Newer
Older
In this session we're going to look at my (Henrik's) project ideas. Because I've talked, written and babbled about it in various places over the past few weeks I'll introduce it once more from the ground up.
As you'll probably remember my project is all about *Objects* in scientific History and specifically about how *Objects* as primary sources are underrepresented. I've made this observation while working at the *Historisches und Völkerkunde Museum St.Gallen* during Summer 2019 and actually encountering a wide variety of *Objects* closely for the first time. Before that I only very rarely had anything to do with non-text-based sources.
In my opinion there is a lot to gain from using more *Objects* as sources for historical papers or in general considering them in research. There is simply a fragment of the past missing if historians disregard them and only focus on text-based sources. Another important point is that arguments can be strengthened by adding a more varied collection of primary sources.
The reasons for the current deficit can be found mainly in two fields:
#### Accessibility
One reason why text-based-sources are currently so dominant in scientific History can be found looking at accessibility. Written sources can easily be replicated without losing a lot of their - what I'll be calling it - **source-value** im comparison with the original. Thanks to the digitalization they can be easily send around the world with two clicks.
This is not the case for objects. The digital representation in form of database entries has lost of **source-value** in comparision with the experience one might have when actually the the object in front them and being able to feel it. For an example of a typical database entry take a look at [this teapot in the British Museum](https://research.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?assetId=463870001&objectId=84306&partId=1).
//add some thoughts about what information is given from the dataset
#### Pedagogy
The other reason why *Objects* only play a minor role in the historical source selection is, that in most cases it's simply not taught in University. I had to get out of University to realize that there are a lot more than just texts, which can be used as historical sources. I've talked with other students about it and their experience was similar. Admittedly, working with *Objects* as sources is most times more abstract and difficult than using texts, but this shouldn't be a reason not to do it.
//maybe add something
The goal of my project is to combine two ideas. The plan is to follow @martin.dusinberre's suggestion and create a *Lives in Transit* chapter. In this chapter I plan to conceptually introduce *Objects* as sources to the player using the narrative structure of *Marugoto*. The aim is to influence the way a historian might think about their source selection and get more *Objects* into scientific history.
The second idea is packaged inside the first one. Because I've identified a deficit in the way how *Objects* are digitally represented, I want to think about to reconceptualize datasets for *Objects* in such a way to raise the **source-value**. I won't try to actually build a database/website, which utilizes the new way. The idea is more to have the player in the LiT chapter access one (reconceptualized) dataset of a hip, new archive far away from their homebase, based on which they have to start thinking what they gain from using this object in their historical analysis.
This describes the rough edges of my project, I haven't had the time to actually go into the narrative, how to use Marugoto, how to reconceptualize datasets. I'll start off with some reading and some more listening to the BBC podcasts + your input.
## Readings