lovehistory.net

Well, my first live blogging experience was certainly interesting. I promised a summation of my thoughts following discussion, and to be honest at this point I’m a little brain dead, but I will do my best to offer some commentary.

More than once Sharon expressed some surprise that the consensus in the class seemed to tend toward an openness and acceptance in exploring new methods of scholarly credentialing, review, presentation, access, and dissemination. I’d like to offer my own personal opinion on why that might be, or at least why I feel open to exploring these new things. First though, I’ll try to hit on what might be some more general reasons.

David mentioned that many of our classmates are public historians, and therefore they may not feel as vested in participating in the traditional academic system, though Sharon did point out that public and academic historians continue to share integral scholarly relationships even after public historians “leave” the academy. Sheri pointed out that at Mason the department places its graduate students in a unique position by having us work through the CLIO digital history sequence. We are working in an environment that encourages exploring, learning about, and participating in new methods of scholarship. And it is not incidental that we are at this university – we all chose to apply here knowing about the digital history emphasis. I know I highlighted CHNM in my personal statement (and I’m sure everyone else at least mentioned it), and I do not plan on pursuing digital history as a minor field (I say now). I believe we were all predisposed to a curiosity about digital history, or a willingness to learn about it – if we weren’t, then we wouldn’t have applied to a school that requires that willingness.

But here is where I think the crux of the argument lies for me. Academia is changing. I chose to pursue a Ph.D. in history because I feel I’ve found my mental, emotional, and spiritual home in the collegiate institution. Academia allows me to read, write, and teach surrounded by a pre-assembled peer and student group, and provides me with resources I would be hard pressed to find otherwise. But when I sat down with professor after professor as an undergrad and told them I aspired to emulate them I was universally greeted with the words, “Don’t do it.” Don’t do it because you will never get a job, not because you’re not smart enough to get one, but because the jobs simply don’t exist. Don’t do it.

Then, of course, they proceeded to encourage me and guide me and make sure I ended up in a Ph.D. program. But their words have never left me and actually, we are all still hearing those words all. the. time. So when I hear discussions about tenure disappearing and how digital humanities are changing traditional scholarship I don’t feel resistant to it because from everything I understand the old system will not serve me. I think the emerging one, whatever it may look like, might. So I’m approaching it with an open mind. It’s a “what can it do for me” as opposed to a “what is it going to do to me” mentality. To me that seems a lot more useful.

Also, it’s not as if scholars and other participants aren’t aware of problems posed by new methods of scholarship, and it’s not as if people aren’t working (successfully) to fix them. I am now a part of that dialogue, and in that way, the future is even more in my own hands. Maybe my classmates feel the same, maybe not. But when you’re facing such difficult prospects, you have to be a pragmatist at the very least or why try at all? And in this case, I think that means viewing change as a tool for betterment and, perhaps paradoxically?, for control. And that is part of what makes me feel okay about deciding to “do it” after all.