KATIE HATTON, PAPERS OF MARTIN VAN BUREN, CUMBERLAND UNIVERSITY
Proposal Type
Traditional Panel
Seeking
- Seeking Additional Presenters
- Seeking Specific Expertise
- Seeking General Feedback and Interest
Related Topics
- Archives
- Digital
- Documentary Editing
Abstract
This panel examines the benefits and shortcomings of using documentary editing as a tool for public history.
Like public history, documentary editing, or the practice of transcribing, annotating, and publishing primary source materials relating to a particular person or theme, arose in its modern sense in the 1950s & 60s. Like public historians, documentary editors seek to make information, both their research and primary sources, available, relevant, and understandable to the public.
Given these similarities, can we consider documentary editing as a form of (or a tool for) public history? How can papers projects, many of which traditionally focused on elites, incorporate the perspectives & untold stories of underrepresented groups?
Description
Because traditional documentary editions are almost solely text-based and are often based on an elite person or family, there is the threat that editions can tend to marginalize the perspectives of Native Americans, African Americans, and migrant workers much like their sources do.
Working within the realm of public history, this panel seeks to put documentary editing within the context of larger conversations within the public history community. The goals for this panel include:
- Develop strategies for making underrepresented groups more visible in documentary edition databases and similar online archives
- Examine the shortcomings of traditional papers projects formats and how silences in the documentary record can affect our understanding
- Consider the responsibilities historians have for identifying and overcoming these silences in the documentary record or the archive more generally
- Identify the ways in which the work that public historians and documentary editors do are mutual beneficial and explore how papers projects can be a tool for public history and vise versa.
I am looking for co-presenters to supplement this panel discussion with others who work to make texts available and understandable to the public. I am also interested in hearing feedback regarding general interest as well as if the format of a traditional panel is ideal.
If you have a direct offer of assistance, sensitive criticism, or wish to pass along someone’s contact information confidentially, please get in contact directly: Katie Hatton, Papers of Martin Van Buren, [email protected]
All feedback and offers of assistance should be submitted by July 6, 2020. If you have general ideas or feedback to share, please feel free to use the comments feature below.
Hi Katie, I actually didn’t know what “documentary editing” was, so thanks for introducing me to the concept. Several of my co-workers have been engaged in transcription projects since my historic site closed to the public in mid-March. Our staff is still figuring out how to make these materials accessible and understandable to the public, but the transcriptions have been shared with our staff, and it’s evident to me that they help expand our site’s narrative. Though the records that were saved by my institution–and thus survived and are now being transcribed–are the records of the people “in charge,” they point out how rules worked and the minutiae related to the lives of the governed. By finally exploring the record sets we knew existed but have long been unable to engage with because of a lack of time and access, we’re unearthing the machinations that impacted the lives of the everyday people at my site. These are some of the questions I’d love to see explored by this panel: many historic sites are engaged with transcription projects because of the quarantine, but what happens next, after the pandemic? How does this “new” / old content get disseminated and interpreted? Are historic sites and museums in the midst of one of the biggest transcription moments in our history? What will these records tell us about our sites and will they change the stories we tell?
Hi Annie, thanks so much for your comment. It sounds like your recent transcription efforts have been really helpful! You’ve raised some great questions that I will be sure to incorporate into the final proposal.
Sounds like an interesting approach to the topic. If you are interested, I could introduce you to editors of the Joseph Smith Papers in Salt Lake City. Van Buren appears in many of the papers (https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/person/martin-van-buren) and they have also wrestled with these questions.
Hi Keith, thank you for the recommendation. I’m actually already in contact with a member of the Joseph Smith Papers staff regarding the proposal.
The National Historical Publications and Records Commission have funded several documentary editing projects around the country. Someone from their staff might be able to talk about their program, give examples of projects related to underrepresented people, possible shortcomings of projects, and best practices moving forward to ensure untold stories are brought to light.
The staff’s contact information is here: https://www.archives.gov/nhprc/contact.html
I would reach out to the director Chris Eck to see if someone on his staff would could participate.
They also have a list of published projects: https://www.archives.gov/nhprc/projects/catalog
So you might be able to look through it to find ones that would fit into your topic and reach out to the various institutions.
Good luck!
There’s a tradition of documentary film making in the Western History Association. In particular, there is a recently-graduated scholar who are doing this work within his community:
John Little, THE INDIAN UNIVERSITY OF NORTH AMERICA, [email protected]
Perhaps you might consider a transcription project like the Colored Convention Project, which is about recognizing a body of texts (colored conventions), encouraging people to participate in the historical process (through transcription) and using the transcriped projects. The CCP makes its ethical framework very clear in its principles document which could be a model to public history projects.
I just sent them an email, thanks so much for the advice!
I was excited to read your topic proposal, and it would be great to learn about the mechanics, that is, the technical methods, of how underrepresented groups can be made more visible in editions. I think your bulleted goals are really excellent as well. Is it also worth grappling with the larger question of why so many documentary editions have focused on elites to begin with–is it a funding issue, the availability of the papers, the interests of specific institutions or scholars, etc.? How did the editions that focus on less elite people (I’m sure there are some) come into to being, and can those kinds of approaches be put into action more widely?
Hi Al, I’d glad you’ve found interest in my proposal. I think you raise a good question in asking why it is that certain projects come into being more easily than others. I think that often some more elite focused projects get funding more easily much like elite focused house museums do: they initially had a lot more public support and they were well preserved (whether papers or a building). You’ve raised some points that I will be sure to incorporate into the proposal.