For someone who has little experience with digital history, the Cohen and Rosenzweig readings were quite intimidating. I am sure that it is far more of a simple process than what is read in "Getting Started" and "Becoming Digital", but it still left this reader wondering if this would be something I would be willing and able to pursue. Although I would love to become a part of the world of digital history, I do not know if learning all of the mentioned programming, which is semingly essential to digital history, is something I have the motivation to enjoy. With that being said, a more important question is begged: Is the future of historical research not digital history? I believe that it most certainly is and that students of history who are reluctant to get involved with, not just researching digital history, but actually contributing and being a part of it, should probably get to the back of the line. Or at least rethink their (our) position.
My programming experience is, at best, none. All the technical jargon and knowhow involved with programming and site development seems somewhat difficult. This especially when someone is, more than likely, spending hours upon hours of research on whatever it is they wish to maybe add to the electronic record of digital history.
This process seems even more complicated in reference to preserving digital materials. Like Cohen and Rosenzweig state, "If only digital preservation were as easy as changing the qualityof the paper we print on...". If one is researching and/or digitizing fairly recent history, then this might not be much of an issue. On the other hand, if one is preserving very old materials, then this can, as Cohen and Rosenzweig suggest, become a very difficult, tedious and time consuming process.
Growing up in an analog world makes it a little more difficult to learn the specifics of history in a digital world (for those of us who have yet failed to grasp the expediency of the still evolving and forever changing forms of digital media). These two chapters of Digital History have definetly given me a better understanding of not just the complexities that may be involved with becoming a digital historian, but it also makes me realize the importance of learning the finer points of digital history in the realm of, at least, knowing programming language. Well...Its a good thing I am in this class.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Sunday, October 7, 2012
What is digital history and what does it do all day?, or, The pitfalls and progressions of digitized resourcing in the world of historical research.
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.
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.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)