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?