Week 8: Digital History Reviews I - Guidelines & Models

Evaluation of Digital Scholarship: Guidelines and Genres

The evaluation and methodology surrounding the analysis of historical scholarship has seen numerous changes over the past century with different focuses and approaches being appreciated to their time. With the creation and rise of digital history, a new approach must be taken in to understand and better appreciate the unique nature of the digital medium; The Organization of American Historians described the digital medium as "unique in their character", stating that every source must be evaluated in the appreciation of their diversity (OAH, 2023). They note that whilst genres like games, blogs, archives, and hard data sets all relate to each other in their digital format, their induvial, unique perspective adds to the overall contribution and understanding of historical thought. (OAH, 2023).In a harder critique, however, the American Historical Association points out that with the increasing nature of new mediums, methodology and modes should be encouraged and explored more often. I find it interesting that the AHA calls into action "evidence-based" additions to support the discipline being integrated into the overarching idea of historical thought. What does this mean for digital mediums involving alternate history, or those practicing mentalities (AHA, 2023)? 

Reviewing Digital History: What's changed?

 Dr. Jeffrey W. McClurken describes digital history as a new paradigm in the evolution of reviewing and understanding historical thoughts, agreeing with others about the strategies one must take in analysis of the medium. When discussing the guidelines for reviewing digital mediums, McClurken says things have gotten increasingly "fuzzier", meaning the collorabative component is not the only thing to analyze anymore; Books now accompany a companion digital site, now involving book reviewers to collaborate in the review process (Georgini, 2015). McClurken also mentions the rise of comment culture and digital identity. The review process is much wider and easier than it was when historians were forced to send manuscripts. The part I found the most interesting was McClurken's ideas on comment culture; Historians, with the digital media, have the ability to cultivate how they receive feedback; "Is it anonymous, who can see it and what is the comment policy" are all questions digital historians have to answer for themselves (Georgini, 2015). 

Lessons in Digital History: Slave Revolt in Jamaica, 1760-1761

Map from Brown's project. 2015.

I spent time analyzing Vincent Brown's digital project, Slave Revolt in Jamaica, 1760-1761 not just from a histography perspective, but from a digital aspect as well. In terms of histography information, Brown's primary sources are numerous and evidence based, fueling his interpretation of the path of the Jamaican insurgency and British military counter-campaign in spatial dynamics (Brown, 2012). He presents his argument as one that suggests that the Jamaican revolt was a series of planned and strategic insurgents, in comparison to previous thoughts marking the instance as a grouping of "opportunistic riots" (AHR Exchange, 169). In my simple exploration of the site, however, I was also equally fascinated by the detail of the map Brown created, highlighting day by day the events and incursions that made up the Jamaican conflict as the AHR Exchange presented, but I was surprised to see the blog function not working. I thought it was the site showing it's digital age (the site's credits don't work either, showing the affects the loss of Adobe Flash Player had on it), but to my surprise the AHR Exchange noted the same thing; Written in February 2016, the author points that the blog hadn't been activated yet, showing this feature never truly existed (AHR Exchange, 173-174). This entire exchange points back to McClurken's thoughts of comment culture and dialogue between historians and reviewers. With such an interactive and detailed digital project (that has been maintained for the most part, up until now), I am surprised to see no comment function or dialogue option available aside from an email link to Brown himself. The map is so impressive I would argue that it serves as a public archive of multiple sources, not offering just raw data, but categorized information to promote the encapsulating understanding of the topic. Further more, the AHR Exchange noted that of the 5,000 session taken place at the time of their review, the average time spent on the site was a minute and fifty one seconds (AHR Exchange, 185). They use this statistic to show not just engagement, but promote the idea that perhaps researchers are "impatient with digital materials"; Surely with so much data, a dialogue should take place. That is not the case. 

References

Brown, Vincent. “Narrative Interface for New Media History: Slave Revolt in Jamaica, 1760-1761.” The American Historical Review 121, no. 1 (2016): 176–86.

Brown, Vincent. Slave Revolt in Jamaica, 1760-1761, 2012. http://revolt.axismaps.com/.

“Digital History Reviews.” Organization of American Historians, 2023. https://www.oah.org/publications/jah/submit/digital-history-reviews/.

Georgini, Sara. “Reviewing Digital History.” The Junto, July 15, 2015. https://earlyamericanists.com/2015/01/20/reviewing-digital-history/.

“Guidelines for the Professional Evaluation of Digital Scholarship by Historians.” American Historical Association. Accessed October 5, 2023. https://www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/digital-history-resources/evaluation-of-digital-scholarship-in-history/guidelines-for-the-professional-evaluation-of-digital-scholarship-by-historians.