Reading Resp - September 25

The common theme that I took away from the readings today was an effort of the part of the writers to convince historians to use the quantitative data that computers offer to help make arguments.  As historians, we never are able to “prove” something to be true.  It is our job to use documents from the past and best explain how an event occurred.

Cohen and the “Text Mining” articles were very focused on text analysis and how historians can use it to make observations about the past.  Cohen points out that even though computers might not be an efficient way of browsing through a small collection of documents, computers can make a historian’s job much easier by sorting through large libraries for relevancy.  Computers are not taking our jobs in relation to analyzing one particular work, but they are better suited to make broad generalizations about every document related to a particular research area than a historian’s mind.  The “Text Mining” article did an outstanding job explaining some of the ways computers can sort through writings showing things such as the origin of a word or when an idea began to be popular in society.

The argument that I picked up on in the Doughterty and Nawrotzki article was one that instead of fighting visual representation, historians should embrace the chance to easily support the argument.  Computer generated visual representations are beginning to make their way into historical depictions especially in social media, and should be accepted into the academia as well.  Personally I do not put as much value as I should into seeking visual representations of data, and the main reason is historians do not use them in a classroom setting to help make a point.  Outside of a map showing the location of a particular region, traditionally more humanistic historians would rather look at individual writings or art rather than data charts showing the spread of the Protestant faith across Europe.  While the arts are important parts of evidence, presenting organized data is effective too.

Reading Response - September 18, 2013

Last week in class, I brought up the argument that people are much more trusting of maps than they should be.  We are not very equipped to form an argument against one, and are cultured into just accepting them as being true.  The first reading for today shows us how “maps lie.”  People that create them are just as bias as anyone else, so it makes since for that to show up in a map.  The most fascinating intentional deceit by mapmakers was Nazi Germany purposefully making the Allied nations out to be world powers, while deflecting blame off of Hitler’s government trying to conquer Europe. 

Current maps lie as well.  Mapmakers keep secrets of things that the public should not see, and hides eyesores like waste dumps.  Mapmakers also are not above error (ie. Seattle and Ottawa), so in order to get a more accurate representation of reality combining a collection of maps is the most accurate practice.  Tools that we now have like GIS allow us to form maps based off of previous data that are more accurate.  Typically the truth falls in the middle, and computer programs make the truth closer to a reality for historians.

The article on GIS is a very optimistic outlook on how this relatively new system can bring historians and geographers closer together.  We discussed this in class last week, and even though this system can be a useful tool for doing that, it still will require open dialogue between the two fields.  The other issue that Martí-Henneberg addresses is, after a project has been completed, there has to be a decision as to how researchers will make their information available to future colleagues.  Finland made all of its information available to everyone, whether that is the answer in the United States is not for me to decide, but constantly taking the same maps and setting them up in GIS is ludicrous if the work has already been done.  We need some way of efficiently sharing our work.

September 11, 2013

“Historyonics”

The argument begins as showing the disconnect between historians and geographers that really took shape in the 1970s and 1980s.  I can understand some of that; although I thoroughly enjoy and have an appreciation for history, geography does not typically have the same impact.  Typically speaking the two disciplines are taught exclusive of one another, and they would be more intriguing to me if they were more tightly intertwined.  The article shows the infinite possibilities to analyze text and digitally apply it to maps to help tell stories.  When we were talking about virtual recreations of battles, this is the type of method we discussed.  Taking numerous journal entries from individual soldiers, positioning them on the battlefield, and then recreating their stories from the writings.  The people, and their writings tell a story that needs to be heard, just like the buildings and artifacts that we collect on these sites.

“What is Spatial History?”

The most intriguing point that I pulled from this reading is that spatial history projects are not feasible without collaboration between historians.  Up until now, if I wanted to research a topic and write a book on it, it is typical for me to work on the project alone.  While there are collaborations in history projects, most historians do work alone.  Since the special history projects are so detail oriented and focused on large ideas, historians must work in teams to be successful.  I think that special history provides historians a unique new way to look at the past.  When we read, we try to recreate what is on the pages before us in our minds, and computers are now allowing us to recreate what we see in words and numbers into images that if done effectively can accurately recreate the past.

“HyperCities”

Recreating cities in a digital format is not done for the pleasure of the historian.  These projects are still open to peer review, and the digital recreations themselves simply provide historians with a tool to formulate the argument.  Digital history does not eliminate the argument good historians are forced to present, but these tools provide historians with support to their claims.

The Elections in Iran example may provide us a good look at where we are headed as historians begin to chronicle the footprint that this generation leaves behind.  We discussed in class a few weeks ago that we now have so many sources of information at our disposal to help tell the stories of what happened, and historians were able to put together youtube clips, pictures, tweets, ect. on a map in the attempt to recreate the story of the Iranian protests.  The media has been doing the same thing in recent weeks with the chemical attack in Syria.  

Reading Response September 4

The first reading addressed the issue of digitalizing archival artifacts.  More and more historians are using cameras and scanners to keep track of documents is a digital world.  The article itself is a little outdated in the technology shown.  Digital scanners are no longer as bulky as what is shown there, and now can fit in your hand.  The use of the tripod in taking pictures was very useful however.

The second article was a blog in response to a report by the National Endowment for the Humanities.  The main goal was to try to get an understanding of how individual historians are now accessing and using primary sources in the new digital age.  While most historians are now using digital copies of primary material to further their research, what I found most intriguing is how many methods individual historians use in note taking and compiling evidence.  Because everyone has their own ways to work, it can prove difficult for historians to work together in the long run.

In the third reading Price looks at more traditional terms associated with the historical method and makes the argument as to whether or not they should still fit in this new digital history medium.  I found his article to be extremely wordy and difficult to read through.  Of the four articles I enjoyed this one the least even though Price brought up some interesting points in questioning what an "edition," "project," or database really is.  It was not until I read through all of this that I starting thinking that those words mean different things to each person, must like digital history means different things to everyone in the room when we were asked to define day one. 

The forth reading by Ford addressed an issue that every high school science teacher meets when teaching the scientific method.  Because we have all of these new ways of collecting data, there are countless numbers out there for historians to pull from, but without an adequate explanation on the part of the historians to what those numbers mean and how applicable they are to an argument, they are just numbers.  Those high school science teachers try to explain why it is important to explain your data from the experiment  and now that same process is finding a home in the humanities as well.