Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Historian’s Toolkit

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
History, Policy and Public Purpose

  • 781 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter focuses on a selection of five conceptual ‘tools’ particularly relevant for historians in government: patterning time; weaving context; analysing relations; integrating evidence; and persuading audiences. The chapter draws on a wide range of literature, including political science, cognitive psychology, sociology and law, as well as history and historical theory, and seeks to explain the value and importance of historians’ habits of mind to addressing the issues and dilemmas of the present. In focusing on the historian’s toolkit, the chapter is relevant not just to policymaking but also to other complex settings, such as businesses, charities and educational and cultural institutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, for example: R. C. Williams, The Historian’s Toolbox: A Student’s Guide to the Theory and Craft of History (New York: ME Sharpe, 2011); D. Cohen and M. O’Connor, Comparison and History: Europe in Cross-National Perspective (London: Routledge, 2004); G. Lind, ‘A Toolbox for Historical Computing,’ History and Computing 10, no. 1–3 (1998).

  2. 2.

    R. Ashby and C. Edwards, ‘Challenges Facing the Disciplinary Tradition: Reflections on the History Curriculum in England,’ in Contemporary Public Debates over History Education, ed. E. n. Nakou and I. Barca (Greenwich, Conn.: Information Age, 2010), pp. 34–5.

  3. 3.

    L. Jordanova, History in Practice, 2nd ed. (London: Hodder Arnold, 2006), p. 112.

  4. 4.

    L. O. Mink, ‘The Autonomy of Historical Understanding,’ History and Theory 5, no. 1 (1966), p. 32.

  5. 5.

    For the commitment to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, see: The Conservative Party, ‘The Conservative Party Manifesto.’ (2015). The agreement between the P5+1 group (US, UK, France, China and Russia, plus Germany) with Iran on limiting its nuclear activities in return for the lifting of sanctions was reached in July 2015. See: K. Katzmann, ‘Iran Nuclear Agreement.’ (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2015). This is, interestingly, an example of the legislative reference work discussed in chapter 2.

  6. 6.

    R. E. Neustadt and E. R. May, Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision-Makers (New York: Free Press, 1986), pp. 235–6.

  7. 7.

    Thinking in Time, pp. 236, 51. The idea of oscillation echoes the ‘dialogue between past and present’, the ‘reciprocal questioning’ that Bédarida argues has pedigree back to the liberal historians of the nineteenth century: F. Bédarida, ‘The Modern Historian’s Dilemma: Conflicting Pressures from Science and Society,’ The Economic History Review 40, no. 3 (1987), p. 346.

  8. 8.

    L. Jordanova, History in Practice, pp. 105–25.

  9. 9.

    J. E. Zelizer, ‘Introduction: New Directions in Policy History,’ Journal of Policy History 17, no. 1 (2005), p. 3.

  10. 10.

    S. Lloyd, Charity and Poverty in England, C.1680–1820: Wild and Visionary Schemes (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2010), p. 2. ‘Archives of the otherwise’ is also Lloyd’s.

  11. 11.

    D. J. Staley, History and Future: Using Historical Thinking to Imagine the Future (Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2006).

  12. 12.

    On trends: R. G. Stakenas and P. Soifer, ‘Models and Historical Data in Public Policy Analysis,’ in History and Public Policy, ed. D. B. Mock (Malabar, Fla.: Krieger, 1991).

  13. 13.

    P. N. Stearns, ‘History and Policy Analysis: Toward Maturity,’ The Public Historian 4, no. 3 (1982), pp. 19–20.

  14. 14.

    On the evaluation of the direction of change as a ‘procedural concept’ in the education of history students: S. Levesque, Thinking Historically: Educating Students for the Twenty-First Century (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008), chapter 4.

  15. 15.

    Similarly, in discussions concerning the relevance of political science methodologies, scepticism has been expressed about ‘why large n studies would have any intrinsic tendency to focus on questions either less or more interesting than those examined in other kinds of studies’: P. J. Steinberger, ‘Reforming the Discipline: Some Doubts,’ in Perestroika!: The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science, ed. K. R. Monroe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005).

  16. 16.

    M. Hufford, ‘Context,’ The Journal of American Folklore 108, no. 430 (1995).

  17. 17.

    D. E. Ashford, ed. History and Context in Comparative Public Policy (Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1992), p. 13.

  18. 18.

    M. Bevir and R. A. W. Rhodes, The State as Cultural Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).

  19. 19.

    B. A. Scharfstein, The Dilemma of Context (New York: New York University Press, 1991), p. 1.

  20. 20.

    S. S. Wineburg, Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001), p. 21.

  21. 21.

    R. E. Neustadt and E. R. May, Thinking in Time, pp. 252, 45.

  22. 22.

    ‘Placement’ is Neustadt and May’s term: Thinking in Time, pp. 238–9, 48.

  23. 23.

    L. P. Masur, ‘Stephen Jay Gould’s Vision of History,’ The Massachusetts Review 30, no. 3 (1989), p. 472.

  24. 24.

    O. L. Graham, Jnr., ‘The Uses and Misuses of History: Roles in Policymaking,’ The Public Historian 5, no. 2 (1983), p. 11. See also: E. C. Hargrove, ‘History, Political Science and the Study of Leadership,’ Polity 36, no. 4 (2004), pp. 593, 82.

  25. 25.

    M. Kutz, Contextual Intelligence (Perrysbury, Oh.: RTG Publishing, 2013), pp. 11–12. Also: R. M. Jarvis, P. G. Coleman, and G. L. Richmond, ‘Contextual Thinking: Why Law Students (and Lawyers) Need to Know History,’ Wayne Law Review 42 (1995).

  26. 26.

    J. L. Gaddis, The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

  27. 27.

    R. Scully, British Images of Germany: Admiration, Antagonism & Ambivalence, 1860–1914 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).

  28. 28.

    ‘Organising mind of the historian’ is from M. Fulbrook, Historical Theory (Abingdon: Routledge, 2002), p. 117; On history’s ability to oversee and to integrate disparate forms of knowledge, see: V. Berridge and P. Strong, ‘Aids and the Relevance of History,’ Social History of Medicine 4, no. 1 (1991). J. Guldi and D. Armitage, The History Manifesto (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014).

  29. 29.

    Connecting contextual thinking and structural thinking: D. J. Staley, History and Future, pp. 72–3.

  30. 30.

    S. Mandelbaum, ‘The Past in Service to the Future,’ in History and Public Policy, ed. D. B. Mock (Malabar, Fla.: Krieger, 1991), p. 48.

  31. 31.

    M. Fulbrook, Historical Theory, p. 130.

  32. 32.

    S. Mandelbaum, ‘The Past in Service to the Future,’ p. 50.

  33. 33.

    I take ‘sedimentation’ from S. Lloyd and J. Moore, ‘Sedimented Histories: Connections, Collaborations and Co-Production in Regional History,’ History Workshop Journal 80, no. 1 (2015).

  34. 34.

    On scenario-planning, see: K. Van der Heijden, Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation, 2nd ed. (Chichester: Wiley, 2005).

  35. 35.

    D. J. Staley, History and Future, p. 50–2.

  36. 36.

    On connecting history and future through imagination, see: W. W. Wagar, ‘Past and Future,’ in Advancing Futures: Futures Studies in Higher Education, ed. J. A. Dator (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2002), p. 83.

  37. 37.

    S. Berger, ‘Comparative History,’ in Writing History: Theory and Practice, ed. S. Berger, H. Feldner, and K. Passmore (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2010), p. 187.

  38. 38.

    L. Jordanova, History in Practice, p. 152.

  39. 39.

    J. Kocka, ‘Comparison and Beyond,’ History and Theory 42, no. 1 (2003).

  40. 40.

    J. L. Gaddis, The Landscape of History, p. 25; C. Lemon, The Discipline of History and the History of Thought (London: Routledge, 2002), p. 26.

  41. 41.

    V. H. Galbraith, An Introduction to the Study of History (London: C. A. Watts & Co., 1964), p. 59.

  42. 42.

    See: G. McGovern, ‘The Historian as Policy Analyst,’ The Public Historian 11, no. 2 (1989).

  43. 43.

    See for example: M. B. Hesse, Models and Analogies in Science (Note Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1966); D. Hofstadter, Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought (New York: Basic Books, 2008); E. T. Penrose, ‘Biological Analogies in the Theory of the Firm,’ The American Economic Review (1952).

  44. 44.

    On international relations and politics, see, for example: M. Breuning, ‘The Role of Analogies and Abstract Reasoning in Decision-Making: Evidence from the Debate over Truman’s Proposal for Development Assistance,’ International Studies Quarterly 47, no. 2 (2003); S. B. Dyson and T. Preston, ‘Individual Characteristics of Political Leaders and the Use of Analogy in Foreign Policy Decision Making,’ Political Psychology 27, no. 2 (2006). On analogies for present-day problems, see: M. J. Peterson, ‘The Use of Analogies in Developing Outer Space Law,’ International Organization 51, no. 2 (1997); Diane Vaughan, ‘NASA Revisited: Theory, Analogy, and Public Sociology,’ American Journal of Sociology 112, no. 2 (2006).

  45. 45.

    F. Bédarida, ‘The Modern Historian’s Dilemma,’ pp. 342–3.

  46. 46.

    R. E. Neustadt and E. R. May, Thinking in Time, p. 235; P. N. Stearns and J. A. Tarr, ‘Applied History: A New-Old Departure,’ The History Teacher 14, no. 4 (1981), p. 522.

  47. 47.

    W. A. Achenbaum, ‘The Making of an Applied Historian: Stage Two,’ The Public Historian 5, no. 2 (1983), p. 34.

  48. 48.

    R. E. Neustadt and E. R. May, Thinking in Time, p. 48.

  49. 49.

    J. A. Rosati, ‘The Power of Human Cognition in the Study of World Politics,’ International Studies Review 2, no. 3 (2000), p. 50.

  50. 50.

    S. Levesque, Thinking Historically, pp. 40–1.

  51. 51.

    J. Kocka, ‘Comparison and Beyond,’ p. 40.

  52. 52.

    R. E. Neustadt and E. R. May, Thinking in Time, pp. 39–43. Truman’s three analogies were: Japan’s seizure of Manchuria in 1931–2; Italy’s aggression against Ethiopia in 1935; Hitler’s annexation of Austria in 1938. The authors add the Rhineland crisis of 1936, the Czech crisis of 1938 and the Spanish Civil War, 1936–9.

  53. 53.

    L. Jordanova, History in Practice, p. 72; M. Fulbrook, Historical Theory, p. 116.

  54. 54.

    The comparative method/perspective distinction is made by: W. H. Sewell, Jr., ‘Marc Bloch and the Logic of Comparative History,’ History and Theory 6, no. 2 (1967), p. 218. See also: M. Rahikainen and S. Fellman, ‘On Historical Writing and Evidence,’ in Historical Knowledge: In Quest of Theory, Method and Evidence, ed. M. Rahikainen and S. Fellman (2012), pp. 27–8.

  55. 55.

    See: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/foresight-projects [accessed 7th August 2015].

  56. 56.

    M. Hayashi, ‘The Care of Older People in Japan: Myths and Realities of Family ‘Care’.’ (History and Policy, 2011); C. Ward, ‘The Hidden History of Housing.’ (History and Policy, 2004).

  57. 57.

    M. Werner and B. Zimmermann, ‘Beyond Comparison: Histoire Croisée and the Challenge of Reflexivity,’ History and Theory 45, no. 1 (2006), p. 9.

  58. 58.

    ‘Beyond Comparison,’ pp. 21–23.

  59. 59.

    C. Lemon, Discipline of History, p. 37.

  60. 60.

    J. Guldi and D. Armitage, The History Manifesto, p. 110; L. Jordanova, History in Practice, 3rd ed. (London: Hodder Arnold, forthcoming).

  61. 61.

    M. Fulbrook, Historical Theory, pp. 68, 109.

  62. 62.

    L. Jordanova, History in Practice, p. 171.

  63. 63.

    M. Fulbrook, Historical Theory, p. 67.

  64. 64.

    J. Guldi and D. Armitage, The History Manifesto, p. 110; J. Tosh, Why History Matters (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), p. 39.

  65. 65.

    O. L. Graham, Jnr., ‘The Uses and Misuses of History,’ p. 11. See also: J. L. Gaddis, The Landscape of History, p. 69.

  66. 66.

    V. Berridge, ‘Thinking in Time: Does Health Policy Need History as Evidence?,’ The Lancet 375, no. 9717 (2010), p. 798.

  67. 67.

    Gaddis relates an anecdote about William H. McNeill that makes exactly this point about historical and scientific methods: J. L. Gaddis, The Landscape of History, p. 48.

  68. 68.

    On identifying remnants/traces as evidence: D. J. Staley, History and Future, pp. 47–50, also pp. 50–2 on ampliative inferences; J. Kalela, Making History: The Historians and the Uses of the Past (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), pp. 28–33.

  69. 69.

    D. MacRae and D. Whittington, Expert Advice for Policy Choice: Analysis and Discourse (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1997), p. 342.

  70. 70.

    S. S. Wineburg, Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts, xi, p. 52.

  71. 71.

    M. Fulbrook, Historical Theory, p. 108. On the same theme of openness to evaluation: D. J. Staley, History and Future, p. 65; J. Kalela, Making History, p. 41.

  72. 72.

    L. Jordanova, History in Practice, p. 161.

  73. 73.

    A. Offer, ‘Using the Past in Britain: Retrospect and Prospect,’ The Public Historian 6, no. 4 (1984), p. 34.

  74. 74.

    A. R. Louch, ‘History as Narrative,’ History and Theory 8, no. 1 (1969), p. 63; M. Fulbrook, Historical Theory, p. 192.

  75. 75.

    Matthew Flinders’ concept of ‘triple writing’ of research—in academic, then practitioner and finally public forms—extends, but does not challenge the basic model separating enquiry from dissemination: ‘The Tyranny of Relevance and the Art of Translation,’ Political Studies Review 11, no. 2 (2013), p. 162.

  76. 76.

    Historical Theory, pp. 134–5.

  77. 77.

    Mandelbaum uses the metaphor of a medical consultation: S. Mandelbaum, ‘The Past in Service to the Future,’ pp. 51–2.

  78. 78.

    See ‘Principles and Standards for Federal Historical Programs’ of the Society for History in the Federal Government: http://shfg.org/shfg/programs/professional-standards/ [accessed 5/9/2015].

  79. 79.

    D. Paton, ‘Interpreting the Bicentenary in Britain,’ Slavery and Abolition 30, no. 2 (2009), p. 278.

  80. 80.

    M. Rahikainen and S. Fellman, ‘On Historical Writing and Evidence.’ In Britain, this is being incentivised in the assessment of the impact of scholarship in the REF: the idea that research can change people’s views and understandings of the world.

  81. 81.

    S. Mandelbaum, ‘The Past in Service to the Future,’ pp. 50–1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Central Lancashire, Lancashire, UK

    Alix R. Green

Authors
  1. Alix R. Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Green, A.R. (2016). The Historian’s Toolkit. In: History, Policy and Public Purpose. Palgrave Pivot, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52086-9_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52086-9_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-52085-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-52086-9

  • eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation