Online History, Good, bad or ugly?

For historians the internet has become a powerful tool. Sites such as 'Early English Books Online' and 'The National Archives' are invaluable for research. They offer quick and easy access to countless primary sources that would have only been available by undertaking a long and time consuming trip to London. Alongside this 'social media' and blogging have become increasingly important to history both academically and popular history. Historian's are increasingly active online, such as Suzannah Lipscomb and Ian Mortimer on twitter and Alison Weir on Goodreads and Amazon.

However, there are clearly downsides to its use and especially an over-reliance on it. Any historian who has had the opportunity to view a source 'in its original form' will be able to attest to just how much is lost through viewing sources online, especially when so many sources are often 'typed up' without copies of the original. Many will also give stories of finding 'lost gems' within archives, which is something that simply won't happen in the same way with such sites. Whilst online sites are useful, a caution on over-reliance is important.

Oxford University Library,[1]

Another hugely problematic aspect of 'history online' is the nature of intellectual debate. Debate is integral to academic study and history. Having attended numerous 'talks' and 'seminars' by academic Historians often the most valuable part, is the discussion afterwards. These talks give writers a chance to get opinions and feedback on their hard work before it is published, and fellow historians often give wonderful and insightful advice. I have seen all kinds of academics at such history talks, both giving talks and feedback, including literary theorists, sociologists and many others. The feedback can take many formats from a light questions and answers between the speaker and the audience, to some very heated and contentious debates, yet such feedback held in an academic setting has always remained respectful even if intense.

However, anyone who has ever engaged with debate or received feedback online will be able to attest to the difficulties with conversation in a live written format. Much research has highlighted the dis-inhabited nature of online debate and the ways people’s communication style changes online. [2] When online discussion becomes problematic is in attempting to decipher the TONE and meaning behind peoples words. Sadly there is no ‘sarcastic’ button or ‘I am only being light-hearted about this’ either. Furthermore, the joy or problem of the internet is there are no barriers, and people will often resort to insults or comments that people wouldn’t dream of in ‘real life’.

[3]

It is a tragedy how nasty and how quickly things can devolve online, and how often people get so angry of BEHALF of other people. I have seen many forceful debates about historians where people have gotten hugely offended on behalf of someone. Whereas, in reality I am sure these people care little. After all, if you are successful enough to be the centre of these debates on a regular basis I am sure you are well aware of the possible criticisms about you. Furthermore, if you are an academic historian will have taken part in real-life debates where people who you know and whose research you actually respect may have been far more scathing about your work. So can we all try and relax a little and ENJOY the fact we are all different, have different tastes and all of us have something to offer!

---

[1] ‘Academic Libraries’ http://www.beautiful-libraries.com/6100-1.html (Accessed 28th May 2013
[2].Suler. ‘The Online Disinhibition Effect’ CyberPsychology & Behavior. (June 2004, 7:3) pp. 321-326 
[3]http://wgssgnn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/0511-0708-3014-4155_Debating_Politicians_clipart_image.jpg (Accessed 28th May 2013)

Historian: What’s in a Name?

Historian: What’s in a Name?

There is a certain antagonism between ‘popular’ history and the academy. On the one side are traditionally trained academic Historians who have studied for a minimum of seven years and then continue working and publishing to be considered an academic ‘Historian’.  One the other are the large numbers of people who engage with historical study beyond the academy: including ‘popular historians’ historical biographers, history bloggers and historical fiction writers who often have extremely detailed research but have no traditional academic training. 

Some Historians who studied and invested time and money into academic training are dismissive of ‘popular historians,’ especially those claiming rights to the title Historian. Certain popular historian's names are considered by-words for all things WRONG with popular history: ‘an insult to academic history,’ a curse word not to be uttered in proper historical circles. Conversely, popular historians, writers and those who work on history but haven’t ‘climbed the academic ladder’ often feel strongly that their work is just as historically valid and are just as deserving of the title Historian. 

So, what is in the name Historian? Popular historians, bloggers and fiction writers are pivotal in raising public awareness and affection for the subject that has been struggling within schools. It is impossible to deny the importance of these individuals and their incredible hard work. The depth of knowledge of writers such as Susan Higginbotham is equal and beyond that of some academics and so it seems not only unfair but unrealistic to deny they are historians. However, considering the specialist nature of academic history it also seems unrealistic to deny the special status of academic Historians. 

It is easy to forget that academics spend much of their time teaching, lecturing, supervising students, fighting for funding, attending conferences and much more: what time is left is spent on research. Furthermore, their research is, if not ‘of different calibre’ then often of a different nature to the research undertaken by bloggers, authors and popular historians. The primary goal of a non-academic writer is to un-cover ‘the truth’ of history to the extent that this is possible and normally within areas of public interest, whereas, an academic historian’s work has to engage with historiographical theories and methodological study alongside these questions. A Historian needs to account for the way they undertook their research, what theories and approaches they used and influenced their work. All of this being closely scrutinised in peer reviews, seminars and conferences when they present these papers to fellow academics who will question not only the results of the work but the theories and historiography of the research. This knowledge and understanding of post-structural theory or linguistic difference naturally alters the depth and validity of the research and so it is understandable that members of the academy may feel their work is depreciated being compared to that of a popular historian, blogger, or author.

It is clear to me at least that BOTH academic Historians and historians who engage in history through blogs, fiction, or even popular biographies need to be valued and respected as they both bring something important to the table. The lack of respect I have seen some Historians give to ‘popular historians’ during discussions saddens me. After all, in the modern economic climate where every penny universities gain has to be quantified in its financial and societal benefits are rather short sighted to dismiss the value and wide-spread impact ‘popular’ historians have. Any academic who has attempted to gain funding for a project will easily be able to recall how much emphasis is placed upon ‘wider usefulness and applicability beyond the academic’.  However, this is also part of the problem; after all, the costs of becoming an academic historian must now be close to £100,000. It therefore, must be heartbreaking to dedicate that time and money and be ‘lumped in’ with bloggers who might not have any historical training.

Both sides have valid arguments, and as a student of history and fan of history outside studies I have great sympathy for both sides, and I don’t think there is any easy compromise. Many would argue popular writers of history are often too quick to call themselves historians and there does seem little respect or understanding from those who haven’t studied at a post-graduate level of the very different nature and dedication of academic history. Therefore, it is unsurprisingly that academics feel under-valued. Ironically however, the dismissive attitude many academics take to more popular forms of history and as importantly those academics who bridge the gap between popular and academic history only widens the problem.  Until some level of appreciation on both sides is gained and a wider appreciation of the differences but also common goals and passions within history there is always going to be a level of conflict.

Welcome to any readers, feel free to comment

Welcome to the random ramblings of a history student

About a year ago a friend of mine made an off the cuff suggestion about starting a history blog. At the time and even now I am instinctively dismissive of the idea. After all, there are some amazing, high quality blogs out there which receive a level of dedication and attention I could never hope to achieve. Currently, undertaking a full-time masters degree at Keele is swallowing up most of my time. However, the more I thought about it the more sense it made. I am not just a history student but I am OBSESSED with all aspects of history.

My degree, and now my Masters degree are on history, and I spent an extra year at undergraduate level upgrading my degree to a degree with history. It doesn’t stop there however, I watch historical documentaries, visit historical buildings and locations as often as I can, I read historical fiction, collect old books, have a passion for historical clothing and fashion, and even got married in a stunning Tudor building. My obsession of history invades every part of my life- in fact most of my dreams take place in historical settings, and I realised maybe I needed an outlet! That is why I have started this blog.

I have no aims to academic pretensions and don’t expect to be writing much about history itself, rather the practice of history and historiographical debates. Questions like, what is a historian, why does history matter and other questions that mull around my head may be tackled. I also aim to use is as a tool to navigate my journey through my masters (and hopefully beyond).

                                           NOTE: My poor health adversely affects my studies and so is

                                                            likely to affect the frequency and at times the content of this

                                                              blog but I certainly don’t aim to make it a predominant feature.

                                                            However, I hope if anyone does read my blog they will allow me the indulgence if it does come up in conversation!