Exploring the work of “Public History” through the written histories of their work (Grele, Meringolo, Dichtl & Townsend) and then comparing the development of Public History Websites from the 1990’s to the 20teens (JUST 2-3 decades!) delivers some revelatory insights.  This exercise reinforces the idea of the acceleration of time.  Change over time had certainly increased in pace since the industrial revolution, but the emergence of “professions” and “professional” expertise has had a longer and more significant impact because it changes and adapts with the technologies rather than becoming obsolete.

Meringolo’s  first professionals were “National Park Rangers” whose primary emphasis was to preserve and communicate a ‘rationale’ for why something (land, plant, object, etc.) should be persevered as public trust has morphed into an array of specialty fields working together to preserve, protect, analyze, formulate policy, interpret, educate and promote the significance of our resources and our past.  The ability of these Public servants to adapt to changes in public needs and styles of communication is astounding.  The early adaptation of digital technologies came as a result of the size of the public  holdings, the diversity of demands from “the public”, the ability to disseminate information more broadly, the ease of cataloging, organizing and updating on digital platforms and the constant responsibility to engage, communicate and be responsible to public culture.

“Digital Public History” began and grew with the technology.  From the 1930’s, single interpreter standing at a site, to “historical markers” which made efforts to explain or interpret what the visitor was viewing, moved first to exhibits which placed people into context.  The shift to the web, was natural but limited by the medium.  Placement of “an exhibit,” a static object or picture expanded the number of visitors.  However as the software and hardware improved, Public servants adapted and included the available features – pictures moved, audios were attached, links were created for resources.  However, as well as adopting design of the features of a site, the understanding of how material is presented and interpreted was also changing.  Shifts from utilizing the knowledge of expert historians, “Public historians” became creators of new methods of interpretation and recognized “public” elements of the American past, because they have been involved with publics that traditional history had not encountered or overlooked.  The “public” nature of “Public History” meant that new understandings needed to be included.  As popular culture changed its methods of communication and expression, Public Historians had to “Keep Up”.  When traditional historians recognized what was going on, a period of great debate as to ‘whom’ the arbiters of history should be emerged.  Public Historians had to identify their craft and Traditional Historians had to recognize something different was going on. (Grele & McClurken).

The “Academy” has continued to set and refine standards (American Historical Review) which are taught to academic historians, teachers and public historians that emphasize process:

• “Question the source
• Evaluate the evidence it offers for its assertions
• Read and consider the source more carefully than any historical account read before.”   (Wineburg)

And the values of integrity, accuracy, and professionally accepted practices of citation and standards quality.  Jeffrey McClurken applied these standards to Digital products of history which create an entire new library of forms from podcasts to digital exhibits and archives to games.  However he quickly establishes the essence of how a product should be evaluated:

“In summary, most reviews, will address the following five areas:

• Content: Is the scholarship sound and current? What is the interpretative point of view? How well is the content communicated to users?
• Design: Does the information architecture clearly communicate what a user can find in the site? Does the structure make it easy for a user to navigate through the site? Do all of the sections of the project function as expected? Does it have a clear, effective, and original design? How accessible is the site for individuals of all abilities? If it is a website, is it responsive (i.e., tablet/mobile-friendly)?
• Audience: Is the project directed at a clear audience? How well does the project address the needs of that audience?
• Digital Media: Does it make effective use of digital media and new technology? Does it do something that could not be done in other media—print, exhibition, film?
• Creators: Many digital projects include multiple contributors. Who worked on this project and in what capacity?” (McClurkin)

The Digital tools and mediums of communication have created new ways of finding and using history.  The ability to ‘see’ the past in new ways (maps and graphs for example) and multiply case studies by utilizing public databases.  These histories both traditional and digitally based are now all exposed to “a broader public” via social media tools, digital publications and libraries.  Access is increased.  While ‘amateur’ historians previously found in local societies and clubs, have always contributed to the field, the new concepts of “crowd sourcing” both in engagement practices to create larger community of support and increasingly as a work force is a promising new direction.  Involving a “public” will definitely add dimension and debate and hopefully again widen the circle of understanding.  Historians, like the past, are changing over time.

Notes:

Ronald J. Grele, “Whose Public? Whose History? What is the Goal of Public History?“ The Public Historian, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Winter, 1981), 40-48.

Denise D. Meringolo, Museums, Monuments, and National Parks: Toward a New Genealogy of Public History (Amherst: Univ. of Massachusetts Press, 2012). (Prologue and Conclusion).

John Dichtl and Robert B. Townsend, “A Picture of Public History: Preliminary Results from the Survey of Public History Professionals,” Perspectives on History, September 2009.

Sam Wineburg, “Thinking Like a Historian,”: http://www.loc.gov/teachers/tps/quarterly/historical_thinking/article.html

Review Journal of American History guidelines for reviewing websites: http://jah.oah.org/submit/digital-history-reviews/