Situated at the axis of societal issues and academic research, the renewed popularity
of applied history has raised several questions about its practice. The most direct
questions come from non-academic partners. What can one expect of applied
historians? How will those expectat ions be met? What if the methods and tools of
applied history fall short of their goal? And is it even that important that organizations
learn to think about the past , when they are oriented towards the present and future?
Other questions stem from academic concerns. Is applied history more than a
reiteration of public history? Do societal questions and concerns have a place within
academic history departments? And if so, what are the ethical boundaries of this type
of research?
Some of these topics remain open questions. Some have been eloquently answered.
Some remain subject of (fierce) discussion. Therefore, this third Corvus applied history
workshop joins academic and non-academic expertise in order to assess and debate
the value of applied history practices in different sectors.
Discussants:
Thomas Cauvin,
Associate Professor of Public History, Luxembourg Centre for Contemporary and
Digital History (C²DH)
Gill Bennett OBE
Senior Associate Fellow, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) Historians
Pieter Huistra
Assistant Professor Theory of History, University of Utrecht
Jason Steinhauer
Global Fellow, The Wilson Center
Koen Vandenweyer
Delegation of Flanders to the European Union
Alexandra Van den Berghe
Corvus Research Project, KU Leuven
Programme:
9.15am : Welcome
9.30am : New name, old practices? *(what is already out there)*
11am : Coffee break
11.30am : Where, when, how? *(what should be out there)*
1pm : Lunch break
2pm : What (not) to do? *(what should not be out there)*
3.30pm : Conclusions
3.45pm : End
Starting questions:
9.30am : New name, old practices? *(what is already out there)*
In these last few years t he notion of ‘Applied History’ has seen renewed popular ity.
Proponents thereby often promise to reinvigorate the ‘long lost pr actice’ of using histor y
in the present. Yet teachers, journalists, archivists, politicians, mar keteers and many
others (including academics) have never stopped applying history in their professional
activit ies. So do you think that there is already enough ‘applied history’ out there,
particularly in your sector?
11.30am : Where, when, how? *(what should be out there)*
The ‘next step’ in Applied History is usually considered to be the development of new
ways of applying historical insight to issues in the present . This of course begs the
question what those methods should be designed to do – what issues deserve attent ion
and which new methods and tools look promising? In other words, what can or should
applied history try to achieve as its ‘next step’?
2pm : What (not) to do? *(what should not be out there)*
Not everybody believes that applying past insights to present concerns is a good idea.
Some see no value in historical information, nor in historical thinking. Others fear the
applicat ion of history in the present, as uses of the past become abuses of the past far
too quickly. Therefor e, what do you think should be absolutely avoided when ‘doing ’
applied history?
Diese Publikation in unserem institutionellen Repositorium (orbi.lu) anzeigen.
