The autumn conference that the Royal Netherlands Historical Society will hold on November 28 should be the prelude to a 'reflection process' that will culminate in a professional code of conduct for Dutch historians in 2017. Why is such a code necessary and is that a good idea?
What do we consider a good historian? Someone with a heart for his students, or someone who writes sharp opinion pieces? Or is a real historian someone who spends weeks in an archive trying to get to the bottom of things? Based on historical examples, is there a consensus about when the historian's persona is compromised to such an extent that we speak of "unethical" or "unprofessional" behavior? These are examples of questions that the Royal Netherlands Historical Society (KNHG) would like to discuss at its autumn conference on 28 November in The Hague.
Ultimately, the discussions should even be a prelude to a 'code of conduct for Dutch historians'. This is based on the example of other countries, where a 'code of ethics and professional standards for historians' has long existed in countries such as Australia and the US. On social media, articulate historians took to their pens with concern. What is an ethical code for historians needed for? Will this become a kind of history police that will determine for them what is good and bad historiography?
Computer techniques
This is not what the KNHG intended it to be, according to inquiries. Although a 'code of conduct' suggests otherwise, the discussion that the KNHG wants to start is emphatically not about integrity. “The academic historical method of transparency, source criticism and good references is obvious and unquestioned,” explains Susan Legêne, president of the society. “We want to use this to respond to recent changes in the field, which come from both technology and politics.”
The possibilities of digitization have brought about a true revolution in the humanities in recent years, because large amounts of sources can be searched in completely new ways. “Resources that have arisen digitally (audio-visual media files, but also documents that only exist and are stored digitally), and digitized archives are very different in nature from traditional archival documents,” says Legêne. “The content and location of such a digital file is no longer fixed, but can be manipulated. Or stored in a different way so that the references are no longer automatically correct. Are we as historians ready to deal with this properly?”
In addition, the regulations on publicity and privacy are also constantly changing. The KNHG also wants to respond to this. “Historians are increasingly creating sources themselves, for example by conducting interviews with eyewitnesses and then digitally storing those interviews. These are often stories told in confidence. Requesting permission to make that source public (‘informed consent’, as it is called in science) is then difficult. But fellow historians should be able to verify your sources,” says Legêne. “How do you deal with that?”
“I personally think it is important for the historian to understand the computer techniques behind digital sources today,” she continues. “A historian should know how digital sources can be manipulated and whether that leaves traces, so that they can take that into account. That is something that, for example, university lecturers who teach courses about sources and methods should also consider.”
Authoritative
The KNHG wants to conduct the discussion about the professionalism of the historian in contemporary society – they remain historians – primarily from the perspective of history. How did historians in earlier times deal with ethics or power? Are there lessons to be learned from this?
The KNHG considers itself the appropriate body to start the discussion about a 'code of conduct' - Legêne prefers to speak of a 'professional code'. “As a society, we are able to bring together many historians to have the discussion, so that we can produce a piece that has authority in the field. But it is about discussion and reflection on the field under the influence of all kinds of contemporary changes, not about fiddling with the academic historical standard or about enforceable rules.”
However, the KNHG's explanation cannot yet convince the most outspoken critics on social media, such as the Leiden political historian Geerten Waling. “A code of conduct does not teach us computer techniques, nor does it guarantee any rights. The KNHG should have confidence in the professional training of historians that techniques, duties and customs are properly taught. Apparently that trust is not there now. That is a painful observation.”