How innovative are we talking about here?

Yesterday I met with a group of teachers and the New York City and Long Island Coordinators at the Museum of the City of New York. My purpose was to provide some outreach training, mainly on helping students to develop stronger research skills. The group was fantastic, and the teachers all taught in high schools around New York City.

We spent quite a bit of time discussing this year's annual theme: Innovation in History: Impact and Change. We highlighted key phrases in the annual theme sheet that could help us better define it; we came up with "creative new approaches," "change," discoveries," and so on. We talked about the importance for topics to address the impact and change of the innovation, as well as the person or event itself.

I realized in the midst of the conversation that I had the "impact" and "change" part down pat, but I was struggling for that perfect definition of "innovation."

Eugene, a teacher in Brooklyn, asked if the Brooklyn Bridge could be considered an innovation because it was the first bridge across the East River and it opened up Brooklyn and Long Island to rapid development and economic change.

I immediately said, "Absolutely! Look at the impact the bridge had! Look at the changes that resulted!"

I then noticed that Franco, a teacher from Manhattan, had a very puzzled look on his face. "But where's the innovation?" He asked. "The Brooklyn Bridge was certainly not the first of its kind."

Hmmm. He had a point. And that brought up the next logical question: "How innovative does the innovation have to be?" I mean, I don't want students to have to go back to scribbles on a cave wall in order to discuss innovation in art. Does "innovation" mean the very first of a kind?

I suggest that we avoid such a severe definition of innovation. Even the annual theme sheet acknowledges that Thomas Edison's inventions had help from the works of others before him. And it acknowledges that other innovators took inspiration from Edison's ideas. Surely an innovation doesn't have to be the very first of anything.

Instead, I urge teachers and students to consider specific times and places when thinking about innovation. The Brooklyn Bridge may not have been the first suspension bridge in the world, but when it was built in the 1880s it was the longest and the first to use steel-wire construction methods. So there were some "firsts" there. But when I consider the time and place, my question now becomes, "Was the Brooklyn Bridge innovative for New York City in the late 19th century?" I would need to do some background reading on this to answer definitively, but I think I could make the argument that it was an innovation.

And that's the whole point: Can you argue convincingly that your topic was innovative? As long as you gather compelling evidence that supports your hypothesis, then you've covered your basis and related your topic to the annual theme.

If you are interested in being part of a discussion on the annual theme, I would suggest joining the H-Historyday listserv. There has been a great theme discussion going on there among teachers, coordinators and historians for a week or two, and it's a great place to share ideas and get support. Visit http://www.h-net.org/~histday/ to learn more.