Historians Ask the Public to Organize the Past - Article

http://chronicle.com/article/Historians-Ask-the-Public-to/134054/

This link was posted on the SAA's Facebook page a few days ago. The article discusses using the public to help transcribe articles. While less efficient than hiring staff to do the same work, it certainly did save the organization (George Mason's Center for History and New Media) quite a bit of money. In addition to the actual undertaking of the project, some of the comments are quite interesting. According to one [D]igiwonk:

"I agree that one of the greatest benefits of this kind of work is to draw in regular (i.e., non-academic) citizens into professional intellectual work. It is clear that there is going to be a small minority of private citizens who have amazing skills and great dedication, whose work can really push a project forward. Many others will make yeoman-like efforts that also help. Do they need to be managed? Sure! Is it going to save any money in the end? Probably not.

But if one of the major crises facing the humanities today is a severe disconnection from everyday people and their concerns, I could hardly imagine a better way to generate knowledge, goodwill, and active interest than to open up our studies to people we've been much more likely to construe as hostile bumpkins, or irrelevant to our work.

This kind of crowd sourcing is not just knowledge creation, then, but also knowledge mobilization, in that it reaches out to the public to show just what it is that we do, here inside the ivory tower."

This person's comment reflect some of the reading we have done for class and the discussion of the disconnect between academic history and the public as a whole. I agree that this method does seem like a good way to engage people and get them involved in the historical process but there already were a substantial number of people, at least that the article focused upon, that were already interested in history. I question whether this article represents actual public engagement or the engagement of those who already have a vested interest-- personal or professional-- in history. The investment of time and effort on their part does not necessarily represent the breaching of social and intellectual barriers, despite the diverse range of people they enlisted.

Another comment also caught my eye, one from a person known as "Nyhist." Nyhist makes a point about 18th century handwriting and how difficult it can be to read, especially for someone who is not used to reading it. Even though some of the volunteers are academics and others amateur scholars, does enlisting public help for this task without necessarily vetting their reading abilities for this task risk inaccurate transcriptions?

While the exact and ultimate benefits of this sort of process are debatable, the article certainly makes for an interesting read. It demonstrates some of the reasons why people ultimately chose to become engaged in the history-- some kind of personal connection be it intellectual curiosity or interest or seeking confirmation of some kind (in the case of the women seeking documentation to join the DAR).