There are still some limitations in this study. First of all, about the book, it is assumed in advance that the owners are wealthier and have higher social status, and the occupiers are relatively poor. Though in the sample survey, more information about the owner is found, it is hard to say that owners are richer. Due to the loss of the record, it is difficult to truly identify everyone and their wealth in the book. In addition, some of the data used are not up to date, such as the statistic of the number of journalistic practitioners in 2021.
Based on the survey of the people recorded in the book 'quarry hill unhealthy area, 1900: book of reference', it was found that in the 1900s, it was difficult for most people to have their own personal records and keep them. Though there are still remaining census data, newspapers and literary works from the government or individuals, and a general impression of their images may still exist, their personal daily lives still have been lost in history.
Tirosh (2017) mentions 'autobiographic memory' and 'historical memory' to describe the phenomenon like this and then summarises them, namely that autobiographical memory is the private experience at an event and the latter is the collective expression of the past. Hume (2010) uses the once-forgotten incident of the Boston Tea Dump to become part of the movement to recover American history as a result of the release of personal memories to illustrate the importance of individual memory. Blunk (2010) discusses the importance of individual memory from its role in maintaining self-continuity, maintaining and strengthening social bonds, and its function as a guide for the future.
Digital platforms now help people record their lives and create their individual memories, as Hume (2010) argues, digital media takes memory out of the public domain and makes it exist in personal media texts. Several scholars (Chang, Hung, Cheng and Wu, 2015) argue that advancements in Internet technology and the spread of digital devices have changed the way people live, and the rapid spread of the Internet has contributed to the proliferation of social networking sites. Iqani and Schroeder (2016) consider sharing images on social media as a widespread phenomenon, and anyone with a mobile phone and the Internet can participate. Meraz (2009) discusses the impact of digital media platforms on traditional media, that citizens can collect and share information on their own through digital media platforms, which takes the monopoly of traditional media to record and comment on events away.
In addition to high penetration, the high capacity of the internet has also contributed to the development of digital platforms keeping memories, as Tirosh (2016) argues, that today's new media platforms can carry vast amounts of information, and storage space is no longer an obstacle to creating memories. In the use of the Internet for memory preservation, some scholars express approval (Tagg, Hu, Lyons and Simpson，2016) that people can choose the values and meanings of the past they wish to preserve for the future through social media, using social media to make the experience a personal, individual one.
While preserving individual records is important for historical and social research, many scholars have also raised their limitations.
Some scholars discuss the reliability of personal records as a reference source. For example, Hunt and McHale (2016) argue that personal memories can be subjective, and people may choose to emphasise some memories and try to forget others. Van Swol (2008) also argues that group memory can affect individual memory and that potentially erroneous memories can be socially transmitted to individuals, thereby biasing individual memory. So in general, individual memories can be biased for various reasons and are not always such reliable.
On the other hand, some scholars discuss the problem of digital exclusion, which is widely used to distinguish between people who have access to the internet or not (Bunyan and Collins, 2013). These people are likely to be unable to record their lives and preserve their memories through the Internet. Many scholars have explored the reasons for digital exclusion. Holmes and Burgess (2022) consider that poverty and housing inequality are key factors influencing digital exclusion. Weil, Kamber, Glazebrook, Giorgi and Ziegler (2021) analyse the reasons for elderly people’s digital exclusion such as lack of interest in digital technology and physical barriers associated with ageing, and they also present some suggestions to help older people overcome their digital exclusion. While Warren (2007) summarises the factors of income, education, health status, withdrawal and rejection, and infrastructure as social exclusion, with a focus on exploring the causes of rural digital exclusion: for instance, the quality of telephone lines and the inability of telecommunications companies' infrastructure to reach out.
The study of rental records in 'quarry hill unhealthy area' shows how difficult it was to preserve personal memory before the development of digital media technology. Scholars also discuss the importance of autobiographical memory, also known as personal memory for social and historical research and the achievements that digital media technology has done to preserve personal memory. Scholars also discuss the limitations of personal memory in research and some of them put emphasis on digital exclusion. In terms of creating memories, digital exclusion is now an urgent need to be addressed.
Bluck, S. 2003. Autobiographical memory: Exploring its functions in everyday life. Memory. 11(2), pp.113-123.
Chang, C, Hung, S, Cheng, M and Wu, C. 2015. Exploring the intention to continue using social networking sites: The case of Facebook. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 95, pp.48-56.
Holmes, H and Burgess, G. 2022. Digital exclusion and poverty in the UK: How structural inequality shapes experiences of getting online. Digital Geography and Society. 3, pp.1-9. Hume, J. 2010. Memory Matters: The Evolution of Scholarship in Collective Memory and Mass Communication. Review of Communication. 10(3), pp.191-196.
Hunt, N and McHale, S. 2007. Memory and Meaning: Individual and Social Aspects of Memory Narratives. Journal of Loss and Trauma. 13(1), pp.42-58.
Iqani, M and Schroeder, J. 2016. #selfie: digital self-portraits as commodity form and consumption practice. Consumption Markets & Culture. 19(5), pp.405-415.
Meraz, S. Is There an Elite Hold? Traditional Media to Social Media Agenda Setting Influence in Blog Networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 14(3), pp.682-707.
Swol, L. 2008. Performance and process in collective and individual memory: The role of social decision schemes and memory bias in collective memory. Memory. 16(3), pp.274-287.
Tirosh, N. 2017. Reconsidering the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ – memory rights and the right to memory in the new media era. Media, Culture & Society, 39(5), pp.644–660.
Warren, M. 2007. The digital vicious cycle: Links between social disadvantage and digital exclusion in rural areas. Telecommunications Policy. 31(6-7), pp.374-388.
Weil, J, Kamber, T, Glazebrook, A, Giorgi, M and Ziegler, K. 2021. Digital Inclusion of Older Adults during COVID-19: Lessons from a Case Study of Older Adults Technology Services (OATS). Journal of Gerontological Social Work. 64(6), pp.643-655.
Armitage, D. and Guldi, J. 2015. “AHR Exchange: The History Manifesto: A Reply to Deborah Cohen and Peter Mandler.” American Historical Review. 120 (2), pp.543–554.
Boyd, M. and Nicole, B. 2007. "Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.". Journal of computer‐mediated Communication. 13(1) , pp.210-230.
Buylaert, F. and Haemers, J. 2016. Record-Keeping and Status Performance in the Early Modern Low Countries. Past & present. 230(11), pp.131–150.
Chambers, D. 2013. Social media and personal relationships : online intimacies and networked friendship. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ding, H. 2022. Digital Protection and Development of Intangible Cultural Heritage Relying on High-Performance Computing. Computational intelligence and neuroscience. 2022, pp.1–10.
Guldi, J. and Armitage, D. 2014. The history manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, A. M. and Haenlein, M. 2010. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons. 53(1), pp.59-68.
Loewen, J.W. 2008. Lies my teacher told me: everything your American history textbook got wrong. New York: New Press.
Lievrouw, L. A. and Livingstone, S. 2010. Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Social Consequences of ICTs. Updated Student Edition. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Tagg, C, Hu, R, Lyons, A and Simpson, J. 2016. Heritage and social media in superdiverse cities: personalised, networked and multimodal. Working Papers in Translanguaging and Translation (WP17). pp.3-29.
Tirosh, N. 2017. Reconsidering the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ – memory rights and the right to memory in the new media era. Media, Culture & Society, 39(5), pp.644–660.
Allison's Buildings. 1909. [Photograph]. At: Leeds Libraries C LIC Char (2).
BBC. 2014. The history of Quarry Hill. [Online]. [Accessed 1st March 2023]. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/leeds/citylife/quarry_hill/history.shtml
Boynton Street. 1901. [Photograph]. At: Leeds Libraries Unhealthy Areas, Volume 4, page 17 (LQ 331.833 L517).
Cornhill. 1931. [Photograph]. At: Leeds Libraries C LIC Corn (1).
Facebook. 2013. Family DUSHKES. [Online]. [Accessed 24th April 2023]. Available from: https://www.facebook.com/groups/5823560998/
100% Digital Leeds. 2023. [Online]. [Accessed 24th April 2023]. Available from: https://digitalinclusionleeds.com/
Boynton Street. 1905. [Photograph]. At: Leeds: Leeds Libraries. Class number: C LIC Boyn (1).
Boynton Street and Mabgate. 1906. [Photograph]. At: Leeds: Leeds Libraries. Class number: C LIC Boyn (4).
Panorama of Leeds. 1889. [Photograph]. At: Leeds: The Thoresby Society.
Lloyds Bank. 2022. Essential Digital Skills. [Online]. [Accessed 24th Forth 2023]. Available from: https://www.lloydsbank.com/banking-with-us/whats-happening/consumer-digital-index/essential-digital-skills.html
Office For National Statistics. 2021. Internet users. [Online]. [Accessed 24th April 2023]. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/itandinternetindustry/datasets/internetusers
National Library of Scotland. Towns, 1840s-1890s. [Online]. [Accessed 24th April 2023]. Available from: https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=14.6&lat=53.80252&lon=-1.54643&layers=117746211&b=1
statista. 2022. Media usage in an internet minute as of April 2022. [Online]. [Accessed 24th April 2023]. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/195140/new-user-generated-content-uploaded-by-users-per-minute/
ukgeographics. 2014. Social Grade A, B, C1, C2, D, E. [Online]. [Accessed 24th April 2023]. Available from: https://www.ukgeographics.co.uk/blog/social-grade-a-b-c1-c2-d-e
Victorian Britain. 2009. The working classes and the poor. [Online]. [Accessed 24th April 2023]. Available from: https://www.bl.uk/victorian-britain/articles/the-working-classes-and-the-poor
WORLD INEQUALITY REPORT. 2022. Wealth inequality in the world. [Online]. [Accessed 24th April 2023]. Available from: https://wir2022.wid.world/
Tutin, J. and Atherton, B. 2022. 100% Digital Leeds Update. Leeds: Chief Digital and Information Officer. [Accessed 24 April 2023]. Available from: https://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/documents/s231178/100%20Digital%20Leeds%20update%20report%20-%20April%202022%20-%20IIIG%20Scrutiny%20Board.pdf