Historians have always been somewhat limited in their ability to procure certain resources for their work and these limits will almost always present themselves within the context of reseach papers, essays, etc. Historical research is never completely objective, but the more limited a student of history finds him or herself in regards to source compiling, then the more limited he or she is in being to confidently and aptly describe any given historical event.
The emergence of the technological revolution as an almost given constant for most historians and is now a vivid way in which to bypass the traditional dead-ends many students of history have run into while researching any subject. However, this new (yes, I said new. I know thats a shock to many of you traditional-aged students, but I grew up in a world of Commodore 64s and Apple II C+ and that was cutting edge stuff) method of data collection is still in it's toddling phase (I believe) and that there are far too many problems with how the internet is used as a learning tool. I very much liked Cohen and Rosenzweig's numerous examples of how the commercialism of the internet (especially with outlets such as the History Channel) is preventing historians from locking down exactly what it is that they are looking for source-wise.
On the other hand, digital history has helped unimaginably in the realm of pure data compilation. This has helped to put such unbelievable amounts of sourcing on the web and in such little space, that one is hard pressed to not be able to find something about just about everything one can research. In essence, this can cut the resourcing time down exponentially for researchers. This includes travel time and the costs associated with said travel.
Unfotunately, there are so many variables with internet researching. The biggest problems are: 1) An inability to accurately target your desired objective effectively due to search engines that put numerous commercial sites before serious intellectual committments,or simply fail to compile results in a meaningful and expediant manner. 2) Incorrect, or just plain frivilous material one is directed to when researching online.
Even though the internet is an immesurably effective tool for locating and utilizing sources, it can also be an unknowledgable historian's worst enemy if they do not know how to properly navigate through the bloated commercialism of the world wide web. Regardless of how each individual researcher feels about working (or not working) with the increasing digitization of our literary and infinetly electronic world of research, I think everyone needs to respect it. Historians nowadays have a responsibility to making the world of digital sourcing and research one of a more accessible and navigable nature. If we are going to continue down this path of digital research, than we have an historical duty to make it more conducive to the pursuit of knowledge than towards the pursuit of commercial and economic gain. It is obvious to me that digital history is an ever-evolving process, but also is a process that finds itself in an ever-present struggle to rise above its digital counterparts as it strives to become an even more integral part of hisorical research.
Robert, you make some good notes on the material, especially in terms of search engines and their protocols. Certainly The History Channel is dreck, but there is a reason it is "popular" is that it appeals to many people and perhaps serves their needs. I have certainly found some odd databases online that are used by very few people, and perhaps students & scholars only need worry about those sites built for them. There will always be a "USA Today" version of everything.
ReplyDeleteGreat point about the infamous History Channel, Robert. I know plenty of people who take History Channel "information" as factual and accurate. In fact, it seems the more outlandish their claims become, the more the public laps it up. Unfortunately there is no way to totally combat this issue, it does seem to serve as a warning for current and future historians. Just because real history seems too "mainstream" doesn't give scholars the excuse to draw up crazy schemes in order to draw a crowd. But, as Monica has pointed out, the History Channel does serve a purpose - to entertain. Maybe we can hope that the audiences will become curious enough about historical topics to delve deeper than the History Channel in search of truth.
ReplyDeleteRobert, well written and I understand your argument. However I believe it is not digital media who is at fault, rather the historians who neglect to learn how to use the digital medium. For instance a search on "1889 Spokane Fire" on a popular search engine produces 325,000 results. The historian must larn how to frame better questions and to evaluate sources to find what is relevant. This is no different than searching through print media for a set key phrase, you will get some information you are looking for and others which are not what you are looking for. Historians do a great job of finding sources they are looking for in print media because that is what they are trained to do. I believe many historians do not have the training necessary to truly research in the digital realm and try to go it alone, without proper training, and get frustrated by the amount of 'non-accademic' views on their coveted topic.
ReplyDeleteWell, that got out of hand quickly, great posting which obviously solicited a strong opinion on my part, I hope to discuss this further in class.