The readings from this module and the previous week’s module detail the vast and ever-changing nature of public and digital history. Each of these subfields continues to change and expand the field of history. Even with the tension being observed as early as 1981, as Ronald J. Grele demonstrates, the two fields need each other even if the other does not see that. However, even with the similarities, there is somewhat of a stark difference between the two regarding expectations and questions that seek to be answered. As the reading shows, Robert Weible poses many of these questions and offers validity to understand better how public history fits into the larger field of university-level academic history. But as Micheal Frisch famously suggested, “that historians and their audiences learn from each other and share authority for creating a more meaningful and usable past” (Weible 2008).

This consideration must be accounted for when viewing the guidelines established by the OAH regarding digital history reviews. Consequently, the categories of content, design, audience, digital media, and creators fit perfectly into the theme of digital history. Not only do these categories directly apply to digital research, but for the most part, they apply to historical scholarship of any kind. The ” content ” category applies to any project, particularly public history, because it generally asks what the project is about. Why is the material important? As for “design,” while this aptly fits those reviewing digital projects, it, for the most part, fits public history projects as well. The categories of “design” and “audience” in public history should be closely linked together and could be combined to form the category of audience engagement or accessibility.  Public history seeks to bring history to everyone and allow for mutual understanding; this should be directly interpreted in terms of how an audience perceives and understands a project. But beyond this, the project should be easy to navigate so there can be as little confusion as possible. The design aspect of the accessibility also ties in as the information should be easy to comprehend. As for the category “digital media,” this too could largely be absorbed by the accessibility category, as digital platforms essentially involve making the content accessible, especially for those with some form of disability, which needs to be noted when pursuing public history. This form of digital media should come in subtitles or other means of helping guests better understand your project. Not to mention, if it followed the questions asked in the subcategory of “digital media”, the questions posed answer the nature of public history projects as they are primarily museum exhibitions. Finally, the category of “creators” is vital for any type of media project as it not only gives credit where it is due but also shows if the project is done by multiple people in different capacities. If there is an issue with that part of the project, the viewer knows exactly who to speak to or if that person has a bias. Public history and digital history are relatively similar in some regards. Still, as these past few weeks of reading have shown, the guidelines can be changed just a bit to accommodate the unique nature of public history better.