Blog Post #2: Keyword Mapping: What is lost and what is gained
While many researchers may or may not change the data and information that is gathered overtime, the way that the it is viewed has become drastically different. Throughout history, and with the rise of digitization of
information, a simple keyword search can save hundreds of hours of sifting
through documents looking for that one single piece of information that you need. This new way to view information has made the researching process overall much easier. As stated before, there was a time even before index cards which found people needing to simply look through years of data that to them could have been just meaningless jargon. Up until they find that single piece of info that was needed for their research. Simply put, researching has become far more efficient that what it used to be. That is not to say that it wasn’t good before it just has grown to another level with keyword searching. This also greatly extends to the world of academics, especially now in which we are in the final transition of digitization. There are still students (most likely late in college) who may still remember pulling out encyclopedias from their home shelves in order to find out about a certain topic. However, some younger students don’t even know that the word encyclopedia didn’t originate from Wikipedia. With keyword searches old school research is becoming simply too slow and inefficient compared to new methods.
With the rise of digitization also comes the rise of digital project, these
being online experiences meant to enrich the user and/or researcher in that topic. These most definitely can cause social change as they can do something unique; combine primary sources and secondary sources to put the user into the what they are trying to convey. Looking back at the project I was assigned, Harlem: 1915-1930 1, it was obvious the amount of time was dedicated to putting together a useful interface that allowed the user to explore that time in history. Also, by using the combination of both types of sources, the project was able to put me into whatever moment in those years I wanted. This level of immersion can truly only ever come from digital projects.
However, that is not to say that something isn’t lost when doing these types
of projects. While they can show you primary sources as well as secondary
sources, there is nothing like doing research with the actual source in front
of you. Digital projects give you a unique experience however so do museums, archaeology, and other firsthand types of research. Anyone can do a simple word search, but it takes some real digging to go and find something that was never mapped out and digitized. That is the fundamental thing that is lost when using digital means; you can never truly find your own path, only one that has already been mapped.
Sources:
Digital Harlem “Digital Harlem: 1915-1930” (2017) Australian
Government|Australian Research Counsel, Sydney University Retrieved: http://digitalharlem.org/ History.com
Editors “Harlem Renaissance”
Ian Milligan “Illusionary Order: Online Databases, Optical Character
Recognition, and Canadian History, 1997–2010” (2013) The Canadian
Historical Review Retrieved: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/527016
Library of Congress “About Keyword Search” (2019) United States Government
Retrieved: https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/ui/en_US/htdocs/help/searchKeyword.html
Tony Guidone “Digital History Presentation” (2019)
