-Do digital tools take away the need to visit historical sites for place-based research? To a degree, yes, but also no. Because you can’t totally get that experience without actually visiting or seeing the historical sites. I think that place-based research is important when answering some questions, but others can be answered by digital adaptations.
-Should historians treat digital tools as supplements or as primary research methods? I think they should use digital tools as a supplementary research method because words/things change over time, and it should not be relied on solely.
-Putnam argues that digitalization has fundamentally changed how historians work. They can now jump between databases using keyword searches. In the past, they have spent weeks in a single archive.
-My Takeaway: Putnam is not against or anti-digital tools; she just argues that historians need to be self-aware about how digital tools shape what we see and what we miss.
-How might text-searching change the types of arguments historians construct? (This is a question I would want to hear what people think because I don’t know)