The value of history (Part 1)

28 February 2014 – Kathy Shinnick

Editor’s note: During the fall of 2013, the NCPH Consultants Committee distributed a survey to the NCPH consultants community in order to learn more about the community’s members and how best to serve them.  This piece is part of a series examining the results of that survey.

Kathy Shinnick is standing at the International Tennis Hall of Fame in front of her guest-curated exhibit Tennis and Hollywood. This is one of many rewarding opportunities available only as low- or no-paying internships. Photo credit: Kathy Shinnick

When I changed careers from sales to public history I did so in the spirit of some great advice, “Choose a profession that allows you to do something you would be willing to do for free.” I just don’t think I realized how much of it I actually would be doing for free or at least cheap. Sound familiar?

The history dollar is short. It has to go a long way to feed us all. Part of that problem is simply because there are so many of us. Part of the problem is in the way history is valued by society, our consumer. Part of the “problem” is not necessarily a problem at all as history is often viewed through the lens of education that should be free (or cheap) and available to those who are ready to learn. However, part of the problem also lies with how we, as public historians, value or understand the value of our work.

Throughout the country public historians are earning income at a variety of levels, arguably none of which match the true value of their expertise. Highly educated historians are asking themselves how much “info-tainment” and “Mickey Mouse history” they must produce to justify their positions in generated dollars. Many historic sites are finding it necessary to drive their main source of income through event planning rather than historical interpretation. Meanwhile, consultants are just trying to get their toe in the door. It’s a dog-eat-dog world for the history consultant who would love to find a way to work on challenging projects but at times will settle for any project at all.

Two years ago, with this backdrop in the forefront of our minds, the NCPH Consultants Committee hosted a workshop at the 2012 Annual Conference. We asked the hard question, “What is history worth?” More importantly what are our jobs worth? What is a history consultant’s hour worth? What we found was a series of difficult answers.

Before the roundtable discussion even began we knew we had a problem. Larger firms, who could clearly state the parameters of their industry fees and standards, were understandably unwilling to share. They were sitting at a table with their lead competitors knowing that price can often be the competitive edge that secures a piece of business. Independent consultants were much more willing to share but could not help each other as much as they had hoped. The variables that determined their rates, such as region, type of job, scope of project, educational background, and employer category, rendered the data difficult to translate. In many ways we left the workshop more confused than we entered.

A few key perspectives seemed to rise to the surface. Consulting firms consisting of five or more employees were clear that they do not desire to share their fees with one another. However, individual consultants expressed a belief that they stand to benefit from joint organization. While everyone at the workshop understood that sharing rates could affect competition, the hope remained that collaboration would help stabilize our industry. No one seemed to have a consensus on the hourly rate for a working public historian. We realized that not only do we not know what we can expect to make, we do not seem to understand the overall monetary value of our work, as it is often a moving target. If we, as a group, do not know what our work is worth we cannot expect our employers to know or respect our proposals.

Within a network of independent and often distant competitors, everyone can benefit from the sharing of ideas. We can work to create standards, help prospective consultants decide if this is a viable field for them, guide new consultants and veteran consultants to realize their value in wages, and command respect for our proposed rates from employers. By avoiding these options we are perpetuating a pattern that undercuts our industry. Every time a consultant is willing to work for $20 an hour, they lessen the value of the same work for which someone else has been charging $100 an hour. Some of this is left for the free market to decide. But some of it can be directed.

In her December 20^th post Morgen Young outlined the ways in which the Australian Council of Professional Historians Association (ACPHA) works as a unit to communicate fee standards, honor the expertise of all members, and promote independent history consultants to potential employers. They provide a one-stop-shop website to guide employers towards finding a history consultant that matches their project.

American history consultants and their employers alike could stand to benefit greatly from this type of organization. We have a chance to come together. But first we must believe that if we are able to set industry guidelines as a group, we will be able to command higher fees as individuals. We must believe that guiding young and veteran consultants toward upholding those standards is more valuable than simply trying to undercut our peers. We must stop allowing a substandard value to permeate our field, lest we create a pattern of attracting lower quality entrants. In short, we must, as public historians, determine the monetary value of history. Then we must stand together to secure that value so that we can continue to enjoy our passion as a way to make a living and not just a way to give away our intellectual value as a means of free or cheap labor.

Coming Soon: A review of the recent NCPH Consultant’s Committee Survey will analyze the financial data collected towards the end of creating industry standards.

~ Kathy Shinnick is an independent public historian. Her work focuses on exhibit curation, museum education, and historical research and writing with a specialty in commemorative history surrounding 19th- and 20th-century American wars and sports.