Experiencing history on-line

Over a month ago the Guardian published this piece by Tristram Hunt on using on-line sources for historical research. The author seems to conflate access and interpretation, and to be in thrall to a concept of history as a truth that can be comprehended only through physical contact with the documentary evidence. What tosh. At the time I rolled my eyes and got on with life.

But Hunt’s article highlights assumptions about, and attitudes to, on-line resources that impact my everyday working life. Digital collections, catalogues and other on-line resources (such as transcriptions and translations) often suffer unfavourable comparison with their original counterparts. This is unfair. Worse, it is proof that those of us involved in creating and providing access to digital resources are failing to communicate with our users. Worse still, it shows that misconceptions regarding research and resources persist, in defiance of common sense and the positive attitude that should develop from actual use of these resources.

Here are some of them:

1. That digital resources offer a short-cut, and that this is a bad thing

Digital resources do offer short-cuts. On-line catalogues, digital collections, transcriptions/translations, OCR, etc all help reduce the time needed to identify and access useful material. I cannot really conceive of the argument that says this is a bad thing. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the issue. Hunt writes: “…historians are very keen on short cuts for interpreting the past” (my italics). This brings me to a second misconception….

2. That in the past historians did proper research but today’s generation don’t put in the effort

Accessing historical sources is not the same as interpreting them. This holds true for hard copy originals and their surrogate digital versions. Lazy or inadequate research is not caused, or encouraged, by new technologies. It is caused by lazy and inadequate researchers.

3. That digitisation eliminates impenetrable prose

Digitisation does not alter the content of a record. Granted that transcripts help with deciphering difficult hand writing, but if the meaning of the text being studied is hard to penetrate, this characteristic of the author’s style does not disappear by being rendered into digital form.

4. That those responsible for creating digital surrogates of original material do not understand about the integrity of the record

There is a belief that digital surrogates can never really stand in for the originals because something inherent in the physical object and essential for it’s proper understanding will be lost. This attitude is disturbing; see points five and six below. I think it is fuelled by an assumption that those creating digital copies do not understand records and will somehow ‘get it wrong’ – that we will not copy the covers or miss out the detail in the binding or not display the pages the right way up. This is crazy and insulting.

5. That history is a magical place and that this can be lost

Hunt writes that “when everything is downloadable, the mystery of history can be lost”. This is a lunatic statement. History can be unknown, open to interpretation, debated and discussed. It can be thrilling, exciting, sad, confusing and amusing. Above all, it can be discovered. But I think what Hunt is actually advocating here is a concept of history as something hard to attain. If anyone can just download copies of original documents, what happens to the excitement and adventure of discovery? It is no longer a quest. When history, and the raw ingredients of it, are experienced without the dust, is it really worthwhile? This question is irrational. Although the “wow” factor of holding original items exists, the excitement of discovery is not less when it happens online.

6. That the mystery of history is found only in objects and not text/meaning

Hunt writes: “it is only with MS in hand that the real meaning of the text becomes apparent”. There is something special about holding original documents but the meaning of the words is no different whether you read the original or a copy. This assumption implies a miraculous transference of meaning from the object to the holder not available outside of the sanctum of the holding repository.

7. That serendipity does not exist in the digital world

Proponents of this argument say that, in the physical world fortunate discoveries are found either through a reference in a catalogue (usually a card index) or hidden in a bundle of papers. Neither of these opportunities for discovery disappears simply because the catalogue is in a database and the bundle has been turned into a pdf document.