A Conversation About Historical Research and Communication

Digital media and content creation have changed the game for social and scientific disclosure rules. Ethical responsibility cannot be set aside.

On January 18, a Twitter thread about ethical standards and veracity in disseminating historical and scientific knowledge demonstrated once again that this social network is not the most suitable platform for the respectful exchange of ideas. The Tweet exchanges got out of control. For the safety of the participants, several posts were deleted and user accounts closed to public access due to the volume of aggressions, which is why we will not republish these interactions. However, we will address serious questions arising from that conversation.

How should disclosure be done? What is the ethical responsibility of disseminators when divulging or sharing information? Is entertainment at odds with education? If not, how can education be entertaining without setting aside the moral commitments that must accompany it? Interruptus Radio organized a debate to discuss the hows and whys of constructing and communicating History.

With that purpose in mind, the stage was set for Alejandra Hernandez Vidal, historian, and professor of History; archaeologist Omar Espinosa (Libreta Negra Mx); Mario E. Fuente Cid, historian and teacher at ENAH (National School of Anthropology and History); the art historian and host of the program “El Foco,” Veka Duncan, and TK, content creator for TikTok and creator of the Mexican channel and podcast “Historia para tontos” (History for fools).

Although the channels, contents, and guests are Spanish-speaking, the interest and need for quality dissemination are universal. Mario Fuente spoke of a fundamental problem about the construction of Mexico’s History and the histories of many countries on the American continent. For Fuente, History is linked to the formation of the State identity; in turn, the teaching of History connects people to their cultural identity and the State’s. Thus, historical inquiry becomes a sensitive issue. When the public asks historians something about the historical past that they cannot answer, the consequence is anger and dissatisfaction. A missing piece of History amounts to a hole in the cultural identity of the public.

The link between the historical past, national and cultural identity, and nationalism, is a topic we have dealt with in previous articles. We commented on the cult of monuments vs. critical historical awareness or resignification of transcendental past events. In this context, Fuente proposed a bold postulate: Historical truth does not exist; instead, there is historical perspective. What we understand as the truth about our historical past is a series of records that may be influenced by various factors, such as the life experience, perspective, or motives of the person recording these events and the historians that study them.

That is why accuracy and the in-depth study of sources are pivotal for ethical and responsible dissemination. As Alejandra Vidal said, “There is no good disclosure if there is no good research behind it.” Vidal is also the creator of the podcast “History of Mexican Women in the Twentieth Century.” She has called on the community of historical disseminators and communicators to ask themselves hard questions before publishing: Are we reporting our content accurately? As disseminators, are we doing in-depth background research?

For Vidal, the research background is critically important and is not at odds with making a topic enjoyable or funny if that is what helps the students engage. That capacity is a resource or tool to ease learning concepts. If the teacher or communicator does not have a good handle on the concepts, it does not matter how efficient they are in getting the message across; they pass down a distorted historical past.

Thus, striving to reach a larger audience without paying equal attention to the actual content and accuracy is irresponsible and unethical. This possibility is an excellent argument for quality historical education and a sensitive formation of cultural identity. But in a counterpoint, what if misinformation is what sparks interest? What if this misinformation causes the student to arrive with questions that stir up a conversation in class? While correcting false historical data and contexts can make teachers’ work more complicated and burdensome, shouldn’t students engage themselves in the process of learning History? Even if they start with the wrong idea? Is this challenge one that teachers would be willing to assume, considering the heaviness already present in their work?

TK, creator of History for Fools, recognized the importance of processes to produce knowledge and communicate it. He spoke of the limitations to the formats he manages that make accurate dissemination difficult. TikTok only allows three-minute videos. It is impossible to cover all the implications of the report topic and cite all the sources in that limited time. Because of this, TK (also a student of International Relations) constantly invites his followers to research and read more about the subject, consult with experts, and talk to their teachers about the content they see on his channel.

“The successful disseminator plants the seed of interest to the person he is offering information,” TK argues. He affirmed that his intention as a communicator is not to teach History or be an educator but to complement what is reviewed in the classroom. His idea is to share what he learns and instill a desire to learn in his followers as he learns himself too. The success of his channel, which has 5.9 million followers to date, and which recently won the TikTok prize in the category Favorite Knowledge, highlights one of the most critical opportunity areas in the community of knowledge producers, not only History but all areas. “We have not found a way to communicate ideas clearly,” said Omar Espinoza. The archaeologist commented that most historians in his country are trained in research and education, but not communication.

Any historian in Mexico who wants to be an effective communicator in the digital age must be doubly trained. After studyi
ng History, they must acquire the skills to create content and know-how to produce and promote it. Thus, knowledge disseminators are at a notorious disadvantage compared to those who master the tools to reach the masses: content creators and influencers like “History for Fools,” Bully Magnets, and Extra Credits when speaking of History, or John Green if we talk about sciences and other knowledge areas.

The rise of educational content creators has opened an unnecessary breach between knowledge producers and content producers. Ideally, there should be alliances or training of knowledge producers to generate broadly reaching content. Veca Duncan offers a unique perspective on the subject from her training as an art historian: Curatorship provides a set of invaluable epistemic resources for outreach. “A curator […] research, selects, and shows; doing that creates a script.” During this process, Duncan explains, one must rigorously establish the research standards, define why the chosen topic is relevant, connect it to the audience interested in this content, and create a cohesive narrative around it. In her case, the subjects are artistic objects, but her statement also applies to historical, mathematical, linguistic knowledge, and others.

Duncan refers to curators as reducers of complexity, precisely the final mission of every disseminator, communicator, or teacher, each from their trench, applying their training, resources, and chosen formats. It is impossible always to be right in the workday. The community of historians who criticized the work of “History for Fools” does not expect that it is never wrong and always presents accurate and correct data. However, they did issue the call to learn about History, the processes that build it, and the tools to distinguish sources, lines of research, and their quality. Understanding his position as the owner of a huge platform to communicate History, TK took these suggestions to heart and on commented his intention to be a better communicator in the future.

In the same way, the moderators of Interruptus Radio, Karla Motte (UNAM), Misael Chavoya (ENAH), and Emiliano Canseco (Instituto Mora), exhorted the Twitter community to search further from the 280 character limitation and remember that behind the keyboard, there is always a person. The need for civil conversation free of violence is imperative. We firmly share that opinion in the Observatory of the Institute for the Future of Education.

Translation by Daniel Wetta

Sofía García-Bullé

Share

This article from Observatory of the Institute for the Future of Education may be shared under the terms of the license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0