In their introduction, Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter “define ‘recent history’ as histories of events that have taken place no more than forty years ago” (pg. 3). They argue that three factors encourage the scrutiny of recent history. Romano and Potter write, “First, and most prominently, historians’ lack of attention to the methodological issues related to studying contemporary history is likely to have consequences” (pg. 4). They continue, “A second reason to pay careful attention to the particular challenges of recent history stems from what we believe are increasing pressures on scholars from publishing houses to do more contemporary work and from the troubled academic job market to do more startling, interdisciplinary, or topically new work” (pg. 5). They conclude, “Finally, we believe that this volume is timely because we are living in an age of incredibly swift technological changes that have immense implications for all historians, not just those who study the recent past” (pg. 8).

In her essay, Renee C. Romano writes of the main concerns of writing recent history, “I lack access to the kinds of sources that have typically been deemed ‘most legitimate’ by the profession, especially the archival sources that are the foundation of our work…Few other historians have written about the events I research…I also have concerns about my inability to construct a historical narrative with any sense of finality, because the events I research are still ongoing and their effects are not yet clear. Finally, I wonder whether I have sufficient distance from the events that I write about – both politically and temporally – to offer meaningful interpretations of my evidence” (pg. 24). Romano argues, “Redefining mastery over our sources as being immersed enough in those sources to recognize patterns and trends can serve to challenge the epistemologically problematic claim that historians can accurately recreate the past if they just dig deeply enough” (pg. 32).

In their essay, archivists Laura Clark Brown and Nancy Kaiser argue, “Unless historians familiarize themselves with the policies and concerns of the archival collections they seek to use, they may not recognize the ways in which their access to information is being limited or understand their ethical obligations to respect the privacy rights of the individuals they discuss” (pg. 61).

In her essay, Gail Drakes writes, “Historians of the recent past are far more likely to encounter media corporations who charge exorbitant fees to those who wish to use the archive of news footage owned by the corporation. In other instances, those who study recently deceased individuals must deal with family members (and other interest individuals) who can now more easily use copyright and ‘right of publicity’ laws to maintain, protect, or polish the image of a family member posthumously. For those of us whose work focuses on the recent past, issues of privacy, pride, and profit can loom large among the challenges we face in our work” (pg. 85). She continues, “The Copyright Term Extension Act and Digital Millennium Copyright Act played no small part in expanding the relevance of copyright law and informed the decisions of those who sought to assert more aggressively their intellectual property rights at the start of the twenty-first century” (pg. 89). Drakes concludes, “The work of the historian is to explore and celebrate the past and to shape the surviving traces – information that has now been reimagined as intellectual property – into historical narratives. There are few groups with as much at stake, and as much to gain, in the fight to protect the past from the encroachment of intellectual property law as those of use who have committed our professional lives to its study” (pg. 106).

In her essay, Claire Bond Potter writes, “Oral histories present particular methodological challenges in this regard, particularly to those who are merely dipping into the practice as one of several methods of gaining access to a recent past: oral histories are not simply testimony or evidence but conversations and performances…Oral histories also cannot be treated as raw, uninterrupted data. Interviews are shaped initially by their subjects and shaped again at the stage of the transcript in a ‘second-level narrative.’ They then become subject to scholarly interpretation that, in effect, reshapes an oral history for a third time” (pg. 159).

In his essay, David Greenberg argues, “Although manifestly flawed as a primary means of keeping abreast of current affairs, television footage is still a unique and important primary source for historians, and we have hardly begun to exploit it” (pg. 189). Greenberg points out the lack of archival data, as many broadcasts are copyrighted or only available as transcripts. While he mentions the Vanderbilt archive, Greenberg writes, “Though of great potential value, the Vanderbilt archive has notable shortcomings. For one thing, it only recently began taping cable news – a delay that has left large omissions in its coverage of the 1980s and 1990s” (pg. 195). Discussing other issues he writes, “Television also challenges historians in another important way: unlike print, it can’t easily be skimmed” (pg. 197). Greenberg concludes, “The final reason that historians overlook television as source material may simply be habit. None of the profession’s institutional structures – from the formulation of job descriptions to the design of conferences to the awarding of prizes – place much value on the use of television as a source” (pg. 197).

In his essay, Jeremy K. Saucier writes, “Video games and video game storytelling…cast a wide cultural net, combining and relying on old and new popular forms, narratives, technologies, and techniques. As such, they are hybrids of literary and visual culture, blurring the line between play or entertainment and work or training” (pg. 204). He cautions, “Ignoring the presence of video games in recent America is akin to writing the history of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries without noting the significance of the dime novel or writing the history of postwar America without acknowledging the importance of television” (pg. 204). Saucier concludes, “Video games are potentially the most powerful storytelling medium of the twenty-first century. Not only are simulated experiences becoming more commonplace, but they are being woven into the fabric of American social, economic, and political institutions. Political battles have been and will continue to be waged over the psychological and cultural costs of video games, at the same time they are used to recruit and train a new generation of soldiers” (pg. 218). ( )