Digitization has brought significant changes to how people access, share, and preserve information. First of all, digitization has greatly reduced the cost of obtaining information. With a computer, individuals can access historical information from thousands of miles away. Physical proximity to historical events or sites is no longer necessary for conducting research. For example, I can be in the U.S. researching Artemisia Gentileschi, a 17th-century Italian female artist. I can find relevant books about her in my school library and learn about her life, even using targeted searches to find specific information, such as details about her sexual assault case. Many legal documents and court records have been scanned, stored, and translated into English, significantly improving the accessibility of my research as a native Chinese speaker studying in English. Digital history has effectively broken down the barriers of geography and physical distance.
However, there are some challenges that arise from this process. I feel that digital history can sometimes hinder the authenticity of historical research. While it’s true that history, as a discipline, is inherently biased—a fact that exists regardless of digitization—when researchers attempt to address or reduce bias, digitization doesn’t always provide complete support. For instance, when I try to take a more objective stance in reanalyzing the correlation between Artemisia Gentileschi’s sexual assault experience and her painting style, it is difficult to find accurate court records from that time and unbiased analyses. Sexual abuse is a significant part of Artemisia’s life, and many art historians have used this to interpret her work. If I want to do the deep research on it, it will be necessary to visit Artemisia’s former home, visit her experiences and even learn Italian.
Another challenge of digitization is language, which may not be a significant issue for most people. However, when studying the history of a minority group, digital history can become more limiting. Even when it comes to non-minority groups, it can be difficult to find historical information about countries that don’t speak English or Spanish, written in either of those languages. This highlights that many digitization projects have focused primarily on English and, to a lesser extent, other Western languages. This presents a significant challenge. For example, when I researched the history of cultural relics stolen from the Old Summer Palace in Beijing, I found very few English books on the subject. I had to reference Chinese-language sources, but there can be ambiguity when quoting or translating these accurately. Fortunately, as a native Chinese speaker, I can use both Chinese and English effectively in my research. However, if a researcher who doesn’t speak Chinese were interested in this topic, their research would be limited to the scarce English-language resources available. While they may be able to grasp some basic facts, it would be difficult to consider their work a comprehensive study.
Digitization has greatly improved access to information, making it easier for researchers to obtain historical data regardless of geographic location. However, it presents challenges in maintaining the authenticity of historical research, as digitized sources can sometimes lack depth and unbiased analysis. Additionally, language barriers in digitized resources, especially for non-English or non-Western histories, can limit the scope of research for those unfamiliar with the original language of the sources. In the future, the digital research that carries us deeper into real-world connection may indeed create the border-crossing wisdom that our border-riven world needs.
Leave a Reply