Public History - Definition

Definition

Because it incorporates a wide range of practices and takes place in many different settings, public history proves resistant to being precisely defined. Three key elements often emerge from the discourse of those who identify themselves as public historians:

• use of the methods of the historical discipline
• an emphasis on the usefulness of historical knowledge in some way that goes beyond purely academic or antiquarian purposes
• an emphasis on professional training and practice

These three elements are expressed in the 1989 mission statement of the U.S.-based National Council on Public History: "To promote the utility of history in social through professional practice.". They are also present in a definition drafted by the NCPH board in 2007, stating, "Public history is a movement, methodology, and approach that promotes the collaborative study and practice of history; its practitioners embrace a mission to make their special insights accessible and useful to the public." However, this draft definition prompted some challenges on the H-Public listserv from people in the field, who raised questions about whether public history is solely an endeavor by professional or trained historians, or if shared historical authority should be a key element of the field. Others have pointed out that the existence of many "publics" for public history complicates the task of definition. For example, historian Peter Novick has questioned whether much of what is termed public history should actually be called private history (for example, the creation of corporate histories or archives) or popular history (for example, research or exhibits conducted outside the norms of the historical discipline). Cathy Stanton has also identified a more radical element in North American public history but has asked: 'how much room is there for the progressive component in the public history movement?' Hilda Kean and Paul Ashton have also discussed the differences in public history in Britain, Australia, New Zealand and the U.S., arguing against 'a rigid demarcation between "historians" and "their publics"'. A 2008 survey of almost 4,000 practitioners predominantly in the U.S. showed that a substantial proportion (almost one quarter of respondents) expressed some reservations about the term and whether it applied to their own work.

In general, those who embrace the term public historian accept that the boundaries of the field are flexible. Its definition remains a work in progress, subject to continual re-evaluation of practitioners' relationships with different audiences, goals, and political, economic, or cultural settings.