Reddit mentions of Too Much to Know: Managing Scholarly Information before the Modern Age

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

I think there is a difficulty in using the term "digital historian" or "digital humanities," because, like you suggest, it's unclear what that means. Does it in fact refer to a new field? Or, new tools to approach history? Or, as my post outlines, new outlets for historians to discuss their work? Or all three? "Digital historians" themselves have not agreed on a definition yet (at least as far as I've read), so in part the post was adding to that discussion by offering a new way of thinking about it. I see a lot of talk about the field and tools of a digital historian, and in a haphazard way, about "digital humanities" that seemingly encompasses whenever a liberal arts scholar touches on the "digital" in any way. It was partly written out of frustration as I don't see historians discussing the potential impact of "digital society" on the role and of our profession within that society. Instead we have concentrated on examining how it can change the tools we use to study of history, though to some, it does seem to imply a new field of history.

Despite your skepticism, I think the field of digital history is out there, but still being shaped into a coherent idea. At my home institution, the University of Waterloo, Ian Milligan is working on digital history projects. He's exploring how historians will look at society in the internet age and what tools they will have to do it. I know at University of Western Ontario, William Turkel is also doing digital history. I am sure there are others mirroring their work. Though the field is still being shaped by scholars like them, there is hints at a new field which examines the recent changes in our relation to and use of technology. Of course, I suppose this could just be explained as a new approach within the history of Information Society. I am not sure yet!

I am a bit hesitant about Big Data. From what I've read, there was a similar popularity about using computers back in the late 70s and early 80s to examine large amounts of data, and that did not result in a revolution in the field/profession. I don't think that's an area where we will see new, exciting ideas, but rather, as you suggest, old ones that have longer footnotes or more data backing them up. There are some directions that I find extremely interesting. Considering "video games" as sources of historical knowledge/memory and the methodology required to examine them; how society has conceived of information (though Information Society has had a journal since the 80s, it's stuff like Ann Blair's Too Much To Know that offers new ways of thinking about it); or methodology addressing how to use internet sources like Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit and what they tell historians. I am a "contextual relativist" though, so I believe in reconstructing history as best as we can, so I am sure there are other ways of approaching digital history that I find less interesting to consider. There's a lot of room for methodological innovation and I am sure Big Data will cause some historiographical changes. I can't think of any big historiography change as a result of digital history, though I suspect we might see some soon enough.

What I think is most needed right now is a clarification and agreement about the terms we're using. Who knows if my post discusses "digital history," "digital humanities," or the "digital historian," or all of them. And who knows if "digital" means the same in each usage. I am trying to be a part of that discussion even if I am not yet giving clear answers. One day, perhaps! I really appreciate your comment, as this is exactly the sort of conversation we wanted to have through our blog.