Facing Source Abundance and the Discussion of Historians' Digital Tools

Since the 1990s, a new way of research has opened up for historians: public web. With the internet and the availability of archives or databases fill with primary and secondary sources, historians have had a much easier way to research. One of the obstacles that historians had to face was learning how to use the internet to do so; using the technology instead of merely in-hand texts was a method that historians were not adept with. However, historians would adapt with the times due to the usefulness of the resource. Technology also opened up new ways to show data and information, such as Geographical Informational Systems (GIS), that provided visuals to help scholars, and students alike, not only change over time, but also patterns in trade, migration, letter writing, etc. All of this to say, historians were provided new tools and it led to a new skillset that was required of the historian.

One of the points of my blog post here is that of the tools historians need. More specifically, how should we prepare current and upcoming (under)graduate students to research in an era with more digital sources than paper, and how far do we go in these teachings: do they learn HTML, programming, coding, etc., or do they merely need to understand how to research using the web. In Ian Milligan’s History in the Age of Abundance? How the Web is Transforming Digital Research, he discusses the need for a more individual approach instead of a top-down approach, meaning that this should begin at lower levels such as the departments (Milligan, 2019). Milligan’s argument is that young historians need to be taught how to think “algorithmically,” going as far as saying it may be necessary to learn “basic computational algorithms via the Programming Historian.” (Milligan, 2020) It is here where I express my opinions on the topic based off Milligan’s book, the 202 AHR Panel Review of the book, and Milligan’s response to the AHR panel.

The extent at which Milligan wants us to understand computers not only sparks fear in potential history students, but also overextends both the curriculum and undermines the crux of historical teaching, ignorantly ignoring that most history students do not continue to become full historians (Story, Guldi, Hitchcock, & Moraveck, 2020). There is no doubt that being a historian necessitates using digital resources and having digital knowledge; this is non-negotiable in the Age of Abundance. However, the extent at which Milligan wants us to understand the technology is a stretch. To discuss my former point, teaching students to that extent of technology sparks fear into prospective history students. Speaking from personal experience, I have no disinterest in learning about digital humanities and believe it is extremely important to learn the technology available, but going to the extent of even basic algorithmic thinking in computers would turn me off to studying history. My ability to understand even basic math is a huge goal why my undergraduate degree was changed. If I were to have been told that I have to learn more extensive technological theory or such, I would not have even considered considering history. In a field where historians grapple with making sure to write academically and professionally, while wanting more people to invest in historical thinking, we cannot risk further ostracizing people to historical query.

To my latter point, adding more detailed technological curriculum is not only difficult, but also unrealistic. History students, at both the undergraduate and graduate level, are plagued by the natural nature of imposter syndrome, for history students specifically not knowing near enough about the student’s area of research. To add a curriculum with a relatively extensive knowledge of computer algorithms and algorithmic thinking may be the tip of the iceberg for students. Now not only do they have to worry about knowing enough history, understanding historiography, and applying methodologies, but they have to worry about the technological portion of understanding algorithmic thinking. In addition, it ignores the crux of historical thinking. Tim Hitchock makes a point that I find important to consider in this discussion: “Arguing over the training required for this small minority [of students who actually go on to be historians] takes attention away from what university history teaching needs to do….we need to concentrate on how to build digital critical skills at this level.” (Story, Guldi, Hitchcock, & Moraveck, 2020) Teaching the whole of students these computational concepts is less important than the critical digital thinking needed for a future historian.

Lastly, the topic of abundance is also important. Milligan discusses in the aforementioned book that we have left the period of scarcity of sources, to a period of abundance of sources. (Milligan, 2019) This sounds great at first glance, however it is almost as if finding a needle in a haystack. What bothers me with this mindset is that for historians it is better to have more than less. Geoffrey Elton discusses the importance of using the largest amount of sources we can for a more total history, even though it is virtually impossible to address every source. Having this abundance of sources provides multiple different ways to find the sources, not just have the sources available. It is ideal that technology will become more advanced and databases/archives more user friendly for more specified researches. The biggest concern that Milligan also talks about is the life of digital sources. Some websites or sources will only last ten years, what then? To this end I also express my concern. The government would have to take more care in assuring these sources remain available for historians. It is not surprising that other countries have taken more interest in doing so, as the United States is less interested in Academia than more first-world countries (Milligan, 2019). In any case, I do not believe there to be a solution to this from the perspective of historians; the most that we can do is encourage legislatures to make changes for this.

Questions to Consider:

1. To what extent is having an abundance of digital sources harmful to researchers? Would your answer change considering the need for a total history to the best of our abilities?

2. To what extent should we apply algorithmic thinking to historians curriculum?

3. Do you think that bringing in a much more digital-skills curriculum would encourage or discourage prospective history students? Why or why not?

4. Do you think that the "fake-news" that Milligan discusses is something to really be concern of, or is it important because of the differing perspectives of topics that would help historians understand society?

5. In what way can historians think more "algorithmically" like Milligan argues we should?