{"id":45,"date":"2020-02-02T19:22:20","date_gmt":"2020-02-02T19:22:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/?page_id=45"},"modified":"2022-01-04T18:56:02","modified_gmt":"2022-01-04T18:56:02","slug":"readers-report-3","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/readers-report-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Reader’s Report #3"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

*Note: The period for public comment ended April 10, 2020.*<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This essay provides a useful historical perspective on the rhetoric of democratization and openness in digital humanities and digital history. With over 100 footnotes, the article plumbs the discourse around the digital humanities from the 1990s onward, offering a compelling synthesis. The writing is lively and engaging. I appreciate the authors\u2019 commitment to openness, as exemplified both by participating in an open review process and by creating a well-respected history textbook.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As rich as the essay is, its focus can be\ntightened, its terms can be better defined, and its analysis elaborated. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Focus: The essay seems to be\npursuing two questions: 1) In what \u201cideological context\u201d did open educational\nresources in history emerge? 2) To what extent does digital history\/ digital\nhumanities meet its democratic ambitions? Based on the second paragraph, I\nexpected the essay to focus on 1, but the bulk of the essay actually explored\n2. Each question is worthy, but I would suggest either choosing one or drawing\na tighter connection between the two. If the essay is arguing that digital\nhistory could better achieve its democratic ambitions by emphasizing the\ncreation of OER, it should make that argument more explicit and demonstrate how\nOER go beyond access to support democratic participation. I suspect that one\nreason archival and research projects receive more recognition and funding is\nthat academia tends to value research over teaching. <\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n
    • Terminology: As several\ncommentators have noted, sometimes the article conflates \u201cdigital history\u201d and\n\u201cdigital humanities.\u201d To what extent do the critiques of digital humanities\napply to digital history? For example, does digital history, with its grounding\nin public history, better engage with communities?
      \n
      \nLikewise, the article sometimes uses \u201copen access\u201d and \u201cOER\u201d interchangeably,\neven though these movements emerged in different contexts. To avoid confusion,\neither provide clearer definitions of the terms early in the essay or tighten\nthe focus. I\u2019d also like to see a more specific analysis of the various forms\nof OER in history beyond textbooks (broadly construed). Projects like the\nTransatlantic Slave Trade database and Valley of the Shadow have become\ninvaluable classroom resources and have offered lesson plans to facilitate\ntheir use in teaching. In addition, projects like History Engine enabled\nstudents to participate in writing publicly available micro-histories, and\nHistory Harvests engaged students in working with communities to publicly\ndocument their histories. What difference does a focus on learning (in the case\nof OER) rather than research (in the case of open access) make? Given the\nauthors\u2019 valuable work leading The American Yawp, I would be interested to\nlearn more about what inspired it, how it works, and what impact it has had. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
      • Analysis: I like how the essay\nbegins by invoking Roy Rosenszweig\u2019s important essay on Wikipedia, but I wonder\nif some of the tensions inherent in Wikipedia might be engaged more as a way of\nsetting up the core arguments in the essay. Is Wikipedia democratic since it\nfacilitates participation (with strict norms and protocols) and makes content\naccessible, or is it undemocratic because it tends to be dominated by white\nmen, depends upon uncompensated labor, and can be used to spread\nmisinformation? I don\u2019t mean that this essay should become a critique of\nWikipedia, but that it should engage more with the complexities of openness and\nparticipation in the digital environment.
        \n
        \nIf the essay aims \u201cto provide a critical evaluation of OER\u2019s place in the\nhistorical profession,\u201d I believe it should say a bit more about how history\nOER fits into the overall development of OER, e.g. initiatives such as MIT\nOpenCourseWare, funders such as the Hewlett Foundation, repositories such as\nMERLOT, licenses such as Creative Commons, etc. What values motivated the\ndevelopment of OER, and how do these values compare to the ones shaping digital\nhistory? <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n

        From my perspective, the claims about the\ninstitutionalization of digital humanities seem somewhat overstated. Grant\nfunding remains relatively modest, there still aren\u2019t many DH faculty\npositions, and there continue to be debates about the legitimacy of DH. The\nhumanities also seem to be behind many other disciplines in embracing open\naccess publishing. For example, while there are some notable open monograph\npublishing initiatives, most humanities books are still published on a\ntraditional model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The essay points aptly summarizes many of the\ncriticisms of digital humanities, such as \nits failure to engage in cultural critique (see also Alan Liu), the\nbiases inherent in technology, its lack of representativeness, and other\nissues. I think it\u2019s also worth noting that many of the best-funded projects\nhave focused on the canon (see, for instance, Amy Earhart\u2019s \u201cCan Information Be\nUnfettered? Race and the New Digital Humanities Canon\u201d). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        While I am sympathetic to the argument that\nprojects focused on access fail to achieve the democratic hopes of digital\nhistory, I would like to see further analysis of this claim. I think it is fair\nto argue that many DH projects fail to engage communities and thus to ensure\nthat their work has an impact. But isn\u2019t access to knowledge at least part of\nwhat is required to have a democratic society, so that citizens can be more\ninformed and meaningfully contribute to decision making? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The essay implies that projects that aim to\ninnovate are neoliberal. But can\u2019t innovative approaches also serve democratic\nvalues, whether by giving us new ways to see patterns in data from a feminist\nperspective or by creating platforms that recognize indigenous forms of\nknowledge? That said, as part of the critique of innovation, the authors may\nwant to point to projects that focus on maintenance rather than innovation\n(e.g. The Maintainers) or simplicity rather than technological sophistication\n(e.g. minimal computing). With regards to OER, I think discussing what\napproaches most benefit students would also make the point; given the range of\nskills and computing equipment, simple is often best.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        I would like to have a clearer sense of what\nwould enable digital history to live up to its democratic hopes. What would a\nmore democratic digital history entail: participation? If so, how do you\nnavigate the questions about the ethics of unpaid labor that participatory\n(e.g. crowdsourcing) projects raise?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        On the whole, I found this to be an insightful\ndiscussion of the rhetoric of access and participation in digital humanities.\nIt addresses an important topic, draws from an extensive set of sources, and engages\nthe reader with its lively writing. I found it to be a pleasure to read, since\nit stimulated my thinking about the core aims of digital history. With a\ntighter focus and further analysis, I think this will be a strong contribution\nto the discussion about digital history and openness. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Recommendation: Revise and resubmit<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        *Note: The period for public comment ended April 10, 2020.* This essay provides a useful historical perspective on the rhetoric of democratization and openness in digital humanities and digital history. With over 100 footnotes, the article plumbs the discourse around the digital humanities from the 1990s onward, offering a compelling synthesis. The writing is lively […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":6,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"bgseo_title":"","bgseo_description":"","bgseo_robots_index":"index","bgseo_robots_follow":"follow","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-45","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/45","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=45"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/45\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":109,"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/45\/revisions\/109"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}