Project Update #4

After the previous post, Zac and I met with the panel to discuss the progress we had made regarding the Lone Sailor project.  At that point, as previously discussed we had created two mock panels for the Lone Sailor project which included an introductory panel as well as a panel on graduation from the Naval Academy. The two representatives that met with us and Dr Gannon were interested in what Zac and I had put together. They discussed with us that they had hired a graphic artist; but were concerned that their committee was putting too much effort into appearance as opposed to substance. They liked the mock panels that we had come with and liked the font that we had decided to use. They made clear that they would definitely like to use our panels as one of several options that they would be choosing from for their final result. They then asked if we would like to come up with more examples of panels from the remainder of the information. There is a new PowerPoint that they are supposed to be sending us with more updated information.

I also took the time to discuss with them what information I found regarding sound technology for their project. The team was interested in having a component for the Lone Sailor project that provided audio information that can be accessed by pressing a button. Most of the information I researched encouraged this technology for indoor exhibits and I could not find any examples on this being used outdoors due to the technology that would have to be present outdoors. What I did give them was information on a low cost system currently being used in an indoor low budget museum in the UK. I was able to tell them how to install and how to purchase these materials as well as tell them what it might cost. Dr. Gannon suggested they look into including audio information or a digital component that can be accessed with a QR code. We are still not entirely sure where they stand on using audio technology with their exhibit and that will be a major factor in determining how much text we should be including on our panels.

This week we will be having another meeting with Dr Gannon to discuss what new information she has received from the panel. Their graphic artist has returned some material to them and they are concerned with what it looks like and are concerned that are several problems with what they received. Zac, Dr Gannon and I are going to look at that today and discuss what we think needs to be altered and what errors and issues we find as far as what was received from their graphic designer.

When we met with the panel they assured us they would be in touch with Zac and I personally (taking our emails) to provide us with updated information. I have yet to receive anything other than what we are going to be discussing with Dr Gannon today.

Zac and I also plan to create a digital component (e.g. timeline) with the information that we have been given. 

Digital History

In The Pasts and Futures of Digital History written by Edward Ayers (1999), he states that history more so than most other academic subjects is seen as something that is old and far away from a world of technological innovation.  In Computing and the Historical Imagination written by William Thomas, III in 2004, he mentions how historians as early as the 1960s and 70s were looking into a future with digital tools. Despite the fact that that notion did have its critics (as it does today) the new burgeoning field of social history was looking more and more into how to utilize these tools for the abundance of statistics they were using as part of their work. Thomas states “political historians examined the influences at play in voting, not just the rhetoric of a few leaders; social historians found patterns to describe the world of average people; and economic historians developed models to account for multiple variables of causation.”  When Ayers was writing his article in 1999, he was optimistic of a world where digital tools would be integrated into looking at and creating archives, displays and altering educational techniques. Of course, a lot has changed since 1999. The JAH Interchange from 2009 describes digital history as an “approach to examining and representing the past that works with the new communication technologies…an open arena of scholarly productions and communication, encompassing the development of new course materials and scholarly date collections….framed by the hyper -textual power of these technologies to make, define, query and annotate associations in the human record of the past.”

In Ayers’ Valley of the Shadow Project, he was able to exemplify ways in which digital tools would be an effective future for historians. “The general public understood it as a set of Civil War letters, records and other accounts. Students and teachers praised it for opening up the past to them and allowing them to ‘be their own historian.’” While digital projects like Ayers opened up new opportunities for learning it did create some issues. “All of the connectivity and digitization has opened up history and historical sources in unprecedented ways, yet the technology has not come without tensions, costs, and unexpected sets of alliances and demands for historians, educators, administrators, and the public.” Unlike the “traditional” practice of history, there a lot more new components that come along with it. Sometimes these new components can offer both positive and negative aspects. Digital history projects allow for collaboration on a level not thought possible before with people from different aspects of academic. Technological experts and librarians and students and historians from various backgrounds can come together to work on a digital project.

When Ayers was writing his initial article in 1999, he wasn’t able to imagine the tools which we are able to use now and possibly in the future that will make digital scholarship an even more effective tool for historians. “We have entered a new stage of digital history in which we can put an emphasis on active learning, collaboration and enhanced interaction.” We have the ability to use Wiki blogs, mashups, tags, and social networking. In the future, as Seefeldt and Thomas mention in What is Digital History?  Historians’ sources will be almost entirely digital with the use of instant messages, emails, doc files, videos, databases, etc. The JAH interface sees a future in which we and look into 3D reality environments such as Lisa M. Snyder’s reconstruction of the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago. Unfortunately, for scholars who are more hesitant to embrace digital scholarship, this future environment might challenge their more traditional method and perhaps make it obsolete.

Digital history has the ability to make a good partnership with public history. Nothing is more available to the public than some of the digital tools which can be accessed online. Public institutions such as museums and libraries have the ability to use these tools part of an online exhibition or an archive; however, they can use the tools for more than that.  Some of the digital projects that I accessed via the University of Richmond’s Digital Scholarship Lab, have shown how easily accessible information is for students in an academic setting or how some of the research that would mean nothing on paper can become visualized and take on a whole new meaning. I browsed through a few of these projects; but the one I spent the most time with was the map of Foreign Born Population in the US from 1850-2010. Normally, looking at these stats wouldn’t mean much to anyone; but with the utilization of this visualization the essential question being asked (which seems to be “How has the foreign born population changed in past 150 years?)

In his most recent article, Does Digital Scholarship Have a Future?, William Ayers uses the term “generative scholarship” which he deems is scholarship that builds ongoing digital environments framed by significant academic questions. It invites collaborators from all facets and it advances scholarship in a way which cannot be done in print. Digital history fits this definition of generative scholarship because it has constantly changing and inviting scholars from realms outside of the traditional world of historians to participate.

Project Update #3

Zac and I have been continuing our weekly meetings with Dr Gannon about the status of the "Lone Sailor" project at Blue Jacket Park.

This Tuesday we will actually be meeting with the committee in which we will bring some examples of panels as well as some questions we have prepared to ask the committee about where they see the direction of the project going.

Zac and I decided that we are going to use Google Slides to create some examples of panels that the committee can use to convey its information. We are going to use the dimensions 36 x 48 to try and create as much as possible of the actual slide as we can.

For this week, Dr Gannon has asked us to create both an introductory panel as well as an informational or "meat" panel. We have decided to do our informational panel on "Training" procedures.

We do not know for sure if the committee is going to go ahead with the audio component of their exhibit; but we have prepared questions for that as well.

For our introductory panel, we are creating "History of the Lone Sailor" which will include the following pieces of information:

• The Lone Soldier Memorial was created by Stanley Bleifeld, a WWII Naval Veteran and the Navy's official Sculptor. 

• • This is the 14th Lone Sailor Navy Memorial in the United States
  
  
  • The Sailor looks directly into the “grinder”, the spot where recruits marched, trained, and eventually graduated. 
  
  
  • He also looks at the site where the famous wooden training ship, USS Blue Jacket, stood for many years.

  
  

We are considering adding some information on education to the panels but we are going to talk to Dr Gannon more today.

So far I have created a few examples of those mock panels and Zac is working on some questions we can ask the committee on Tuesday. After Tuesday, we will get more of an idea of what the committee wants and where they think they're going to go from there.

As far as presenting the project, we more than likely are going to show the panels that we have created for the committee as well as some of the questions (and answers) we record from our meeting on Tuesday.

As far as difficulties we have experienced, the committee has not been very clear on what exactly they wanted but that should become more clear tomorrow.

Digital History

The main argument is that digital technology can enhance the way we teach and learn about history. Digital history gives people access to rare materials that would not usually be available to them and it allows the historian to present his or her research in a way that can enhance it a step further with visualization. Authors Cohen and Rosenzweig believe that in addition to the many pros that the field provides, that there must be a significant amount of planning that goes into these projects and it is not always as easy as expected. First of all, these projects can sometimes be a lot more costly due to the fact that the historian needs to collaborate with professionals that previously they would not have needed to work with; such as experts in technology and web design.  The historian also has to figure out who they want their audience to be. Is the intended target someone who has easy access to the historian’s digital project? If the audience target is elderly or residing in a country where internet technology is not readily available to them, will they be able to access the research at all? Will they even want to go through the effort? Is this something that people can benefit from? Students are a large group that will want to utilize this information easily available to them.  Another issue that the authors present is how do we make sure that our projects are known. The most beautiful digital project will not reach its full potential if no one knows where/how to find it or if they are unaware it even exists. Historians also have to heed how aesthetically pleasing their project is. If it is hard to maneuver and understand, will people be able to or even want to use it as a resource. Also, what do we do about intellectual rights? If a historian’s work is just out there on the internet and available for anyone to see, how do we keep them from taking advantage of it? The authors conclude by trying to figure out how historians can make their digital projects durable. How can we keep it from being riddled with broken links and available to use for many years.

The authors also introduce us to what they refer to us as the “techno-skeptics” like Harper’s Sven Birkerts who, in 1994, “implored readers to ‘refuse’ the lure of ‘the electronic hive.’ The new media, he warned, pose a dire threat to the search for ‘wisdom’ and ‘depth’ –‘the struggle for which has for millennia been central to the very idea of culture.” Birkerts is not alone in his disdain for digital history. Some, like Gertrude Himmelfarb believe that making historical research digital will have a negative impact on the way in which we learn history.  The authors assure us that these “techno-skeptics” have been proved wrong.  Digital history has not affected the way we learn and it has not taken over the role of universities and libraries as some of these skeptics of the 90’s foretold. What it has done is made studying the past a little bit easier and more accessible for a larger group of people.

The reader must keep in mind that this book was written in 2005, which is in the world of technology, can almost be considered an ancient document. However, I do believe that the authors give us a good introduction to both the pros and cons of studying the past using a digital platform; the ‘pitfalls’ that they list for their readers is very similar to what one might expect them to be today. Having completed a digital project myself last semester, I can attest to the fact that a lot of the pros and cons listed in this book proved to be true. Zac and I experience a lot of technical difficulties that had to with publishing our work online and making sure it was visually the way we needed it be for viewers and researchers. We spent a lot of extra time getting technical help that would not have been necessary in a non-digital project. The end result, I believe was very visually stimulating and user friendly. We were able to take our research and turn it into a visualization that would not have had the same effect in a non- digital project. 

1. What would we be unable to accomplish without digital history?
2. How has the utilization of these digital projects affected the accessibility of history?
3. Has the list of who can be considered a historian expanded with the use of digital tools and accessibility of research?