In 2001 I was a Freshman in college just about to embark on my first research paper. During that first semester I was forced (as I saw it at the time) to take a “Library Strategies” course. At a time when I was still marveling at ingenuity of microfilm (the computer revolution was tardy at my high school), I was introduced to mu university’s Online Journal Database. Literally thousands of journals accessible through one website. What I soon discovered was that a 10 page research paper in college took 1/4 the amount of time to complete as a paper of the same length took in high school. Additionally, I utilized significantly more sources on my college papers.

Unfortunately by this point I admit I may rely on digital resources too much. As a genetically created procrastinator, I find the online database both a blessing and a curse. Since a paper now takes significantly less time to research and write, I start the process of writing much later than before. This time crunch also restricts the type of sources I use. If I need a paper done quickly, I will probably only use online sources. Ignoring many valuable sources in the process.  I am aware that these criticisms of digital history are personal shortcomings, rather than criticisms of online researching in general.  However, the constantly busy historian may be tempted to follow my example.

One difficulty with new media in history that I have personally found is explaining the benefits of digitization to the older generation of historians (and many in my generation as well). I am currently working on a small digitization project that includes about 200 word document pages full of simple text, and about an additional 50 photographs. The project coordinator & I have engaged in many debates on how the site should be created. The text is broken up into five sections (about 4o pgs each), with many annotations littered throughout. The main debate revolves around the issue of search-ability. He would like create 5 PDF files (one for each section) accompanied by an introductory essay for each section. These essays will essentially outline what the following 40 pages cover. I have been arguing in favor of transcribing all this text instead in order to be more search-friendly. Since the project is so small, the cost of double checking the transcription will be small. So similar to the search function in jstor, specific terms easily could be highlighted and easily found. Unfortunately, despite constant explanations of the simplicity of such a process (it’s basically automated), I cannot convince him to use OCR.

One problem I have had with new media & history has been a lack of loosening up the restrictions placed on scholarship in general. While it is easy for me to say as an unpublished historian that online journals should be freely accessible to all internet users, I feel the current system of publication is extremely hostile to the dissemination of knowledge. I do however understand the annoyance of working many hours on a project or paper with no monetary compensation (being a college student for instance). However, I would question why a historian is engaging in his or her research in the first place? Is money your prime motive? If so, I would suggest finding a different career, as single publications are both time consuming and relatively unrewarding monetarily as compared to other professions. What about fame? Well name recognition and exposure to your work will increase a hundred fold if you simply posted your work on arxiv.org or a similar free journal database. If your goals are more academically noble, such as a genuine interest in advancing human understanding on a particular topic, free archives are obviously more successful at disseminating knowledge. Currently only a privileged few can access the latest ideas or discoveries in the Social & Hard Sciences presented in academic journals. Instead most people rely on a reporter’s interpretation of some new idea or finding, which he or she may not be fully trained to do. Thus the message may become skewed.

Let’s face the facts, you’re not going to become rich by being a historian.  But if you really do wish to be both a scholar and rich, your reputation will be the first thing to carry you there. For those historians just starting out, your first couple articles may not be accepted by journals with large readerships. Even if you have a revolutionary idea, you may need to publish in a smaller journal, creating the very real possibility that your idea will not gain momentum in academic circles. I believe the biggest challenge facing new historians today is finding your niche in an increasingly populated field.  Free databases are the best option at the moment for doing this.