Can the arbiters of the past tear themselves away from it? This question repeatedly entered my thoughts during Edward Ayers’ visit to our class in mid-November when he discussed his role in digital scholarship’s advancement in the study of history and the current status of modern technological use in the field. His most notable contribution to digital history, a massive resource of primary documents from two counties on opposing sides of the Civil War called the Valley of the Shadow, has undergone remarkably little alteration since its creation in 1990 (aside from the actions taken to keep it internet-accessible). While prominent historians like Dr. Ayers press for the field of history to move forward with digital accessibility and digital research methods, they have been disappointed with the pace of change.
The most central obstacle to technological progress appears to be the question of direction. Historians, whether unsettled by the pace of technological change or unaware of how to harness such change—or for any number of other reasons—can’t seem to reach even a modest consensus on how to both let go of certain elements pertaining to “19th Century” methods of study (manuscripts, books, academic articles) and take advantage of the plethora of possibilities that digital scholarship can offer. In my relatively brief experience, historians are great identifiers—the undisputed champions of producing definitive statements that often read something like: “[insert specific field here] historians have not spent nearly enough time addressing [insert certain aspect of a certain period/event here], and this [book, article, essay] aims not only to make such study more relevant in ongoing discussion of [insert specific field here], but also to encourage further scholarship on the matter”—but they are infrequently tasked with solving current problems. This issue is far too important to continue a relative standstill on, however, as the current of the times is simply can’t be denied. To put it bluntly, historians must adapt if the study of history is to continue progressing in the twenty-first century.
In the OAH discussion, “Is Blogging Scholarship?,” the historians on the panel provided a number of opinions on the definition of scholarship, the possibilities and limitations of blogging, and the ways in which history has been created—and how its creation could be improved. While each member seemed to agree that blogging served a useful and positive purpose, no one could determine how to elevate the practice to a more acceptable status in the academic world (at least in the first thirty minutes of the video), because the practice is often viewed as too colloquial, brief, open-ended, and vulnerable to a non manageable standard of quality. None of the participants presented even a simple, concrete suggestion on how foster blogging’s climb in respectability. It’s difficult to determine what prompted such silence, but while we’re on the subject of simple suggestions—or ideas, really—I’ll extend a couple.
In regards to the issue of peer review in blogs, or lack thereof, why not create a blog with the option for academic peer review prior to publication? When cruising through a historical blog like The Junto, this idea appears especially practical given that the primary contributors are limited to established academics in early American history (unless a guest post is included, which is presumably reviewed by a regular contributor). If a contributor were presented the option to have his or her post reviewed before publicizing it (perhaps less strenuously than a scholarly article) by another contributor or colleague, the posts may earn more credit in the academic world, even if the rapidity of production often associated with blog posts became somewhat compromised. The other major area of concern for academic blogging among the panel participants dealt with the lack of recognition for the practice at academic institutions. In an effort to put blogging on the radar at such places, would it be possible to create a few blogging templates designed to be applied by colleges and universities specifically for professors, both adjunct and tenured, to post on? While my technical knowledge of website and blog creation is essentially nonexistent, it seems that if a foundation were created specifically for use, adaptation, and improvement by academic institutions, the practice of blogging may eventually find a place of recognition in the scholarly world. I am aware that these ideas, if they are not well in the process of being carried out already, may be too simplistic, naïve, or impractical for consideration—or maybe they’re plausible. Either way, I’d like to hear about it, since discussion of actual possibilities is how concrete progress is made, right?