audience – Page 2 – Online Portfolio

A Summary of User Research

From my research, I have learned that I need to broaden my audience. Initially, I did not consider interviewing people who have never visited the two Koreatowns and/or have no knowledge of Korean culture and history. Instead, I focused on people who have an interest or have some connection. Another thing I need to consider is asking users what they would like to know about Korean American history and culture in general instead of specifically Korean American history and culture in the North Texas area.

Regarding social media, I did not ask the purpose for using each one. Fortunately, the interviewees added that information without me asking. I have to reconsider how social media plays a significant role in their daily activities. In order to understand my users and broaden my knowledge of social media, I might consider using more social media than my usual two.

After reviewing the user interviews, I realized that I might have to make some changes to my project ideas and plans. It seems as though that my questions have focused too much on what they know about Koreatown and Korean history and culture. Due to my controlled focus, I focused less on audience. I have learned that I need to give up some control. In the article, “A Shared Inquiry into A Shared Inquiry,” Corbett and Miller argues Ronald J. Grele’s point: “A shared inquiry is a deliberate decision to give up some control over the product of historical inquiry” (20). So, I had to ask myself, “What can I learn from my audience in order to gain their attention and to engage them in a dialogue with the project?” I might consider adding a blog page for users to add their personal memories about Korean culture and connect them to their reasons for visiting a Koreatown. This page will help me learn about my audience and how they can contribute to building the project. I also need to consider the spatial components and how they affect the relationships or communications in Koreatown as well as the digital space. Instead of just searching the project site, I have to encourage the audience to explore it because “it suggests a non-linear spatial imagination rather than linear, funneled one: one inhabits a space that is being explored rather than simply forging a narrowing path through it” (Frisch 132). Therefore, the interviews have taught me that I have so much more to learn about audience and I need to revise my project ideas and plans.

A Response for the Comparative Review of the Digital Public History Projects

With advancing technology and globalization, digital public history projects have progressed over time. A comparative review of the digital public history projects in three different phases reveals noticeable changes from the projects that began as content focused to projects that are content and audience focused. At the same time, the creators of the projects had to consider the digital space. For example, the digital public history work during phase 1 is more content driven. The technology might be outdated, but the historical content plays an important role in all three projects in this phase. In the first example, “Blackout History Project,” some of the hyperlinks were no longer working. Also, phase 1 includes minimal audience engagement; however, there is more audience engagement in the last two projects of this phase. The images, videos, and audio recordings provide different ways of viewing the historical content; and they allow the audience to think about history differently. “Blackout History Project” and “The Progress of a People” seem to centralize the historical content as if it was presented in an academic manner (e.g. lecture); however, I can see that all three projects were reflecting a shift or change in making public history available to a broader audience. A basic mapping tool appears in the third project: “The Great Chicago Fire and the Web of Memory.” The digital tools used in phase 1 projects convey the importance of beginning to engage the audience with the historical content through a digital space for the contextualizing strategy, which Sam Wineburg defines it as situating “the document and its events in time and place” in order to be “Thinking Like a Historian.”

For phase 2, the digital public history projects include more digital tools, audience engagement, and recognition of collaboration. In addition to educational resources, a project’s site presents other ways of engaging with a general audience. Phase 2 includes less hyperlinks and more embedded links and images that can be clicked on for more information. Also, phase 2 includes more galleries or exhibits for the scanned images of documents and other artifacts. Phase 2 projects invite the audience to think like a historian in the intermediate stages of contextualizing, close reading, and reading silence. “Jasenovac: Holocaust Era in Croatia” introduces the audience to public history that might have been hidden or rarely exposed. “A More Perfect Union: Japanese Americans and the U.S…” is another project that presents historical content that most U.S. history books only provide a snippet of information. “Raid on Deerfield” introduces the audience to view the history of English settlers and their conflict with the French and native allies. The phase 2 projects represent social injustice in different countries, and they convey the importance of global perspectives in order to share public history in a digital space.

In phase 3, the digital public history projects include updated digital tools, collaboration, and more audience engagement. The projects that collaborate with a museum and local historical society or library are “Lincoln at 200” and “Bracero History Archive.” Some of the project sites such as “Bracero History Archive” and “Operation War Diary” encourage the audience to contribute to the project. Also, some of the projects use social media to collaborate with the audience and spread the word about the project. There is also a search option in two of the projects. The digital tools in phase 3 are more advanced in presenting the historical content and engaging the audience. Some of the projects have both audio recordings with transcriptions for ADA compliance. The “Manifold Greatness…” is a great example. Some of digital public history projects have resources for further reading and for classroom purposes. By including more collaboration, audience engagement, and advanced digital tools in a digital space, phase 3 projects introduce the audience to the strategies of contextualizing, close reading, using background knowledge, reading the silences, and corroborating.

Furthermore, good digital public history work should continue adapting to the changing and advancing technology, updating websites, presenting historical content that challenges the audience to “think like a historian,” adding more scholarship, finding ways to engage the audience to understand the value of researching public history, and acknowledging a diverse audience. With all of these things in mind, it is also best to continue updating the guidelines for reviewing digital public history work.

In the field of digital public history, there are several promising new directions. It will create more grants and fellowships for scholars to think like a historian and bring awareness of missing or rarely known part of public history to a wide audience. Also, this field will steer in the direction of global digital public history projects that will reach out to an even wider audience for cultural and historical understanding. Soon, almost every major institution or organization will begin to hire public historians. This field is unique in the sense that it brings academic and non-academic passions together for a greater purpose. The humanistic approach to digital public history comes into fruition when it becomes an inclusive rather than exclusive way of audience engagement and participation along with collaboration from academic and non-academic institutions or organizations.

A Response to Grele’s “Whose Public? Whose History? What is the Goal of a Public Historian?”

Similar to the broad definition of Digital Humanities, the definition of Public History is also broad because it is constantly debated and changed. From his article, “Whose Public? Whose History? What is the Goal of a Public Historian?” Ronald J. Grele defines public history to be “moving into fields long occupied by practicing non-academic historians. It is debating issues within a long tradition of debate. It is deeply embedded within a series of ongoing tendencies in the profession” (44). Grele’s definition is enlightening because he views public history to be diverse and versatile. According to John Dichtl and Robert B. Townsend’s article, “A Picture of Public History: Preliminary Results from the 2008 Survey of Public Professionals,” the comparison of the survey results from 1980 and 2008 show the changing trends such as how many public historians were employed in academia and non-academic institutions. The 2008 survey also shows that “women comprised two thirds of the respondents (65.5 percent)” compared to the 36 percent from the 1980 survey. Denise Meringolo, author of Museums, Monuments, and National Parks: Toward a New Genealogy of Public History, defines public history to be collaborative, multidisciplinary, and engaging with a focus on communication. In the following statement, Meringolo clearly defines the role of the public historian: “Public historians can produce original interpretations that connect scholarship and everyday life by respecting the ways in which their partners and audiences use history and by balancing authority against community needs” (168).

Dichtl and Townsend argue that “Public history is one of the least understood areas of professional practice in history because the majority of public history jobs are outside of academia.” On the other hand, it can be due to two reasons: “First those of us who currently work in the field have not clearly defined what is we do, why we do it, and why it is an alternative to other forms of historical effort. Second, the debates have taken place in a historical vacuum” (Grele 41). Even though the public is ubiquitous when it comes to history, adding the term “public” to “history” seems to spark some controversy, but “another group of historians emerged to work with a non-college public: local history movement” (Grele 42). As a result, Grele argues that “it was the local history movement which offered the most thoroughgoing alternative to the historical work done in the academy” (43). However, public historians were not seen as equal to the academic historians. Meringolo also mentions two reasons or trends of thought for the debate: “Some scholars emphasize the term “public,” arguing that the environment in which historians apply their craft impacts the questions, methodology, and content of interpretation. Others underscore the term “history,” insisting that credentialed historians perform their work in accordance to the same disciplinary standards regardless of location or audience” (xvi). Both Grele and Meringolo argue that the combination of “public” and “history” sparks a debate for defining public history.

Another reason for the broad definition of public history is the debate on its origin. Grele argues that the job crisis for the academic historians was the reason for the beginning of public history because the proponents of public history “have accused the [academic] profession of ignoring the possibility of opportunities outside of the academy and monopolizing the ideological formulation of the role of the historical by accenting a narrow vision of the historian as researcher or university professor” (41). Thus, it began opening up job opportunities for historians. However, Denise Meringolo contends the origin of public history began with the National Park Service. Meringolo argues that it was Verne Chatelain (first chief historian for the NPS) who should be credited for the beginnings of public history because “it was evident to Chatelain that an advanced degree in history did not necessarily prepare historians for work in the federal government” (xiii). Therefore, in the 1930s, “Chatelain’s new technicians were among the first public historians, and they had a profound impact on the evolution of the field” (Meringolo xiv). Also, Meringolo acknowledges that it was during the 1970s that academic historians were “concerned about the scarcity of jobs for history PhDs” (xiv); but in her book, she “examines the process by which federal workers began to conceptualize the protection of landscapes and artifacts as valuable public work” (xxix) and the importance of collaborating with other professionals (e.g. scientists) and the public audience.

Public history includes both the academic and non-academic historians working together to engage the public. Also, public history is a collaboration of historians and professionals/experts in digital humanities, science, architecture, literature, medicine, textiles, folklore, mental health, media, culinary arts, art, music, religion, etc. In today’s fast-paced and social media driven society, public history plays a significant role in the form of digital public history. It not only engages the audience, it allows the public to take part in the making and preserving history. Despite the debates, a broad definition of public history allows space for more ideas of collaboration and engagement because history is never seen and told in one way. Since “Fledgling public history inherited from its late nineteenth-century origins a pragmatic approach to research and an impulse to change” (Meringolo xxxi), the broad definition of public history allows change and evolves with change.

In agreement with Grele’s statement that “Thus the task of the public historian, broadly defined, should be to help members of the public to do their own history and to aid them in understanding their role in shaping and interpreting events” (48), the types of the practice the field of public history should encourage will change throughout history; and it will include more collaboration and engagement beyond the academic setting. For example, Social media plays a big part in public history. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube probably have their own public historians; and their platforms engage the public on a daily basis. Even their audience contribute to the making of their history through crowdsourcing. Public history projects invite the public to engage with artifacts that were once lost or hidden from the public. Public history is a collaboration of historians, other professionals, public, and technology. Therefore, digital humanities public history adds another layer to the field of public history and its definition.