History in Practice

by Ludmilla Jordanova

How do the ways historians divide up their subject affect their work, and how have these divisions changed over the years? Why have certain fields, such as women's history and Black history, generated such intense debate about their value and validity? Is history a subject that primarily appropriates its theory from other disciplines? And what is the nature of the links between history and related disciplines, such as anthropology and literary theory?

In this lively and readable study, Ludmilla Jordanova examines the many changes in the study of history in recent decades. The nature and implications of the changes remain hotly contested, and Jordanova proves a reliable guide to the emerging discipline. She looks at what historians do, how their work is used in the wider world, and how their methods are continuing to evolve.

Ideal for undergraduates and general readers, the book provides an essential theoretical framework for anyone pursuing the study of history.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Academic, Grad School, American History

Paperback

First published January 1, 2000

Reviews

[Malcolm · Rating 3 out of 5]

When I was an undergraduate we didn't talk about History's methods, but we did talk about how it was written. Now, in a new academic context, where I am expected to teach History's methods Jordanova's text is one of the most useful and among my most valued – not because it is about the mechanics of doing History, but the process. Historical research is about collecting information, sorting it, and writing it into a compelling explanation that accounts for the partial nature of our evidence, and our partiality as researchers. She does so by reminding us that and challenging us to ensure that our historical analyses link to the cultural struggle around us, to the politics of the time we live in and are honest to the past we are exploring. She has made me a better historian.

[Kris McCracken · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit of a deviation from the year’s usual reading list, but I ran out of library books and resorted to digging in the cupboard for something to read.

This is firmly in the ‘academic history’ camp, so will not be for everyone’s tastes. However, if you are a bit of a history buff you will surely find something worthwhile. Jordanova explores how the study of history has dramatically altered in recent decades. She does an able job at exploring what historians do, and in particular, why and how there have been such sweeping changes to the discipline.

I’d happily recommend it to anyone with an interest in the topic.

[Liz Clappin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lets be honest, no one really likes historiography. Like the dentist its just something we all have to do. That being said is you have to do it, you could be a lot worse off than Jordanova. She's pragmatic (almost to a fault) and straightforward and resists drowning you in jargon. I think she can be a little harsh on both technology and the human factor of research sometimes, but then again she is an academic of a certain generation. Her examples are helpful and well chosen and overall this relatively compact book boils history and other related disciplines down to a manageable commodity.

[mantareads · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good return and reminder for the researcher reflecting on their own methods and motives, which is also to say that it's a great intro text for the history major (though I probably wouldn't have read this as closely or as resonantly without the benefit of the the research-writing marathon of my Master's)

[Alicia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesante, pero se me ha hecho ultra pesado. Quizás sea porque me gustó mucho el prólogo y luego se vuelve más tedioso, no lo sé.

[モーリー · Rating 3 out of 5]

I expected somewhat more insight out of this than I got. A lot of what Jordanova outlines and advocates for sounds like common sense to me already. Then again, I’ve already gone through a BA in history and a (more interdisciplinary) humanities PhD program. Perhaps this wouldn’t have been obvious to me before I was forced to reconsider my approaches and defend them in seminars. But I will stand by my complaint: it’s broad but not deep.

[David Areyzaga · Rating 3 out of 5]

A serviceable introductory reading to doing historical research and understanding the kind of contributions said research can offer to other disciplines and humanity. Overall, it's a friendly text for all sorts of students and those with enough curiosity to understand what's behind the "truths" you hear throughout life concerning our past and present.

[Lucia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Portions of this are good. But she uses several full paragraphs to explain something you could do in one an awful lot.

[Hillary Lewandowski · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have ADHD, and even MY brain doesn’t bounce around as much as the author does with her ideas in majority of the chapters. If I could give this book a 2.5, that would be more accurate. (Disclaimer: I’m reading this for my masters so take what I say with a grain of salt)
She covers all her ground, that’s for sure, and the ending made some of her loose ends tied up. Only reason it ended up getting a 3/5.
It would be good for, in my opinion, a history student about to graduate with their Bachelors in order to better understand how complicated history can be, and how often it’s interwoven into so many other disciplines. But as someone who teaches history, this sometimes read worse than one of my students’ papers. Repetitive, hard to follow at times, and “was this really needed here?”.

[Javier Abullarade · Rating 5 out of 5]

I great book that is more than what it was supposed to be. Jordanova narrates the history of History, but she also talks about the knots and bolts of the historian's trade, how to do research, hard and soft skills. But embeded in her seemingly straightforward and simple description of how to do History, she hides gems of knowledge, of deep wisdom regarding the nature of the making of history that I love to read. Great book!!!!!!! 100% recommended for historians :)

[Sue · Rating 4 out of 5]

Assigned this book for a graduate class. It was okay--not sure if I will assign it again.

[Megan]

NR Read for class

[emmalouise✨ · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was read as part of a module for my undergraduate history degree. It was one of those super general, compulsory units that all subjects tend to do. This one was based on the practice of history (hence this being on the pre-reading list) and how we remember past events. It mainly looked at how history is studied (academic history) and how that study of the past is translated to the general public (public history). Maybe I would have preferred it if I read it outside of the "I've got to read this book before X date because university" reason for it ever coming into my life, but we'll never know. It was a good introduction to these ideas but not the complete guide or a 'be-all and end-all' text. From my memory, it didn't go into the unconscious bias in what we know about the past (the effect of an illiterate poor, we're only told the winner's story, sources being destroyed, etc.) which is incredibly important in the reliability of what we consider to be historical fact, especially since the history given to the public doesn't tend to come with notes on 'interpretations' and how conclusions are reached. My own bias also affects my reading since being a disabled, working-class woman, I am very aware of what I've typed above, how the study of history is dominated by people with the most power (white, straight, cisgender, middle-class + men) and how elitist it can be.

[Lauren · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a really good overview of the profession of a historian, and how the discipline of history works. What I didn’t like was the author’s writing style and pretentious tone at times. There is also some assumptions that you already know some of her references. The vocabulary she uses might be because she’s British and I’m an American. This book is more extensive than Sarah Maza’s Thinking About History, but if I were to choose a book to recommend to a fellow grad student, it would be that one before this one. Just a matter of personal preference.

[Sannie Hald · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read three chapters for uni!