“And what Do You Do, Exactly?” Comparing Contemporary Definitions and Practices of Applied History

IF 0.3 Q2 HISTORY
B. de Ridder
{"title":"“And what Do You Do, Exactly?” Comparing Contemporary Definitions and Practices of Applied History","authors":"B. de Ridder","doi":"10.1515/iph-2022-2038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the last few years, the notion of applied history has seen a notable rise in interest among historians. Arising out of questions related to contemporary concerns, such as political extremism and Covid-19, several projects have taken up the challenge to address these questions and other issues by looking to the past, thereby furthering the idea that applied history warrants the attention of professional (academic) historians. The concept of applied history itself is, however, not new, begging questions of how these new projects use the term and how this usage relates to older definitions and methods associated with the term. This article shows that much of the most recent ‘wave’ of applied history has tended to present itself as closely related to history and policy, distinguishing itself by either drawing a hard line between public and applied history or by ignoring public history altogether. On the other hand, some have defined applied history as an approach or sub-field of public history, sometimes leading public historians to assume that these new groups are merely, and unhelpfully, putting a new logo on an old brand. This article offers a thorough overview of these contending developments and argues that the current conceptual and methodological confusion about applied history is detrimental to anyone relying on the term. Essentially, when a non-historian seeks the assistance of an applied historian and asks the logical question “and what do you do, exactly?,” the current uncertainty can result in major and off-putting confusion about what the term actually means.","PeriodicalId":52352,"journal":{"name":"International Public History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Public History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/iph-2022-2038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In the last few years, the notion of applied history has seen a notable rise in interest among historians. Arising out of questions related to contemporary concerns, such as political extremism and Covid-19, several projects have taken up the challenge to address these questions and other issues by looking to the past, thereby furthering the idea that applied history warrants the attention of professional (academic) historians. The concept of applied history itself is, however, not new, begging questions of how these new projects use the term and how this usage relates to older definitions and methods associated with the term. This article shows that much of the most recent ‘wave’ of applied history has tended to present itself as closely related to history and policy, distinguishing itself by either drawing a hard line between public and applied history or by ignoring public history altogether. On the other hand, some have defined applied history as an approach or sub-field of public history, sometimes leading public historians to assume that these new groups are merely, and unhelpfully, putting a new logo on an old brand. This article offers a thorough overview of these contending developments and argues that the current conceptual and methodological confusion about applied history is detrimental to anyone relying on the term. Essentially, when a non-historian seeks the assistance of an applied historian and asks the logical question “and what do you do, exactly?,” the current uncertainty can result in major and off-putting confusion about what the term actually means.
“你到底做什么?”比较当代应用史的定义和实践
摘要在过去的几年里,历史学家对应用史的兴趣显著上升。由于政治极端主义和新冠肺炎等与当代关切有关的问题,一些项目接受了挑战,通过回顾过去来解决这些问题和其他问题,从而进一步推动了应用历史值得专业(学术)历史学家关注的观点。然而,应用历史的概念本身并不新鲜,这就引出了这些新项目如何使用该术语,以及这种使用如何与该术语相关的旧定义和方法相关的问题。这篇文章表明,最近的应用史“浪潮”大多倾向于将自己表现为与历史和政策密切相关,通过在公共历史和应用史之间划出强硬的界限或完全忽视公共历史来区分自己。另一方面,一些人将应用历史定义为公共历史的一种方法或子领域,有时会导致公共历史学家认为这些新群体只是在一个旧品牌上加上一个新标志,毫无帮助。这篇文章对这些争论的发展进行了全面的概述,并认为当前关于应用历史的概念和方法混乱对任何依赖该术语的人都是有害的。从本质上讲,当一个非历史学家寻求应用历史学家的帮助,并问一个逻辑问题“你到底是做什么的?”时,当前的不确定性可能会导致人们对这个词的实际含义产生重大而令人反感的困惑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Public History
International Public History Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信