Annotated Bibliography
Ayers, Edward L. "The
Pasts and Futures of Digital History: Edward L. Ayers." The Virginia
Center for Digital History at The University of Virginia. Last modified 1999. http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/PastsFutures.html.
Ayers recommends that students take
advantage of the vast amount of items that are available to them digitally and “embark
on research projects that would have been impossible just a few years ago.”
Ayers suggests that be working with digital tools students and professional
historians will be able to open themselves to a wide variety of tools and be
able to complete projects that would never have been possible in the past—especially
for amateurs. Digital history can broaden our professional conversation and
leave the discussion open to regular users and historians alike. When this
article was being written in 1999, Ayers is looking at digital history from
what we would consider to be an archaic perspective. Based on this, I would
imagine that our resources as historians today would be even more than what
Ayers could have expected in 1999.
Cohen, Daniel J., and Roy
Rosenzweig. "Digital History | Promises and Perils of Digital
History." Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media. Last modified
2005. http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/introduction/.
Cohen and Rosenzweig have created an
easy step by step guide to understanding how to use digital tools to study
history. The authors assert that there are seven qualities of these digital
tools that make it easier to create digital projects. These are: capability (we
can easily store vast amounts of information that would be more difficult with
written texts), accessibility (we can share our work with countless groups of
people all over the world with just the touch of a button), flexibility (one
project can take on several roles; for example, we can change the form or even
the language easily), diversity (almost anyone can have access to our work),
manipulability (we can use these tools to manipulate our research that may not
have been evident to us in any other way, interactivity (can open up dialogue
with professionals which may lead to collaboration or useful reviews), and
hypertextuality (or work can take on different guises).
"Interchange: The Promise of
Digital History." Journal of American History 95, no. 2 (2008):
452-491. doi:10.2307/25095630.
Cohen’s article takes on the
new(ish) field of digital history by taking a look at the meanings behind
pedagogy and institutional support as well as how digital history can affect
our process of historical research. Cohen also mentions that digital history
has different meanings for different people who encounter it.
Seefeldt, Douglas, and
William G. Thomas. "What Is Digital History?" American
Historical Association Home Page | AHA. Accessed April 13, 2016. https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/may-2009/intersections-history-and-new-media/what-is-digital-history.
As
mentioned in other sources, the authors assert that digital history is
burgeoning field and it also is a tool that opens up history for anyone: the
student, the amateur who wants to make a site dedicated to his favorite historical
event, the professor, etc. We have only
just begun to explore (as of 2009) what digital history can do for our field.
Digital history is defined in this article as “an approach to examining and
representing the past that works with the new communication technologies of the
computer…” If anyone wants to get involved in digital history it is not enough
to just digitize the past, they need to create the opportunity for people to
experience history and answer historical questions (such as through GIS).
Eventually digital history may change the field entirely and everything we do
could be digitized which is why it is important for our students and other
burgeoning historians to gain as much access to these digital tools as
possible.
Thomas, III., William G.
"Is The Future of Digital History Spatial History?" Newbury Library
Historical GIS Conference. Last modified March 2004.
Thomas argues that spatial history
and digital history can go hand in hand. Spatial history allows for the
researcher to look at history from several different angles—something non
digital histories would have a difficult time achieving. This is accomplished
through archives, visual maps, graphs, etc. To support his thesis, Thomas
quotes Paul Carter’s The Road to Botany
Bay: An Exploration of Landscape and History. In it, Carter defines spatial
history as something which “does not organize its subject matter into a
nationalist enterprise…recognizing that the future is invented.” And “questions
the assumptions that the past has been settled for once and for all.” By
looking at history through, say, a series of maps, we would have the
opportunity to answer questions we may never have even thought of before.
Thomas, III., William. "What
is Digital Scholarship? A Typology | William G. Thomas III." Railroads
and the Making of Modern America (blog). December 2014.
http://railroads.unl.edu/blog/?p=1159.
Thomas organizes digital scholarship
into a typology (as the title suggests). Thomas argues that digital history can
be divided into the following: Interactive Scholarly Works (projects that use
both archival materials and tools to deal with a critical concern), Digital
Projects/Thematic Research Collections (The most well defined of the group that
are used to support research, have multiple authors and combine tools and
archival materials around a historiographically critical problem), and Digital
Narratives (born digitally and feature work of scholarly interpretation which
may change with every update if necessary)
White, Richard. "What Is
Spatial History?" Spatial History Lab, February 2010, 1-6.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/spatialhistory/media/images/publication/what%20is%20spatial%20history%20pub%20020110.pdf.
Spatial history, as defined by White
is beneficial because scholars of various backgrounds may have the opportunity
to collaborate on one project (undergraduates, visualization specialists,
historians, geographers, etc.) Also, the main focus is on visualization instead
of text and these visualizations focus on digital history aspects. For example,
they should be interactive and/or display data that would be much more
difficult to interpret without the use of a computer. Most importantly, spatial
history projects should be updated as much as possible and always remains open
ended to take advantage of these updates. Spatial history is such an important
partner to digital history and just the field of history in general because as
a standard definition, historians focus on time and space and what better way
to study chronology than through spatial visualizations? (For example, these
digital visualizations are the most effective way to view change over time).
White also adds many visualizations of his own to the text which is best
enhances his thesis.