Starting Something New

Hello everyone! My name is Mike Burke and I’m a graduate student pursuing my MA in History at the University of Central Florida. I’m from Pace, FL, a community outside of Pensacola. My research interests involve the 19th century South and Southern Civil War memory. I’m currently working on a project regarding the memory of USTC troops at the Battle of Olustee, Florida. I’m also working on a paper on how southern memory is represented through 20th century bluegrass, and how this memory informs a southern identity.

This summer I will be working on a project for the Florida Historical Quarterly as part of an internship with the journal. THis project aims to rebuild and reorganize the Florida Historical Quarterly Podcast website. A Blogger site recently held a link the the podcast and the related issue’s table of contents. While this was a functioning website for the podcast, it did not provide the style wanted by those involved in the podcast. This past Tuesday, I met with Dr. Cassanello, Dr. Murphree, Dr. Lester and Dr. French to discuss the project in greater detail. In this meeting, we decided on a rebuilding of a website storefront where a viewer can access all FHQ Podcast material easily.

This website will contain a variety of information useful to the viewers of the FHQ podcast series. All audio for the podcasts will be held in a storefront style, where all of the episodes are available at a glance. In addition to the storefront, a variety of other content will be added. Primary source material, FHQ table of contents, further suggested readings, and even teaching guides will become available on this site. The site will be hosted through UCF’s STARS database, an easy to use and university supported platform. Most likely the site will take a similar shape to that of the History of Central Florida podcast website.

Also, I will begin providing social media support for the podcast series. I have chosen Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter as the most easy to use and most likely to be successful platforms. Reddit gives the podcast a clear history “buff” focus as those on reddit usually actively seek their content. Twitter falls a bit in between Reddit and Facebook as most viewers stumble across their content on Twitter. Facebook represents the most casual of users, entirely stumbling across the content.

On Monday, Dr. Cassanello and I will be meeting Mrs. Lee Dotson, the STARS librarian at the UCF Library. Wish us luck!


What is Digital history? Spatial History?

This week we were tasked with completing a third annotated bibliography in a blog setting. Here’s mine!

What is Digital History?

Thomas, William G. “What is Digital Scholarship? A Typology.” William G. Thomas III (blog). February 28, 2015,

William G. Thomas focuses on the categorization of digital scholarship in this relatively recent blog post. Aiming at the promotion of engagement in and the discussion of digital scholarship reviews, Thomas proposes three categories that digital scholarship may fall in to: interactive scholarly works, digital projects/thematic research collections, and digital narratives. The interactive scholarly work, or ISW, is a hybrid according to Thomas. These works employ archival materials, primary sources, and digital tools in an effort to promote a historical argument based on a “historiographical concern,” or a particular interpretation to my understanding. The thematic research collection, or TRC, is the most scholarly in my opinion. The TRC combines tools and archival material in an effort to visualize or frame these items around a particular historiographical problem. They also utilize primary sources that fit their themes or problem, much like that of Digital Harlem. The final project, digital narratives, are born digital projects or scholarship that support a specific argument through the layers of source material. The digital narrative differs from the digital monograph due to the non-linear focus and hyper-textuality. These projects fit into the framework of Slave Revolt in Jamaica.

Thomas, William G. and Douglass Seefeldt. “What is Digital History.” Perspectives on History. May 2009.

Here we see William Thomas with his contemporary, Douglass Seefeldt, as they propose three areas of digital history. First, keeping their title in mind, they ask “What is digital history?” Prior to the digital age, historians relied on the monograph as the primary means of scholarship. The authors suggest that digital history parts from this traditional monograph in the medium it presents its findings. Digital history examines and represents the past in ways that work with the new communication technologies of the computer, internet, and various software systems that are available today. Their following discussions center on their two other stages and then what they see as the future of digital history. The major propositions made in the following discussions center around the potential challenge that digital tools will present to the traditional scholarship, as well as the call to embrace digital scholarship.

Cohen, Daniel J., et al. “Interchange: The Promise of Digital History.” The Journal of American History, Vol. 5, No. 2., 2008: 452-491.

In this article, a variety of authors including Cohen, Frisch, Gallagher, and Thomas keep with the theme of this week’s bibliography by addressing the promises that digital history brings modern scholars. This article, an interview transcription, addresses a variety of methodologies, tools, merging traditional and digital history, institutional resources such as research centers that allow the development of the field, copyrights and open access, research, and other subjects. The beginning of the article discusses the JAH definition of digital history: “anything (research method, journal article, monograph, blog, classroom exercise) that uses digital technologies in creating, enhancing, or distributing historical research and scholarship” (453). The authors trace the origins of digital history back to both Thomas and Ed Ayers. They believe the term originated in the essays accompanying and focusing on The Valley of the Shadow project, one of the hallmark projects invoked by digital historians. Thomas goes on to define digital history in multiple respects. He defines digital history as “an open arena of scholarly production” and as “a methodological approach” that utilizes new technologies to reassess or form new questions about past topics (454). Turkel addresses the promises of digital history through the fluidity of the sources used in it by showing how the sources can be easily create, edited, transmitted, and categorized. Cohen joins the conversation when he discusses the age of abundance we live in, that is the abundance of source material and statistics. Digital history is the only way to fully utilize this source base, and the collaboration present in digital history is also backed by Mintz’ statements on the active learning world we live in.

Cohen, Daniel J. and Roy Rosenzweig. “Promises and Perils of Digital Technology.” A Guide to Gathering, Preserving, and Presenting the Past on the Web. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005.

This chapter of A Guide to Gathering, Preserving, and Presenting the Past on the Web addresses both the potential promises and perils of digital technology. Anne Kelly Knowles discussed this in her GIS publication, but the authors here focus on slightly different aspects. Their first focus is that of increased storage capacity and what that offer digital technology. Second, due to the internet age we live in, digital scholarship is an excellent way of transmitting scholarship to the public and bringing interesting sources to light. Third on their list is the variety of mediums digital scholarship can take its form in, these being picture, text, video, sound, and maps. Fourth, they say that digital scholarship promotes diversity as it allows those who would not have access previously to have that access. Fifth, they address the ability for users to refine and customize their own searches. Sixth, interactivity is fostered between student, parent, teacher, and community through digital technology. They also go on to list possible perils, the first of which is the inconsistent quality of internet sources. Second, the ever updating field of technology quickly  makes digital projects out of date unless they are kept up with. The third peril they address is the ambiguous or vague theses in digital projects, and that sometimes they can be hard to discern. Fourth they address passive interactivity. The interactivity needs to allows the user to apply critical thinking skills and actually engage with the scholarship, rather than a guided tour through it. Their final problem with the digital world is that the majority of the globe does not have consistent, if any, access to the internet.

Ayers, Edward L. “The Past and Futures of Digital History.” University of Virginia, 1999.

Ayers, the principal mind behind The Valley of the Shadow, discusses the past, present, and future of digital history in this essay. Ayers explains that despite society fully embracing the age of technology and the internet, historians are still skeptical in their own embracing of it. Without this full embrace, historians will not unlock the endless possibilities of this new technology. Ayers goes on to state that history may be the best suited field to utilize this new technology versus other humanities fields. One of his primary points comes from the growing network of professional communication, online publication, digital archiving, and many others, and how history has already placed this vast framework. He concludes by claiming that “Only historians can decide whether history will participate in the intoxicating possibilities of a true hypertextual history, of a reconstituted social science history, of an entirely new kind of immersive history. Only we can decide if we want to make use of any of the tools that are being created for purposes far from our own current practice” Ayers provides a visionary approach to the field of digital history, like many of our authors.

What is Spatial History?

White, Richard. “What is Spatial History?” Spatial History Lab. February 1, 2010.


Richard White discusses the Stanford Spatial History Lab in this article. He begins by outlining how the Spatial history Lab operates outside of traditional historical practices in its collaborative nature. They also utilize visualizations, they are heavily dependent on computers, they offer open ended projects, and they focus on the conceptualization of space through their projects. Bringing a deeper theoretical approach to digital history and the spatial lab, White introduced Lefebvre’s concept of human producing space or time. White goes on to discuss this idea with Lefebvre’s triad of spatial practice, representations of space, and representational spaces. Spatial practice is “the segregation of certain kinds of constructed spaces and their linkages through human movement” (2). Representations of space include the “documents of city planners, politician,” etc. (2). Finally, representational spaces are “space as lived and experienced through a set of symbolic associations” (3). Despite these, White’s most important aspect of spatial history is the concept of movement. According to White, “Spatial relations are established through the movement of people, plants, animals, goods, and information” (3). While the map represents a static space, spatial history must also address the dynamic element of movement. This is why, according to White, systems such as ArcGIS have become paramount in digital and spatial history as the program allows for both the study of movement, physical space, and relational space all in one map. Finally, White suggests that spatial history represents more than a visualization, but it is rather a new methodology and new means of researching and producing questions.

Thomas, William G. “Is the Future of Digital History Spatial History?” Newberry Library Historical GIS Conference, March 2004.

William Thomas analyzes the future of digital history and its possible space in spatial history through the mind of Janet Murray. Murray, a leading critic of new media and narratives claims that the four keys to a successful narrative in an online setting revolve around the work being participatory, procedural, encyclopedic, and spatial. Thomas then takes over the panel by focusing his discussion around Paul Carter’s The Road to Botany Bay: An Exploration of Landscape and History. This work, according to Thomas, “advances exploratively, even metaphorically, recognizing that the future is invented.” Spatial history, according to Thomas, purposes to recover contingency in the past, deconstruct the hegemony of the linear narrative, present multiple perspectives, and reject the positivism of empirical methods. Thomas concludes with the idea that spatial history is not “historicizing space,” but “spatializing history.”

Annotated Bibliography Cluster II: Writing & Reviewing History in the Digital Age

Dougherty, Jack and Nawrotzki, Kristen. Writing History in the Digital Age Ann Arbor: University of Michigan press, 2013.

Writing History in the Digital Age is a collection of essays that cover a wide variety of topics including the stat of digital history, crowdsourcing, pedagogy, analysis of big data, visualizations, public history, and collaboration. The most interesting part of the digital book was “Part 5: See What I Mean? Visual, Spatial, and Game-Based History.” In this section, three authors outline the use of visualizations and spatial data in digital history. Visualizations allow for alternate influences on historical thinking by creating a space where multiple variables may be represented and analyzed conjunctionally. John Theibault uses the famous Carte Figurative des pertes successives en hommes de l’Armée Française dans la campagne de Russie 1812–1813 to show the reader how Minard produces an easily understandable narrative on a single page through the use of his visualization. This essay shows how visualizations have advanced from a supplementary object to a primary one allowing for arguments to be made within them. The intended audience

Graham, Shawn, Ian Milligan, Scott Weingart. The Historian’s Macroscope – working title. Under contract with Imperial College Press. Open Draft Version, Autumn 2013,

The Historian’s Macroscope is a particularly interesting reading created through the collaboration of Shawn Graham, Ian Milligan, and Scott Weingart, as well as the collaboration of a public audience who edited the text as it was written publicly. The text is aimed at students in an effort to get a larger number of people participating in digitals scholarship, legitimizing it. The intention of the work is to bring the use of digital tools to the public, as many do not know their potential. The authors also provide as variety of exercises in an effort to make tools more approachable. Their text brings digital history to those who knew nothing about it, or thought there was too large a divide to cross in learning to utilize it.

Gold, Matthew K. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012.

Debates in the Digital Humanities is yet another interesting publication in the field of Digital humanities, while pertaining to digital history as well. This book is comprised of a variety of blog posts and tweets from lead scholars in the field discussing the state of their field, new approaches, pedagogical methods, and other debates. The purpose of this text is to assign a location of the Digital Humanities in both the public and academic sphere. The intended audience of this work are students and professionals interested in the Digital humanities.

Blevins, Cameron. “Mining and Mapping the Production of Space.” Online accompaniment to “Space, Nation, and the Triumph of Region: A View of the World from Houston.” Journal of American History. Vol. 101, No. 1. June 2014,

Blevins provides us with an intense and detailed methodology section in an effort to help the reader better understand the research and visualizations used to support his argument in the original article published in the JAH. Blevins addresses the problems of an abundance of sources, digitized collections, optical character recognition, and deterioration in his research. Most importantly, this article gives young historians and graduate students insight into the intricate workings of such an impressive visualization such as the one produced. Hopefully metagraphs such as this become commonplace in the profession, even in traditional history, as it allows the reader to pull back the curtain on interesting and applicable articles.

Gibbs, Fred and Owens, Trevor. “The Hermeneutics of Data and Historical Writing,” Writing History in the Digital Age Ann Arbor: University of Michigan press, 2013.

In this essay, Fed Gibbs and Trevor Owens call for a revolutionizing of the way historians write, particularly they call for methodological transparency in historical writing. Their argument is exactly this, as they request for the creation of discussions involving data inquiries, workflows, the productions and interpretation of visualizations, productive failure, and a variety of other explanations. The authors claim that the abundancy of data in the digital age presents the historian, particularly the digital historian, with a new problem as they must now explain that methodology used to simplify or sort through this vast number of entries. The authors also call for new interpretations of data, in the sense of letting the data speak for itself and create an argument, instead of using data to corroborate the argument you have produced. The intended audience of this work is both the professional and the student, as both benefit from the strict recording of methods.

Blevins, Cameron. “The New Wave of Reviews” Posts (blog), March 7, 2016,

In his blog post, Cameron Blevins pits the two styles of digital review against one another, the “digital high-five” and the traditional journal review. With a recent influx of traditional reviews, the climate of digital history is beginning to change to a strangely traditional format, that of a print journal. Blevins addresses the drawbacks of print reviews, particularly the traditional historian reviewing the nontraditional project, the unifying ties of methodology and how they shape non-print reviews, and the time it takes a review to be published. The last often greets the reader with a project that has had over a year of changes, sometimes providing an entirely new experience.

Georgini, Sara. “Reviewing Digital History” The Junto, January 20, 2016,

This blog takes the word review very differently. At The Junto, Georgini rpovdes us with a interview style transcript of her conversation with Dr. Jeffrey McClurken. In this post, they discuss everything from motivation and inspiration to the effect of the public reviewing on the historian, something that is common in digital history. This blog’s intended audience is graduate students and professionals as it offers insight into the peer review processes of digital history.

Digital History Reviews, Organization of American Historians/ Journal of American History,

In this website, the OAH creates official guidelines for the reviewing of a digital history project. Generally, the projects must be addressed in four areas: content, form, audience/use, and new media. All of these together supposedly cover topics such as interpretations, point of views, scholarship, ease of use, clear arguments, its audience and their needs, and finally, does it do something that text could not? The guidelines provided here are an excellent base for reviewing digital history, but may not contain everything one needs for the process. The audience of the website are reviews, both professionals and students alike.

Lichtenstein, Alex, Joshua Sternfeld, Stephen Robertson, Natalie Zacek, and Vincent Brown. “AHR Exchange: Reviewing Digital History” The American Historical Review. Vol. 121, No. 1, February 2016: 141-186

The AHR recently released a series of exchanges regarding the nature of the review process they have applied to digital projects. This exchange will prove vital in the establishment of standards for these reviews, as the author must be given a chance to respond in many cases of digital history. The born digital projects they review are Digital Harlem: Everyday Life 1915-1930 and Slave Revolt in Jamaica, 1760-1761: A Cartographic Narrative. Both of these projects are available online to the public, are reviewed in a similar fashion, but served entirely different purposes. Digital Harlem was critiqued for not having any historiographical contribution, but the project was not intended to make an argument and was instead meant to be used as a research aid for the authors. Slave Revolt in Jamaica on the other hand has a clear argument, and while the reviewer may not agree with Brown’s conclusions, she does claim that the project presents a clear historiographical contribution. The use of this exchange is that it allows the reader, and the journal, to establish a normal review process that will allow digital scholarship to break through into print journals.

Guldi, jo, David Armitage, Deborah Cohen, and Peter Mandler. “AHR Exchange: On the History Manifesto” The American Historical Review Vol. 120, No. 2, April 2015: 527-554.

Instead of critiquing The History Manifesto on its argument, the reviewers focus on the misinterpretation of sources in the text. Cohen and Mandler take issue with the misrepresentation of data and evidenc used to support the argument of the return to the long duree as presented by Guldi and Armitage. Their out of context interpretations and incorrect graphs often lead to the opposite conclusion intended by the sourced author. Guldi and Armitage respond to the reviewers by attacking their tone of review, rather than their points. Instead of addressing the problems presented by the reviewers, they simply try to reaffirm their argument. This exchange shows some of the difficulties in the public review of a monograph, something that is often done in digital history.

History and GIS Annotations

Lunen, Alexander and Travis, Charles. History and GIS : Epistemologies, Considerations and Reflections. New York: Springer, 2013.

Chapter 2: Immobile History: An Interview with Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie

This chapter of the History and GIS is the transcript of Le Roy Ladurie and Lunen’s interview regarding GIS and history. In this interview, Le Roy Ladurie outlines his career in a changing field of history as he continually seems to be at the forefront of historical methods and study. Ladurie oversaw computational history and was involved on a great deal of quantitative projects. Ladurie also served as a director of the National Library of France where he worked in the digitization of the library’s catalog. The most important things to take away from this interview, in my opinion, are the discussions regarding collaboration. Lunen consistently asks about collaborative projects and the process used to create them. One great example regarding this is the process of the cartographic theme maps mentioned at the beginning of the interview. Ladurie conducted archival research and collected data, graduate students then created useful tables and other figures using this data, and then the data was passed onto the map maker who took his own approach to the creation of the thematic maps based off these census records and other primary sources. Ladurie also discusses his book Montaillou, a best selling microhistory on a town of the same name in France. Despite it being a microhistory, Ladurie used advanced quantitative methods to analyze the meticulous record left by the townspeople during the medieval ages.

Ch. 6 “Thou Shalt Make No Graven Maps!”:An Interview with Gunnar Olsson

In this chapter of History and GIS, Lunen interviews Gunnar Olsson, a human geographer from Sweden.In this chapter, Olsson and Lunen discuss the problems and potential of mapping, and particularly Olsson’s invisible maps idea. The potential for mapping shows itself when they discuss the historian’s ability to create maps for their study, rather than using someone else’s. Olsson and Lunen also discuss the theory behind translating narrative into figures and representations, and how abstract ideas can be represented in mapping. From what i understood of this, I was relating it to the problems of mapping a vague or ambiguous place, people or event and how historians must handle this.

Kelly Knowles, Anne. Placing History: How Maps, Spatial Data, and GIS Are Changing Historical Scholarship. Redlands: ESRI Press, 2008.

Ch 1: GIS and History by Anne Kelly Knowles

In this chapter, Knowles introduces the topic of GIS. She begins by defining GIS, how it had grown as a field, and the core concepts of that field. The concepts that drive the field of historical GIS include: geographic questions driving a significant part of the inquiry, geographic information comprises the bulk of the evidence, this evidence is held in a single or multiple databases for further inquiry, and the arguments of the study are presented in map, table, chart or other visualizations. Knowles also discusses the potential complications and innovations GIS presents to historians. Among these complications are the need for quantitative sources, or the transferal of qualitative sources to quantitative. The sources used must contain some field  in which the source can be cataloged in reference to other sources. Knowles also discusses the vagueness of time and space. To create a study, both of these constantly changing aspects must be addressed in a concrete way. THings such as communities, ideological influences, or the effects of events on populations are something that is difficult to map and portray on an image. Knowles also discusses the need for technical expertise in historical GIS. Not only should the author be able to efficiently use the tool, but in many cases the author must make the tool they need. This includes making the database, maps, or visualizations. This chapter is also a jumping off point for the rest of the book, as the innovations discussed will be case studies present in later chapters.

Ch 4: Scaling the Dust Bowl by Geoff Cunfer

This chapter is presented in Placing History as a sort of proof of concept that shows how GIS can contribute to a historiographical argument, and not only contribute, but upset the historiography. Cunfer engages, adds, and eventually upsets the traditional historiographical argument of Donald Worster’s causes of the Dust Bowl. Worster states that capitalistic over development and intense plowing led to the weakening of topsoil and the eventual environmental events of the Dust Bowl. While Cunfer agrees with this interpretation, he aims to take it a step further and uncover the historical presence of dust storms in the Midwest and that a period of drought also heavily influenced the Dust Bowl situation. He uses new sources to analyze the Dust Bowl, these included qualitative sources such a newspapers, diaries, and correspondences. These qualitative sources are used in a quantitative way by Cunfer’s mapping of mentioning and reporting of dust storms to show that these are a natural occurrence and cycle of the Great Plains, and that Worster’s causes were important, but really only intensified the situation.

Ch 8: New Windows on the Puetinger Map of the Roman World

In this chapter another project is discussed as a case study to represent the usefulness and new approaches GIS can present to history. This project deconstructs the Puetinger Map, and Ancient Roman depiction of their world, and attempts to assign real places and features to the map. In this project, the team deconstructs the map into two base layers, the human landmarks and the natural landmarks. Human landmarks consist of towns, roads, bridges and the like while natural landmarks are mountains, rivers, and other natural formations that are useful in navigating. Their study has immense application in the archaeological world due to its focus. With the authors finding out how accurate the map was, previously unknown Roman locations can be discovered in the vicinity of accurate landmarks, natural ones in most cases. Their study acts as a proof of concept for the further geo-rectifying of ancient Roman and Greek maps and the discovery of archaeological sites.

The Metagraph

This week our reading discusses “the call for methodological transparency in historical writing” as presented by Gibbs and Owens in their essay within Writing History in the Digital Age (Gibbs and Owens). Their primary argument is exactly this, a call for transparency. They request for discussions of data queries, workflows, the production and interpretation of visualizations, explaining productive failures, and a whole host of other things. Historians have been presented with a new hurdle to pass, as the sheer volume and ease of collection of data in this digital age leads to projects that comes to a strong conclusion, but the methods that hey used to get there are obscured within hundreds or thousands of data points. The need for methodological transparency allows for responses and inquiries on how the author came to their conclusions as well as their project itself.

Gibbs and Owen also discuss the uses of data and harken back to the cliometricians, claiming this is not what they are calling for, While they wish for data and methods to be transparent when writing findings, they also wish for the data to show how they reached different stages in their project. They call for historians to treat data as text, not as a reason or evidence to support a claim. You should draw your conclusions from your data, allowing it to speak for itself instead of finding data that corroborates the hypothesis you have created. In their conclusion, Gibbs and Owens request that “just as historians learn to find, collect, organize, and make sense of the traditional sources, they also need to learn to acquire, manipulate, analyze, and represent data” and this is a fitting final statement.

As a student, their call to arms for transparency is welcome. They mention Google Ngram and use it to show how vast the data located at your fingertips on a personal computer can be. A transparency with scholars would aid me in the construction of my own projects, not just digital but traditional, by illustrating how professional scholars go about chosing their topic, arguments and finding and presenting their results. The most difficult part in my writing process is finding topics. With transparency regarding how one might move from interesting data to a historical question and argument would be invaluable.

From here, our reading focuses on Cameron Blevins’ Mining and Mapping the Production of Space. Blevins provides us with a Methodology section that is exactly what the previous authors called for. Blevins addresses the problem of abundance, with the newspapers he examines containing nearly 2500 issues with 130 million words. Blevins employed “distant reading” to track trends over long periods of time and vast amounts of issues, and luckily the University of North Texas Library had digitized these newspapers. This digitization allowed Blevins to use Optical Character Recognition to mine the data of all of the newspapers. Blevins also addresses the problems with his particular methodology, in this case they were smudges, tears, and changing typefaces. All of these reduce the accuracy of the OCR. Advertisements and stories that continue later int he issue also present a problem to the computer, as they cannot distinguish between their location and the adjacent text, sometimes combining words. Blevins then removed high frequency words such as “a” and “the” and began to count the occurrences of placenames in the newspapers. This data set was used to create a map that visualize the city’s changing position in the space of the midwest, as well as the cities that Houston frequently addressed and spoke about.

All in all, I believe Blevins answered Gibbs and Owens’ call to arms regarding transparency and provided valuable insight into the mind of a scholar and the production and completion of a massive project. His use of OCR can be transferred to my research when Emancipation Day, Memorial Day, and discussions of Olustee are discussed in Floridian newspapers.

The Historian’s Macroscope

Exploring Big Historical Data: The Historian’s Macroscope is an interesting book project created by the collaboration of S. Graham, I. Milligan, and S. Weingart. The interesting feature of this book is how it was produced, which was markedly different from others. The book began as a draft online, allowing the public to see the drafting and writing process on page at a time. This meant that the authors, as well as readers, had continual input in the creation of the text. COmments on the webpage where the draft was held, Tweets from Twitter, and a variety of other means allowed the authors and readers to actively engage in a conversation regarding the unfinished book. This process gave it a sort of peer review prior to completion in my eyes. This collaborative version of the text is the one available for free online, as the authors state the reason is for those who cannot afford a print version.

The print version of the book is nearly $40, and while I do prefer reading a tangible book, that price seems a bit far-fetched for me. The print version seems to be a simple tenure checkmark. THe authors put an incredible amount of time into this work, but without it in print many institutions will not count it towards tenure. I also believe that with the print version, the reader is missing some of the most interesting aspects and uses of the book: the application of digital tools to history. This book addresses the fluidity of digital scholarship in an interesting way by allowing the public to comment and suggest alterations to the text, and while this might create a few controversies, it also forms a peer review board for the book. This is something extremely important I think, and something that most people say digital scholarship lacks.

The authors are all self-proclaimed computer geeks. This work is a blend of their two passions, technology and history. While the origins of their love for each are different, their primary goal is to create a fusion of the two. Ian Milligan did this prior to the book at a THATCamp session, while Shawn Graham worked independently on his blog “New Tools for Teaching and Research in Archaeology.”

The Historians Macroscope is clearly aimed at students. The trend that I’ve seen authors working towards in their writings on digital history seems to focus less and less on theory, instead the focus has become getting the new generation of historians on the bandwagon for the digital history. The increase of digital publication only legitimizes the work there, in most cases, senior scholars have done while also broadening the field. The authors also intend to introduce people to the “macroscope.” THeir intention with this is to simply put the knowledge out there so that researchers and students who could benefit from the use of the macroscope may do so, where they may have not found it before. It  is also thoughtful to provide a free version for the broke college students!

The authors suggest working with multiple tools throughout the book, and I chose to create a word cloud of the transcript of the South Carolinian “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” This is something I have read for a previous class in an attempt to draw out what we thought the causes of the U.S. Civil War were. The avoidance of the word slave is interesting in the document, while the fight for states rights easily show the significance of the Lost Cause myth in this document.


Prior to creating this cloud, I had some trouble figuring out how to remove the common English language words and phrases such as to, the, for. Basically, the simple words muddied up the data for the cloud, allowing no conclusions to be drawn from it. Luckily, Voyant’s only setting is this text removal. While this is a simple version of text mining, I think it would be interesting to mine newspapers from a period and try to reconstruct the world as they knew it. You would be able to see what businesses and other towns a community was speaking about during the era, which I think would be fascinating.

The History Manifesto

This week we are studying the incredible debate surrounding The History Manifesto, by  Jo Guldi of Brown University and David Armitage of Harvard University. The primary argument of their manifesto is that our society needs to shift its focus from the “short termism” that we are accustomed to, and in turn move backwards to the long term thinking that was present in society a century or two ago. This short-termism is not just present in history, but in politics and economics as well. History does present a particular problem for the author’s as it is their field of study, one they wish to revolutionize. With the authors wishing to recapture the history of the longue durée, they argue that historians should have never moved past this stage. I personally fall right in the middle of the time-scale argument when I am studying memory. The event that is informing memory most definitely falls into the brand of micro-history, but the memory itself spans many decades. Still, a lifespan of study is considered too narrow for the authors of this book, something I find ridiculous. The significance of micro- and macro-histories are equally great, but the authors seem to equate great with long. The reviewers of The History Manifesto, Cohen and Mandler, most definitely agree on that. In their words, “Guldi and Armitage persistently equate long with significant.” (AHR Exchange 536) Both brands of history have equally as many pros and cons, I think it’s just a matter of how you utilize the history and other methodologies within them. One argument that I had discussed with some classmates was the idea that living in the technological age has created our crisis of short-termism by the reader being constantly overloaded with information. While I believe it can be particularly challenging to find the correct materials to study when there is so much available, I also believe that this age of technology is what has allowed the micro-histories to be so great! The availability of information has allowed unprecedented work to be completed, just look at Philip Curtin’s Census. This project has allowed a deeper understanding to be drawn from the Atlantic Slave Trade that many had never thought possible, but the collected and easily accessed information has brought a number of new analyses to a subject that many only superficially addressed before hand.

The availability of information seems to be the exact reason why Guldi and Armitage are calling for the return to the longue durée. The new trend of digital history has recently allowed historians to process an unbelievable amount of data through text mining and other methods. The work Dr. French did with Dr. Staley is a prime example of this, as is the work of Visualizing Emancipation. Both of these works analyze an incredible amount of information only possible through digital means, but each falls into what the authors would call short-termism. Thee scope of the projects are not hundreds of years, but instead focus on a little less than a century. The scope of these works are extremely impressive in my opinion, and offer the same benefits as a longue durée approach.

The arguments presented by Guldi and Armitage do not particularly move me as a historian, but instead reveal to me that they have a flawed understanding of the interaction of both long- and short-term histories. I believe that the long-term histories of the 1970s have informed the short-term ones of today invaluably. With new methodologies and theories on how history should be written, the long-term will always have new publishing, but these publishing’s may not be as vast a scope as the authors have wished. The scope of the longue durée has shortened itself in the age of information, instead of covering centuries, it instead covers decades. That is my opinion of the shifts in the field, and this is something I believe the authors are discounting.


Environmental Scan and Review of a Project

This week our class has strayed from our traditional readings and the students were given a chance to search for interesting and applicable projects to their research, something the National Endowment for the Humanities refers to as an “environmental scan.” From the classification list provided by the Organization of American Historians, I decided hat the project I would most likely pursue would be that of an Electronic Exhibit format. After speaking with classmates and other people in my cohort, I found that Story Maps offers and often produces the type of project I have envisioned. Kayla, Mary Beth, and I are currently seeking permission to use nearly one hundred letters from a World War I and II veteran, who’s parents lived here in Orlando, to map his life via his correspondences. The project is still in its infancy due to our primary source having yet to be acquired. This past week I studied and evaluated some Story Maps that were featured on their site, as well as ones I found on my own, to help myself gain a better understand of the potential of the application.

Here are a few project I chose to look at using Story Maps:

Other interesting projects I found:

The software I chose, Story Maps, simply use geography as a mean of organizing and presenting information for the viewer.The project I plan on creating will be the map of a single soldier’s life and service, with each location holding information about him and about the larger war or event itself. The Story Map interface looks like a relatively simple tool to work within, as long as the time is dedicated to learn it’s functions, but with multiple people working with the research I believe that it can be easily handled. The Story Map application will also allow us to showcase the letter that we are pulling information from side by side with the physical locations that he is mentioning and visiting.

The project I have chosen to review is the Story Map listed above, 100 Years of In Flanders Fields. Developed by the City of Guelph’s Information Technology Services in partnership with Guelph Museums, the project is a web-based multi-media experience that uses interactive, content-rich mapping to trace John McCrae’s life and the experiences that resulted in his writing of In Flanders Fields one hundred years ago. McCrae, a Guelph-born doctor, soldier, and poet, wrote In Flanders FIelds in May 1915, during the Second Battle of Ypres. The poem, widely considered a classic of World War I, has been taught in history and literature classes around the world and has also inspired the use of the poppy as a symbol of remembrance

The content of the project revolves around a single historical question: What events led to McCrae’s writing of In Flanders Fields? The project traces his life from birth, through medical school, the Second Battle of Ypres, and eventually his death to help the reader understand the significance of certain events in McCrae’s life that influenced his classic, In Flanders Fields. The story map utilizes primary source material, video, and sound in conjunction with the geographic data that the mapping software provides.

The form of the project is exceptionally clear, something I would contribute to Story Maps, and only secondarily to the creator. The application provide the user with a clear format and path of exploration through the project. In my opinion, this all works to make the project easy to understand. Due to the hosting of the project by Story Maps, and the mapping software being provided by ARCGIS, the project functions very smoothly, with no bugs or glitches appearing in the multiple times I have viewed it.

Due to the project being developed by a city museum, I believe the audience falls to a less academic crowd. The project fills any need that audience would require, as it clearly shows McCrae’s life and service, without filling the page with dense historical arguments or literary analysis. Ultimately, this project works as a supplementary teaching resource, something I aim my project to be as well.

The project does involve the use of new media, as Story Map allows for nearly all emerging medias to be combined on a single page. The project utilizes primary sources, secondary sources, geography and spatial data, song, photography, and film. In addition to this, all of these items can be followed back to where the author obtained them due to the citations provided.

In the end, I chose the project so i could review a possible template for my own project. I had seen and heard this application mentioned in both class and by classmates, but I had never inquired further about it.


Computers, Visualization, and History: How New Technology Will Transform Our Understanding of the Past

Computers, Visualization, and History: How New Technology Will Transform Our Understanding of the Past enters the readings of this class without straying from the traditional and well-established historiographic models we as historians cling to for dear life. Staley finds a way to weave important and interesting arguments into this text, most important is his argument on the visualization. The visualization is no longer just an image for Staley, but is instead a replacement or modification to writing, and is as important as writing for historians.Visualization and computing should be extremely exploited according to Staley, and should be rooted in our traditional historiographic models due to their usefulness. Much like the trends we’ve seen in job searches and scholarly requirements for those searches, Staley calls for the equation of digital work and scholarly visualizations to that of the traditional monograph or article.

Consider the map for instance. The effort to convey the information on a map solely through text in nearly impossible. To convey everything a map of Europe shows, the historian must describe all of the countries, their borders, the shape of their borders, their adjacent countries, direction, shape, location of every city, rivers, mountains, oceans and seas. The information shows and pulled form a map is nearly endless, something that words cannot better describe. While this is an easily shown visualization, Staley also argues for the use of many other types of these. Much like last week, Staley does not argue that visualization are the key and future to history as cliometricians did in the seventies and eighties, but offers visualization’s strengths and weaknesses to show were they excel above the work of the written word, and in some cases fall below. Simply put, Staley wishes to show the reader the practical application of visualizations, that they can effectively communicate large amounts of data easily, and that they are sometimes more useful than histoical prose. THe examples of visualizations given vary greatly, from word clouds and virtual reality to GIS applications. Arguably, some of these visualizations are significantly more scholarly than others, but they still easily transfer ideas. Teaching history can be absolutely transformed using visualization. Junior high and high school students often dismiss readings due to the time it takes to read and understand them, but visualizations can be used a supplemental material, either sparking interest which will make children read the history book or it will at least still communicate the important information to the student who refuses to read.