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.
No comments:
Post a Comment