University of Luxembourg | June 9, 2016
[D]igital history is a transitional term that exists for a reason: it has helped to emphasise and put into focus new practices, whether in terms of analysis or knowledge (re)presentation or both; and it highlights how data and tools are changing historical knowledge production. Zaagsma (2013)
In general, however, historians have not been sufficiently conscious of the benefits to be derived from the technological revolution which has transformed contemporary society. Lawson (1948)
Improving research by incorporating methods, concepts, or tools from another discipline (Klein, 2014)
Often perceived as faster or easier research
Source: XKCD How is historical scholarship affected?
[A]n arena in which radically different activities could be locally, but not globally, coordinated Galison (1996)
[T]he process by which the beliefs and practices of one community diffuse across the boundaries of another and subsequently alter the second community's practices and interpretations Barley (1988)
What forms of Contact & Participation do we see?
What kind of trading zones do we see with Digital History?
|Collaboration||Digital History as inter-language - A new discipline?
- McCarty (2005)
|Digital History as fractioned trading zone - A dual citizenship for practioners and research objects?
- Svensson, Klein, Hunter, Rieder & Röhle
|Coercion||Digital History as subversive - Historians assuming the practice
of Computer Science, but not the expertise (or vice versa)?
|Digital History as enforced - A power struggle of who decides what the digital technology will do?
- Mounier (2015)
Problem: DH discussed as a homogeneous phenomenon, a single trading zone
17 interviews so far, 1 transcribed
Generally: more distance = more issues?
More interviews (get in touch!)
Repeat interviews to see whether acculturation has occurred
Maybe: online survey to expand taxonomy of positions along the dimensions