad thing, in my opinion, but that’s content for another post on another day). We realize that a certain level of historiography is expected, proper footnotes and the ability to express oneself clearly… it’s all a part of the expectations. The objective of writing an article or a book is to convey one’s perspective.
So, why is it any different when it comes time for a historian to create a webpage? Let’s think about this a little. As I said above, in writing an article or a book, the point is to convey one’s perspective through the work. However, putting something on the Web is not simply a matter of historiography, wordsmithing, and footnotes. There is a lot more to it than that, and, in that sense, I think that some may be missing the point of the ability of the Web when it comes to using it as a vessel for relating history. If the Web is a more effective medium than a book (and I argue that it can be and, in fact is, in some well-designed works), then to be a digital historian entails a lot more than just understanding historiography and the ability to write academically. I argue that to be an effective digital historian, one must be well-grounded in history (an understanding of historiography being a critical element), but have a very good understanding of a great deal more when it comes down to creating a webpage. In consulting or collaborating with a Web professional, I think that some perspective (if not a lot), is or can be lost in the final product. It might be an upgrade from print media, but does it take full advantage of the power of the Web? I don’t think it does. I think that being an effective (key word being “effective”) digital historian, one must understand some very basic principles of webdesign and some complex principles as well. Some of these principles include an understanding of design theory (including color and typography) and an understanding of cognitive psychology (the Human-Computer Interactive/HCI process, User experience/Ux, and so on). Yet, I’m only naming a little of what it takes to make a truly dynamic website that does justice to both the medium and the content.
Again, the point here is to convey one’s perspective.
Articles and books captured one small area of this aspect, while the potential for the Web in conveying perspective entails much more.
This is just a quick reflection, but I will expand on it further… perhaps in an academic article for a print publication.
caswain01
April 24, 2008
Books are intended as serial discussions of a topic. One *should* read from beginning to end. Skip through to the relevant parts using the index and you’ll often end up mis-quoting someone….Books are presented as the author’s point of view. The stars in the sky are somewhat static in this regard.
The digital resources are intended as a set of threads. One *should* be able to browse through and hit the information that is most relevant to the “quest at hand.” A well designed web resource has a taxonomy reinforced with sound meta-data. Users can enter the resource from any perspective and view the body of information from their unique perspective. The stars in the sky depend on where one stands.
The traditional book is challenging in that a producer (writer) must form a coherent discussion of a topic for a hundred plus pages. On the other hand, the web resource may allow for smaller bites of the content, the producer must consider the reader may well come from any point of entry and may wish to see the information arranged in arrays unknown to the first person perspective.
cenantua
April 24, 2008
Thanks for the thoughtful comment Craig! However, my return comment is so long that it probably merits a post in itself.
You give a good description of a webpage as a rhizomatic system – entry into it by a reader being made from potentially any page and yet the reader being able to grasp the data no matter the entry point. However, I don’t see the Web as merely a digital resource and a set of threads. It is “all that and more.” The potential is there for historians, but I think they need to think differently in their approach to it as an educational tool and a way to convey their perspective in, as you say, smaller bits and pieces (as opposed to the greater download via a book). Not to say that the book has gone the way of the dinosaur, but working in harmony, the Web and the book are an incredible powerful team.
Like I said, I think by commenting, I’m not doing my explanation justice, so this will probably roll over into a larger posting.
Mark Stoneman
July 26, 2008
Just discovered your blog through the black confederate tag on WordPress. Somehow on my history blog, Clio and Me, I have never managed to use digital history as a category or tag, but maybe I should. It might fit better than or be a nice addition to tags such as Google and internet.
I’ve never gone out and read about digital history either, though I see you have some titles listed here that I need to check out. I think Kevin of Civil War Memory makes a good case for why we need to be involved on the internet. Furthermore, this can prove a useful outlet for those of us who don’t find a permanent home in academia, or who find H-Net’s old lists too cumbersome.
And perhaps there is a connection to public history? That’s another deficit I have. Getting a PhD at a large research university meant that most of the emphasis was on research, and a little was on teaching, but public history and digital history was somehow not on my advisor’s radar screen, nor—as one of their students—on mine.
cenantua
July 27, 2008
Thanks for the comment Mark. I see a lot of potential for digital history, but also huge obstacles (acceptance in academia). It also offers an opportunity for some blurring of the lines between academia and popular history, which is good when considering the opportunity to interact with such a wide variety of readers.