Almost there...

I've been trying to comment on a few of your blogs but it won't seem to let me. At the end of each post is a big white box that says "post a comment" above it but it won't let me click into it. I've been fiddling around with it all morning and I am signed in but I can't seem to find the problem. Any one willing to give me any insight?

The World and the Digital

Digital World History: An Agenda
Patrick Manning, University of Pittsburgh
April 2007

    When I read the title of this article, I assumed straight away that it would not suit me as I have never been too interested in general world history. That is exactly why I chose to read and blog about it, if I am not willing to broaden my focus now then I never will be. Manning even says in the article that the problem with world history is that is too unfamiliar to most historians as institutional training tends to focus on national and area specific study. I cannot argue with that, since first year Arts we were given the choice of which modules we could take, the majority of them focused on different aspects of Irish history while the rest of the world was broken into genreal courses. I do no see this as a negative though, I'm sure institutions in other countries operate in a similar manner, to each his own.

    The structure of this essay is simple; Manning makes general points about the study of world history, then general points about digital processes and techniques and finally links to two together by explaining the benefits, potential and advantages which the two combined can have.

    One of the points about world History which Manning emphasizes is that it is multi-dimensional because it involves the assembly and interpretation of diverse knowledge which spans all ages and time periods. He then goes on to say that because this is all brought together in a "grand approach" that it does not fit well with the structure of digital history because it is changable and often subdivided. I do not think this is a fair conclusion to make so early in his arguement. From what I know about digital history, I think its application to world history would be a great success. The opinion I formed before reading the advantages outlined in this article, was that digital history would change the format of world history for the better. Who is to say that world history has to be a grand single narrative? Techniques such as hyperlinking would allow individual histories and diverse opinions to be drawn together to create a narrative that is beyond universal, one that is all inclusive.

    The example Manning uses to explain the integration of digital methods in historical research is his examination of the African slave trade demography figures and how he used software techniques for calculations etc. Interesting enough as this was, I felt it was slightly irrelevant because it is now obvious to us that calculations, stimulations and the manipulation of figures or data is all easier with the help of digital technology.

    The totality of the past is impossible, we must choose a means of simplification which best suits our purposes. I found this to be the best part of the article because although we all subconciously choose the structure of our work, we may not really be aware of what we are really doing. He subsequently explains three main approaches to writing history; chronology, linear narrative and multi-dimensional narrative. Digital or not, I think that these approaches can be applied to any historical research topic and that it will be easier for both the historian and the reader to work through if we could just decide which method we intend to use and then try to adhere to it. What is even more helpful is that he then outlines the problems encountered with each method of "simplification" or narrative; scale, persective, balance and centrality. The last one is particularly interesting as too often when we are presenting our research on one particular event or person we tend to over exaggerate their role. It is therefore important we acknowlodge their actual place within the grand narrative, whether it was really a central role or not.

    The benefits of using digital tools in world history are the same as in any other field; enhancing, storing data, retrieving data, translations, approximations, animations etc.. However, there are some characteristics of digital technology and world history which fit together like a jigsaw; both reach an expanded audience, both are interactive, both are open to variations in approach and in progression through either, choices and decisions must be made regarding which pathways to follow. As I stated earlier, it is all about the multi-dimensional structure which in the beginning Manning thought was a negative and an obstacle in the combination of the two. In the course of this short essay he seems to have completely changed his mind, this shows just how easy it is to become part of the digital world. Come over to the dark side, not only do you want to, but you have to.

Mapping History

Mapping Freedom
Edward L. Ayers, University of Virginia
June 2007

    My first impression, when reading this essay for the first time? “A historical article that opens with a quote from Bob Dylan, I think I’ll read on.” I do not often say this, but I really enjoyed reading this article, not just because of the reference to Bob Dylan but because the concept being discussed was something which I have thought about before but never considered to be an academically shared opinion. 

    In previous assignments for our digital history class we dealt with text analysis, so it was easy to comprehend the idea of visually interpreting language. In an earlier blog I examined the word frequency in the “I Have a Dream” speech by Martin Luther King Junior and was then able to make a visual image of the most common words that appeared in the text. Presumably using a similar method Edward L. Ayers explains in his Mapping Freedom article, how visually presenting text and language has created new arguments in relation to the American Civil War. His example is that in primary sources from the period and as well as in the historical research that engages with it, the keyword changes from “slavery” to “emancipation” as the war draws to a close. This shows the subtle and slow change in attitudes after the war which would otherwise go unnoticed. 

    Ayers explains the problems with narrative history which most people do not recognise; that linearity only shows one direction and neglects alternative histories, that presenting the beginning point and ultimate destination as inevitably connected, makes the journey less interesting. This is probably a widely accepted opinion, as this is presumably why we now have courses in post modernism, women’s history and gender history. I think that what Ayers is trying to say is that presenting history in visual form will allow for all the subcategories and minority accounts or opinions, to be given a place in wider narratives. 

    The concept of history as a map is invaluable in my opinion. He says that using history as a map to determine our own place in time can be the difference between history becoming a dormant field or an active one. I think that this method can also be useful to those with a photographic memory and those who understand things better when they are presented visually. The words “relief map” bring to mind images of a primary school map of Ireland, where the mountains around the edges and the flat land in the middle make Ireland appear like a saucer. I could not for the life of me understand how a map of Ireland could look like a saucer, obviously it was in reference to the high edges and flat centre and not the actual shape. Anecdote aside, I think the idea of history as a relief map is genius, all orthodox narratives jump from one significant event to the next. I am familiar with the idea of co-ordinates in personal history, for example associating a particular song with a certain memory, but never considered that this could be applied to wider histories in terms of trends, patterns and connections between certain events and circumstances. 

    It is interesting to note that if we widen the “map” we use to represent history, we can see how little we know about the greater scheme of things due to the fact that we are so focused on our specialities. Even slightly broadening the scope of my own research will show aspects which I am unintentionally omitting, facts that could perhaps be used to give context to my arguments and make my extremely centralised topic of the Limerick Leader in society a little bit more rounded.

    Ayers’ overall argument is that visual and spatial patterns will help to make the past easier to understand and therefore our interpretations more accurate. I think that there are other ways to apply this concept that do not involve the idea of the relief map; personally I view the days of the week as a continuous bar chart with surges denoting every weekend, but that’s just me!

Better late than never: Engaging with Theory

Writing A Digital History Journal Article from Scratch: An Account
William G. Thomas, III, University of Nebraska—Lincoln
December 2007

    This short article does exactly what it says on the tin; it provides an account of the trials an tribulations encountered when writing a digital history article, right from the conception to the finished product. It is apparent from the article that this is the authors first attempt at a digital journal article, but given that it was written in 2007 this is hardly surprising.  Although it is little over three years ago since the article was written, significant changes have taken place in the world of digital academics. I feel this is even apparent in my own situation; as a first year in 2007 I spent hours trawling the Boole library looking for mysterious journal articles that never seemed to surface, now I can flick through Jstor and have them in front of me in a matter of seconds. The capability and willingness of historical academics to accept the digital transformation is a point that is reiterated numerous times within this essay.

    One of Thomas’ first problems is how this article would be “read” and if it would even be considered an article at all. He admits that printing an overview in the American Historical Review caused some confusion, this was taken as the actual article while the online version was considered merely as a website to accompany it for those who wished to express further interest. I can see where this problem stems from, is the old historian set in his ways, reading his subscriptions to scholarly journals really going to make the effort to visit the “website” when he has already been granted a synopsis? Its like the web address that pops up on the bottom of the screen during almost every modern television show, does the audience ever really bother to search for it? I think that the problem with having both a printed version and an online version is that it is virtually impossible to straddle two audiences. There is one set of readers for print and another for digital archives, the communication between the two, though improving, has not yet been fully worked out. It is interesting to consider whether these mediums will ever be reconciled. 

    Thomas makes a good case for the integration of digital technology into the academic world by stating its benefits as well as all the alterations that had to be made so that the article would at least in some way conform to the traditional method. The advantages of digital history are numerous, it can expose the ongoing work of the historian, make evidence open for interpretation, become a repository that can later be added to, as well as making clear the correlation between the historiography, evidence, analysis and argument of the historian. I think it would be specifically valuable if historians were to record and publish their findings as they progress. But who would be willing to have their early work and assumptions open to such scrutiny?

    In terms of my work, I found a number of issues in this essay that were of interest to me. The idea of integrating the digital form with the argument I am making, may not apply to the restricted guidelines for writing a masters thesis, but it certainly helps with a digital history course, our class blogs and any venture into digital scholarship that I may embark on in the future. I think that making a narrative more visual could have immeasurable benefits, particularly in reaching a wider audience. This would however, raise the same issues which Thomas faced. Structure, style, form and visual cues need to be carefully planned, while still ensuring that the display of traditional research characteristics such as presentation of evidence, engagement with prior scholarship and conveying the argument, are adequately dealt with in the new format. 

    Overall the point of this essay was to highlight the obstacles highlighted by Thomas’ peers, that there was loss of authoritive control because there was not enough guidance and that it was difficult to track his argument because there was no linear structure in his original presentation. Maybe he is trying to warn the reader against the harsh criticism of academic historians. Digital technology will continue to change and evolve so we as historians must be willing to engage with and make use of newer and newer forms. Evidently regardless of which way you attempt to convey your argument, someone will find fault with it, but these days it is not just the content that is under scrutiny, but the form too.