By: Christopher A. Bowles
Professional historical research is an academic occupation that has a tendency to be overly traditional in its methods, which is reflected in the research techniques of many of its practitioners. Unlike many disciplines, the academic library is still one of the first stops for many historians. This is generally followed by a visit to either a public or private archive. Generally, historians have been slow to adopt the advantages offered by technologies and have come as a result of the popularization of the World Wide Web in the mid 1990s. There are, however, some examples of how this is beginning to change. This essay examines the research patters of one professional historian who has embraced digital technology and, as a result, has firmly established it in his research techniques. This essay will demonstrate that, while most common practices in professional history are still firmly entrenched in time-tested methods, some are beginning to turn away from tradition and adopt more modern techniques.
Dr. Daryl White, the subject of this research project, is currently a history professor at Grand Prairie Regional College in Grand Prairie, Alberta. White received his PhD in History from the University of Western Ontario in 2006. In addition to his current position at Grand Prairie, he has also taught history courses at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Laurentian University and Nipissing University. White believes he is a relatively common representative of professional historians in the field of Canadian history. His particular interests are in the fields of political and business history. As shall be demonstrated, White is more progressive in his research methods than many of his contemporaries.[1]
Before going into an analysis of how White’s experiences compare to those depicted in academic literature, it is first necessary to briefly summarize his research approach. Throughout the course of the interview he utilized his current major research project, the Northern Breweries Beer Draft Monopoly, as a point of reference. White states he will generally begin to investigate a topic after he stumbles upon something that sparks his interest. For example, he arrived at his current topic after having a casual conversation with a friend in Sudbury, Ontario. Next, he will begin his research with a narrow search of relevant literature, normally by checking the OPAC at his current institution, and then by conducting a search through the American: History and Life database. If nothing is found he will broaden his search. For his current project he looked into general literature on beer monopolies and brewing in Canada. White will then move directly into primary source research. He will normally approach provincial and federal archives first. This will be complemented by newspaper research. In the case of Northern Breweries, he conducted in-depth research into The Sudbury Star, utilizing the index and microfilm copies available at the J.N. Desmarais Library at Laurentian University. With these references he got specific dates and then looked into other regional newspapers also available at Laurentian.[2]
White says providing a definitive answer to the question of how much time he typically spends in academic libraries while conducting research difficult to quantify. He says that, in the past, he spent more time in libraries than he does now, primarily because many sources are now available electronically. He does, however, still rely of the library to retrieve monographs, which are still viewed by most historians to be of fundamental importance. He will also use the library to locate articles that are not available online. He emphasizes, however, that he now prefers reading sources in electronic format if available.[3]
While research into the research patterns of professional historians is not extensive, there are a number of works that support many of White’s own research patterns, at least when it comes to the emergence of an interdisciplinary focus which he believes is highly evident. A 2002 article in The Journal of Academic Librarianship entitled “Defining History for Library Statistics, or Everything has a History,” examined the research techniques of professional historians in attempt to better aid librarians in understanding the discipline with the goal of showing where Library of Congress categories could be improved. First and foremost, the authors indicate that nature of history itself is hard to define because of the numerous approaches, which came as a result of the explosion in popularity of social history in the 1960s, and 70s. The literature review indicates a general view that history is becoming more interdisciplinary. The authors state that professional historians are often reading materials that are outside their traditional Library of Congress categories.[4] This is a view that White agrees with. For example, when doing his current research he investigated business sources in addition to history sources.[5]
While multidisciplinary library research is an aspect that correlates with White’s experience, his use of archives shifts away from the observations of a number of archivists. This factor becomes evident after examining an article by Ian G. Anderson entitled “Are You Being Served? Historians and the Search for Primary Sources,” published in Archivaria in 2004. The study looked at how historians search for information while conducting archival research. The results indicate that many historians are not taking full advantage of online archival finding aids. Many prefer other, less technical, ways of retrieving information. Anderson says that historians tend to have a preference for paper sources over digital. The survey indicated that 97% of the respondents preferred to follow “leads in print”, and only 71% had any significant experience locating sources utilizing online methods. Most historians surveyed indicated they had severe reservations when it came to electronic archival resources and, even archivists admitted that much work needed to be done with regard to finding aids.[6] White, on the other hand, prefers online resources for locating archival information; however, he says that electronic finding aids have improved immeasurably since 2004.[7]
Other studies have further reinforced the idea that professional historians are reluctant to adopt electronic research methods. Wendy Duff, Barbara Craig and Joan Cherry demonstrated this factor from the perspective of Canadian historians in “Finding and Using Archival Sources: A Cross-Canada Survey of Historians Studying Canadian History,” published in the same issue of Archivaria as Anderson’s article. The authors chose to study archival usage patterns of historians because they are one of the heaviest users of archival resources. The research also helped gage the specific areas of interest amongst the scholars in the study. Business, the area our interview subject is currently pursuing, was only of interest to 13% of the subject group. Archival use was heavy amongst the study group with 30% accessing six or more archival institutions and 51% accessing between two and six. The two most commonly used archives were provincial (90%) and federal (83)%, which correlates with White’s experience. Business archives were accessed by 28% of the respondents, which, interestingly, is higher than the rate of those who claimed their area of interest was business. Also interesting was that only 49% of the respondents believed the World Wide Web was important in “becoming aware of and locating needed material.” When asked whether or not they preferred electronic reproductions or scanned copies of primary documents only 25% indicated they had actually used them. In addition, most preferred to print out these sources if they were forced to utilize them. The reasons given were a “lack of computer knowledge” and “difficulty using or reading e-reproductions.”[8] Finally, it was further demonstrated that many historians still need the help of an archivist; in fact, it appears that technology has, rather than diminishing this role, introduced a requirement for even more assistance.[9] White, on the other hand, has no problem with electronic documents and generally requires very little assistance from an archivist.[10]
The usage of archives by historians was also examined in an article by Helen R. Tibbo entitled “Primary History in America: How US Historians Search for Primary Materials at the Dawn of the Digital Age” published in The American Archivist in 2003. The article demonstrates a slightly better adoption of modern technology among American historians, but they are still behind White in their comfort level with online research techniques. Tibbo, however, is critical of finding aids in general and says “[m]ounting finding aids, that is, providing networked access to them, does not make them “accessible,” discoverable, or useful”.[11] The article also provided more insight into the types of primary documents preferred by the group that participated in her study. The top result was newspapers followed by unpublished correspondence and manuscripts. Also, as demonstrated in other research this articles, the group overwhelmingly preferred print sources to find leads on archival material. In addition, 80% of the subject group reported that they utilized the OPAC of their own institution’s library to locate sources while only slightly more than 60% accessed repository websites. Surprisingly, only 44% used Internet search engines to locate information. Less than 20% of the study group searched the national archives for information. When it came to contacting archives, more researchers utilized email than the telephone when requesting assistance; however, more used the phone as the first point contact when needing copies of finding aids or primary materials.[12] White, on the other hand, prefers email and, as previously motioned, uses the OPAC as one of his first stops for information.
Another theme that arose in the literature was an increasing awareness of the general public and non-academics when conducting research; however, this is not always incorporated into historical writings and research. This increasing awareness can involve using non-academics as sources of information (Oral History) and, to a lesser extent, writing for the general public. For example, Public History is a relatively new genre of historical study, but one that is growing in popularity. White says he usually tries to keep the public in mind when preparing articles. He states, “I think public history is incredibly important. History shouldn't be written in an academic bubble, it needs to be accessible and useful. I usually try to ensure that my articles are readable if it's something that I think the general public should take an interest in.”[13] This too, however, is an approach that many historians have yet to adopt wholeheartedly. A 2008 article entitled “Engaging with Public Engagement: Public History and Graduate Pedagogy,” published in Radical History investigated some of the issues professional historians have encountered in conducting this type of research, primarily from the larger university environment. The study followed history PhD students at the University of Minnesota and detailed their experiences with a PhD course in public history offered in the fall of 2005. The university did not officially offer the course, which was originally proposed by PhD students. As part of the seminar course, students undertook research in local archives, academic and public libraries and placed a significant focus on oral history. The students then presented their work in many non-traditional ways, including museum exhibits, web sites and even offered walking tours rather than focus on publication in peer-reviewed journals, which is a significant focus of the discipline. Ultimately, while some of the students found the exercise a unique experience, many did not feel it was worth the time required. The course was not offered again.[14]
White has some mixed feelings on these non-traditional approaches. For example, he gives a word of caution when it comes to oral history because there is no guarantee that the information is accurate. He says he would never rely on oral history alone; that it must only be used in conjunction with other research. White, however, is supportive of the idea of using websites, museum exhibits or exhibits in a library to display his research, although he has not attempted this himself yet.[15]
When it comes to business history, White is in agreement with some of the reported problems in conducting research. For example, some studies have determined that there is a significant threat to business historians, especially when it comes to smaller businesses and organizations. The problems was examined by David A Kirsch in “The Record of Business and the Future of Business History: Establishing a Public Interest in Private Business Records”, published in Library Trends in 2009. Kirsch says there are a number of issues that impact business historians. For example, many small businesses are not stressing the importance of records management policies and, as a result, there often is very little of archival value left. Shareholders have also impeded the archiving of business records because, in some instances, they do want business documents to be examined by researchers, even of they no longer have any value to the company. This is largely because they see no value in an activity they will not be financially compensated for. In addition, a number of small businesses see the cost of storing documents indefinitely as prohibitively expensive. Another factor, however, can be even more problematic, which is a fear of litigation that can arise if records are kept longer than they need to be. Kirsch says the “dot-com” era is likely to make this an even more significant problem for historians as more records are disposed of as a result of increased oversight from businesses, leaving significantly fewer resources for historians.[16] White indicates that he has indeed had some problems conducting research in the area of business; “[m]y research has frequently encountered problems with corporations that won't permit researchers to use their archives, even to the point that they wouldn't let me read an internal corporate history. I believe it's not out of fear so often as it is a belief that they have little to gain.”
This essay has demonstrated that there is no single way of conducting historical research because it depends on individual preference. It is clear that White is in the minority when it comes to his acceptance of modern research techniques. The same can be said for his comfort level with reading information off a computer screen. Libraries are still important to historians because the nature of the discipline still requires them to utilize paper sources such as monographs. This, however, is changing as electronic media, such as eBooks and electronic journals, continue to rise in prominence. This change is likely to be slow because technology is an area where many professional historians still do not feel comfortable. For example, a significant number of historians are still resist online finding aids. White, however, is more comfortable with new electronic research techniques. He is also in complete agreement with some of the challenges faced by business historians because of the nature of the field. White is clearly an example of a professional historian that is ahead of others with regard to his research methods. He may very well be an indication of where the discipline is headed.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Joel D. Kitchens, Pixie Ann Mosley, Jonathan C. Marner and Anne L. Highsmith, “Defining History of Library Statistics, or Everything Has a History,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 28 no. 4 (July 2002), 211-223.
[5] Interview with Dr. Daryl White, 2 October 2009.
[6] Ian G. Anderson, “Are you being served? Historians and the Search for Primary Sources,” Archivaria 58 (2004), 81-129.
[7] Interview with Dr. Daryl White, 2 October 2009.
[8] Wendy Duff, Barbara Craig and Joan Cherry “Finding and Using Archival Sources: A Cross-Canada Survey of Historians Studying Canadian History,” Archivaria 58, 67.
[9] Ibid, 51-80.
[10] Interview with Dr. Daryl White, 2 October 2009.
[11] Helen R. Tibbo, “Primary History in America: How U.S. Historians Search for Primary Materials at the Dawn of the Digital Age,” The American Archivist 66 (Spring/Summer 2003), 11.
[12] Ibid, 9-50.
[13] Interview with Dr. Daryl White, 2 October 2009.
[14] Lisa Blee, Caley Horan, Jeffrey T. Manuel, Brain Tochterman, Andrew Urban and Julie M. Weiskopf, “Engaging with public engagement: Public History and Graduate Pedagogy,” Radical History 102 (Fall 2008), 73-89.
[15] Interview with Dr. Daryl White, 2 October 2009.
[16] David A. Kirsch, “The Record of Business and the Future of Business History: Establishing a Public Interest in Private Business Records,” Library Trends 57 no. 3 (Winter 2009), pp. 352-370.
No comments:
Post a Comment