Curtis Vaughn
This week’s readings and the podcast explored three topics that I think are worthy of consideration–Intellectual ownership of materials, the web and uses of secondary sources, and marketing. All three raise interesting questions about the effectiveness of the new media.
Bell’s article about the new media and scholarship is interesting particularly since his article proves how difficult it is to read and retain material from a computer screen. I cannot imagine trying to read a whole book sitting in front of a computer. I am not sure that Bell has found the exact answer for why it is so difficult, but I am convinced that a fuzzy handheld device will not make the experience any better. It seems to me that the new media is far more important in providing better access to primary sources. Easier access to primary sources is an important step in the democratization of history. Such sites as the 9-11 archive show the power of preserving primary sources. Secondary sources seem to be more problematic on the web. First and foremost, is the source of any importance? If my ego would allow it, I could place the first paper I wrote at GMU on the internet. It may or may not bring an audience, but since it was the beginning of a long learning process, I am certain it is of no historical importance. At present, I don’t see a filter that effectively keeps poor work off the net. Secondly, the internet brings into question the ownership of the secondary sources. Many sites are created without the reader having any idea who has created the site or information in the site. When material under copyright is placed on the net access is controlled which is contrary to the idea of democratization of history. Material that is not under copyright laws seems to take on a life of its own just because it is on the net. Third, because of the power of search tools, the message of the secondary source can easily be distorted by picking and choosing passages rather than looking at the author’s intended message.
This brings me to a segment of the podcast in which the panelists were discussing documents produced by the NIH having limited access. The panelists seemed to oppose any limitations on access to these documents since NIH is publicly funded. That seems like a bit of a slippery slope argument. Couldn’t it be argued that any professor at a state university is in some way publicly funded? Whose intellectual property is a document that has been created by an individual who has received funding from a public source?
Whether funded from a public or private source, I believe the most important thing about intellectual property is its value derived from research by knowledgeable people that has been scrutinized by equally knowledgeable peers. Therefore, it has something important to say about an area of study. Whether we have new media or not, I believe that a standard of scrutiny by knowledgeable peers is crucial to the integrity of research.
This brings me to marketing web sites and my objection to web sites. If I understand the process correctly, by next May we will produce a site that can or will be viewed by the public. So far, I have not heard anyone ask, is what you are planning to do important to the study of history? I am sensitive to that question because before I wrote one of my first research papers the professor here at GMU drilled into the class that it was not enough just to tell a story–we also were required to explain why the story was important. Why is that standard dropped when it comes to web site development? If the same standard was enforced in developing web sites, why would marketing be needed?
In spite of the democratization of information created by the web, I do not use the internet as an important source of information for anything other than sports. The library electronic database is an exception. If there were other safe areas I could go where the sites had undergone some scrutiny of knowledgeable peers who had asked such simple questions as why is the information contained in this site important to the study of history, I might be more enthusiastic about this forced march through the new media.
October 4, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Hi Curtis,
Well, I agree with you on several points. I don’t mind picking and choosing items on the internet to get me started with my research using secondary sources, but I prefer to actually hold those items in my hand. It’s too difficult for me to read at length on my computer. My glasses were a gift from grad school, necessary after spending an entire semester in close reading of sources online. (But I’m not resentful
I do, however, find the internet spectacularly helpful for locating, and more and more often viewing, primary souce documents.
As for the podcast and the argument that receipt of public funds means that your intellectual output belongs to everyone, that’s hogwash, as my grandfather would say. If nothing else, someone still has to pay to keep up the website. And as you point out, where’s the accountability? Lastly, I agree that a historical website should still hold some value historically – It should still answer the “so what?” question most of us have heard should be the key behind our research work. But there are a lot of different ways a website can be useful and still contribute something historically, even if the “so what” is not obvious to some of us.