Module 1 – What is Digital History?

With the advancement of computers and the internet, new technologies have become deeply integrated into the fabric of history. The advent of computers and the internet has ushered in one of the most profound social and cultural transformations the world has ever witnessed.

Digital history, as a field, exhibits several key characteristics. Before delving further into these traits, it is important to clarify a fundamental aspect. Digital history is not a singular project or a defined entity but rather a term of tactical convenience. It represents an evolving field with the potential for significant breakthroughs. At its core, digital history is centered on the study of history. It involves using digital tools and methods to examine and represent the past, and it cannot be divorced from historical content. Thus, digital history is deeply rooted in traditional historical study and must address the same range of disciplines and fields as conventional history. This leads to the second characteristic: digital history is a diverse and interdisciplinary domain. Thirdly, unlike merely digitizing historical records, digital history is an approach grounded in creation. It employs the hypertextual capabilities of digital technologies to develop frameworks through which people can engage with, read about, and follow arguments related to significant historical issues. Digital history cannot be divorced from technology, or it relies on modern communication tools such as computers, the internet, and various software systems.

In examining the domains where digital history is applied, Crymble categorizes them into five key areas: historical research, archives, classrooms, self-learning ecosystems, and scholarly communication channels. These categories emphasize the role of historians as the primary actors, suggesting that all five areas involve professionals who engage with and study the past. A review of these fields reveals that digital history extends beyond the production of scholarly work and communication. It includes the development of new educational materials, data collection efforts, and the creation, definition, querying, and annotation of historical associations. However, digital history is not solely about producing online exhibitions or websites. Instead, it emphasizes the process-oriented work of employing new media tools in research and analysis—essentially, the practice of “doing” digital history. This focus on process rather than mere output challenges the conventional understanding of digital history. Viewing digital history solely through the lens of its products can lead to a superficial or outdated perspective of the technology involved. Future research may benefit from exploring additional technological methods and their applications within the digital medium to deepen our understanding of history in this new era.

In conclusion, the advancement of computers and the internet has fundamentally transformed the study of history, integrating new technologies deeply into historical research and representation. Digital history, as a dynamic and evolving field, goes beyond merely digitizing records; it involves creating innovative frameworks and utilizing modern tools to engage with and analyze historical data. This field is characterized by its interdisciplinary nature and its focus on process-oriented approaches that leverage digital technologies to offer fresh perspectives on historical issues. By exploring and incorporating new technological methods, digital historians can enhance their understanding and presentation of the past, making history more accessible and interactive. As technology continues to advance, the field of digital history will likely experience further growth, offering new opportunities for research and discovery.


Comments

One response to “Module 1 – What is Digital History?”

  1. The discussion of product vs output has me deep within myself. As someone with little applicable experience with digital studies and even fewer skills, I am tripping over both. I simply don’t understand their meaning in a digital context. So I’ll make my own here in hopes someone will provide clarification. If I’m lucky I’ll even lose my way to a larger point (although really, as I’m currently lost in my own existential DH landscape, it really feels like rambling). As I read Xiaoyi’s discussion of the DH field’s focus on outputs continually dating its scholarly efforts, I understand output as a how: “how” can digital approaches can be involved in historical studies” Traditionally, history is entirely focused on the outputs rather than processes. In that context, the output is the analysis/argument. An example here may help. Is say, a heatmap that brings an entirely new perspective to a topic a once-new way of visualizing historical data or, is it a part of the larger, more traditional historical analysis of the map’s subject matter that has broadened the field? It seems to come down to intent and focus rather than output and process. If the intent is to analyze, then the now-dated heat map is part of the larger historical conversation having shifted that subject’s discussion in ways any new bit of information or methodological perspective would. If the intent is to show rather than tell, then the heatmap is an exhibition of what is possible digitally. In this capacity, heatmaps can legitimately be relegated to a historigraphical marker on the DH timeline and further still, a tool. But if I’m close, and the historical field has traditionally focused on output (a final argument/analysis) and allowed methodology to be the landscape we traverse to get to said analysis, that would explain why “what is DH?” persists. In focusing entirely on the construction of the landscape we lose the how and why, the *intent* justifying the existence of the landscape. If as Crymble argues, we keep the how and why of the landscape centered, that frees DH to be all things: a theoretical framework as well as a series of ever-evolving tools that expand the type of analysis historians can create, giving greater depth to our a still-young field of study.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *