Michelle Davison, PhD Student, University of South Florida

Proposal Type

Roundtable

Seeking
  • Seeking Additional Presenters
  • Seeking Specific Expertise
  • General Feedback and Interest
Related Topics
  • Civic Engagement
  • Digital
  • Science and Tech
Abstract

The affordances of digital methods in presenting history and engaging with the public.

Seeking

This round table will explore the ways in which digital methods can enhance, or perhaps proscribe, the presentation of historical research.

Much of the emphasis in the digital humanities, and the tools that have come out of that field, have focused on the gathering and digitalization of data, and methods of organizing digital humanities data. But what about the affordances of digital methods for presenting data digital, textual, and material?

The obvious analogue of the scholarly article in the digital realm is the blog. Here data is presented as the basis of a linear argument. This keeps many of the positive aspects of the article, such as the ability to verify sources and respond to arguments in writing. But it allows for a much quicker time to publication, and the audience is potentially greater.

Another popular digital humanities-based method of presenting data is the map driven by GIS data. This method has the ability to show data spatially, giving a deeper understanding of both frequency of occurrence and possible spatial/proximal connections that would not otherwise be apparent in a linear, textual analysis of data. Similarly, data analysis tools such as Voyant Tools help researchers better understand textual data through visual representation of analysis.

Beyond these common methods, what are the potential for other digital methods of sharing analysis of historical data? Liz Covart’s popular podcast “Ben Franklin’s World” is an excellent example of how a podcast can be used to these ends. What about digital video, Twitter personas of historical figures, and video games? How are Public Historians using digital tools to bring their research to a larger public both in and out of traditional settings?

Finally, regarding the conference’s topic of “the middle,” digital tools can help bring out stories of those who may not have had access to contribute to the written record in a way that could allow people to make connections to them in ways that written arguments cannot. While a source may not mention people they consider unremarkable (women, the enslaved), something like a digital video, game, or map can put those people back into the picture.

If you have a direct offer of assistance, sensitive criticism, or wish to share contact information for other people the proposer should reach out to, please get in contact directly: Michelle Davison, [email protected]

If you have general ideas or feedback to share please feel free to use the comments feature below.

All feedback, and offers of assistance, should be submitted by July 3, 2016.

COMMENTS HAVE CLOSED. PLEASE EMAIL THE PROPOSER DIRECTLY WITH ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR OFFERS TO COLLABORATE.

Discussion

1 comment
  1. Mary Rizzo says:
    June 26, 2016 at 11:21 am

    The intersection between public history and digital humanities is an important one. While both of these fields have grown in the last several years, they have often done so somewhat separated from each other, except at select institutions like the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University. Exploring how they can overlap and learn from each other is important and is something that I’ve begun doing in my Intro to Digital Public Humanities grad seminar at Rutgers University-Newark (https://digitalpublichumanities.wordpress.com/).

    One topic I’d like to see this session raise, though, is how to make sure that public historians engage critically with digital tools before and while using them. Podcasts and videos are highly curated and edited. Creating (or consuming) either requires understanding how digital tools are not neutral ways to present information. So just like public historians have become savvy consumers and commenters about film, we need to have that same level of critique with digital tools and not just get caught up in the “gee, whiz, look at we can do” aspect.

Comments are closed.