This module on Historical GIS is something I am going to make an effort to revisit and reference in the future as I learn more and strengthen my Digital Humanities portfolio. Because of past work, I am comfortable with ArcGIS StoryMaps and have a pretty decent working knowledge of using ArcGIS online, but I’ve always wanted to get deeper into the weeds and challenge myself to learn harder GIS things, especially as I envision potential dissertation topics.
This is another week where I started off being highly intimidated, but in the end, found the work to be quite fun. I used the “in case you miss class” tutorial to practice last weekend, doing it over and over and over again until I understood those very simple tasks at about 95%. I’m so glad I did this because it allowed me to really lock in during class, paying attention to the more conceptual ideas we discussed, get in extra practice, focus most heavily on what Dr. Otis was talking about instead of the instructions, and help my group if they got stuck. I was no expert, but I actually found that helping my classmates move through the sticky spots helped QGIS crystalize in my brain… the mistakes we all made were, in fact, the moments I learned the most.
This week I also explored the Google Maps and Google Earth tutorial which was surprisingly simple and user friendly. I could see myself using either one in the future. These tutorials and the others listed in our Module 4 optional section are what I plan to revisit and practice, specifically the ones on QGIS. I think what I’m getting stuck on now, or maybe just am curious about is WHERE do these shape files and other mysterious documents come from and how can I make them? We talked about this briefly in class and I’ve looked into shape file creation a bit, but in addition to revisiting tutorials, this will be the next step for me. If I’m to do my own projects down the line, I’ll need to know how to create these building blocks.
I also connected with the theoretical portion of this week’s class. Our discussions of what spatial methods can add to historical information made me think about a recent project I did with the Center for Mason Legacies. My research partner Shemika Curvey and I began the process of spatializing the story of Willard, a primarily African American community that used to exist where Dulles International Airport is now. It was powerful to put points on a current map so we could see where folks’ homes would be in or around the airport today, but our work with the neighborhood is an even better example of GIS adding to historical sources and understanding. In reconstructing the town, we highlighted buildings that were important to the community, one of which being the post office. It wasn’t until we did this mapping that we realized the post office was nestled right between the segregated white and Black sides of town. This reframed that location as a place of potential interaction between white and Black folk, the streets around it were as well. It changed the meaning of that public place and added a layer of understanding that hadn’t been present previously.
There is of course the fear and possibility that GIS work will focus the project around data, whereas traditional historical sources would lead you to tell a story of the human experience. This connected, for me, to the articles from Module 2 that discussed ethics in DH. I think it’s important to acknowledge that we are human and no matter how hard we try our biases will usually find their way into our work. However, as GIS and other DH tools allow us to ask new questions, it is essential to think about the intentions behind our questions and always recenter the focus on what our new findings can tell us about the humans we study.
Leave a Reply