No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
PERHAPS no question is more fundamental to our profession than the query, distinguishes history from bad history? Yet to my knowledge, few have studied systematically how academicians, past and present, have answered this question. What criteria do scholars use to assess good history; how has the criteria shifted over the past several decades; and in what ways do changes in evaluative preferences reflect changes within the historical profession? A personal anecdote will explain my curiosity and illustrate the relevancy of investigating the art of book reviewing. Recently I received two reviews on a manuscript. One reviewer called the work on American religion innovative and specifically applauded its originality in method. The second reviewer labeled the work old fashioned history and concluded it lacked contemporary significance because it was not grounded in an anthropological model of religious development. Though reaching different conclusions, both reviewers sensed and endorsed an undercurrent of change in the practice of writing history. They disagreed only in that one praised the work as a book of the future, while the other condemned it as a work of the past. These divergent opinions stimulated me to think seriously about how each reviewer arrived at his conclusion. What does constitute history today, how does this compare with what was considered history a generation ago, and what can
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.