History Blog Award Nominations #5

You may have noticed that these posts are getting more and more widely spaced. This is because I’m finding the categories harder and harder to nominate for. One problem is that I really can’t get excited about something being a blog. If something’s interesting to read, then it’s interesting the medium isn’t a major issue for me. So I struggle to understand why someone should be interested in a blog rather than publicly accessible online information which may even be an old-fashioned website. Two people who do understand better are Rebecca Goetz and James Davila.

Rebecca Goetz has written a counter argument to Ivan Tribble in the Chronicle of Higher Education. It’s a good article. One of the parts I particularly liked was:

Professor Tribble lamented that blogs are not peer-reviewed and wrote that that was one reason why their content was illegitimate. While it is true that the author of a blog decides what she publishes on her blog, she does not blog in a vacuum. Other bloggers can — and do! — react to faulty logic or misinformation.

This perhaps highlights one of the strengths that blogs could have if adopted more widely by historians.

James Davila has put his paper Enter the Bibliobloggers online. Biblical Studies might not be History in the traditional sense but I’d argue it is cognate. It’s another perspective and another issue raised is the speed of publication. Blog tools are designed to make publishing as simple as possible and – when they work – this can create dynamic and challenging environments for discussion.

So what are these Blog Awards for? I understand the Oscars, it’s about self-congratulation and selling stuff. I understand that and can ignore it. If the Cliopatria Awards are about self-congratulation then that’s fair enough but it’s not an issue of interest to me. With them being discussed at the AHA I think they could be a lot more. It provides a useful tool to explain to Historians what blogs are and what their potential is. The Best Post Award could therefore be perhaps the most important, because it will provide one easy target to focus on. Following from Rebecca and James what will the Best Post look like?

James Davila I think provides a useful starting point this year of by highlight the power of reaction to an event. The Best Post might be reaction to a news item or a review or a brief note on the bloggers own research. Speed of publication would show why the concept of a blog would be useful.

Obviously it should be academically sound, one way to show this would be citation. Sharon Howard describes Rob Macdougall’s post Turk 182 as link rich and I think that’s an important point. The advantage of links of traditional citations is that you can click on a link and you’re there, but I’m still aware of the disadvantage of pages being deleted. Link rot happens on a much faster timescale than Book rot.

Peer-review is accepted as another sign of ‘soundness’. Rebecca Goetz is right to say that to an extent blog entries are peer-reviewed. I think the Best Post will reveal the interactivity of the medium. It’s hard to imagine a Best Post that no-one has commented on. The comments should also engage with the post beyond saying ‘nice one’. By association I suppose this means the Best Post will be a collaborative effort. It’s not necessary, but if the Best Post also had either a couple of trackbacks or pingbacks then you’d have something for academics to get excited about. Life would be much easier if books carried reverse citations.

Another desirable, but not essential factor would be if the topic were one that would not ordinarily receive academic attention. Again reaction to ephemeral events would be an example of this. To some extent Applied History is the process of putting current affairs into a wider context and it’s something we do with mundane events as well as the exceptional. Sometimes it is possible to find something of value in the mundane. But then I’m a fan of the Journal of Mundane Behavior.

After all this what will I nominate? I gave it a lot of thought and I was stuck. Then I remembered this from May: Academics and their Big Words. It has relevant links. It makes a strong case for what is being argued. It has thoughtful comments which add to the value of the post and trackbacks, including one of mine. It could apply to many things, rather than just history, but it’s academically relevant and a good read. I will finish by stealing another of Sharon Howard’s comments which I think does reflect my opinions. Boy, am I glad I’m not judging this category. —–