[ih] Historiography vs history [was: Re: Internet-history Digest, Vol 62, Issue 32]

[Brian E Carpenter]

John,

There's a clear contrast between what most techies think of as "history"
and the historiographical approach where technical details are subordinate
to the human, societal and economic context. You're spot on to mention
Thomas Haigh in that context. Most of what is discussed on this list
is at the "technical details" end of the spectrum. It's like discussing
the details of the condensers of early steam engines, not the impact
of steam power on the Industrial Revolution. It's a different skill set.

If we wanted this list to be more than a repository for factoids,
we'd need some real historians here. They mainly live at members at sigcis.org
    Brian Carpenter

On 01-Feb-25 14:38, John Shoch via Internet-history wrote:
> Noel,
> 
> Your concern about the technical content of computer history puts you in
> good company -- with Don Knuth.
> 
> --In 2021 the CACM published a transcript of a talk Don had given 7 years
> before: "Let’s Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science." From the
> CACM's introduction:
> "On May 7, 2014, Don Knuth delivered that year's Kailath Lecture at
> Stanford University to a packed auditorium. In it he decried the absence of
> technical content from the histories of computer science being written, and
> he made an impassioned plea for historians of computer science to get back
> on track, as the historians of mathematics have always been."
> 
> https://cacm.acm.org/opinion/lets-not-dumb-down-the-history-of-computer-science/
> 
> --I had the good fortune to be at that lecture 10 years ago, which is
> available on Youtube:
>      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAXdDEQveKw
>       [There is an amusing introduction by John Hennesey.]
> 
> --A year after the talk, in 2015, the CACM ran a response from Thomas
> Haigh, arguing the other side:
> "In this column I will be looking at the changing relationship between the
> discipline of computer science and the growing body of scholarly work on
> the history of computing, beginning with a recent plea made by renowned
> computer scientist Donald Knuth." ...
> "Computing is much bigger than computer science, and so the history of
> computing is much bigger than the history of computer science. Yet Knuth
> treated Campbell-Kelly’s book on the business history of the software
> industry (accurately subtitled “a history of the software industry”) and
> all the rest of the history of computing as part of “the history of
> computer science.” ...
> "To call such work “dumbed down” history of computer science, rather than
> smart history of many other things, is to misunderstand both the intentions
> and the accomplishments of its authors."
>       https://cacm.acm.org/opinion/the-tears-of-donald-knuth/
> 
> I commend both articles to you.
> 
> John
> 
> PS:  Personally, I tend to come down on the Haigh side of the discussion.
> "History" can take many forms when looking at any subject area -- political
> history, economic history, business history, social history, technical
> history, architectural history, etc.
> An example:  some of you may know that Robert Garner is undertaking a
> prodigious effort to dig into the technical evolution of the Ethernet (he's
> looking at original board designs, simulation equations, timing issues,
> etc.  Yet that still leaves room for different historical work on the
> techno/political battles of the standardization process (Ethernet vs. token
> ring, Xerox/Dec/Intel vs. IBM, IEEE vs. ECMA in Europe, etc.).  I think we
> need both.
> [Full disclosure:  I served for about two decades on the Board of the
> Computer History Museum, which informed my broader view of the
> opportunity.  The technical history of computing (and networking) is
> important, but will probably serve a narrower audience.]