Historian: What’s in a Name?

Historian: What’s in a Name?

There is a certain antagonism between ‘popular’ history and the academy. On the one side are traditionally trained academic Historians who have studied for a minimum of seven years and then continue working and publishing to be considered an academic ‘Historian’.  One the other are the large numbers of people who engage with historical study beyond the academy: including ‘popular historians’ historical biographers, history bloggers and historical fiction writers who often have extremely detailed research but have no traditional academic training. 

Some Historians who studied and invested time and money into academic training are dismissive of ‘popular historians,’ especially those claiming rights to the title Historian. Certain popular historian's names are considered by-words for all things WRONG with popular history: ‘an insult to academic history,’ a curse word not to be uttered in proper historical circles. Conversely, popular historians, writers and those who work on history but haven’t ‘climbed the academic ladder’ often feel strongly that their work is just as historically valid and are just as deserving of the title Historian. 

So, what is in the name Historian? Popular historians, bloggers and fiction writers are pivotal in raising public awareness and affection for the subject that has been struggling within schools. It is impossible to deny the importance of these individuals and their incredible hard work. The depth of knowledge of writers such as Susan Higginbotham is equal and beyond that of some academics and so it seems not only unfair but unrealistic to deny they are historians. However, considering the specialist nature of academic history it also seems unrealistic to deny the special status of academic Historians. 

It is easy to forget that academics spend much of their time teaching, lecturing, supervising students, fighting for funding, attending conferences and much more: what time is left is spent on research. Furthermore, their research is, if not ‘of different calibre’ then often of a different nature to the research undertaken by bloggers, authors and popular historians. The primary goal of a non-academic writer is to un-cover ‘the truth’ of history to the extent that this is possible and normally within areas of public interest, whereas, an academic historian’s work has to engage with historiographical theories and methodological study alongside these questions. A Historian needs to account for the way they undertook their research, what theories and approaches they used and influenced their work. All of this being closely scrutinised in peer reviews, seminars and conferences when they present these papers to fellow academics who will question not only the results of the work but the theories and historiography of the research. This knowledge and understanding of post-structural theory or linguistic difference naturally alters the depth and validity of the research and so it is understandable that members of the academy may feel their work is depreciated being compared to that of a popular historian, blogger, or author.

It is clear to me at least that BOTH academic Historians and historians who engage in history through blogs, fiction, or even popular biographies need to be valued and respected as they both bring something important to the table. The lack of respect I have seen some Historians give to ‘popular historians’ during discussions saddens me. After all, in the modern economic climate where every penny universities gain has to be quantified in its financial and societal benefits are rather short sighted to dismiss the value and wide-spread impact ‘popular’ historians have. Any academic who has attempted to gain funding for a project will easily be able to recall how much emphasis is placed upon ‘wider usefulness and applicability beyond the academic’.  However, this is also part of the problem; after all, the costs of becoming an academic historian must now be close to £100,000. It therefore, must be heartbreaking to dedicate that time and money and be ‘lumped in’ with bloggers who might not have any historical training.

Both sides have valid arguments, and as a student of history and fan of history outside studies I have great sympathy for both sides, and I don’t think there is any easy compromise. Many would argue popular writers of history are often too quick to call themselves historians and there does seem little respect or understanding from those who haven’t studied at a post-graduate level of the very different nature and dedication of academic history. Therefore, it is unsurprisingly that academics feel under-valued. Ironically however, the dismissive attitude many academics take to more popular forms of history and as importantly those academics who bridge the gap between popular and academic history only widens the problem.  Until some level of appreciation on both sides is gained and a wider appreciation of the differences but also common goals and passions within history there is always going to be a level of conflict.