An Extremely Brief Dive into “What is Digital History?” (1999-2020)
In the course I am taking this term, History in the Digital Age, this week we read a series of articles and interviews that all trace the question of “what is digital history?” and addressing both the positives and challenges digital history faces. The articles date from 1999 with Edward L. Ayers on “The Pasts and Futures of Digital History” to Scot French’s 2020 chapter, “VisualEyes This: Using Interactive Visualization Tools to Engage Students in Historical Research and Digital Humanities R&D.” Though each of the articles and interviews vary in tone (from techno-optimists, enthusiasts, and some pessimists), the articles and interviews, as a collective, find both the positives of digital history, as well as the challenges, which are all multi-faceted. For example, some of the scholars talk about teaching digital tools for use in digital history, but also discuss the need for a balance of teaching the theoretical components of using these tools. Or, other questions include: how are digital history projects weighed in the academy and what needs to change in how they are weighed in comparison to “traditional” methods and projects, such as monographs? How do we review and incorporate these projects in outlets such as academic journals (see Blevins, 2018 & “Interchange,” 2008)? I would argue that in spite of the time between the articles and interviews, many of the questions asked throughout all have a timeless element to them. Some of the answers to these questions, while varying in responses based on developments in digital history methods and the field, also hold a timelessness to them as well.
But before looking at both the positives and challenges of digital history, it is important to understand there is a long history of digital history, one that goes further back than many may think. William G. Thomas III’s 2004 piece, “Computing and the Historical Imagination” does an excellent job tracing the history of digital history, back to the 1940s, 1960s/70s and up through the publication of the piece. We start with the use of computers, the exploration and use of quantitative data in historical research (Time on the Cross by Robert Fogel & Stanley Engerman), the backlash of quantitative data in historical research, to the Internet and World Wide Web where anyone can be an amateur historian, to electronic publishing, digital archives, and GIS (Geographic Information System(s)). There is clearly a lot of history to digital history. But, I would say that the 2009 article we read by Douglas Seefeldt and William G. Thomas III states it well, that “to do digital history… is to digitize the past certainly, but it is much more than that” (Seefeldt & Thomas 2), which we see with the abundance of tools, approaches, methods, and more.
As stated, I think a lot of these pieces really highlight the same positives and concerns, despite their varying timeframes. It seems throughout these pieces, while one aspect of using digital tools may be criticized at one point, such as using tools to quantify data, and then the tools and methods become more widely accepted, a new tool or practice comes into play with the development of technology, and the same concerns arise as to “how we do history” and whether a new tool or method might change that for the better (or worse). For example, a number of the pieces talk about the use of websites or digital exhibits. Some argue that these are great resources that allow historical data and materials to be accessible to a wider audience (at least an audience with access), but at the same time, anyone can create a website, thus, does this bring the question of historical “objectivity” and “authenticity” into view? I do not want to get into the use of the term “objectivity”, as I find the term difficult, and “authenticity” as well, but I think the question of what is credible and what is not is a big question that is important to highlight, especially when thinking about the history of digital history.
One aspect of several of the articles I want to highlight, especially seen in Dr. Scot French’s “VisualEyes This,” is the benefits of incorporating digital history in the classroom. As a student, especially a student who has taken digital history courses, such as the one I am currently in, I have greatly benefited from learning about digital history, about digital tools (both the technical aspects and the theoretical aspects), and have created my own digital history projects. I might be more on the side of a techno-optimist, but I think having digital history in my education has taught me that, while with its challenges, can transform history in a variety of ways, especially when thinking about how individuals learn and/or retain information. It is about the audience and some audiences may prefer the “traditional” monograph while others might gain more from an interactive map. Either way, one is not more valuable than the other, they both provide different ways to teach, learn, understand, and more in history.
To end on one more note, in relation to the paragraph above, a number of the articles, especially the earlier ones, conclude on a similar note of addressing the future of digital history. I find that a commonality among these futures, even going back to 1999, is how historians will need to challenge what are deemed as “traditional methods” and be open to not only learning how to use digital tools, but to understand said digital tools from a theoretical standpoint. At the same time, they also stress the importance of not diminishing one method over another other. Regardless of whether digital history challenges traditional methods, enhances them, or, if you are a techno-pessimist, finds ways to take away their “authenticity”, I think Richard White states it best in his 2010 article on Spatial History, that regardless of what we are doing as historians- whether in the digital realm or not, “historians will continue to tell stories” in one medium or another (White 1). I would argue that is most important- that we do not stop telling these stories.
Works Cited / Articles & Interviews Read for Class
1999: Edward L. Ayers, "The Pasts and Futures of Digital History"
2004: William G. Thomas, III, "Computing and the Historical Imagination"
2006: Daniel J. Cohen and Roy Rosenzweig, Digital History, Ch. 1, "Promises and Perils of Digital History"
2008: Daniel J. Cohen, Michael Frisch, Patrick Gallagher, Stephen Mintz, Kirsten Sword, Amy Murrell Taylor, William G. Thomas III, William J. Turkel. "Interchange: The Promise of Digital History…”
2009: Douglass Seefeldt and Willam G. Thomas III, "What is Digital History? A Look at Some Exemplar Projects"
2010: Richard White, "What is Spatial History?" Spatial History Lab, Stanford University
2018: Sharon M. Leon, "Complicating a 'Great Man' Narrative of Digital HIstory in the United States"
2018: Cameron Blevins, "Digital History's Perpetual Future Tense"
2019: Sheila A. Brennan, "Digital History: The Inclusive Historian's Handbook"
2020: Scot A. French, "VisualEyes This: Using Visualization Tools to Engage Students in Historical Research and Digital Humanities R&D"
