Talk:Public history

A talk page for "public history." SHould it include, in the list of who does publichistory, authors of history books written for the general public? --Lubar 12:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

practitioners v. audiences
I wonder if the second sentence (i.e. the one describing various locations for public historical work) should focus on the different audiences for public history rather than on the kinds of practitioners. So rather than saying "Public historians are historians who work in museums, historic homes, sites, parks and battlefields, archives, ..." we might say something like "Public history is experienced by diverse audiences in a variety of contexts, including museums, historic homes, sites, parks and battlefields, archives, ..." That's probably not the right verbiage, but the idea is to shift the overall emphasis of the sentence back upon the public. Tom Scheinfeldt 19:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

History addressed at public problems
I agree that the definition would be well to include writers of histories aimed at the general public. In addition, I think there is another nuance/dimension we might consider:

In a book review published in Reviews in American History in 1998, historian Richard White recommends that public history be defined as "history addressed at public problems rather than as history supported by public institutions other than the academy . . ." While I don't agree that we need the "rather than" (that is, why can't we have both?), I do think it is worth considering this addition, which (like the suggestion about writers of popular histories) gets at the purpose or audience for which history is written, in addition to the venues where it is practiced and experienced. Adding this dimension would allow "public history" to encompass work done by academic or non-academic historians that addresses or engages with public debates or policy questions. --Anne M. Whisnant 18:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Anne M. Whisnant

Defining Public History
I agree that writing history for a popular audience should be included. And, as Tom Scheinfeldt notes, it would be appropriate to recast the second sentence to shift the emphasis of where public history is experienced back to the public. It also seems useful to think about “history addressed at public problems” as Anne Whisnant suggests. But perhaps the field has evolved enough in almost 30 years to warrant no longer defining itself in contrast to history in a “traditional academic setting.” (At least not in the first few sentences of a Wikipedia page.)  This is especially important given that so many public historians ARE involved in teaching public history in graduate programs (and now at the undergraduate level as well) and in working out the intellectual boundaries of public history as a field—both in college and university teaching and in their historical and historiographical writing.

The Board of Directors of the National Council on Public History recently discussed what a brief explantion of public history might look like. Its intention was to circulate a draft definition--one that would be readily understood by a public audience—to seek further input and foster discussion. The working draft of a definition/explanation that emerged was the following:

"Public history is history in the public interest. Public historians engage individuals, communities, and organizations in producing and sharing historical understanding and making the past relevant."

A short time later, one board member offered the following slightly modified version:

“Public history is history in the public interest. It is history that communicates the relevance of the past for the present, as it invites the general public to engage in historical inquiry.”

Do either/both of these sufficiently imply the idea of “addressing public problems”? Would either/both of these be quickly grasped by someone who is not a public historian. Is the latter a necessary quality?

Jdichtl 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)