When public history goes global: Discussing international teaching practices

04 March 2013 – Thomas Cauvin

In a recent post on History@Work, Zachary McKiernan discussed the utility of an international vision of public history. In many ways, this post encapsulates the rising interest in public history practices outside North America. The recent creation of the International Federation for Public History (IFPH) is a prime example of this. The IFPH embodies the ideas recently put forth by Robert Weyeneth in his post “Writing locally, thinking globally.” The next annual NCPH meeting in Ottawa will bear the mark of this internationalization of public history, as many panels and activities will deal with projects and practices outside North America.

It is in this framework that the working group on public history teaching was designed.  Our working group is by no means the first attempt to address the teaching of public history. Its specificity lies in our wish to explore the international dimension of public history teaching practices. The idea of organizing such a working group emerged in the many conversations I have had with the members of the IFPH steering committee. My objective is to widen the scope of discussion on public history teaching practices and to take into consideration other programs that have blossomed in different parts of the world. Hence, the working group is composed of fourteen participants from eleven countries in North America, Europe, Asia, Australia, and Africa.

Obviously, the group shares similar interests (the tension between theory and practice, internship, and interdisciplinary projects) with other working groups such as the one on the “Best Practices for Establishing a Public History Program.” However, our wish is to discuss those issues in an international framework in order to start an (international) inventory of national programs, projects, and practices. Our case studies and discussions – to which you are warmly invited to contribute on this blog – are driven by these questions.

• First, we want to take into consideration the ways in which public history is taught in different parts of the world. We ask ourselves to what extent public history is similarly or differently taught in Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia. We think it is important to make an inventory of the various definitions of public history and their consequences for teaching practices. Public history may have different definitions and purposes in post-colonial (India) and post-conflict (South Africa) societies, and in former colonial empires (Britain, Holland). Public history can also be associated with “history from below” (community projects) or it may be state-sponsored.
• Next, we intend to question the process of internationalizing public history teaching and its possible tensions with local history projects. Based on different international collaboration programs, we debate the benefits and challenges of public history teaching. What is the additional value of international collaboration? Most importantly, how can we proceed (student and/or faculty exchange, internship, project, literature and case studies)? Could we foster collaboration through digital tools (blogs, websites, and online presentations)?
• We use the international composition of the working group as an opportunity to explore how the traditional tension between theory and practice can be overcome in public history teaching. We are particularly keen to appraise the benefits and challenges of mounting interdisciplinary public history projects with students.
• Finally, in line with the global theme of the conference, we would like to address the question of the “public” through a transnational prism. So we intend to reflect on the possible tension between national/local audiences in public history programs. Are public history teaching programs increasingly dealing with international audiences and if so how does it influence teaching practices?

This working group is designed to participate in the ongoing reflection on international public history, and we view the different themes of discussion as occasions to start inventories and to build bridges between public history programs in different countries. I will provide regular updates of our discussions on this blog and we look forward to your comments. Given the breadth of our objectives which are felt as core issues and goals for the IFPH, we would like to invite you to use History@Work to explore a wide range of issues related to the internationalization of public history.

~ Thomas Cauvin is one of the facilitators for the “Teaching Public History” Working Group.  He is currently a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center for European Studies in the Department of History at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, U.S.  The other members of the Working Group are Ciaran O’Neill (Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland), Bruno De Wever (Ghent University, Belgium), Paul Knevel (University of Amsterdam, Holland), Hanno Hochmuth (Free University Berlin, Germany), Catherine Brice (Université Paris-Est Créteil, France), Paul Litt (Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada), Geoff Ginn (University of Queensland, Australia), David Dean (Carleton University, Canada), Indira Chowdhury (Center for Public History, Bengaluru, India), Melissa Bingmann (West Virginia University, U.S.), Alix Green (University of Hertfordshire, U.K.), Sanna Guerin (Carleton University, Canada), and Julie Wells (Rhodes University, South Africa).