Fritz at 50 Poster at the Scholarly Forum

As the final project for my digital history practicum, I’ve been asking the students in the class to prepare a poster for the University of North Dakota’s Graduate School’s Scholarly Forum. The Forum is the largest annual research meeting on campus and it gives us a chance to show off the class’s hard work from the previous semester.

Fritz at 50 posterSM

Here is a bigger version of the poster as a jpg or as a pdf:

Special credit goes to Daniel Sauerwein, one of our Ph.D. students, who took the lead on preparing the poster and dabbled in the arcane by working with Adobe Illustrator.

And special credit also goes to my lovely wife who makes the Scholarly Forum possible every year. The poster session was probably the most dynamic research event held on campus!


Digital Humanities and Professional Advancement

This afternoon I’m getting together with some of my colleagues from the arts, social sciences, and humanities to discuss the place of digital humanities in professional advancement both on campus and in our disciplines more broadly. The meeting will occur under the auspices of the Working Group in Digital and New Media and be the first attempt to use the standing of our group on campus to address pressing concerns facing scholars working in digital and new media. The goal is to identify key issues that impact all of our positions on campus and to produce a white paper for administrators, the university senate, and colleagues over the winter months.  We hope to pay particular attention to potential limitation in existing tenure, retention, and promotion policies that could discourage or inhibit the advancement of scholars active in the digital humanities. Since our group includes members from across campus our focus will naturally be broad.

Assembling a sensible list of concerns facing scholars who work primary in the digital realm is difficult. The issues range from the very basic – like very limited understanding of the differences between digital and print projects – to the more complex: inconsistent infrastructural support, uncertain attitudes toward collaboration, and the lack of established metrics to evaluate scholars who work heavily in the digital realm.  We do not have a plan or a list of priorities for the meeting (in part, the goal of the meeting is to establish a list of priorities as we move forward), but I’ll offer my own list of things that should be on the agenda.

1. Institutional Support. The greatest problem facing digital humanities (and I include digital history and archaeology in this group) is the lack of institutional support. On the one hand, with any new approach to organizing and producing knowledge, a lag between institutional adaptation and the development of the field is to be expected. On the other hand, the humanities have traditionally received only modest funding for research. This has become particularly problematic for digital humanists since much of their work relies upon (relatively) expensive technologies (hardware and software), access to specialists, and resources for developing new collections of research material. In the hard and applied sciences, start up grants would help to defray these costs and these are often funded from “indirect costs” produced from grants awarded to more established scholars. There are fewer resources for such start up funds in the digital humanities (although they are not entirely absent), in part, because there are very few indirect costs produced from traditional humanities research. In order to generate a pool of funds to support digital humanities start-up costs, the institution must make the initial investment. And for the institution to make this investment, they must see the potential for a return.

The primary problem with the lack of start up funding in the digital humanities is that it delays the production of scholarship by new faculty or faculty new to the digital humanities. As a result, new faculty in the digital humanities must spend time securing resources and building infrastructure for their own research and this delays the ability of faculty to be competitive for external grants, for example, and to produce material for their own internal advancement.

To have a successful group of scholars in the digital humanities, a greater investment in sustaining infrastructure and in early career support for faculty with digital research needs.

2. Collaboration. Synergy is one of the newest watchwords at the University of North Dakota. From what I can gather, it refers to collaboration on campus that produces more energy than it expends. Fortunately, the digital humanities has long relied upon dynamic synergies to meld traditional concerns of scholars in literature, history, and archaeology with digital technology. This combination has then produced new approaches to long-standing problems and opened up new venues for scholarly and creative inquiry. Collaboration, however, has not always squared with traditional scholarly approaches in the humanities. Co-authored research, grants, and co-directed projects often stand at odds with traditions of solitary scholarly work, and this has challenged departments as they seek to evaluate new collaborative ventures in the humanities.

As scholars engaged in collaborative synergies, we have a responsibility to educate our colleagues as to the nature and challenges of collaborative scholarship in the humanities. In doing this, we have the opportunity to create new paradigms of collaboration that are less dependent upon this generated in the hard and applied sciences. In particular, we can advocate approaches that downplay the key role of a single “primary investigator” and demonstrate how scholars can contribute to projects in ways that deserve equal credit.  Moreover, we can advocate for policies on campus that both reward and facilitate collaboration in scholarship and teaching across departments, programs, and colleges, as well as on the national and international level.

3. Publishing Problems. Perhaps the most practical issue facing scholars in the digital humanities is the impact of digital scholarship on traditional modes of publishing. In a simplest sense,digital humanists regularly produce scholarly and creative works (video, databases, electronic texts, et c.) that are incompatible with or fall outside the traditional limits of print scholarship. More importantly, perhaps, they are often asked to develop their own means of dissemination, review, and preservation of these scholarly work (and at institutions that lack a substantial digital infrastructure the problems of dissemination and preservation of digital work are particularly acute).

More importantly for individual scholars, the criteria for evaluating digital scholarship and creative work remains in the state of flux. Digital, peer-review journals are now sufficiently well regarded outlets for born digital and new and multimedia publications. Unfortunately these kinds of publications are only suitable for a tiny fraction of the output from digital scholars who increasingly work in media and genres that do not necessarily have a tradition of peer review or do not measure their impact through traditional methods of citation tracking.

As with all emerging academic areas, scholars in the digital arts and humanities have a responsibility to educate their colleagues and institutions about the challenge they face and the opportunities that their work provides. Producing a ‘white paper’ from the Working Group in Digital and New Media will be a local step toward making the University of North Dakota a better home for scholars in these exciting new fields.

Planned Obsolescence

This weekend, I read over Kathleen Fitzpatrick’s Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy (NYU 2011).  The book does pretty much what the title says. It explores the impact of technology on academic publishing and the role it plays in transforming academic discourse (and, potentially, university life). The book provides a nice overview of recent innovations in the area of peer review (including open peer review), challenges to the idea of authorship and texts, as well as some considerations of preservation in the digital age. A more speculative chapter considers the future of university presses in light of the changes outlines in the first four chapters. While the book does not necessarily say anything novel for people who are familiar with the basic structure of the debates on digital publishing and academic, the book is clear about the interdependence between professional standards and the health, vitality, and relevance of academic publishing.

In general, Fitzpatrick views scholarly publishing as divided between producers and consumers, and this is clearly the case. Consumers represent the libraries, academic departments (hiring promotion, and tenure committees), and other scholars. Producers are the various scholars who rely upon academic work to promote their ideas and, ultimately, their careers. Of course, producer and consumer can switch positions throughout their careers as producers of academic works typically serve to evaluate the academic work of their peers. At the same time, in this model, the decisions (and perhaps even the responsibilities) to accommodate the transformations in the publishing world appear to rest squarely on the shoulders of the various consumers of academic texts.  The reality is, of course, that some of the willingness to recognize the value of digital texts of various kinds – whether they are blogs, electronic journals (or books), or other more dynamic and interactive kinds of texts – has to come from scholars who are producing scholarly works as well. In other words, scholars have to recognize in a critical way the value of digital texts for their own work.

To explore this idea a bit more deeply, I decided to look at Fitzpatrick’s bibliography and reflect on how much of her book drew upon digital texts of various kinds.  My study was pretty unscientific, but I tried to be consistent.  I created a spreadsheet of the 350+ publications cited in her bibliography. Then, I separated works in her bibliography that were “primary sources” such as an “About” page for a web service, reports from publishers, or a general address for a blog. These represented about 18% of her bibliography.  From the group of “secondary sources” (ranging from traditional books and articles, to blog posts, digital articles, ebooks, or even comments on blog posts), I also culled out “popular” sources – like articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Time, or the New York Times that mostly served as primary sources but also contributed to her arguments in various ways.  These were almost entirely digital in form.

So here are the digits from the academic works:

53% were cited in paper form, and 51% of these were books and 49% were articles.

47% of her academic citations were in digital form. 4.5% were digital books of various forms, 35.7% were articles published digitally, 38.4% were blog posts, and 21.4% were comments on blog posts or on manuscripts in CommentPress.

The average age of a paper citation was 12.2 years old; the average age of a digital citation was 4.5 years.

The point of this little statistical exercise was to suggest that even scholars agnostic toward digital publishing will like come to accept the new forms and media as quality academic works come to engage and rely on digital publications. The producers of both traditional works and digital works are consumers of digital works as well.

Working Group in Digital and New Media Annual Report

People who read this blog know that I have a super abundance of ideas. In fact, I have a category for ideas (it’s my idea box).

My idea for offering massive open online courses here at the University of North Dakota did not come to pass.

My scheme for a “teaching sabbatical” where faculty are released from other responsibilities to just focus on teaching vanished into the ether.

My plan for block-by-block local history may be stillborn. There is no new media portal for archaeologists (yet).

Archaeology of North Dakota man-camps is simmering (and the grant writing is underway), so it still has some life to it.

Sometimes, everyone once-in-a-while, an idea that I helped to cultivate does come to fruition.  This past week saw the publication of our Working Group in Digital and New Media 2011 Annual Report. The report documents the project undertaken by a group of faculty here at UND in conjunction with the Working Group in Digital and New Media. This is the second fully functioning year of the Working Group’s existence. The Working Group received an initial infusion of cash based on a White Paper submitted to the University President in response to a call for new collaborative ideas on campus. Since that time, the Working Group has receive no additional funding from the University, but has continued to provide space for and to foster innovation and collaboration in the digital realm.  So check out the report below. I prepared the text (based on small reports from the various contributing faculty) and Joel Jonientz prepared the design:

For the 2010 annual report go here.

Some Comments on Writing History in the Digital Age

I’ve really enjoyed cruising through the Jack Dougherty and Kristen Nawrotzki open peer-review volume called Writing History in the Digital Age which is slated to be published by University of Michigan Press’s new Digital Humanities Series in their digitalculturebooks imprint.  I commented on many of the contributions and mined them all for references and ideas.  I’d encourage anyone interested or invested in the future of history in the digital age to check out the volume and to contribute to its open peer review.  Since I have read all the articles in the volume and have been thinking a bit about history in the digital era myself lately, I thought I might offer some overarching comments on the volume (as is my wont).

1. Coherence. One of the first things I noticed about the book is the wide range of contributions. These range from two recent Ph.D.s discussing how they used email to keep themselves motivated and sane while writing their dissertations to discussions on databases, GIS, visualization, and even non-linear digital editing.  Articles on the use of Wikipedia and Social media in the classroom stand alongside more theoretical or research oriented papers.  While such scope is commendable (and must reflect the “big tent” approach to digital humanities, in general), it caused me to wonder about the limits of a specific sub-field called “digital history”  and how we plan to organize and reflect on the intersection of digital tools and history as the discipline becomes invested in digital technologies. For example, there were no articles celebrating the contribution of the so-called “personal computer” or “word processor” in the volume. These basic technologies clearly fell outside of what the authors and editors regarded as the discourse of digital history (although one can argue that these technologies had as big an impact on our field as Wikipedia or Facebook).

Edited volumes always have ragged edges where the definitions and ideas of the contributors fail to line up precisely across the entire book or clash with those of the editors. This is part of the charm of the edited volume; it captures a snapshot of a particular topic in the minds of a group of scholars (as opposed to the carefully composed portrait that is a monograph). At the same time, recent discussions on the definition of the digital humanities might feature more prominently in a volume like this. Is there really enough theoretical, methodological, and topical coherence between all the papers here to justify their appearance in the same book?

2. Institutions. One of the more interesting aspect of the volume was the subtle but (almost) ubiquitous mention of institutional support for the various initiative detailed. In some cases, the support came from powerful national organizations like National Endowment for the Humanities. In other cases, on campus labs or centers like Arts eResearch at the University of Sydney or MATRIX at Michigan State, provided the infrastructure necessary for a project’s development. Some initiatives were far more modest in scope and extended only slightly beyond the classroom’s walls or an immediate community. Few of the articles in this volume, however, problematized their work in terms of a formal research question framed in response to a pre-existing body of scholarship. (Few began with the ubiquitous phrases: “Scholars have argued…”)

It appears, then, that the impetus for working in digital history derives as much from institutional pressures (and opportunities) as traditional appeals to the scholarly conversation.  While this is hardly surprising for a recent development in the discipline, it may foreshadow an interesting shift in the structure of humanities scholarship. The pressure to collaborate and innovate is pushing scholars in the humanities away from well-trod arguments and to the brink of a kind of rupture in the discourse (in a Foucauldian sense). The external pressure and resources deployed by on campus and national institutions have insisted that historians (and other scholars in the humanities) shift their arguments from the small-picture debates that have long shaped these disciplines, to big picture, transdisciplinary, collaborative thinking. This is manifest in (some, but not all of) the scholarship that these projects produced: Writing History in the Digital Age recognizes a different audience and a different set of discursive rules than writing traditional history.

3. Methods and Techniques. Traditional historical practice has been short on method. The so-called historical method is, in fact, a set of practices cobbled together from various other fields and epistemological systems. With the rise in digital history, however, a new interest in methods and practices has come to the fore and a number of the articles in Writing History in the Digital Age reflect this development. Digital historians are more willing to experiment with methods grounded in geography, the social sciences, media studies, and, even, computer programing and game studies.

At the same time, this methodological growth requires critical attention to new techniques. Archaeology for example, has developed a robust methodological discourse over the past 40 years as the disciple embraced a “methodological turn” that sought to critically examine the tools, practices, and assumptions that shaped archaeological knowledge. The essays in this volume, in contrast, showed very little in the way of genuine methodology.  Of course, some of the essays with a pedagogical bent, showed an awareness of and willingness to contribute to recent pedagogical developments, but few of the more research oriented pieces considered explicitly and critically the methodological assumptions of their use of digital tools.

The absence of methodology extends to some extent to the techniques (for lack of a better word) used to generate the kind of digital analysis that their contributions celebrate. While software, programing and markup languages, and hardware appeared regularly in the pages, we were rarely invited to look behind the curtain to see how these aspects of digital history influenced the ways in which history could be written. (The notable exceptions to this were the several essays that discussed Wikipedia, but even these essays focused on the social, rather than technological aspects of this forum. For example, several of the essays mention the automated “bots” that crawl Wikipedia and can change entries systematically, but few essays explain how these bots work and why historian-trained bots couldn’t do the same things.) My feeling is that the next step in the study of digital history will involve a much more critical approach to the methods and tools used by digital historians to produce new knowledge.

4. The Future. One of the most significant gaps in this small book were essays with an eye toward the future. Writing the future is always a risky game, especially for historians who are so accustomed to “looking backward“.   At the same time, part of the writing digital history game is positioning history in a place not only to take advantage of digital tools created by other people, but also to shape how new technologies develop. I would have loved to hear how folks invested in digital history, as the contributors to this book clearly are, see the future of technology impacting our work as historians.

Developments like the massive growth of computing power available to mobile devices, enhanced and augmented reality, MOOCs (Massive Online Open Courses), an endless stream of cloud services, the chaining notion of curation and the personal web, and the rapid mutation of social media communities, all offer new venues for presenting history, but also new spaces and tools for the analysis and interpretation of past events.

Writing History in the Digital Age represents a moment in time in the discipline’s embrace of digital tools.  At once it is possible to see ragged edge of the profession’s handling of digital media to communicate and interpret the past, as well as its growing confidence in embracing (if not fully engaging) new technologies.

A Cool, Busy Week

This is the time of the semester when my calendar fills up with events, meetings, and activities. In some years, this has been a relentless drag from meeting to meeting. This year, however, there are some really cool things going on. So, here’s a inducement to check out the activities this week.

First, the Department of Art and Design (and others!) are hosting their Arts and Culture Conference on campus. The theme is: Politics and the Graphic Image.

The headliners of this conference are the members of the WW3 collective. The group, founded by Peter Kuper and Sethe Tobocman, has produced a politically charged comic World War 3 Illustrated since 1978.  The conference includes discussions with these two artists as well as fellow contributor Sabrina Jones. They have gallery shows at both the Hughes Fine Arts center and at the Third Street Gallery (downtown). The WW3 folks will talk about their work in a round table format Tuesday at 3 in the Ballroom of the Union!

WW3Arts Culture2011

Tuesday, October 25
Seth Tobocman – Artist’s Lecture
9:30am, Hughes Fine Arts Center Room 227

Sabrina Jones – Artist’s Lecture
12:30pm, Gillette Hall Room 303

WW3 Panel featuring Peter Kuper, Seth Tobocman and Sabrina Jones
3:00pm, UND Memorial Union, River Valley Room

Wednesday, October 26
Peter Kuper – Artist Lecture
11:30am – Hughes Fine Arts Center Room 227

2002 Pulitzer Prize Winning Cartoonist Clay Bennet In Conversation,
3:00pm, Hughes Fine Arts Center
Josephine Campbell Recital Hall

This Wednesday at noon, the Working Group in Digital and New will host working group member, Mike Wittgraf, who will talk about Music and Computer/Human Interaction: Interface and Improvisation in the Working Group lab. Mike is an international master of computer mediated music of all kinds. He’s going to present some of his work on our fabulous sound system and talk about the technology and theory behind the next wave of music and computer/human interaction.

Be sure to check out the Music Department’s trumpet recital on Thursday night where Mike will premier his work Gold Digger (for four trumpets and a computer).

Wittgraf Lecture Oct2011


Teaching Tuesday: Digital History and The Fritz at 50

The Fritz at 50 digital history project has gone live.  The Fritz, of course, is the Chester Fritz Library on the beautiful University of North Dakota’s campus and the 50 is the library’s 50th anniversary. For more (and you know that you want more), you should rush over and check out our website.

A link to our website is also featured on the fantastic Fritz at 50 posters produced by my colleague in the Working Group in Digital and New Media’s Joel Jonietz.  Just follow the handy QR code.

Fritz50 4 final

As I have noted in previous posts, the effort to digitize various objects related to the history of the library has been an interesting challenge. The student team that is doing this is pretty eager and dedicated, but it’s clear that they are struggling to wrap their head around the creation of a digital collection. Some of the struggle comes from having to adapt their workflow around unfamiliar tools and processes – camera stands, scanners, digital recorders, and the like.  Yesterday, for example, they interviewed the Director of Libraries and dutifully placed the small Olympus digital recorder on his desk, but neglected to hit the record button.  Fortunately, they also captured the interview on a small video camera.

The occasional difficulties associated with collecting digital objects, however, has made it difficult, right now, for the students to analyze the digital objects and place them within a larger narrative. The hope is that they begin to interweave the narrative of creating the collection with the narrative history of the library on campus. So far, we’ve started this discussion on our blog, but it hasn’t gone very far yet.

The core of the digital collection lives in an Omeka archive. Again, I think we’re on the downward slope of the learning curve here and the content of the archive continues to expand and improve. As the students begin to analyze and think historically about the objects they have produced, the Omeka archive should allow a reader to “drill down” into the underlying evidence and metadata. (Check out this recent blog post on using Omeka to teach history from Teaching History.)

Five Easy Tools to Digitize Your Workflow

On Friday, I’m joining a colleague, Tim Pasch, to give a short talk to help graduate students and advanced undergraduates in the humanities to digitize their research work flow. The talk is at 12 at the Digital and New Media Lab (O’Kelly 207).

Our goals will be to (1) encourage students to understand that incorporating digital tools into their research is not some kind of new hassle, but actually part of being a careful and systematic researcher. We also (2) hope to show the students that they don’t necessarily have to do learn new and complicated skills to digitize their workflow, but that there might be simple and better ways to do what they already do. Finally, (3) we want to introduce students to the idea that digital tools can help them make their work more transparent to the public and this can often facilitate the move from disorganized fragments of ideas to completed thoughts.

I’m going to introduce 5 simple tools that I feel can complement almost any workflow and can help us do what we do better.

1. NValt (or Notational Velocity) for note taking (in plain text!). I write almost exclusively in plain text these days and only work in a full blown word processors when I have to add citations, format for publication, or use track changes in a collaborative environment.  There are a ton of slick little, light weight text editor applications that are just too good not to use and use often (Omwriter is another favorite). As long as they save in plain text format, the documents can be read in any word processor and take up almost no disk space making them super portable. More importantly, many of these programs have features like full screen views designed to make writing more pleasurable and to cut out a bunch of the distractions that make using a full blown word processor such a chore.

2. Zotero for citation management. Most of us collect citations almost continuously, so it is important to have software that allows you organize and retrieve these citations. For the past 5 years, I’ve been absolutely dependent on Zotero to manage my academic citations. Developed by the Center for History and the New Media at George Mason University Zotero is free and was developed with the needs of researchers in the humanities in mind. Originally Zotero was a Firefox add on, but recent versions of it – including Zotero 3.0 Standalone – has made it compatible with the Chrome browser and Word for both PC and Windows. It is easily sync-ed across multiple computers, multiple platforms, and on the web, so you’re never far from your bibliography.

3. Evernote for various notes, images, documents, webpages, and other varia. As more and more of us get smartphones, applications are being developed to make them part of our research workflow. Evernote is perhaps the best of a group of applications for organizing notes, images, documents, and webpages both across computers and between your computer and your smart phone. With Evernote, I now use my smart phone for research all the time. I click an image of a page of a book, article, or document and upload it to Evernote where Evernote use OCR (optical character recognition) to make it searchable. I’ve recently started using Evernote to take voice memos and even to associate them with a particular document when I’m walking home (directly from my phone). I also use Evernote to clip whole webpages, organize them into folders, and look at them when I get a chance. With the various Evernote plug-ins available, it is possible to clip an entire webpage right from your browser with one click. Once the page is clipped, Evernote has a great search engine that makes it easy to find the page without having to venture out once again into the wilds of the web. It’s a nice piece of software.

4. Blogging and Mars Edit / Windows Live Writer. I want to encourage graduate students to include a public, digital component in their workflow. I love the recent emphasis in the UK on graduate students blogging as they work on their thesis. It makes their research public, helps them to develop their online presence (which is really important when they go on the job market), and helps them learn to write every day (or at least regularly). Two pieces of software MarsEdit for Mac and Windows Live Writer (for PC) make it easy to blog offline and to upload content to a blog. The interfaces are like a standard word processor and it makes it even easier to blog.

5. Embrace the Cloud. Most of us already rely on the cloud for email and maybe for our music files, but it has also becoming a simple way to sync documents between computers and to share files. Everyone (perhaps in the world) with a computer should have a Dropbox account. This application creates a folder on your computer that automatically syncs with the cloud making it available wherever you have an internet connection. While I wouldn’t put your credit card numbers in it, it is secure enough for everyday research documents.  Google Docs is a cloud based word processor that is getting better with every passing month. It’s a great platform for writing  and for collaborating.  And like any cloud based application, the documents that you produce or upload to Google docs are available anywhere you have a computer and an internet connection.


Workshops, Conferences, and Lectures

The next few weeks will be busy ones here at the University of the Northern Plains.

On Friday and Saturday, the University of North Dakota will host the International Anchoritic Society Conference at the Memorial Union on campus.  I’ll be giving a paper at 10:45 in the Badlands room titled “Liminal Time and Liminal Space in the Middle Byzantine Hagiography of Greece and the Aegean“. The title is rather more ambitious than the paper!


Next Friday, September 23rd, at noon in the Working Group in Digital and New Media Lab inimitable Tim Pasch and I are teaming up to produce a short workshop on Digitizing Your Workflow. (I really wanted to call it Digitizing Yo Workflo, but people might not get it.)  The workshop will be particularly geared toward graduate students in the humanities and social sciences and introduce some useful digital tools that will help them streamline their workflow.

Digitize Your Workflow Sept 2011

Finally, on September 28th, I’m giving a lecture in the OLLI lecture series here on campus that will provide an overview of the island of Cyprus and my work there. Unfortunately, as far as I understand it, this lecture will not be open to the public, which is a bit of a bummer, but maybe there will be a way to stream it live or record it.


Teaching Tuesday: Digital Natives, Digital History, and the Public

This semester I am once again running a digital history practicum. The goal of these practica is to introduce graduate students to the digital tools available to produce a digital history “exhibition”. The students who take this course mostly have a strong interest in public history and the exhibits we create tend to represent the public side of the historians’ craft. In 2009, we curated a photography exhibit called Topos/Chora which brought together Ryan Stander’s photographs of our work at the Pyla-Koutsopetria Archaeological Project with a series of essays. In 2010, we created a online collection of early M.A. theses at the University of North Dakota, many of which contributed to the earliest professional history of the state.  This year, we’re preparing an online collection to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Chester Fritz Library at the University of North Dakota.

The group of students working on this project include from three Ph.D. students (of various ages and digital literacies from a retired chief petty officer in the US Navy to a student who came directly through our program from undergraduate), a M.A. student, and a senior History major.  In terms of attitude and creativity, this group is a dream team. Moreover, many of them have had course work and real world experience in public history. In terms of experience with even the most basic digital tools, however, these students are far from digital natives. So, we’ve walked relatively slowly through the process of creating a Twitter feed, creating and uploading images to a Flickr account, and the technical aspects of the blogging and creating a collection in Omeka.

The most striking thing about this group, however, is that they have no sense of the pace of the digital world. In short, the students are not digital natives. While technical aspects have required some basic remediation, the students have struggled (at least so far) to recognize how quickly the digital world can move. The pace of content production in the digital world is not quite the same as the pace of production of in the world of paper, interlibrary loans, archives, and polished editing. Blog posts, Twitter feeds, and transmedia spaces like Omeka allow the creation of history in “perpetual beta“.


The Chester Fritz Library (photo: Tim Pasch)

The idea of public history in a digital context goes from history created for a pubic audience or with a public patron or a public goal, to history as a process made public. The editing, compiling, writing, thinking of historians laid bare before the public eye and, in the best situations, opened to public participation (the idea of public remixing or even public creation of historical narratives as well as content).

So with our project in very early beta, here are the component parts:

The Fritz at 50 Blog.

The Fritz at 50 Twitter Feed.

The Fritz at 50 on Flickr.

The Fritz at 50 on Omeka.

We’ll have them together in one place soon, but in the meantime, follow us on Twitter and check out our blog and watch our digital immigrants construct a public history (in public) of one of the most important institutions on any campus the Library.