A primary difference between the fields of digital history and “traditional” history is not just how historians craft history, but for whom it is crafted. The role of the audience in traditional (argument-driven, narrative, historiographical, and linear) history has long been established to be relatively small; consisting primarily of other historians within the academy. However, the rise in new methodologies and mediums brought about by digital innovations have led to fundamental shifts in the “publicness” of the historian’s audience (Cauvin 2016, 178).
Many digital historians saw the rise of digitization, new mediums, and new methodologies as a breakthrough toward the democratization of history. The objective of the field has shifted, and now seeks to place knowledge of the past within the reach of all, rather than the few. In fact, digital history stands uniquely apart from other fields precisely because it has allowed for a “notion of user centered history” that steps beyond mere accessibility into a realm of public engagement hitherto unknown (Cauvin 2016, 178). Douglas Seefeldt explains that to “do” digital history is more than simply digitizing sources and reproducing traditional arguments online. He says that the role of the digital historian is to “create a framework through the technology for people to experience, read, and follow an argument” (Seefeldt and Thomas 2009). This concept is the key to understanding the role digital historians must play for their publics. Rather than tell narratives that answer questions about the past, digital historians must guide their audience to enable them to “do” history themselves and create their own interpretations (Cohen et al. 2008, 460).
Stephen Mintz described the “overlapping evolution” of digital history from the early days (stage 1.0) that focused on utilizing tools like emails and websites, to tackling more traditional argument-based questions with projects that presented opportunities for historians to “do” history with new mediums (stage 2.0), and finally through to interactive and collaborative projects (stage 3.0) that completely changed the traditional methods of the lone, source-hoarding historian. Mintz foresaw even greater changes for the future that he says will use a “constructivist” model to create conceptual realities to enhance understanding of the past (Cohen et al. 2008, 456). The students in the image below are experiencing this model by using an augmented reality to explore long ruined ancient sites.
The future is already upon us, as demonstrated above. Collaborative efforts have continued to build, including the rise of crowdsourcing in recent years which not only democratize access but also the “practice, and to some extent authority,” to those outside the academy (Cauvin 2016, 179). Increasing authority outside the field is certainly not without its downsides as highlighted by Cohen and Rosenzweig's "perils" of digital history. Top among these are problems of quality, readability, and passivity for projects which rely on public collaboration, such as Wikipedia (Cohen and Rosenzweig 2006). However, so long as historians strive to be a part of the process to guide public participation and proactively respond to new developments, we can attempt to mitigate our own irrelevance and shape this brave new world in which the historian and their audience can be partners in understanding the past (Cauvin 2016, 180; Cohen et al. 2008, 488).
Bibliography
Cauvin, Thomas. “Digital Public History.” In Public History. 174-187. 1st ed. New York: Routledge, 2016.
Cohen, Daniel J., et al. “Interchange: The Promise of Digital History.” The Journal of American History 95, no. 2 (September 2008). 452-491. Accessed January 31, 2023, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25095630
Cohen, Daniel J. and Roy Rosenzweig, "Introduction: Promises and Perils of Digital History," in Digital History: A Guide to Gathering, Presenting, and Preserving the Past on the Web. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. Accessed January 17, 2023, https://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/introduction/
Seefeldt, Douglas and William G. Thomas. "What is Digital History?" AHA Perspectives on History. (May 1, 2009). Accessed January 17, 2023, https://www.historians.org/research-and-publications/perspectives-on-history/may-2009/what-is-digital-history
Thomas, William G. II. "Computing and the Historical Imagination." In A Companion to Digital Humanities. Eds. Susan Schreibman, Ray Siemens, John Unsworth. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. Accessed January 31, 2023, https://companions.digitalhumanities.org/DH/?chapter=content/9781405103213_chapter_5.html
コメント