SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES IN HISTORY

Please also look at the complete set of questionnaire responses (viewable by field and by name) . You can also see the original questionnaire, "Working With Materials."

33 individuals responded to the NINCH questionnaire on behalf of the History Field Committee. The respondents classed themselves as follows:

1 teacher;
1 teacher and computer-scientist/information technologist
1 textbook editor and publisher;
1 librarian/archivist;
1 independent scholar (who also teaches frequently);
3 curator;
8 scholar (all but one of whom teach as part of their academic employment);
17 scholar/teacher (among whom were two who further classed themselves as journal editor, one as a web developer, one as a curator, and three as public humanist).

While the group was in many ways diverse, clearly the response set was weighted towards academics working in history departments.

Sources

The respondents wholeheartedly accepted the traditional division between primary and secondary sources (a division that was, of course, prompted by the survey instrument itself). A wide range of primary source materials was mentioned: manuscripts, printed books, ephemera, art works, etc. Several respondents noted that they utilized oral interviews as source material, and a somewhat larger number reported turning to the web to find primary sources, either as text, image, or sound files. Secondary sources were typically found in printed books and academic journals. As several respondents pointed out, the web is not currently home to many such works. Secondary sources were often mentioned as helpful pointers to other scholarship and materials that might be relevant to the project at hand. To begin the process of locating sources, the respondents seem to turn regularly to electronic finding aids, indices, and catalogues. One scholar pointed out, however, that such resources often lack what might be called "the serendipity effect" of finding something unexpected and useful in a card catalogue or on the shelf.

Regarding the use of originals as opposed to surrogates, respondents reported a wide range of emphases. As a group, the curators and archivists&emdashmost of whom seem committed to a "material culture" approach in their work&emdashfelt that being able to study the original was extremely important. As one respondent wrote, "There really is no substitute for 'original' artifacts." Some academics agreed: working with original materials in archives and libraries is necessary for the advancement of historical knowledge. Most academic respondents, however, reported that surrogates were an important part of their research, especially if the work they were doing was mainly textual. Many reported using surrogates for the initial or textual portion of their project, but noted that they also examined the original, either before or after using the surrogate. For such respondents, the original was important because it could hold information (e.g., annotations, material quality, evidence of revision, etc.) that is not well communicated in, say, microfilm or photocopy formats. A small but significant number of respondents wrote that they rarely or never used originals, relying instead on photographs (sometimes located on the web), facsimiles, scholarly editions, and secondary sources.

Methods

The respondents follow what might be thought of as a traditional research process: begin with basic questions and assumptions; identify, read, and analyze primary and secondary sources; continually test the beginning questions and assumptions with the sources consulted; arrive at conclusions. A large number argued that research needed to be "a conversation with the sources," as one writer put it. Another continued this idea by writing, "I try always to leave myself open to being surprised by the text itself." With only one or two significant exceptions, the research methods outlined in the set were inductive in cast. As one person wrote, "History, for me, is, if not truly objective or inductive, at least primarily evidence-drivenS." Given this emphasis on documentary evidence and source analysis, it is perhaps unsurprising that relatively few respondents wrote about the importance of theory to their work. Some, in fact, seemed fairly dismissive of theory and associated it with jargon. For those respondents who did appreciate theory, its value was similar to that of the sources themselves: theory encourages historians to test their own questions and assumptions.

A significant number of scholars noted that databases have become useful to their research. Databases allow for different understandings of sources and push scholars away from the anecdotal and towards the statistical.

Many respondents reported working collaboratively on textbooks, journals, websites, and databases. Many fewer reported doing cooperative work with sources or cooperative writing projects. The internet seems useful to scholarly collaboration: e-mail allows for rapid communication and textual editing, the web allows for the easy exchange of text, image, and sound files.

Dissemination

Most respondents availed themselves of the standard forms of research dissemination: through the classroom, conference presentations, and journal and book publication. Most had disseminated teaching materials through the web, and some had disseminated research materials. While several respondents questioned the utility of the web, most held out great hope for this technology as a platform for sharing research and materials for research. Because of the ease of establishing a web site, one scholar held that the "internet provides . . . a forum for those 'non-essential' materials that too often are absent from the telling of history." Some speculated that the web, because it is not dependent on "marketability" and "trendiness," might help reform academic publishing, especially the publication of scholarly monographs. The very shape of academic publications might change as they began to include things like visual and musical evidence among their sources. A few respondents argued that the web might be a useful avenue for allowing scholars to reach a larger, non-academic audience.

Overall Concerns

For history scholarship and teaching, there is never enough time, and rarely enough money. Scholarship is time-consuming and expensive to produce, and today's educational environment&emdashthe academy, museums, libraries&emdashdoes not seem to recognize those facts adequately. Not enough classrooms support innovative uses of computing technology. Administrators often do not understand the time implications that new learning technologies have for their faculties, but they nonetheless urge their faculties to master these technologies. Learning software and creating web-based presentations is time consuming, and this learning is not well supported at most institutions.

Many of those surveyed wished that there were more primary sources available on the web, but usually noted that hanging a wealth of such materials is both expensive and unlikely. Libraries (like the Library of Congress) that have begun to make large swaths of their collections available on-line were widely appreciated. But one respondent argued that what is needed most desperately are tools for analyzing such materials, not just the materials themselves: "Utilization, not just digitalization" is what scholars and teachers need to consider. In this vein, several respondents articulated the need for better, more nuanced search engines that would make it more efficient to find and assess web-based materials. Such engines should go beyond the textual to allow the searching of image, video, and sound files. To further web scholarship, effective standards for peer review must be developed.

Many respondents mentioned their frustrations with the seeming vagaries of intellectual property laws. The apparent degradation of fair use seems to threaten limitations on the kinds of material teachers can utilize for their classes. The web allows for the easy dissemination of materials useful to scholarship and teaching, but it also has the potential to open up teachers to charges of copyright infringement.

August 9, 2000

Jeff Groves

Other Field Questionnaire Summaries:

History | Interdisciplinary Studies | Language and Literature | Performing Arts | Visual and Media Studies