What skills or knowledge from your coursework are you using in your internship? Have you noticed a difference between theory and practice? Why or Why not? This is a challenging question for me, because I have been attempting to merge history and Digital Public Humanities (DPH) and it is difficult for me to now isolate them. ‘What are the skills of DPH and how does the theory and practice differ from traditional history’ and is what the essence of my internship’ and another effort to merge the two (history and digital humanities).
During the process of arranging for this internship and coinciding with it; I have had some planned, some unanticipated, professional and personal opportunities providing DPH engagement experience. These ventures have provided their own insights into the theory and practice. As I have made a concerted effort to immerse myself in all things digital humanities over the past 2 years, the experiences tend to wind together in my brain.
In terms of theory, my natural bent is to the work of Sam Wineburg who discusses the nature of historical thinking and Digital Humanities processes reflecting on the intellectual differences between the two.[1] He applies historical thinking methodology to the data gathered through digital means, in other words, ‘digital humanities’ is just a new historical methodology. That is what I thought when I decided I wanted to learn what ‘digital humanities’ was all about. However, every historian is taught the significance of methodology and how the body of research impact interpretation. The use of the term “corpus” has transformed the meaning of historical research to include digital textual and linguistic analysis rather than the socio-cultural contextual analysis traditionally practiced. Digital historians seek to incorporate the digital into our research, which changes where we search for sources and eventually influence our interpretation.
In my internship, I am seeking to create a new corpus from established collections and then interpret and present the findings using digital strategies. To date, I have found helpful in this process, theory that is ‘methods’ rich, such as the work of Sheila Brennan and T. Mills Kelly. Although I am not creating a crowd-sourcing project; their framing has been helpful. I have applied their “lessons” in content collection, technical issues, attracting visitors & building trust with potential contributors and most important adding 25% (50% if you are a newbie like me) to TIME Estimates. Their idea that “low barrier entry is critical”I found very applicable when recruiting partners for this internship. I promoted maximum benefit, minimal work and management to my supervising institutions as the “low barrier entry”. Institutional collections, even when you think you are familiar with them, have their own idiosyncrasies and the assistance of ‘the insider’ is essential.[2] The literature of digital methods AND historical thinking is helping as I process the form of the Smithsonian Learning Lab collection I am creating.[3] However, the experts make it appear so easy. The challenges of research, the interference of daily obstacles and filling in the gaps of technical knowledge sometimes make this adventure feel more tedious then inspiring. But then I remember: I am creating new knowledge, in a new way……Making History!
[1] Wineburg, Sam. “Why Historical Thinking is Not About History.” History News 71, no. 2 Spring. 2016.
[2] Brennan, Sheila A., and T. Mills Kelly. “Why Collecting History Online is Web 1.5” Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media. 2009.
[3] Examples include: Kelly, T. Mills. “The History Curriculum in 2023.” edwired (blog). January 2013. Schrum, K. (2012). “A tale of two goldfish bowls . . . Or what’s right with digital storytelling.” In D. Cohen & T. Scheinfeldt (Eds.) Hacking the academy: A book crowdsourced in one week. Ann Arbor, MI, University of Michigan Press. Calder, Lendol. “Uncoverage: Toward a Signature Pedagogy for the History Survey”. Journal of American History. P. 1358-1370. March 2006.
