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?
No comments:
Post a Comment