The New Murrey and Blue blog

As a Librarian by degree and trade one of my major studies to earn my Master of Library and Information Science was to study Information Communities. My chosen study was to search for similarities and differences between amateur historians and those who have degrees in history of some specialty. Basically what it boiled down to was that there was no major differences in methodology used to research their topics. Both groups used primary (diaries, surveys, interviews, and people who experienced the era) secondary (research articles), and tertiary sources (dictionaries, monologues, textbooks).
Both cited information using one of the many citation guidelines (APA, MLA, etc).

The one big difference was that amateur historians usually focused on local histories and used local resources at hand. Thus primary sources such as interviews, diaries, etc were used more. However even that was similar to professionals in how they performed surveys and interviews if people were still alive and usually followed privacy laws when necessary. Many were retired and had an interest in local and familial genealogy more than say Richard III. Although some families are at least peripherally interested in finding someone such as Richard in their lines. However this often sparked an interest in a historical era to write about.

For example I found that on my maternal side I am descended from Lacey families in Meath, thus I have started to become interested in the history of Meath and England, primarily from the Wars of the Roses and how Ireland was affected. My paternal family is Spanish and Finnish, so I am curious as to how Spain and Finland worked with or against England.

The majority of amateur historians did have degrees or some form of higher education/training and were introduced to research methods at least for the 100 and 200 level courses (equivalent to an associate degree in the US). Therefore I would consider amateurs to be as knowledgeable about how to find and synthesize information as equal to most professional historians.

Those historians by history degree tend to put more weight on secondary and tertiary resources and those articles and books mentioning primary sources rather than reading them themselves (ie More, etc). Thus I think that a problem exists for studying topics such as the Wars of the Roses because professionals tend to use research previously done or primary sources like More that has been watered down/translated wrong/in the wrong context, then collate it, and finally come up with their own conclusions. Or repeat a conclusion by a previous historian.

Personally I think that amateur and professional historians should benefit from working together. They offer different perspectives about history. Curiosity that has not been hindered by career parameters can be an advantage while also reigned in for logic. Look at how the Looking for Richard project turned out. Whether or not one agrees with where Richard was reburied, the research by the RIII Society in combination with the university archaeologists etc was awesome. Neither would have found him in the time frame and resources needed without the other.

There is something to be said for having amateur historians who are not afraid to step out just enough to get the professionals to think.

So far my favorite “amateur” historian would have to be Matthew Lewis. I like that he researches like the law student he was but has passion for his historical writing, non-fiction and fiction alike. His knowledge of policies and the background for the policies in place during Richard’s life is something that many historians may not consider. History is often treated as less scientific and more ethereal than anthropology, sociology, and psychology all of which go into many legal degree paths, or as in my case library sciences in which I also focused much on law. Social sciences and humanities need to be involved with each other to figure out why someone behaved in a certain manner within the context of the society that person or group lived in.

While I don’t mind some professional historians I am finding myself wondering why there is so much laziness in repeating what has already been said about a historical person. I think it was a brilliant stroke of Phillipa Langley’s to bring in psychology to profile Richard within his social context. Risky for certain but it is shaking up the status quo of how Richard is viewed.

This makes me wonder how many others have been written into history with incorrect conclusions repeated by later generations. How much of the real story has changed to suit politics? For example Charles II was in political turmoil and what better way to get England to stop focusing on his shortcomings than to “find” the princes in the tower? I think that was a shrewd bit of propaganda that was still within a range of time that people thought about the princes and furthered the idea of Richard as a murderous tyrant rather than Charles being incompetent.

LikeLiked by 2 people

Interesting perspective. I think my favorite “amateur historian” is author Sharon Kay Penman, whose attention to detail and historical fact make her novels a delightful, rich reading experience.

From the perspective of an amateur historian myself, I agree with the assessment above. We have much in common with the pros in terms of sources, etc. However, my philosophy is that I need to put “boots on the ground” as much as possible when researching my novels and make primary sources my first choice.

LikeLiked by 2 people