What is Digital History? A response.

Hello all! 

Welcome back! This week I am responding to a variety of questions surrounding digital history, digital humanities, and basically how to move digital history forward. 

What is digital history?

Digital history uses technology and the internet to disseminate historical information. Historical documents, images, etc., represented in a digital space. Seefeldt and Thomas (2009) discuss how the concept of digital history broadly encompasses the examination and representation of the past through the new technologies of the computer, internet, and software. It seems that digital history can be defined loosely as anything historical that has been in some way altered in a digital way. Altering can include a scan of a document to upload onto a computer.

How does 21^st century digital history theory/practice differ from earlier applications of computer technology to historical research, such as the data-driven quantitative history (cliometrics) of the 1970s?

Cliometrics is the quantitative analysis of history. Thomas (2004) explained that in the past (mostly the 1970s), some historians jumped on the quantitative band wagon; however, they mostly only looked at their datasets to explain events rather than including any external information or additional historical evidence. Today, quantitative methods are used as a supplement to historical data and as a support tool to defend arguments or explain hypotheses.  

How does digital history differ from digital humanities?

The digital humanities and digital history are similar but have differences. Robertson (2016) uses the analogies of a tent and a room in a house to discuss the differences. Digital humanities, he argues, has become a sort of catch all under what he calls, a big tent. Digital humanists work often in collaboration with one another. Robertson (2016) stated that jobs, conferences, and coursework all include some degree of proficiency in digital technology. The author believes that instead of the catch all digital technology tent, it should be more like a house, with rooms specializing in certain areas. Enter, digital history. Historians are increasingly utilizing various technological tools available to explore historical data and events. Tools like mapping (e.g. GIS), text analysis, image analysis, 3D modeling, and the evermore importance of social media and the internet, have been quite useful for historians and history projects. However, with an assortment of tools at their fingertips, historians still do not fully utilize what is available. Which is funny, considering how going digital would greatly benefit historians. Ayers (1999) believed that history was best suited for the digital world as it could connect to larger and more diverse audiences. From a research standpoint, having more eyes on a topic from different perspectives/lenses would allow a better understanding of an event/period in time.   

What are the promises/perils of doing digital history?

Cohen and Rosenzweig (2006) discussed that the advantages are that we can do more. People have increased access to history. More information can be stored. However, Ayers (1999) suggested that digital archives create opportunities and problems. I think what he was trying to point out was that even though it is useful to have information stored in a database, easily accessible, that it is even easier then to have the opportunity to miss connections. The past is complicated, complex, filled with layers. However, I think he believed that it would be more difficult to see these complex nuances with so much information to riffle through. Cohen and Rosenzweig (2006) believed that problems also included issues surrounding authenticity and quality of information. They illustrated that movement of forgery is easier online. They provided an image that had been forged well before the introduction of the World Wide Web. Even then, it was easy to create a forgery; however, with the internet, forgeries and false information can be found easily among legitimate sources. They used the Google search as a means of searching for information and finding both real and false information within the search results. Although they make an excellent point that false information is widely distributed and it is difficult to police it, I think one way that this issue can be combatted is through education. By teaching students how to search for information and what sources are credible/how to look for credible sources, can help to curb the spread.

Can we make digital history, as a field, more inclusive?

I believe, yes, it can be more inclusive. However, like Leon (2017) and Brennan (2019) suggest, historians need to include and illuminate the work of women and people of color. Not only that but also working to understand the role of underrepresented populations in history, rather than just trying to beat the privileged white male point-of-view to death. History is the interwoven workings of all people, and all people have a story. This intertwining is what needs to be unraveled in order to understand a topic more holistically. In order for this to be done, it needs to be studied under different lenses, which only diversity can provide

If anyone would like to have a discussion on anything I discussed, please send me feedback and I'll be have to have an intelligent debate. 😊

Thanks for stopping by! I hope you enjoyed your visit.

-The Migrant Isotopist