Scholarly Communications in History and Public History

The fields of history and public history have an intriguing past in relationship to each other since public history came from the field of history but was also built from many other fields and areas of practice. As such, while the field of conventional or traditional history has always been heavily grounded in academia and communication among academic scholars, public history has no such grounding and in fact has the opposite. Public history is grounded in the application of history to modern problems and issues and takes great pride in making history accessible and relevant to a wide audience, most notably the general public. Discussing scholarly communication in the field of history is also much easier than doing so for public history since most public historians do not work in academia but are nonetheless regarded as scholars in their field. This leads to many differences and some tensions between the two fields when their works of scholarly communications are compared and evaluated in the same manner. In order to explore this topic I interviewed and surveyed several professionals in both fields and reviewed several journals so as to better understand the work being done and how it is presented in the same medium but in different fields.

Since traditional history is such an old field with such close ties to academia and thus scholarship, it has very well-established regulations for accepted types of scholarly communications. Monographs and scholarly journal articles are the most valued modes for scholarly communication, but teaching and conference papers also hold some weight (Duan 2021; Tams 2021; Whisnant 2021). Pre-publication peer review is also an important part of scholarly communication which can be seen in the number of peer reviewed history journals and the popularity of university press publishing for monographs. In fact, when university committees are evaluating scholars’ works, if the publisher is a well-known university press the work is automatically acknowledged as having some merit even before investigating how well it has been received (Whisnant 2021). Tenure requirements also have a large impact on scholarly communications for the field of history because monographs and peer reviewed journal articles hold the most weight in these decisions and so scholars are more encouraged to participate in this kind of publication as opposed to others.

Scholarly communications in public history is quite different than that of the traditional history field due to several reasons. First, the field is much newer and so has fewer established rules regarding what constitutes acceptable scholarly communication. Second, most public history professionals do not work in academia but are still considered as scholars in the field. Third, the audience for public historians is not solely other academics but includes the public. These last two reasons have great bearing on scholarly communications because in order for the majority of the professionals in the field and their stated audience to access the work it cannot be blocked behind pay walls that often accompany journals. Keeping their communications easily accessible is critical to the mission of the public history field and this is reflected in the accepted types of scholarly communications which are much more extensive than in the field of history. Several accepted types of scholarly communications include monographs, journal articles, digital projects, blog posts, podcasts, documentaries, and many others.

Despite the broader possibilities for scholarly communications in public history, many of which may seem more casual, peer review is still an important component of the process. However, there is a glaring difference from traditional history in that for many types of scholarly communications done in public history, the peer review is done after the work or project is finished. This is not always the case, since if the project is grant funded then some review occurs beforehand, but it is a great difference between the two fields that can cause problems.

The way that scholarly communications currently operate and are perceived causes issues for scholars in both fields. For traditional historians, the limited views on acceptable types of communications works can be restricting. One of the professors that I corresponded with on this topic felt that he had very little to contribute to my inquiry because he was not well-updated in current scholarly communications practices. He did admit to running a podcast but did not seem to think that this would be of any value to me in my exploration into scholarly communications (Andrews 2021). Additionally, since conventionally accepted methods are often restrictive and inaccessible to many, it can lead to isolation for the field and a bolstering of the public’s perception of the elitism of this field.

Problems also arise for public historians conducting scholarly communications. Public history is often a track within many university’s existing history programs and this can cause tensions and misunderstandings when the time comes to evaluate the work of faculty focusing in public history. Evaluation is often intended to be conducted by the peers of the one being evaluated. However, since many public historians in academia are outnumbered by their conventional historian counter parts, this is often not the case (Clements 1984, 56). Since public historians in academia are often being evaluated by conventional historians, they are severely disadvantaged because traditional historians have very little idea about the review process or the amount and type of work that contributes to making public history works. There is a prevailing idea that public history works take less effort and research when in reality it is the same amount and type of work as a traditional history monograph (Whisnant 2021). This leads to the second issue that public historians face in that much of the work they do to contribute to their field does not count toward promotion or tenure considerations. Anne Whisnant recounted that when she had been working at UNC Chapel Hill as a non-tenure track history professor she asked the department head hypothetically, if a 300-page report that she had published for the National Park Service would count towards tenure if she had been on that track. The answer was no because the review conducted by the NPS would not have been deemed sufficient and it would have been considered as having no impact since the report would never have be published in a journal nor would it be reviewed in a journal. Furthermore, the lack of acknowledgement of academic public historians’ work leads to double expectations for them. Not only must they remain active in their field but they must also publish traditionally accepted materials such as journal articles and monographs or risk their employment and promotion opportunities (Clements 1984, 54-56; Whisnant 2021).

In addition to surveying and interviewing several scholars, to better understand this issue I reviewed several journals from each field since journals are held in high esteem by both. Additionally it allowed me to compare one type of scholarly communications from each field on roughly equal footing. From the field of traditional history, I selected The American Historical Review published by the American Historical Association, The Historical Journal, and the Journal of Social History. From the field of public history, I selected The Public Historian published by the National Council on Public History, the Public History Review, and the journal of International Public History. The history journals’ articles largely discussed the history of something, usually fairly specific, such as an innovation, a movement, politics, etc. They did sometimes venture into subjects usually more closely tied to public history such as material history or archives but usually only to make a broader statement about changes in history as compared to the present (Ragas 2021; Rublack 2021). Both The American Historical Review and the Journal of Social History included reviews for books and films but only one of the film reviews included a call to action to tie the subject into present day issues how a public history article might (Morris 2021). There was a plethora of other journals that I could have reviewed from the traditional history field because many specializations or subjects in history have their own collection of journals which is quite different than in the public history field which has a much more limited number of journals.

The public history journals that I selected were very different so far as content was concerned. They did include some more academic and traditional style history topics but these were usually grounded in observation of the populace and common people, perhaps most closely similar to social history from the field of traditional history (Kelland 2021). The articles also were very focused on social issues and changes occurring in the field of public history, the latter of which was not generally seen in the history journals. It was very clear that even the scholarly communications occurring in these journals were heavily concerned with those public history professionals who were not involved in academia, which is not something that is usually associated with scholarly communications. The discussions and reviews also centered around a much broader scope of presentation methods including exhibits, monument contextualization projects, museums, podcasts, and digital projects and discusses them all as forms of scholarly communication, again not something seen in the history journals who only branched out into reviews of documentaries. Another noteworthy observation was that these journals incorporated discussion about a variety of other fields so long as they connected to history, its application, and public interaction with history such as land conservation, and the marketing of toys (Jacobson 2021; Scarpino 2021). The International Public History journal did include more articles about more traditional history but they were framed in such a way that they focused on how history was being contextualized, interpreted, and being interacted with. As a whole, the journals from each field were largely distinct from each other. On occasion, certain articles leaned closer to how the other field discusses topics but they were always framed to still fit within their field.

Despite the problems and differences found with scholarly communications as it exists in history and public history there are changes occurring and there are ways that these issues can be ameliorated. As technology develops, traditional historians need to be more flexible in their acceptance and creation of new types of scholarly communications much like how the various science fields have adapted. In order to lessen some of the issues that public historians face there needs to be a greater understanding of their work and the effort and processes that go into their scholarly communications so that when they are evaluated, it is done so fairly. The American Historical Association, The National Council on Public History, and the Organization of American Historians have created a set of suggestions and guidelines to assist academic institutions do exactly that so that public historians are no longer disadvantaged for participating in their field and not using the traditional modes of scholarly communication (Ahlberg et al. 2017). Finally, something that was raised repeatedly in my surveys and interview was that there should be a greater exploration and acknowledgement of scholarly communications occurring in more casual environments, particularly on social media (Tams 2021; Whisnant 2021). The intent of this is not to include these more casual communications in promotion or tenure decisions but simply to bring awareness to the fact that scholarly communications occur in a variety of places that are not always structured or formal and to expand the idea of what constitutes scholarly communications.

Part of the challenge of researching this topic was that scholarly communications between history and public history are quite different despite the closeness of the two fields. Additional challenges arose in addressing scholarly communication in public history because so much of the discourse occurs outside of the methods that we mostly discussed this semester and because many public history scholars do not work in academia which is also not something that was addressed in any depth. However, it is an important topic, not only so that public historians can be evaluated and valued fairly, but because people outside of academia have a growing interest in higher level knowledge, and are more strongly demanding more transparency and accessibility. Overall, my participants, despite acknowledging many issues, were hopeful and optimistic for changes to take place in scholarly communications that would benefit both traditional historians and public historians, as well as the general public.

References

Ahlberg, Kristen, Bill Bryans, Edward Countryman, John R Dichtl, Debbie Ann Doyle, Susan Ferentinos, Kathleen Franz, Constance B Schulz, and Gregory E Smoak. 2017. “Tenure, Promotion, and the Publicly Engaged Academic Historian (Updated 2017).” AHA. American Historical Association. https://www.historians.org/jobs-and-professional-development/statements-standards-and-guidelines-of-the-discipline/tenure-promotion-and-the-publicly-engaged-academic-historian.

American Historical Review 126, (Mar. 2021) no. 1. https://academic-oup-com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/ahr/issue/126/1

American Historical Review 126, (Jun. 2021) no. 2. https://academic-oup-com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/ahr/issue/126/2.

American Historical Review 126, (Sep. 2021) no. 3. https://academic-oup-com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/ahr/issue/126/3.

Andrews, Matthew, Teaching Associate Professor of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, email message to the author, Nov. 30, 2021.

Blythe, John, Assistant Curator of the North Carolina Collection at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, surveyed by Rebecca Wade, Dec. 6, 2021.

Clements, Kendrick A.1984. “Promotion and Tenure Criteria for Faculty in Applied History.” The Public Historian 6, no. 2: 51–61. https://doi.org/10.2307/3376914.

Duan, Xioalin, Associate Professor of Public History at North Carolina State University, surveyed by Rebecca Wade, Dec. 6, 2021.

Historical Journal 64, (Feb. 2021) no. 1. http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/publication/42256?accountid=14244.

Historical Journal 64, (Mar. 2021) no. 2. http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/publication/42256?accountid=14244.

Historical Journal 64, (Jun. 2021) no. 3. http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/publication/42256?accountid=14244.

Historical Journal 64, (Sep. 2021) no. 4. http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/publication/42256?accountid=14244.

Historical Journal 64, (Dec. 2021) no. 5. http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/publication/42256?accountid=14244.

International Public History 4, (Jun. 2021) no. 1. https://www.degruyter.com/journal/key/iph/4/1/html.

Jacobson, Lisa. 2021. “Introduction: When History Becomes Child’s Play.” The Public Historian 43, no. 1: 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1525/tph.2021.43.1.8.

Journal of Social History 55, (Fall 2021) no. 1. https://academic-oup-com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/jsh/issue/55/1.

Kelland, Lara Leigh. 2021. “Puerto Rican Heritage in the Twentieth Century: Empire, Statecraft, and Resistance.” The Public Historian 43, no. 2: 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1525/tph.2021.43.2.28.

Morris, Rosalind C. 2021. “Catherine Meyburgh and Richard Pakleppa, Directors. Dying for Gold.” The American Historical Review 126, no. 1: 231–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/rhab064.

Public Historian 43, (Feb. 2021) no. 1. https://online-ucpress-edu.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/tph/issue/43/1.

Public Historian 43, (May. 2021) no. 2. https://online-ucpress-edu.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/tph/issue/43/2.

Public Historian 43, (May 2021) no. 3. https://online-ucpress-edu.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/tph/issue/43/3.

Public Historian 43, (Nov. 2021) no. 4. https://online-ucpress-edu.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/tph/issue/43/4.

Public History Review 28, (Feb. 2021). https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/phrj/index.

Ragas, José. 2021. “Archiving the Chilean Revolution.” The American Historical Review 126, no. 1: 166–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/rhab009.

Rublack, Ulinka. 2021. “Befeathering the European: The Matter of Feathers in the Material Renaissance.” The American Historical Review 126, no. 1: 19–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/rhab006.

Scarpino, Philip V. 2021. “Review: Saving Spaces: Historic Land Conservation in the United States, by John H. Sprinkle Jr.” The Public Historian 43, no. 4: 151–53. https://doi.org/10.1525/tph.2021.43.4.151.

Tams, Leah, Public History Professional, Accessions Coordinator at Duke University for the Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Collection, and Librarian at the Durham County Library North Carolina Collection, surveyed by Rebecca Wade, Dec. 8, 2021.

Whisnant, Anne, Public Historian and Adjunct Associate Professor of History at Duke University, interviewed by Rebecca Wade, Dec. 8, 2021.

Appendix A: Survey Questions

1) What, in your experience, are the most accepted forms of scholarly communication in the field of public history and/or history.

2) What types of scholarly communication are you involved in? What motivates you to participate in these?

3) What other projects or works are you involved in, including teaching? What motivates your work in these?

4) In your eyes, what is the difference (if any) between the projects/works addressed in Questions 2 and 3?

5) Do you feel that non-published activities should hold the same weight in promotion/tenure decisions?

6) Do you feel that historians, particularly those with a specialty in public history, working on non-publishable projects are ever disadvantaged in the evaluation of their work?

7) What, in your opinion, is the most valuable work a historian can do?

8) What types of work do you feel are the most valued in the history field? In the public history field? Why are these the most valued?

9) Are there changes occurring in the field of history or public history about accepted forms of scholarly communication?

10) Do you see public engagement projects as a form of scholarly communication?