We have spent several weeks exploring websites, databases, and archives that form the backbone of “new media” historical scholarship. Over the course of the semester, we have expressed both excitement and skepticism about the promised opportunities these digital sources provide for our work. In light of new technology, how different is our work? Are we really able to accomplish new things and come to new conclusions? Or can we just do larger, deeper projects and present them in different ways? Are we reaching a new audience, or just communicating with historians in cool, technically-skilled, and visually-pleasing ways?
After exploring several of this week’s assigned sites, I have a slightly ridiculous answer to these questions—Who cares? Now, I certainly do not mean any disrespect to historians, new media advocates, or even digital history skeptics. But does it matter if we are truly doing something “new”? I believe that the “newness” of our projects is less important than what they teach us. As long as we are creating high-quality historical scholarship and presenting it in accessible and user-friendly ways, we will continue to contribute to the larger historical discussion. For some people, a printed article is sufficient for learning. For many others, digital media allow them to make new insights and learn more information in a short amount of time.
To illustrate my point, I will turn to William Thomas and Edward Ayers’s website, “The Differences Slavery Made.” In a relatively brief format, Thomas and Ayers present a vast amount of historical information, a broad range of sources, and many important maps and visual resources. The user can easily compare factors that influenced the towns and quickly explore statistics and historiography. They present a coherent argument, yet provide accessible “footnotes” so the user can come to their own conclusions.
I believe that this technology does not necessarily change the outcomes of historical scholarship. However, new media allow researchers to achieve a greater scope in their work than ever before, and make it possible to present the information in more accessible ways. Thomas and Ayers could have created similar maps without GIS tracking, but it would have been an arduous and overwhelming process. They could have slowly and carefully marked each slaveholding and non-slaveholding household, but they could never have completed the same number of maps without the assistance of technology. Curious readers could always track down their sources in the library to recreate their argument, but hypertext makes it possible to jump directly to the source. The sheer cost of printing color images would undermine any such project in book form. The transparency of the argument is new, but the argument itself is not that different. Ayers and Thomas would have needed an entire lifetime to complete the same research without technological innovations, but they could have eventually reached the same conclusions.
The ability to format an argument in new ways not only allows historians to reach a wider audience, but also caters to people who do not learn best through the printed article. As scholars, we have all grown accustomed to reading and judging a linear argument. However, auditory or visual learners will find great insights using new media. The website can present information in non-linear ways, allowing researchers to learn in the manner best suited for their own style. Best of all, the site is not just for academics. “History buffs” will also learn something new by exploring the site, which provides avenues for getting cutting-edge scholarship out to the wider public.
Returning to my original question—Who cares if this form of scholarship is new? I do not think that the arguments are that out-of-the-ordinary, but the ability to convey complex thoughts in transparent and accessible ways is quite exciting. We still need to press the limits of scholarship and experiment with new ways of presenting information, but our need to evaluate sources and form a coherent argument will remain unchanged. The breadth and depth of this scholarship creates daunting tasks for historians, but digital media also hold tremendous opportunities for us to connect with our colleagues and the general public.
