Author Archive

Adina Langer

Judging History Day: Making history fun and relevant!

, , , , , , ,

What do exhibits about Marie Antoinette’s fashion and Ayatollah Khomeini’s political action, and websites about the invention of the toilet and the dissemination of the Pentagon Papers have in common?  They are all student entries in the National History Day competition that I’ve had the opportunity to review as a judge over the past seven years. Read More

Consultants survey

, , , , ,

Calling all consulting historians/historical consultants:

The National Council on Public History Consultants Committee is seeking responses to a survey that will help the committee determine how best to serve the consultant community. If you are a historical consultant or considering a career in consulting, please take a few moments to fill out the survey. Read More

Post Conference Review #6: The Ultimate Field Trip!

, , , , ,

Editor’s note: This post continues the series of conference city reviews published by The Public Historian in the Public History Commons

The Ultimate Field Trip! April 20, 2013.  NCPH Annual Meeting, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Created by: Canada Agriculture Museum. Tour Leader: Franz Klingender, Curator of Agriculture at the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation. Read More

Seventh monthly Consultants' Corner TweetChat

, , ,

Happy spring, all you consultants out in cyberspace! Monday, May 6th, will bring you our seventh monthly Consultants’ Corner Tweetchat. The chat will be held at 4:00 p.m. EST and the topic will be “international perspectives in historical consulting.” We hope you can join us, and we especially welcome consultants from nations outside the United States. Read More

Peer review in a world of professional practice

, , , ,

One of the reasons for creating History@Work (and its predecessor, “Off the Wall“) was to contribute to discussion about peer review in public history–where it happens, what gets reviewed, how professional public historians might locate their critiques in dialogue with critical commentary outside the field, and whether traditional scholarly peer review can capture and respond to the increasingly wide range of projects and products that come under the heading of “public history”–everything from apps to tweets. Read More