Digital Community Engagement: Partnering Communities with the Academy provides 9 different case studies of projects which aimed to create truly collaborative endeavors with communities. DiCE, as the authors of the text called it, sought to provide public historians with something of a roadmap to sharing authority and creating successful community partnerships.The case studies varied widely in topic and in scale. The SNCC Digital database, for example, involved the creation of a non-profit for movement veterans to advocate for themselves and their history, and allowed them to discuss the project in terms of equality with Duke University. Other projects were far more informal (for example, the “History Harvest” projects about Rondo, harm reduction, and the Camp Scott Girl Scout camp).
While it was useful to see the different kinds of community engagement and collaboration in these projects, the differences in scale also illuminated the challenges of such projects. If the SNCC veterans felt that the non-profit, board meetings, and formal contract language (which they oversaw) protected them against the PWIs which have so often taken advantage of marginalized histories, how protected truly then, are the smaller communities which took no such measures? This is not to suggest that the other institutions took advantage of their community partners; on the contrary, many of the “partner perspectives” in the book expressed gratitude and satisfaction with the collaborative nature of the projects and with the results. Even choosing to participate in a book titled Digital Community Engagement demonstrates that these historians and scholars valued their partners and the communal aspect of these histories and archives. These case studies simply illuminated, for me, the many challenges and pitfalls inherent to working with marginalized communities as a powerful academic institution.
One aspect of community engagement that I wished the book had highlighted more was the failures of collaboration. All of the case studies, many of which made visible in the academic archive histories which had not yet been cataloged or even heard, were successful. It would have been valuable to hear from a scholar or institution (or perhaps more honestly, a community) who tried to participate in such a project and found the relationship exploitative or unproductive. A what not to do guide, if you will. However, I found valuable what-not-to-do lessons in our other readings for this week, including the Pizza Hut Museum, which made no effort to engage with disparate groups or perspectives, and instead focused on the dominant corporate narrative.
This book and this week’s readings had many helpful practices for our class as we begin to navigate a public history project centered around Temple’s food trucks and food culture. It also got me thinking about the responsibilities scholars owe to the communities we study. For what purpose are we creating this “OWL Walk” stop? Who will be able to access it? Are the people who own and operate the food trucks really a collaborator in this project? I think, as of right now, the answer to that question is no. But these questions, none of which have easy answers, should guide our practice as we move forward with the project.