Reading Response - Nov 20

It is only fitting that for our last topic of class discussion we return to an issue that each of us have debated heavily over the last year.  How do historians handle everyone being able to share their story of an event in this new “information age?” 

I thought that the Boston Marathon article was awesome in that the historian was reaching out to the public through the media to have people tell their stories.  While prior to this we have been focused on actually documenting people’s stories for our own use, we have not really gotten into how a historian would reach out to the public to find these people.  Some of the public history articles we read today helped me out with that problem, but that is one thing that I wish we could discuss a little more today.

The scientific research piece was interesting for me because I had never thought about the different ways to compile research (especially in relation to a museum).  I have never taken a public history class here, so in a way some of this is foreign to me.  The majority of my experience has been conducting my own research for projects, and I have not ever gotten a good feel for how museums do theirs.  There must be some differences or there would not be a Public History emphasis area here.

Even though coming into this class I had the idea that history was moving closer to some of the sciences in the way we are able to conduct research, I struggled defending that case.  This class has exposed me to many unique programs, and projects that I probably would not had much exposure to anywhere else.  Most importantly, now that I have a feel for some of the new technologies that are out there, I have been given new ways to refute the constant jabs from the biologists and engineers around this campus.

Reflection on Listening Lab / Reading 11-6-13

Last week we spent the second half of the class in the digital listening lab in Daniel.  I thought that it was very interesting learning the ways that people compile information out of tweets and facebook posts.  I do not believe that anyone here was shock that the technology is available to do things like this, but what is amazing is knowing that if we needed social media information for our research projects this lab could be at our disposal. 

It seems like a very difficult way to do research because it seems to take hours of work on the part of the researcher to even set up the project.  Then he or she would have to work hard to make sure that the data they were receiving was accurate.  It would take a very specific project for the lab to help a historian, first because social networking is still relatively new and you average historian researching would not go through the process.  This research process is more like what I would be used to seeing in a science class than history. 

Today’s blog reading is touching on an issue that extends into history in general, and not just digital history.  The writer is making an observation that people have different perspectives on history, and as a “public historian” the writer is trying to ask what the best way is to share these thoughts.  People say daily that history is typically written by the winners, but is it a public historian’s job to go the extra mile to get both sides of the story?