January 24, 2006 readings — who are the gatekeepers?
I wonder what everyone else thinks about the issue of what I’m going to call “academic legitimacy.” Namely, the determination of whether or not a work (article, book, pamphlet, tract, website, essay, doodle) presenting itself as history is an acceptable source of information. The determination of the criteria of acceptability is problematic in and of itself, and certainly worth discussing. Should academic standards for “historical” websites apply to non-historians? How important are degrees and other professional qualifications in the digital presentation of history? The Digital History chapter touched on this issue, including:
- George Welling’s struggle to get his colleagues to accept his website “From Revolution to Reconstruction” as an “academic venture”
- the thorny question of whether online archives are “true” archives (see the JAH guidelines for clarification)
- the explicit division of online history-providers into “professional historians” and “enthusiasts”
Who are the “gatekeepers” of this historical legitimacy? Can someone without an advanced degree (or even a BA) attain historical legitimacy? Do degrees and credentials even matter when so few people think critically about the material presented in websites — or books, for that matter?
Also, how would you teach students to critically evaluate websites? Would “historical legitimacy” be a factor you would encourage students to address? What other aspects of a site, beyond the content/form/audience/new media areas discussed in the JAH guidelines, would you ask your students to examine. Would you even direct students to the JAH guidelines? Or would you create your own rubric for “acceptable” and “legitimate” websites?
Lastly, how important is the intended audience when evaluating the legitimacy of a website? The JAH guidelines recognize that websites’ effectiveness depends on their accessability and that content must be tailored to the audience. Should a historical website attempt to link different communities, defined by Agre as “people who share a certain institutional location,” into one audience? Or, should each community have its own set of websites? Also, if a number of communities constitute an audience for a particular website, does that audience become a community itself?
I was intrigued by your questions and comments about degrees and their ability to lend (or not lend) legitimacy to history online. That’s an interesting point to consider in light of Agre’s comments about the more democratic and egalitarian nature of the Web and one worthy of further thought and discussion.
Comment by Jodi Boyle — January 23, 2006 @ 9:37 pm
Just hwo would you teach students to evaluate websites? The first education I received on how to spot a bogus cite from a professional or historical web page was based merley on astetics. I was told my middleschool and high school teachers that if a cite looked shotty or not well put together that it was probably just some random person who created a web page and that the more visually pleasing sites were the professional ones; however that isn’t entirely true particularily when so many individuals have the ability to create amazing cites that look professional. I think there should be some sort of system that tells you whether a cite is reputable or not. Kind of like the FDA approval, not that that means much I guess. I think in many ways its up to the individual to determine what is accurate.
Comment by Santral — January 24, 2006 @ 1:18 am
First, I have to say that I would think that someone on the web could gain historical legitimacy, even without an advanced degree. It does level the playing field to an extent. The possibility to get your work out in the world without having to find a publisher could help you get recognition for well done and accurate work. On the other hand, this would be very difficult to do, as it is always difficult, if not nearly impossible, to attain that legitimacy within the academic community without the advanced degree. I guess this is really a question that can’t be fully answered until we see how much the history community embraces the internet in the future.
Comment by Linda — January 24, 2006 @ 2:20 am
First, very nice use of hyperlinks and all that jazz!
Second, I agree with Linda that no degree is needed to have something online that is legitimate (however, I don’t know if teachers would accept that). If something is well foot-noted and uses reliable source, it should be considered legitimate. If you copied it, it would be just as bad as copying from a published book. I think if you can’t copy (steal) it than one must admit that it has some legitimacy as a “published” work.
Comment by Ed Conroy — January 24, 2006 @ 3:25 pm