History: Science or Humanities?

by James R. Thies, Sr.

Everything in time as it passes becomes history. Most of us neither record, recognize nor understand it, yet we are all a part of it. This paper adds nothing to history but will attempt to define what qualifies as history, how it is recorded and the role it plays within society. Is it as Stephen E. Ambrose suggested in Personal Reflections of An Historian (2002) – a story within history from which “we learn who we are and how we got that way, why and how we changed, why the good sometimes prevailed and sometimes did not.” (2002:xvi). Or is it as Conyer Read stated: “Every man is his own Historian…the every day-to-day actions of every man are based upon his knowledge of the past and his application of that knowledge to his present behavior and his future plans.” (Read: 1950:278). This paper will discuss these various ideas and the profession that represents society’s historians: how do they go about recording, teaching, studying, researching and passing on history to the rest of us?

Who Was Herodotus Anyway?

Modern historiography, the writing of history began in fifth century B.C. by the Greeks. The word history comes from the Greek word “historia”. It was in the sixth and fifth century B.C. that men began to systematically pursue the investigation of events, of material objects and processes, of human behavior and institutions, of diseases, the movement of the heavenly bodies and the laws governing these things for the sake of determining how they were relevant to man. (Croix:1977:131)

Looking back it is easy to see that early historians’ approach to the recording of history had its weaknesses; the theoretical and experimental processes now commonly used did not exist and the techniques of observation and measurement were in their infancy. What separates this beginning period of recording true history from earlier forms is easy to see. Earlier writings fell into one of two types: either 1) poetry, or 2) writings that were to serve some political purpose such as glorifying a God or King or to vilify their enemies. They were generally passed from one generation to another in the form of story telling. (Croix:1977:132)

Several of the books of the Old Testament were written in this pre-history period. They were written not as straight history, but to demonstrate very specific religious beliefs. Much of the true history of the period is entirely left out of these important writings just as important information was left off maps of the period. Writings just as map building included information only if it reflected the intent of the recordation. As an example, it is clearly documented that the most significant historical event during the time that the books of Samuel and Kings were written was the battle of Karkar in 853 B.C. It was the most important event during the reign of King Ahab and now historically is regarded as a check upon the expansion of the Assyrian alliance. Yet, it is not found in the Bible. (Croix:1977:133)

The driving force behind a need to be more objective in the recording of history was the expansion of the Greeks into other societies through commerce and colonization. With this need came the first recognized historians. Herodotus of Halicarnassus is credited with the title “Father of History’, although it is now acknowledged that he may have been less than accurate and most likely somewhat inventive in writing history. Aristotle referred to him as a storyteller and Gibbon stated that Herodotus sometimes “wrote for children and sometimes for philosophers”. (Croix:1977:135). Herodotus wrote; “I consider it my task to report what is told to me, but I am not at all bound to believe it” (Croix:1977:136). Yet, Herodotus is credited with being the greatest of all Greek Historians. (Croix:1977:130).

Herodotus as creator of this new discipline formed an intellectual activity contributing to the period of Greek enlightenment built around “scientific thinking”. At the base of this thinking was Herodotus’s recognition that other societies preferred their own ancestral institutions and that these institutions were different from society to society. He also recognized that there was a certain balance – one society was not necessarily superior to another. This was a new way of thinking that required a new way of recording events that occurred among and within the various societies. As a result, man by reading about the various societies’ culture and political thought could develop and adopt the societal elements of another’s into his own. This was a profound way of looking at one’s fellow man. (Croix:1977:134)

This new way of looking at facts and recording them as events started the process of reducing and recording such observations to their simplest form. Later scientists in other fields such as mathematics and astronomy built upon Herodotus’s s way of looking at things and recording them. This fit well with the need for empirical observation. Much of this early application in the sciences are now lost, although we do have many of the early clinical case studies and geographical writings of two other great Greek historians, Hecataeus and Pytheas.

Scientific History as a Teaching Method: The Formative Years

Early on, it was recognized that the function of recording history was so that it could be passed on to future generations. Higher education, more specifically the universities in Europe in the beginning, has been and continues to be the primary distributors of recorded history. Up through the late nineteenth century, the history curriculum in a college education was for the purpose of acquiring human knowledge, discipline and Christian Morality. This was accomplished by the study of what had been recorded by those that had written on various humanities topics. The curriculum was grounded in the classics, mathematics and religion. Early teaching concepts required the student to obtain a general knowledge of a broad base of studies. Until this was accomplished, the student was not ready to specialize in the recording and examination of history. (Haines: 1977:894).

It was not until around 1880 that history became a “scientific” discipline. About this time Universities began developing history departments that applied science to the study of history. The natural sciences began to creep in as electives, a movement begun at Harvard. The introduction of the languages, history and natural science created a strong opposition among academicians as it was felt that such electives would lead to specialization. (Haines: 1977:894). This new “scientific history” curriculum was centered on the application of organization and teaching techniques of history. Under this process it was the teacher and his relationship with the student that was fighting for acceptance on college campuses.

The scientific approach to the study of history and other disciplines did lead to specialization. Each discipline had its own subject matter to which scientific principles could be applied. This scientific thinking centered on the ability to observe accurately, analyze correctly and compare intelligently. This new method required both teacher and student to use laboratories and research libraries. Professors gave seminars and students were given written essay exams. (Haines: 1977:895).

All of this impacted and changed the study of history. History now became its own field of study that had its own methods of study, purpose and value. History now could be researched with the end result being the better understanding of mankind. (Haines: 1977:897). Students were no longer to rely upon the written word, but were to seek truth through scientific research of the facts. The student was to develop for himself an independent evaluation of historical events in explaining human knowledge. (Haines: 1977:898).

New teaching techniques were needed. Now there would be multiple resources on any one topic. Lectures were designed for the professor to state a point of view that the student would have to reflect on. This approach would require the professor to be engaged in research himself. As a result of this new process the student would develop his own independent way of conducting historical investigation. (Haines: 1977:899). This new process called for greater libraries, for few books were necessary to learn the classics. This process would show the student that only independent investigation would lead to the truth. It would teach him how to obtain the necessary materials himself and keep his interest in the subject.

The measure of success with this new way of teaching was determined by whether the student met specific goals. It was expected that the student: learned how to use historical materials; developed skepticism towards already written works; developed a desire for accuracy and precision; and could obtain the skills to make a historically correct argument. (Haines: 1977:900)

By 1897, the Committee of Seven for the American Historical Association wrote that the scientific study of history held a central position in the curriculum. The committee wrote that as the student was studying history it would appeal to his sympathy, emotions and imagination. At the same time the student would learn to apply scientific investigation to the study with the purpose of disclosing human life. The committee concluded that the study of history was now scientific, while arguing its aim was still humanistic. (Haines: 1977:902).

It is interesting to look at the type of studies conducted by this new approach to history in its infancy. Early research was concerned with the current events of the day; historians wanted to solve the problems of the day such as the “spoils system”, problems of municipal government, the struggles of the working class and the dangers of labor disputes. The University of Michigan had the following articles written during this early period: “The causes of Infectious Diseases”, “The Prevalence of Crime and the most effective ways of Diminishing and Preventing It”, The Care of the Insane and the Management of Asylums”, Theories and Methods of Taxation” and “The Proper Treatment of the Poor and the Proper Superintendence of Almshouses”. (Haines: 1977:903).

What was philosophically behind these writings was the support for a strong morality and the strength of character and education. Historians believed that the education of history for the working man and the immigrant would lead to less poverty and less class conflict. Studies in history would lead to civil service reforms by rooting out corruption. (Haines: 1977:903). It was advocated that all of these issues were the responsibility of historians as they applied the new scientific study of history.

What these early scientific historians were not concerned with was the need to teach morality. Although they viewed history in a moral light, they felt the basic values of man were obvious and required no defense. Values such as courage, honor, fidelity and public spirit were obvious, each man being responsible for learning these from the other institutions such as religion and family. (Haines: 1977:905)

Instead, the development of the biography, which could be studied scientifically, was seen as the new way of looking at history. Biographies generally were for the purpose of teaching morals, but also to romanticize and communicate the chronological aspects of history. It was designed to make history more alive and interesting. It would lead to greater imagination in the student and motivate his desire to write real history and thus contribute to society just as the painter, the philosopher and the poet, only to do it scientifically. History would be the link with man’s past. (Haines: 1977:906-07)

What eventually developed out this new school of thought was that history had a purpose. That purpose was to prepare the student to confront the future having learned what reality was through his study of history. Harvard Professor Tyler wrote: “While history should be scientific in its method, its object should be practical…I teach American History, not so much to make historians, but to make good leaders for the State and the Nation.” (Haines: 1977:912)

It is now argued that the moral aspects assumed in the early development of scientific history were lost by subsequent generations. What developed was a liberalism based on the individual and not society as a whole. As important, with the development of the scientific method came a skepticism and professional specialization that undermined the broad teaching of history as part of a liberal education. (Haines: 1977:912)

Scientific History as a Teaching Method: The Follow-up Years

This paper began with a quote from one of the first critics as to what the academic historian’s responsibilities were and where the future for the study of history was directed. In December 1949, Conyer Read addressed the American Historical Association as president of this prestige forum. Read instructed that history was seen as serving three functions; 1) dissemination of what has happened, 2) the absorption of that material for education, and, 3) to guide society in its present behavior and to lay a course for the future. (Read: 1950:275). The concern behind Read’s speech was how the processing of history was being used at that time and the impact it was having upon our institutions.

Read’s argument was that the majority of the disseminated material on history took place in the classroom. This dissemination was divided between what was taught and what was being researched. Read pointed out much of the writing on history at the time appeared through textbooks and that was not well done. Other writings were on limited subjects with very small audiences primarily out of an interest not in the subject but the writer. (1950:277). Read wanted to make the point that the more important of the two functions of the professor was the presentation of the panoramic view of history that should be presented in the classroom as compared to the minutiae population that read published writings.

However, as now it was then a person’s position and promotion within the profession was dependent upon his writing, not his classroom performance. The result was that good teaching at the college level went unrecognized and its potential to impact its students was not fully developed. (Read: 1950:277).

Read tried to demonstrate the importance of teaching the student arguing that every student in the classroom is his own historian. Unconscious of the fact, this student is continuously and critically scrutinizing the past. The student is motivated to get ahead; that being the purpose of a student seeking a higher education. This leads to three well-established ideas being form and molded in the minds of students: 1) the idea of experience as a guide to action, 2) the idea of progress as an incentive to action, and 3) the idea of criteria as measures of progress. (1950:279). Read argued the task of molding minds was not necessarily the objective of the colleges where the student sought an education; colleges were focused on developing historians. Read saw this as a failure of the universities to develop within the student a sense of place and morality.

Read was quick to point out that each generation would view the data collected by past historians within their own biases. This demonstrated a problem with the scientific approach to history. Each generation would ask different questions from the perspective of the then existing social climate. The result is that historians move from the classroom to the attic to the dustbin. Those that survive do so because of their style as opposed to their substance. Future generations would view today’s history as the eccentricities of past historians. As an example, Read offered for comparison St. Thomas Aquinas with Edward Gibbon and Thomas Babington Macaulay with Karl Marx. Whether the student is presented history from the perspective of a Christian zealot, a skeptic, a good Whig or a Socialist would have an impact upon how that student formulated ideas about human progress both in the past and for the future but from the perspective of the present. (1950:280).

Now comes the importance of Read’s speech – defining the responsibility of historians. Are they to speak the truth in a world of conflicting ideologies? Does free speech control or do we limit free thought? Read states in the end, truth will prevail. The question becomes what happens in the interim, for the historian is bound as is all of society with supporting the ideas of his society be it under the stars and stripes of America or the hammer and sickle of Russia. (1950:283). However, in presenting history if the historian presents the “evolution of civilization as haphazard, without direction and without progress….then mankind will seek for assurance in a more positive alternative whether it be offered from Rome or from Moscow.” (1950:284).

Read recognized the conflict between what historians are obligated to do and what scientists do. A scientist can constantly check the validity of his hypothesis by repeating his experiment, the historian cannot. Historians can only observe and utilize what has happened in the past. Read suggested that the balance for historians was the need for a strong social philosophy. The historian should select, arrange and emphasize his factual data to follow what is socially desirable and to follow the evolution of society with reference to its objectivity. (1950:285).

Scientific History as a Teaching Method – Today’s Thoughts

It is refreshing to see Read admit that science and history are conflicting concepts and that society dictates how the two are brought together to actually support the historian, and maybe not history. Unfortunately, this conflict has flourished. John Higham wrote in Beyond Consensus: The Historian as Moral Critic (1962) that historians today are constricted in their ability to independently think as historians because of the intense involvement in the life of the present. It takes away from the imagination and pure historical thought. (Higham: 1962: 609).

Higham asserts historians today work in a vast educational system that rewards its employees with prestige and security for predictable quantities of passionless research. At the same time the ideological conflicts of the twentieth century have entangled historians into partisan commitments. (Higham: 1962: 609).

Higham’s concern is that today the old ideological positions have broken down and the historian finds himself at the crossroads of either generating negative scholarship or discovering a “history of unsuspected richness and power”. (Higham: 1962: 610). Higham stated that in the recent past historians were motivated by sectional, class and ethnic ties and would champion such ideas as those representative of the militant Southerner, confident Westerners, defiant Brahmins or minorities. Historians wrote history that was reflective of the claims or grievances of the particular group of concern. Explaining change and the epic conflict between under and over privileged elements of society was the main thrust justifying this research. Today the world is much more homogeneous. The old ideas of improvement or the betterment of society measured in wealth, freedom and happiness are no longer driving the study of history. (Higham: 1962: 611).

All of this leads historians today to discussing “consensus” history that theoretically is supposed to lead to finding a greater truth. It would require the historian to step back, and not be involved so immediately in the society in which he belongs. This would allow the historian to project himself into the past more easily, to see the whole of past events, to see how groups interrelate. (Higham: 1962: 615)

The danger of this approach is that history will become bland where conflict is muted and classic issues of social injustice such as violence in American life will be underplayed and receive little attention. Higham stated the result would be scholarship with a moral vacuum. (Higham: 1962: 616) Higham acknowledged as recognized by Haines, above, that by the end of the nineteenth century moral evaluation was not a part of the scientific research of history. Professionalism changed the earlier perspective as to what function history played in society. In the early years history represented the universal laws of human nature and was a vast depository of moral values. (Higham: 1962: 617) To Higham that had changed and history no longer taught morality. Higham asserted that historians needed to become more critical in their evaluation of the moral impact of history so as to give society an understanding of the moral lessons. He called this “moral history”.

More recent commentaries have recognized the continuing decline in the use of history as direction in moral training. Joseph A. Diorio in The Decline of History as a Tool of Moral Training (1985) stated that at one time one of the main reasons for teaching history especially in America was to give moral instruction. In Britain, history was considered as the “nursery of patriotism and public virtue.” (1985:71). Diorio argued that today history is no longer a vital part of education although the need for moral education continues to run high.

Diorio stated when found today in education, history is designed to socialize youth into adult work and citizenship roles. This has led to a suppression of critical historical consciousness. Very specifically, in the United States history’s purpose is to advance the capitalistic socio-economic structure. This is a direct result of the scientific and technological developments in the United States. (1985:72).

Diorio agreed that this move away from moral teaching is in part how historians have redefined their roles. Historians now see their responsibility in education differently. Education today does not foster intellectual and individual development. Today education is mass schooling. (1985:74). Diorio concluded that the goals of education were heading in one direction and the goals of historians in another resulting in the decline of moral instruction.

Historians today continue to recognize the conflict between science and society. Francois Bedarida discussed this in his paper titled The Modern Historian’s Dilemma: Conflicting pressures from Science and Society (1987). On the one hand is the requirement of science to use the scientific method to determine through basic research and thorough investigation the “truth”. This method mandates the researcher to put aside personal biases and preconceived ideas in order to find the truth. On the other hand is the demand of society for historical knowledge to gain relevant information about their society in a readable form. The result is a wide range of approaches to research many times given direction by multiple links with the outside world such as government and other public and private institutions. These outside influences coupled with the general public’s need to be informed has led to problems in the exchange of knowledge. (1987:335).

Having clearly recognized the dilemma and historians wanting their craft to be as fertile as it is scientific, Bedarida suggested that historians must rethink their approach. What must be examined is the relationship between scholarship and social needs. He concluded it is the responsibility of the modern historian to act as mediator between these two conflicting roles. (1987:336).

Bedarida echoed what I have previously discussed above. This dilemma came about with the development of the scientific approach to the study of history. With it came specialization and professionalism replacing generalist and amateurs. From the public sector, historians moved into the comfort of the university to gain stability of position and income. At its inception, history was still seen as the source for society’s morals and national virtues. Science over time changed that and created a widening gap between history and society. (1987:338).

The one exception to this split between history and society is in the area of historical writings as entertainment. This form of history has gone outside both the universities and science. But, it has met a public need. Out of this comes much of the modern day exchange between historians and the public. Bedarida suggested that today this medium has been taken over by television. A large part of the public watch historical accounts on television that might be dramatized simply because it is easy for them to understand. (1987:339). The result is the historian’s supposedly scientific objective of seeking the truth is compromised. The historian allows the viewing public to determine the truth as they interpret it by studying the past in its own setting as dramatized on television. This Bedarida argued demonstrates the conflict between the scientific historian and the “ignorant demands of society…. for immediate applicability.” (1987:340).

Bedarida gave the United States credit for attempting to mediate this dilemma. The United States has directed its historians towards what he called “public historians”. This was in response to university-trained historians not being able to obtain employment. This new type of historian concentrated upon three main areas: 1) public policy – social engineering, 2) business (or corporate) history and 3) community studies (involving local and environmental history). This allowed them to mingle outside the university setting in the real world. Bedarida cautioned this is not a dominating trend but an attempt to return to the pre-science era and a role in dealing with the morals and values history once taught. (1987:341).

This brings us back to the role of the historian today as mediator between the need for scholarship seeking truth and society’s need for identity. Bedarida suggested several ideas to keep in mind. First, the historian must study history for a sound intellectual training. This is the best guarantee against the “uncautious, candid, ludicrous and sometimes dangerous use of history which may spring from a superficial knowledge of the past” (1987:347). Second, the historian must serve two functions: 1) he must decipher time, time past and time present so that all can understand, and, 2) provide a function of therapy – it must provide relevance, norms, inventiveness and identity. By this process the historian will help develop an informed consciousness and a structure to social relations. (1987:347).

Criminal Justice –Does it use history?

Understanding the research concepts and goals in the Criminal Justice field, one wonders is there a historical perspective to the field and is there much demand for it? What is known is that historically, finding reliable constant data that can give meaningful results is hard to find in the study of crime. The primary source for such data was held by the many various law enforcement agencies individually and they had little concern for studies in statistics. (Monkkonen: 1979: 451).

In more recent times, the historian has begun to evaluate the data that can be found from a perspective of the individual in a pre-processing methodology to determine larger parameters that can establish broad social trends. In other words, they must set aside what government collected the data for in terms of evaluation and begin anew. (Monkkonen: 1979: 452). The concern is the historian will fall into the safe role of accepting the criminal justice system’s interpretation as to what the data shows and try to bend that to certain theories as opposed to letting the data lead to new theories.

There is an additional caution the criminal justice researcher must heed. Governmental agencies use different methods for collecting data. Only recently has criminal justice data become more uniform. Earlier years rested upon the jurisdiction collecting the data. The same is true about the reporting of collected data. An illustration is the classification of suicides. The local corner establishes the criteria as to what constitutes a suicide as opposed to its potential counterpart – homicide. (Monkkonen: 1979: 455).

Monkkonen points out there is a concern as to interpretation of data. His concern is that researchers use the data to determine system behavior as opposed to individual offender behavior. Attached with current research is the need to endorse “organizational relevant purposes” which controls the form and content of the sources. (1979: 457). Historically this leads the researcher to be concerned with three variables; 1) purpose of recording, 2) role of the offense reporting, and, 3) its potential for meeting agency concern. (1979: 457).

Monkkonen in his article was talking about resources of data for the nineteenth century. However, the questions raised and the concerns stated are just as applicable today. There continues to be measurement problems as well as agency mandates to generate certain statistics. There is little doubt that “organizational relevant purposes” still dominates what the public hears. It is up to the researcher to recognize these concerns and approach his research with a pre-processing design.

The Study of History in 2003

College campuses have changed as to the pace and availability of resources for conducting the study of history. Robert P. Swierenga in his 1974 article Computers and American History: The Impact of the new generation foretold of the tremendous growth that would follow the introduction of the computer. (1974: 1045-165). On February 15, 2003 the Library of Congress announced its National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP) that will cost $100 million dollars to implement. The purpose of this program is to collect all web pages of information on the Internet. Already it has collected eight million historical artifacts from presidential diaries to baseball cards. (Washington Post: February 15, 2003).

All of these advances must have an impact on the way historians study history. Surely one could argue history has become a science. I wanted to know what historians though of their role and profession today. So I used the Internet to email 157 currently active college professors to ask them some basic questions about their course of study and its delivery to the public. (See appendix A). The results gave some interesting insights into the current study of history.

The first objective was to determine if there was a connection between the student and professor in sharing knowledge about history. Five universities were contacted: Florida State University, University of Florida and University of South Florida, those being the largest public universities in Florida. Harvard University and Oxford University were contacted also.

The response rate (18%) was probably about the same as for any other survey of this type, but there were some interesting observations. First, not one professor from Oxford responded. That may have just been British – for we are colonials! What is noticeable about the Oxford History Department is the large staff that is devoted to American History. I thought for sure those professors would respond.

Second, I felt that the professors at FSU would help one of their own students – they didn’t. FSU’s response rate (19%) actually fell behind the University of Florida (29%) and the University of South Florida (22%) and ahead of Harvard (14%). The letter to the University of Florida was modified to indicate my alumni status – they may have taken that into consideration.

Third, it is obvious that some of those responding felt a criminal justice major was out of his league writing questions to a history professor. Dr. Levy of USF wrote, “Your questions do not reflect how historians do their work or think of their fields. I think this makes them essentially unanswerable as written. As written these questions would lead to vague and misdirected answers and frankly would make most people suspicious of your intent”. He then had Dr. Tunstall of USF to endorse his response. Dr. Tunstall wrote: “My answer would be very similar to that of my colleague, Phillip Levy.” Dr. Bisson of Harvard University wrote: “I prefer not to answer these questions, wishing you could find other means of research.” On the other hand there were a lot of constructive and helpful comments made to correct my uneducated questions.

Clearly, academic historians see the study of history as a study in humanity as opposed to a science. Although when question one was first formulated suggested history to be a science, when it was modified to ask whether history was a humanities or science the majority stated it to be a humanities. The respondents indicated the approach to studying the field was qualitative. Most respondents that indicated quantitative methods were used pointed out that this was in addition to qualitative approaches. It makes sense that if the professors see history as a study of humanities it would favor the qualitative approach to its study.

Questions two and three were suppose to work together to give an indication as to the research tools used to study history. The respondents did not see it that way. Almost every respondent indicated their favorite journal(s), but almost all indicated journals were not used for research. This could have been a drafting of question problem. Question two was meant for the purpose of soliciting journals used as a tool for literature reviews and research ideas.

The two dominant journals named were American Historical Review and The Journal of American History. For those that studied the history of science ISIS was the most frequently mentioned journal. There were a total of thirty-five different journals mentioned by the respondents of which FSU libraries do not carry six. Several of the respondents mentioned the many different areas of study within history favored those journals that are specific to that area of study. A search of journals available at Florida State University through the library system showed there to be thirty-four electronic journals available. There are 16 databases listed for history studies. There are 280 printed journals available within the university’s library system. There are other journals that may include historical journal articles throughout all studies that can be found by researching specific subjects.

As mentioned, respondents stated other means for research outside journals. The most mentioned were archives. Many of the responses would fall within archives but are listed separately because a point was made by the respondent to list that source. What is very obvious is that the resources listed support qualitative as opposed to quantitative research. Although the census and congressional record were mentioned as sources, almost all other sources suggest individual topic studies based on a cluster of materials such as books, monographs, scientific papers, public documents and publications (but not journals!). Two areas that were of interest included newspapers and oral history. This would seem to suggest current review of second hand knowledge. Although quotes can be attributed to each source, most information from either of these sources is opinion based upon hearsay. There is no way such information can be replicated from the researcher’s viewpoint.

Question four was designed to determine who the respondents felt were leaders in the field of history recently if not today. Not surprisingly, there were forty-four names mentioned of which only fourteen were mentioned more than once and eight mentioned more than twice. One explanation is the broad scope of specialization within the study of history.

What is surprising is that two of the most often mentioned historians’ are/were very commercial writers, David McCullough and Stephen Ambrose. As is known Stephen Ambrose died last year and was accused of plagiarism just before death. The commits were mixed on these highly visible historians. Dr. Silbert of USF stated: “I personally enjoy the works of David McCullough”. Dr. Murray, the Department Chairman for History at USF stated Ambrose and McCullough were “media stars”. Dr. Zieger of UF wrote: “Stephen Ambrose, recently deceased, as certainly “recognized” but most historians had little regard for his work, despite its general popularity.” Dr. Schulman of Harvard University echoed Dr. Zieger’s comment stating: Most recognized. …but, they have no influence in the field.” Dr. Martin of Harvard made a very good observation when he stated: “The two parts of your question get completely different answers, which is an unfortunate state of affairs. Many of the historians listed in the first list write as well or better as the second list – they don’t always paint as celebratory a view, however, if the sources suggest otherwise.”

Question five was to determine whether the respondents followed a particular theory in their research. I anticipated they would answer no and the most given answer was none. What was of interest was the diversity of the theories mentioned. Although the most mentioned was some variation of Marxism, there were thirteen different theories mentioned.

Some Last Thoughts

This adventure into another field of study has been interesting. My objective was to evaluate whether the study of history was academically as sterile and rigid as my own. I conclude that the study of history is just as removed from those it most effects, as is the study of crime. For some reason that just doesn’t seem as it should. The study of history as presented in the literature is to teach society morality, to teach society the lessons of the past so those types of mistakes will not occur again. As Winston Churchill stated: “Of this I am quite sure, that if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find we have lost the future”. Unfortunately, the barrier between the academic community and the general population is just as wide in the study of history as in the study of crime. At the same time, history’s obligation to society is more direct than that of criminology.

What became obvious to me during my review especially during the survey of today’s college professors is that those that study history most likely align with C.P. Snow’s view of the intellectual element of the academic community. The professors were quick to point out that I was outside the study of history, even though I am working on my Ph.D. This was after I told them that I was asking them to identify how they got history out into society. The general feeling was that I was more than they could tolerate interfering with their world known as the study of history.

My last observation concerns the feeling hope for the future I came away with after this exercise. One strong message I got from the various professors was the feeling that specialization has affected the field of history as it has my own. There is no consensus as to where we go from here or whether we can somehow come back to one common objective, which we clearly understood before science and the need to justify our pursuit became paramount. I did hear a faint voice of encouragement among the responses when Dr. Hatch of the University of Florida wrote: “In practice, I am a radical empiricist with great humility and joy in the face of good and provocative theory. In the end, no help to you, the writing of history is a magical blend of data, insight, literary skills, large doses of humanity, skepticism, and vast experience in archives, secondary sources, and simple everyday life. Perspective is key, creativity balanced with skepticism and, I think, hope for all species.”

Bibliography

Bedariada, Francois. 1987. "The Modern Historian's Dilemma: Conflicting Pressures from Science and Society." The Economic History Review 40(3):335-348.

Diorio, Joesph A. 1985. "The Decline of History as a Tool of Moral Training." History of Education Quarterly 25(1/2):71-101.

Haines, Deborah L. 1977. "Scientific History as a Teaching Method: The Formative Years." The Journal of American History 63(4):892-912.

Higham, John. 1951. "The rise of American Intellectual History." The American Historical Review 56(3):453-471.

—. 1961. "American Intellectual History: A Critical Appraisal." American Quarterly 13(2, Part 2):219-233.

—. 1962. "Beyond Consensus: The Historian as Moral Critic." The American Historical Review 67(3):609-625.

—. 1989. "Changing Paradigms: The collapse of Consensus History." The Journal of American History 76(2):460-466.

Monkkonen, Eric. 1979. "Systematic Criminal Justice History: Some Suggestions." Journal of Interdisciplinary History 9(3):451-464.

Read, Conyers. 1950. "The Social Responsibilities of the Historian." The American Historical Review LV(2):275-285.

Swierenga, Robert P. 1974. "Computers and American History: The Impact of the "New" Generation." The Journal of American History 60(4):1045-1070.

National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program. Washington Post. February 15, 2003

Criminal Justice –Does it use history?

The Study of History in 2003

Some Last Thoughts

Other Readings