Week 2
Spiro proposes five specific values for digital humanities: openness, collaboration, collegiality and connectedness, diversity, and experimentation. I will look at each of these values in turn and comment on whether I think the values should apply to history generally.
Openness
Spiro describes openness in the digital humanities as involving the open exchange of ideas and the development of open content. I certainly agree that ideas should be exchanged openly and freely in the study of history, but I would not rule out the need for some limits on openness once the ideas are solidified in the form of content. When I say content I mean particularly the scholarly writings that historians produce. Spiro describes the digital humanities community embracing “open-source software tools, freely accessible digital collections, and open-access journals and books.” She mentions that some digital humanists even make their content free without requiring a license. I question whether such a fully-open model would work for historians who depend on publishing their work as books or journal articles and whose academic career advancement may depend on how often their work is cited. The open model may put them at risk for no longer receiving credit and attribution for their ideas or put them in a situation where they are no longer able to derive income from their work; thus, a move to full openness in the study of history generally would also need to be accompanied by a fundamental change in the way historians are compensated and the way they build a scholarly reputation.
Collaboration
In introducing the value of collaboration, Spiro quotes Alex Reid who says that the humanities work with the “presumption that intellectual work is fundamentally individual.” I am not embedded deeply enough in the field of history to know if it is fair to say that this presumption characterizes the field although it does ring true to what I experienced in the world of an English major. Encouraging collaboration in the work of historians strikes me as a worthwhile endeavor. In the group projects that I have done at the University of Michigan School of Information, I have benefited from working with collaborators. That said, I also appreciate Spiro’s recognition that while collaboration is essential, “some work is better done in solitude.” An approach based on what is best for the work would be preferable to insisting on collaboration at all times.
Collegiality and Connectedness
Spiro identifies the values of collegiality and connectedness as values that grow out of the commitment of the digital humanities community to openness and collaboration. I would expect that the values of collegiality and connectedness would similarly increase in the field of history if the field embraced more openness and collaboration. I say “increase” because I presume that the realities of the Internet age are already pushing historians to be more connected. I also want to believe that historians are already a collegial bunch.
Diversity
I agree that the value of diversity should apply to history generally, and I find significant Spiro’s statement that while the digital humanities community embraces diversity and makes it a goal, there is still progress to be made in achieving the goal. I think this statement applies to the other humanities including history, so I agree with Spiro’s call for recognition “that the community is more vibrant, discussions are richer, and projects are stronger if multiple perspectives are represented.”
Experimentation
While discussing the value of experimentation, Spiro gives as an example an article written by two historians that was initially rejected for publication because it used hypertext. This example is from 2002, and I am curious if an article using hypertext would be more welcome today given the greater use and awareness of digital tools like hypertext. I suspect such an article would be more accepted since hypertext has proven itself and no longer seems experimental.
Following from this example, I would not go so far as to insist that historians embrace experimentation without hesitation. Historians have a valid reason for sticking with traditional tools and forms. At the moment, following the well-established methods lends credibility to the historians’ work because peer reviewers sometimes struggle with how to evaluate experimental scholarship and may give it less prestige. That said, I hope that historians continue to embrace the value of experimentation as something that can lead to new, potentially useful tools, methods, and insights. Continued experimentation by historians will help prompt improvements in the peer review process to keep up.