I quickly browsed over this book at the start of our course. However, I decided to reread it now I have done a fair bit of work on my blog and feel I have a better grasp of the differing possibilities of using digital resources for history. In the introduction the authors discuss the different visions of the future, both positive and negative, which academics had for the impending digital age (this was in 1993). While enthusiasts envisioned a virtual learning environment without classrooms and books as a positive development, sceptics bemoaned a future where libraries would be defunct. 
However, as usual, the future did not turn out as predicted. When I was a kid we thought the future would be filled with flying cars and Star Trek like clothes. Instead we got mobile phones, ipods and a world of knowledge at our fingertips – different but probably even more amazing! I can live without the flying car but not my phone! I remember my dad saying in the future we would take pills which would supply all the calories and nutrients we needed instead of eating dinner but, of course, this never happened and I don’t think ever will as some of the rituals we humans have developed such as eating dinner together or reading books are too important to us fulfilling more than just a function.
As I read, I reflected on what computers and the internet have meant to me as I did my degree and as I do my masters. Certainly, to paraphrase Cohen and Rosenzweig, my laptop is my pencil. It helps me create quality work by enabling me to redraft and order my scattered thoughts which would be way more tedious on paper. I also have abysmal handwriting but my word processor renders this inconsequential. More important though is the effect of the internet on my research.
I am not sure it would have been possible to study US foreign policy while living in Cork, Ireland without the resources available on the world wide web. I do nearly all my research online as very few primary or secondary sources are available in our college library for this subject. I am constantly searching US presidential libraries and the National Security Archives for information. The availability of many different journal titles through the library website is invaluable also. I often wonder how students were able to write dissertations without access to all these resources before the advent of the internet. Or are we just raising the bar all the time? Cohen and Rosenzweig ask “How might our history writing be different if all historical evidence were available?” I wonder myself if our access to all this evidence leads to prioritising the gathering of knowledge but leaving little time for reflection. I was thinking about this the other night as I watched a movie on TV with my son. The movie, Atonement, is set in the 1930s and1940s and the characters seemed to spend a lot of time “doing nothing” – just talking, smoking, thinking, while we seem to always be “doing something” – watching stuff on the internet or TV, listening to/downloading music etc. We rarely “just be”. But maybe that’s just my family. The authors list the four major qualities brought to academia by the internet/computers as: the ability to do more, reach more people, store more data and access/use more varied sources. While these are all positive developments which will enhance the study and scope of historical research but I think we must not forget the importance of reflection in the pursuit of knowledge and insight.
I found other aspects of the books thesis interesting too such as the concept of hypertextuality or non-linearity which is said to “fracture traditional master narratives”. However, while I am often tempted down a hypertext side-road essentially we are still expected to largely learn the traditional linear narrative during our degree so I often find I have to stop myself being “distracted” by information not required for exams or papers.
The value of interactivity is hard to determine. While academically it may further learning some of the responses you find on internet newspaper sites and texted into news shows on the radio are just uninformed rants. I can do uninformed ranting all on my own! For news analysis I want to listen/read people with some expertise who can give me informed reasoned opinions so I think the value of interactivity is often limited.
Lastly, I think the aspect of dissemination of information is one which deserves consideration and debate. Cohen and Rosenzweig argue against academic “gated communities” which exclude many who haven’t the resources to access them. This debate questions the very nature of our capitalist society where everything including knowledge and creativity is potentially a product with a price tag attached. We have discussed aspects of this at home in relation to the justification of downloading music for free. This wide-ranging debate is too big for my blog but I do think the freedom the web has provided to creative types to reach an audience is a wonderful thing. Some of the cartoons and music clips my son shows me are so strange/innovative/imaginative I can’t help but believe that removing creativity, artistic or academic, from the grasp of commercialism is a positive development. This cartoon, Salad Fingers, is a good example – scary, weird but somehow good….
