In the past, I have shaped exhibits after the content.  So my process has been focused on identifying the key elements of the project at hand – Subject and artifact centered.  Build the comprehensive history from research around the elements; distill the exhibit from (essentially) my interpretation of the significant history and relationships, engage in dialogue with design experts and then determine how that exhibit can be mounted with in the identified space, open the exhibit, gather feedback.  The readings assigned for Modules 4 and 5 call for a much more engaged approach to all facets of the project – history, design and ‘experience’ of the exhibit …extending into an on-going conversation and continuing impact of the history beyond the immediate exhibit space.

A simplified revised conception of the public humanities project process would be: focused on identifying the key elements of the project at hand – Subject and artifact centered.  Consider the audience for these elements (what will they need to know, how would they use this information). Sherratt.  Build the comprehensive history from research around the elements while engaging professional and audience partners in the process of research, design and engagement. Spichiger, Rabiinowicz, Lubar. Finalize the conception of the history with the team (possibly including an audience test – Colter).  Determine how the exhibit can be mounted with in the identified space, how the previously identified and potential audiences can be informed, engaged and consider potential for on-going collection of history and engagement of the audience (archive building and social media).  Open the Exhibit.  Receive audience feedback and finalize institutional review.

This project process is a dramatic shift from the “Ivory Tower” conception and accomplishment of projects that was the 20^th Century model.  Fortunately there is a gallery of digital humanities projects that demonstrate how this format can work for both the physical display of exhibits and new digital forms of exhibits and historical engagement opportunities (web search Digital Humanities Projects on almost any topic or refer to examples listed at the bottom of this page).  Not unexpectedly, the content and quality of these projects can vary based on access to resources and the quality of the personnel involved in the projects.  Quality projects include in the recognition of the need for the curation and maintenance of supportive materials and archive of the metadata to maintain veracity, accessibility and usability of the historical material being created.  Inclusion of the various perspectives involved in the new methodology requires early and expanded identification of the exhibit “team”.  Enhanced and frequent communication (written and face to face) and focused intentional collaboration is needed to assure that all perspectives are truly being considered and incorporated into the ‘story’ being created.  Documentation of resources, metadata, on-going team collaboration are essential to keep the direction and component parts of the project progressing toward the same end product.  Owens, “Metadata”, Brennan & Kelly, Whitelaw, Fisher, Kissane

The value of this updated process is the creation of a more holistic, engaged history.  Social historians of the late 20^th Century (Labor, Ethnic & Gender) called for attention to and expansion of the conception of history to include ‘the wider public’, a movement away from the focus on ‘Great Men and Great Deeds’.  However in the early days of this new history, the content and delivery still utilized traditional approaches and methodologies.   Since resources to acquire the history of ‘the wider public’ didn’t exist.  Technological advancements and refinement of digital methods has made access to the interpretation of public documents, GIS infrastructure analysis and inclusion of “the crowd” and a more accurate representation of ‘the wider public’ possible.  Including participation and involvement in the creation of public humanities projects increases the awareness of and access to new historical sources, expands the perspective in the creation and expression of the exhibit, builds a larger and more engaged audience and develops new avenues for future historical questions: What is the historical impact of audience engagement in the development and presentation of their own history?  This type of question is already being developed in the 911 and Hurricane archive.  It is a new and exciting time to be a “stuffy old historian”.

Sheila A Brennan and T. Mills Kelly, “Why Collecting History Online Is Web 1.5,” Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media, March 2009, http://rrchnm.org/essay/why-collecting-history-online-is-web-1-5/  accessed Feb. – Mar. 2018.

Angela Colter, “Testing Content,” A List Apart, December 14, 2010, http://alistapart.com/article/testing-content  accessed Feb. – Mar. 2018.

Erin Kissane, “A Checklist for Content Work,” A List Apart, March 8, 2011, http://alistapart.com/article/a-checklist-for-content-work  accessed Feb. – Mar. 2018.

Steve Lubar, “The Curator Rules,” On Public Humanities, February 7, 2015, https://stevenlubar.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/creative-curation-curatorial-rules-and-when-to-break-them/ accessed Feb.- Mar. 2018.

Metadata,” JISC Digital Media, http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/infokit/metadata/metadata-home accessed Feb.- Mar. 2018.

Trevor Owens, “What Do You Mean by Archive? Genres of Usage for Digital Preservers | The Signal: Digital Preservation,” Blog, The Signal: Digital Preservation, (February 27, 2014), http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2014/02/what-do-you-mean-by-archive-genres-of-usage-for-digital-preservers/  accessed Feb.- Mar. 2018.

Tim Sherratt, “It’s All About the Stuff: Collections, Interfaces, Power, and People,” Journal of Digital Humanities 1, no. 1 (March 9, 2012), http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/1-1/its-all-about-the-stuff-by-tim-sherratt/  accessed Feb.- Mar. 2018.

Spichiger, L., J. Jacobson, Telling an Old Story in a New Way: Raid on Deerfield: The Many Stories of 1704, in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2005: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, published March 31, 2005.

Richard Rabinowicz, “Eavesdropping at the Well: Interpretive Media in the Slavery in New York Exhibition,” Public Historian 35:3 (August 2013), pp. 8-45.

Michael Whitelaw, “Generous Interfaces for Digital Cultural Heritage Collections,” Digital Humanities Quarterly 9, no. 1 (2015) http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/9/1/000205/000205.html  accessed Feb.- Mar. 2018.

Examples of Digital Public History Websites:

• The Raid on Deerfield
• Slavery in New York
• A More Perfect Union
• Gulag: Many Days
• Driving Through Time: The Digital Blue Ridge Parkway
• Mapping Prejudice
• Names in Brick and Stone: Histories from UNC’s Built Landscape
• Hurricane Digital Memory Bank
• Baltimore Uprising
• National Archives, Citizen Archivist Dashboard