Sergey Alekseev: “My profession is a historian. Historian Humanities What does a historian do?

• Historian of the ages
• Historian of personalities
• Modern historian
• History teacher
• Historian-reenactor

Wage

• from 20,000 ₽ Beginner specialist
• up to 40,000 ₽ Leading specialist

Work schedule and nature of work

• Movable schedule
• Distant work
  Office work
  

What does a historian do?

• Study of events in human history
• the study of individual facts and events and their impact on the course of history
• Forecasting future events
• Publication of research results in scientific and journalistic literature, the press
• Search for historical facts for personal requests (history of a family, person, buildings, urban spaces)

What qualities should a historian have?

• Love for old things and books
• Ability to search for information and compare facts
• Good memory for dates, facts, names and events
• Perseverance, readiness for routine work

Books for self-development

• James George Frazer "The Golden Bough"

  Having devoted his life to the study of folkloristics and the history of religion, J. Frazer collected a wealth of factual material, which allowed him, using the comparative historical method, to show the connection between modern religions and primitive beliefs, and to identify the earthly sources of the religious worldview. This book will open the world of mysterious antiquity to the novice historian.

• Dominique Barthelemy "Chivalry. From ancient Germany to 12th century France"

  Dominique Barthelemy's book on chivalry bears little resemblance to traditional studies of this phenomenon in medieval Europe and covers the period. The French historian considers knighthood not only as a specific military caste that appeared in the context of political changes in the 10th-11th centuries, but as a cultural phenomenon that had a decisive influence on the formation of the civilization of the Western European Middle Ages.

• Carlo Ginzburg "Cheese and worms. A picture of the world of a miller who lived in the 16th century."

  Famous Italian historian, one of the founders of "microhistory"; reconstructs the biography and spiritual world of the “dissident”; XVI century - a Friulian miller who, in an era of strict ideological dictate, dared to express his opinion on all the cardinal issues of existence.

I would watch a TV show like this
in which teenagers describe
your favorite Instagrams
veterans of World War II.

The profession of a historian is a service to our country and the protection of our history. And also - the ability to hit an enemy in the face, insolent with permissiveness. This is the opinion of bastard patriots.

Here's what other thinkers offer us:

A historian who deliberately keeps silent about events commits no less a deception than one who invents something that never happened. Ammianus Marcellinus

History is the witness of times, the light of truth, the life of memory, the messenger of antiquity. Cicero

A historian who studies the past can only approach objectivity if he approaches an understanding of the past. Edward Carr

In modern Russia, unfortunately, the first point of view dominates. We are asked to talk about the past of our country as if it were dead: either well or not at all. And passions flare up. Wild laws are being adopted on the “falsification of national history”, on preventing revisions of the results of the Second World War, and so on.

The 20th century worries too many people. There are completely opposite points of view on the events of this turbulent century. But only a few years have passed, and most of us lived in the twentieth century.

It is difficult to imagine the reaction of “patriots” if professional, and most importantly, honest historians appear in our country, who will present to us and justify the history of our country in the 13th or 16th century. What unsolved mysteries await us?

It seems that half of the school textbooks on Russian history can be safely thrown into the trash, where, by the way, they belong.

But there are only a few such historians now. And, alas, their voices are drowned in the hysteria and salivation of the sovereign statists, who for some reason think that we should only be proud of our history and not stir up the past.

The history of Russia is an unknown land. There are a lot of white spots in it. And someday we will learn the real history of our country. Let's get to know her for who she really was.

Although unlikely...

History studies the life of mankind over several thousand years. You can highlight the history of the ancient world, the Middle Ages, and the history of modern times.

The main work of a historian is the collection and interpretation of historical information by conducting research and surveys, working with archival materials and documents. He must read the ancient text, determine the author, addressee, date of writing, type of document, then synthesize information from the source and information about the source and interpret the data received.

In this he is helped by such special disciplines as numismatics, heraldry, sphragistics (the science of seals), paleography, etc. Each expert in his field specializes in a specific area: the history of primitive society, the ancient world, the Middle Ages, modern times, the history of individual countries and peoples.

Some specialists study and comprehend industrial history (economics, military affairs, politics, geography, etc.).

Many people are attracted to the history of culture (music, theater, visual arts, etc.) or science (physics, mathematics, biology, etc.).

It is believed that the main activities of historians are as follows:

- study of events in the life of mankind, as a historical aspect;

— detailed study of factors that influence the course of historical events in the sphere of politics, economics and culture;

- forecasting events that may take place in history, based on studies of cause-and-effect relationships between known historical events;

- study and possible interpretation of primary sources of a historical nature, respectively, of a particular era. This applies to biographies, letters, manuscripts, chronicles, etc.

— coverage of research results in both scientific, journalistic and artistic forms;

— the ability to conduct scientific experiments using techniques and achievements in other scientific fields;

— improvement of already known research methods and development of new ones;

— direct presence during archaeological work.

Personal qualities

A penchant for the humanities, an analytical mind, a good memory for dates, facts, names and events, perseverance, readiness for routine work.

Education (What do you need to know?)

Special historical disciplines, historical geography, foreign languages, literature.

University specialties

Place of work and career

Historians, as a rule, work in university departments, in museums, and launch their own projects of lectures and seminars, with which they travel all over the world.

Depending on the field, history and historians form the following departments: General History, History of the Ancient World, including the history of Ancient Rome and Greece, Medieval History, Modern History, Contemporary History, Ethnography, Archeology, Cultural Studies and many others that have their own specific features and characteristics.

Related professions:

Where to study?

There is no historian who does not study social history. Even if he says that he is not involved in it, I will easily explain that this is not so... The most urgent task is to prepare historians who could work at a basic level, but having already mastered the whole wealth of new approaches and methods. There will be great demand for such researchers.

Pavel Yuryevich, how would you rate the interest in historical science and the profession of a historian - does it not fade if you compare it with the years of the 1990s?
- The attractiveness of the historical profession is quite high. And its social significance is now realized to an even greater extent than 10–15 years ago. Then you could often hear conversations - in a taxi, with random fellow travelers: why is this story needed at all? physics is a clear matter, it’s needed... Nowadays you won’t hear that anymore.
History is needed to gain and confirm one's own identity. The country, the people, the social group have a history - they exist. If not, history will be written and explained for them by others, and then the chances of survival for these groups or peoples are slim. This, by the way, was especially well realized in the post-Soviet republics, where statehood was recently restored or rediscovered and where the process of nationalization or sovereignization of history is underway.

- And is there a high “demand” for historians there?
- It’s not that there is a high demand - rather, there is a state order for history. There is an understanding in people's minds: the previous history is not satisfactory, it needs to be rethought. Therefore, for example, in Ukraine, which is not as rich in hydrocarbons as Russia, historians earn more than their Russian colleagues - because there is a conviction: the future of Ukraine, the preservation of its national identity, largely depends on the corresponding version of the historical past. Similar processes are observed in the states of Central Asia. In Uzbekistan, for example, textbooks and general works are written, where the entire period from the 1860s to 1991 is called colonial, with all the ensuing consequences...

That is, today the agenda is one version of history, tomorrow – another. Don't you think that all this has a negative impact on the image of the profession?
- There is such a problem. Both public opinion and the community of historians react painfully to it. The first is quite natural, although there is nothing more changeable than mass ideas about the past. According to the “rules of the game,” the past seems unshakable and not subject to revision. The second is surprising: it was clear before, and especially now, after all the discoveries made in the field of intellectual history, the history of memory, the history of historical writing - it has become obvious that the historian does not record the picture of the past once and for all. Rather, he acts as a translator who asks questions of a bygone era that interest his contemporaries. Like a shaman, he connects the kingdoms of the living and the dead, only in his hands he does not have a tambourine and mallets, but methods of historical analysis. If a historian asks questions that are not important to his society, he simply will not be heard. If he only asks about what interests his contemporaries at the moment, he will turn out to be a journalist. But if he can predict what will interest society in 5-10 years, he will become an interesting historian.

But at the same time, of course, there are certain rules: the historian must remain a scientist, he must not ignore facts that do not fit into his concept. If he ignores them, what kind of professional is he? But if he engages in dialogue, listens to the arguments of those who object to him, supports his opinion with sources and is ready to change it if the criticism turns out to be irrefutable, then it’s a different matter.

Therefore, by the way, there is hope that history does not necessarily serve to increase hostility between peoples, it can also serve to establish harmony. After the First World War, the French poet and philosopher Paul Valéry called history “the most dangerous product of the chemistry of the human brain.” And he was largely right. After all, why did the soldiers not leave the trenches for four years and fight to the death? This was largely due to the conviction: the French - that they defended the great French history, the Germans - that they defended the great German history. There were, of course, other reasons, but to a large extent it was the work of historians, who were so successful in creating national versions of history, that led to the disaster of the First World War. That is why it is so important for historians to learn to negotiate with each other, to understand the historical relativity of the concept that they undertake to defend. This work is an important part of the historical profession.

It’s clear how interest in history is formed. As a rule, this is one of the most exciting subjects in school. That’s why many people enroll in history departments, but then leave the profession. What determines whether a graduate will become a historian or researcher after graduation? In what cases does interest become professional?
- There is no single algorithm - the reasons are different. Some people study history out of a sense of understandable escapism - they escape from a reality that does not suit them. In our country, this feeling is especially developed and explains why people work in research institutions for symbolic wages and still feel comfortable.
Some yearn for orderly scientific knowledge and spiritual life; this sphere seems to them less mercantile. Our educational tradition is associated with such concepts as service and mission. And the historian is often perceived as the bearer of some special knowledge designed to make people better. By the way, there are those who, having received a history education, get a job in commercial companies, and then go to scientific institutes simply because they need something else to do; history is an outlet for them.
It is curious that interesting historians come from those who have received their first technical education - those who graduated from Physics and Technology, Mendeleevka, etc. They have a strong research streak and have achieved great heights in history. But for some reason, Tolkienists, who seem to be passionate about the topic of the past, rarely turn out to be historians.

Is the work of a historian really that interesting? Surely this is working in archives with documents - daily painstaking work.
- In fact, books about historians and how they work are read with no less interest than books on history. There are two traditions. Some believe that it is not the reader’s job to understand the complexities and difficulties that a historian encounters in his work. Others, on the contrary, believe that the way the historian came to conclusions is as interesting as the story itself, and deliberately include working details in the narrative - so to speak, the scaffolding is not removed. Sometimes it is much more interesting to watch how a person reaches his conclusions than to look at the result of his work. Like in a detective story, you follow the author, see where he made mistakes, reached a dead end, etc. Why, for example, is archeology so popular? Not only because there are interesting finds there – it’s the romance of the search that attracts people. The movement of human thought is more interesting than ready-made answers.

- How does the nature of the work of a historian change over time? Are there any technical innovations emerging?
- A lot is changing. A colossal shift has occurred in archeology in recent years. Gone are the field expeditions in which, for example, I took part 20-30 years ago, swinging a shovel. Archaeologists are now equipped with computers, new instruments and make discoveries without destroying monuments, following so-called minimally invasive methods.

There are also changes in more traditional areas of history - thanks to the Internet, databases and even digitized archival documents are becoming increasingly accessible. Although working with Russian archives is now even more difficult than under Soviet rule: during the week you can look at a limited number of documents. But this, I think, is not due to the fact that something is being specially closed, but to the fact that there is no one to work in the archives.
In general, history - although many argue with this - is a cumulative science: the new here does not cancel the old, but is added to it. And, one way or another, the criteria for professionalism are the same - following traditional rules and principles. It’s one thing for a historian to go into an archive and read real 16th-century cursive, but it’s quite another thing for him to study what some American historian said. You can work this way, and defend your dissertation much faster this way, but in the historical community, in any case, there is its own “table of ranks” - according to the Hamburg count, they know who is who.

- This is not the first year you have been giving lectures to history students - what can you say about the level of their preparation?
- In my opinion, there is always a small percentage of students who don’t need anything at all, there is an average stratum - who study just because, and there is a small number - about ten percent - of those who are really very interested in what they do. I have seen this in all the teams I have worked with.
As for the preparation of students, the themes here are obvious - on the one hand, the level of preparation has dropped significantly due to the Unified State Exam test system, on the other, students now have much more information opportunities than before. They can immediately check any fact on Wikipedia, and this forces teachers to approach their work differently. There is a study by the American anthropologist Margaret Mead on the typology of childhood, according to which there are three types of cultures: a society can be postfigurative, when adults teach children, configurative, when children teach each other, and prefigurative, when children teach adults. Now the third model is showing itself very clearly - students can teach the teacher a lot: how to use social networks, work on the Internet, etc.

Next year, a new master’s program “Social History of Russia and the West” will open at the Higher School of Economics. What are the features of the work of a historian specializing in social history? What does the term mean?
- In a broad sense, absolutely everything can be classified as social history: there is no historian who does not study social history. Even if he says that he is not involved in it, I will easily explain that this is not so. After all, the name social can be applied to history if the scientist proceeds from the understanding that historical events and phenomena are based on deep processes occurring in society. In this regard, social history was written by Karamzin, Sergei Solovyov, and Augustin Thierry.

In a narrow sense, the term was established in the 20th century and implies the study of the social structure. I'll try to explain. Until a certain time, a historian who studied, say, the French Revolution, gave a certain outline of the social structure of France, and then described the events of the beginning of the revolution, the Jacobin dictatorship or the rise to power of Napoleon as the result of the struggle for their rights of the third estate, the petty bourgeoisie - or as the aspiration of the new elite to stabilize the political situation. But then historians appear who no longer write anything about Napoleon, nor about Robespierre, nor about Lafayette, but scrupulously analyze what French society was, what layers and groups it was divided into, what relationships and contradictions existed between these groups. And having described it, they call it a day, believing that they have done everything that is most important for understanding the French Revolution.

Such a historian was, for example, Ivan Vasilyevich Luchitsky, who more than a hundred years ago brilliantly described the situation of the French peasantry on the eve of 1789, which set a special understanding of the revolution. This is the historian Boris Nikolaevich Mironov today, who analyzed the level of well-being of the inhabitants of the Russian Empire and thereby predetermined a new understanding of the nature of the revolution of 1917. Fernand Braudel was also a social historian, who began writing the history of the Mediterranean during the time of the Spanish King Philip II, but only reached the monarch himself at the end of the third and final volume of his monumental work. He devoted the largest and best part of the book to what kind of landscape surrounded the inhabitants of the Mediterranean, how they cultivated the land, what was the structure of their families, what were the trade routes, how was wealth distributed.

Social history in the narrow sense of the word predetermined increased interest in new types of sources, which historians had not previously been very interested in: tax inventories, land cadastres, collections of notarial deeds, parish registers. This is how this story gradually developed, placing more value not on the unique, the individual, but, on the contrary, on the repeating, the natural. On this basis, a new historical science arose, expanding the “territory” of the historian. Researchers began to be interested in new subjects: mass ideas about poverty and wealth, honor and dishonor, death and the afterlife, men and women, children and the elderly. Subsequently, this interest resulted in the formation of special directions: the history of mentalities, historical anthropology, intellectual history, historical demography, gender history and many others.

All this developed with the tacit conviction that the “central knowledge” - knowledge of how society was structured, remains generally known and unshakable and therefore important, but already an extremely banal, uninteresting subject of study. As a result, over the past three decades, a paradoxical situation has developed: there are more and more historians, new subjects and areas of research appear, but less and less attention is paid to central issues. It gets ridiculous: the historian, justifying the originality of his research, polemicizes with certain “classical” ideas, not noticing that he is fighting with emptiness - these basic ideas have long since become dilapidated, no one has dealt with them for a long time. But this is the very center of modern historical knowledge. Without it, the historical community will fall apart into groups practically isolated from each other. And there is no doubt about the public demand for social history; just look around. The most urgent task is to prepare historians who could work at a basic level, but having already mastered the wealth of new approaches and methods. There will be great demand for such researchers.

Who do you expect to see at the program? Why, for example, should a historian who has studied at a specialty program go to a master's program in history, and not to graduate school?
- Based on the experience of the master’s program, which has already been opened at the Faculty of History of the Higher School of Economics - “History of Knowledge in Comparative Perspective”, I can say that a significant part of the students are graduates of regional universities. For them, this is an opportunity to continue their education in the capital. Moreover, there is an absolute majority of budget places in our faculty. I believe that at first, about 60 percent of our intake will be graduates of regional universities. Bachelor's degree graduates from other areas of training - sociology, management, economics, etc. can also enroll in a master's program in history. Adaptation courses are provided for them.

As for the choice between master's and postgraduate studies, in our universities, postgraduate studies are largely an opportunity for independent work. Our graduate students are now taught almost nothing. If a person is motivated, if he has a good relationship with his supervisor, then everything is not so bad. If not, then he is more likely to simply be enrolled in graduate school. All training comes down to passing candidate exams, whereas in the West, graduate students are studying. And we have a “full-time postgraduate course” for historians only at the European University in St. Petersburg.

I hope our master's program will compensate for this deficiency. People who have not yet chosen a specialization can come to us, and in the master’s program they will be able to fit into a professional environment. A master's thesis is at least 50 percent of a candidate's thesis, and for those who in the future plan to defend a dissertation for a candidate's degree, it will not be difficult to bring their master's thesis to the level of a candidate's thesis.

(Completely revised in 2005; the previous version was adopted in May 1987; revised in May 1990, in May 1995, in June 1996, in January and May 1999, in May 2000, in June 2001, in January 2003, January 2011.)

These Standards of Professional Practice address those issues and problems in historical research that practicing historians routinely bring to the American Historical Association for discussion in the hope of obtaining guidance. Some of the sections are devoted to issues of professional employment; Accordingly, these issues may vary depending on the requirements of the organization to which the historian reports on the results of his work. Other sections deal with issues related to violations of professional ethics, which is especially relevant for historical science. The third sections attempt to identify the core values ​​that all professional historians strive to respect and share.

1. Profession of a historian

History is an endless process, an endless attempt to understand the past and its various meanings. The institutional and intellectual forms of this dialogue with the past have changed greatly over time, but such dialogue itself has been part of human experience for millennia. We all interpret the past and create a narrative about the past, so it can be said that we all participate in the creation of history. This is one of the main ways to understand yourself and the world around you.

Professional historians actively take advantage of the fact that the past always attracts people. There are not many areas of knowledge that are as accessible and attractive to the general public. Interpretations of the past do not leave intellectuals of all stripes indifferent, since it directly concerns the formation of their identity and worldview. This is why history causes such unrest and controversy in the public sphere. Every person is capable of creating a reasonable version of historical events, and many do so. Professional historians are wise enough to realize that they have never had a monopoly on their own discipline, and that this is an advantage rather than a disadvantage. The openness of the discipline is one of its most attractive features; it contributes to constant renewal and the fact that more and more people are interested in it.

What, then, distinguishes a professional historian from everyone else? Membership in the profession is determined by identification with a community of historians who are engaged in the collective activity of researching and interpreting the past within the framework of a practiced research discipline. Historians work in many, many institutions: in museums, libraries and government agencies, in schools and other educational institutions, in corporations and non-profit organizations. Some of them earn money by working in their specialty, others study history and earn something else. Wherever they work, professional historians share certain core values ​​by which they make judgments and conduct activities aimed at enriching the collective understanding of the past. These are the shared values ​​according to which research is conducted and assessed, interpretations are created and evaluated, new knowledge is communicated, questions of ethics are decided and, not least, narratives about the past are created, defining how historians should conduct their professional work.

2. Common values ​​of historians

The task of historians is to constantly improve the collective understanding of the past through complex critical dialogue with each other, with the general public, with historical sources (this involves someone's life stories taken from the past, and someone's words); seek answers to the most serious questions we face in our age.

It is impossible to succeed in this task without trusting and respecting your colleagues. To do his job honorably, a historian must have a strong reputation, and this is perhaps the most valuable professional asset. Trust and respect, both from colleagues and from the general public, are one of the most powerful results a historian can achieve. It is extremely irrational to risk this.

Although historians disagree on many things, they know exactly what virtues they value in the work of their colleagues. All historians believe that authenticity of historical documents- a necessary condition for work. Historians don't fake them. Fraud and deception undermine the very basis of interpretation of the past. Hidden falsifications devalue not only the scientific argumentation of the falsifier himself, but also the work of those researchers who will subsequently use his results. It is difficult to imagine that the work of someone who invents, distorts, or arbitrarily discards parts of historical evidence, or destroys it entirely, will be trusted by serious scholars.

We respect historical documents, but recognize that their interpretation is constantly changing as historians analyze primary documents, drawing on an ever-growing body of secondary literature that places these documents in a broader context. “Documents” usually refers to any historical evidence: not only written texts, but also artifacts, drawings, statistical information, oral traditions, buildings and the natural environment, and much more - everything that has survived and is evidence of the past. "Secondary literature" is all subsequent interpretations of the past based on evidence contained in primary documents. The distinction between primary and secondary sources is one of the most important for historical science. Distinguishing between the two is much more difficult than it might seem at first glance, since the answer to the question of whether a document is primary or secondary depends heavily on what definition criteria we choose. Thus, the professional historian clearly distinguishes between primary and secondary sources, analyzes them carefully and impartially, and contributes to the ongoing scholarly and public debate about what these sources can tell us about the past. In the most general sense, this is what the practice of historical research consists of.

Showing respect for historical documents also means that we We give freedom of action to subsequent generations of historians. This is also why the scientific apparatus (annotations, bibliographies), as well as corresponding storage institutions, such as libraries, archives and museums, are so important for the professional activities of historians. They are important for many reasons. First, other historians have the opportunity to follow the argument step by step and ensure that these steps are supported by historical sources. Using the scientific apparatus, the quality of historical evidence can be determined; whether sufficient historical documents were used or whether some documents are missing; because of which this entire interpretation may be called into question. Professional historians are interested in being able to determine the scope and validity of their own arguments when they try to convince someone outside that their arguments are correct, because they understand that it is more important not to gain the upper hand in a debate at all costs, and maintain trust. Ultimately, the chain of evidence provided by a historical work becomes the starting point for further research on the same topic, thus contributing to our overall ability to ask and answer new questions about the past. For these reasons, historians pride themselves on being extremely careful in their use and documentation of sources. The more carelessly the scientific apparatus is compiled, the more difficult it is for other historians to trust such research.

Carefully compiled bibliographies, commentaries, museum catalogs, databases, and other pieces of scholarship are critical to documenting both primary and secondary sources. Doing history honestly means giving due credit to the work of other historians. Passing off someone else's work as your own means plagiarism, and this is unacceptable. Plagiarism is a violation of the integrity of historical documents: it makes it impossible to cite secondary sources relevant to a particular line of reasoning. Plagiarism is a type of fraud, a betrayal of trust, and the entire profession of a historian is based on trust.

We will return to this later in these Standards.

One of the basic principles of the profession of historian, which may seem counterintuitive to non-historians, is the extremely widespread (if not universal) belief since the 19th century that engaging with history honestly does not mean holding a neutral point of view or having none. Any work on history expresses a certain narrow vision of the past. Historians do not think this way because they believe that all interpretations are equally valid, or that nothing can be said for certain about the past, or that facts do not matter. Quite the opposite. There would be no point in studying history if these statements were true; But the main premise of historical science is the following: with certain reservations, we can actually know the past, give meaning to the past, which exists in the present only in the form of preserved traces. But we are aware: the very nature of our discipline is such that any knowledge belongs to a certain time and space, any interpretation expresses a certain point of view and no one mortal cannot approach absolute knowledge. Since evidence of the past is very fragmentary, absolute historical knowledge is impossible.

Moreover, those people whose lives we would like to understand have their own opinions about their own lives and the lives of their contemporaries, and this opinion very often differs from ours. To do justice to their views is to try to see their world through their eyes, and this can never be fully achieved. This is especially obvious when it comes to conflicting opinions or conflicts of the past; such contradictions must be somehow placed into a broader context before our understanding of their world can be assumed to be adequate. Diverse, contradictory points of view - this is historical truth. Not even the most objective or universal analysis can put an end to the endless creative dialogue within the framework of the past and the future, as well as between them.

The truth of every historian is historical truth. Everyone who begins to study history has their own identity, their own experiences and their own interests, which in one way or another influence the formulation of questions that a person poses to the past and the search for answers. Political, social and religious beliefs, combined with honesty, self-criticism and lack of prejudice, appropriately determine the content of our statements on historical topics. The point is that the questions that interest us determine everything we do - the topic of research, the historical evidence we collect, the argument we build, the narrative we create. Inevitably, different historians create different histories.

For this reason, historians very often disagree with each other. The fact that historians sometimes have quite different views not only on historical interpretations, but also on the basic facts of the past, often worries non-historians. And especially if they imagine history as a collection of reliably known facts, based on common universal principles. But single universal principles are not exactly what the historian usually strives for. On the contrary, we understand that differences in interpretation are vital to the development of historical science and are the source of the most original and valuable ideas.

While diverging interpretations and “uncertainties” can be confusing even to historians, they are an integral part of the discipline. Professional historians recognize that disagreements arising from disputes over differences in interpretation ultimately deepen and enrich historical knowledge because they contribute to the emergence of new questions, new arguments, and new directions of research. This belief underlies some of the most important shared values ​​guiding the professional practice of historians. They believe in the need for heated debate, but they consider it a necessary condition for being civil to each other. When they try to make sense of the past, they build on their own vision, but at the same time subject it to critical examination by comparison with the concepts of colleagues.

Historians strongly welcome the formation of intellectual communities based on mutual respect and constructive criticism. The greatest value in such communities is reasoned discourse, an ongoing dialogue between historians of different points of view, in which they learn from each other as they share common interests. Commitment to this type of discourse - combining politeness, critical attitude, tolerance, openness to new ideas - makes possible a fruitful exchange of opinions, ideas and knowledge.

Given all of the above, it is again worth repeating that most issues related to the professional activities of historians can be resolved by referring to the core values, which we have attempted to briefly review in this section.

Historians must practice their craft honestly.
They must respect historical documents.
They must indicate the sources they use.
They should give credit to the work of other scientists.
They should respect other points of view and welcome them in every possible way, since they themselves discuss them and subject them to critical analysis.
They should remember that the success of our collective activities depends on mutual trust.
And this trust cannot be betrayed.

3. Scientific community

The scientific community, which is engaged in the search for information about the past, its exchange, its interpretation and presentation, is something without which the professional activity of a historian is impossible. The specificity of such types of activities is determined by the type of historical documents, artifacts and other sources of information, methods of their collection and preservation, which are associated with relevant institutions; these could be libraries or museums, government organizations or private companies. Historians strive to preserve important historical evidence wherever it is found. The functioning of the scientific community also implies the free dissemination of historical knowledge through all communication channels: books, articles, classrooms, exhibitions, films, websites dedicated to history, museums, analytical notes, historical evidence and much more.

The free exchange of information is highly valued by historians.

Professional integrity as a historian involves being aware of possible bias and being willing to follow sound methods of analysis, no matter what the results may turn out to be. You should document your findings in detail and be prepared to present your sources, evidence and data, including any notes obtained during interviews. Data from historical sources should not be distorted. It is necessary to present the data obtained as accurately as possible and not to neglect data that contradicts one’s own interpretations. You should not plagiarize. It is necessary to resist erroneous interpretations of historical evidence, as well as attempts to ignore or hide them.

Historians should be grateful for any financial support, sponsorship, or unique opportunities (such as access to research materials) that facilitate their research, especially if such benefits could influence the outcome of their work. You should always express gratitude for the assistance provided to colleagues, students, assistants and everyone else, and give credit to all colleagues.

Historians must care for the preservation of historical documents and support the institutions that carry out this critical activity. Historians help ensure that everyone has free and open access to archives, libraries and museum collections wherever possible. Any action that would impede such access for future generations of historians should be carefully avoided. Of course, there are legitimate restrictions on access to some sources for reasons of national security, property rights, or privacy. However, it is the professional interest of historians to oppose unnecessary restrictions where appropriate.

Historians generally agree that there are limitations on the use of some sources. Certain types of research, some forms of employment, and some methods of data collection (eg oral interviews) may involve obligations regarding the use of research results. And such obligations must be fulfilled. Confidentiality must be respected in relationships with clients, students, employers - with everyone with whom professional relationships have been established. To the extent possible, it should also strive to serve the professional interests of historians: to promote open access to historical evidence and stimulate public debate about it. It is necessary to define confidentiality requirements before the start of a study and to draw public attention to those that may negatively affect the results of the study.

4. Plagiarism

The word "plagiarism" is of Latin origin: plagiaries, kidnapper, and plagiarism, steal. Plagiarism means using someone else's work and passing it off as your own, which is a serious violation of the ethics of the scientific community. This significantly undermines the credibility of a scientist who resorts to plagiarism, and can cause irreparable damage to his career.

In addition to the harm that plagiarism causes to the search for truth, it is also a violation of the copyright of the author or publisher. Thus, the investigation may result not only in sanctions (such as expulsion from the educational institution, denial of promotion or dismissal), but also prosecution. In practice, scientists rarely go to court over plagiarism, partly because the language of the law, such as copyright infringement, at the same as ethical standards of professional activity.

The true punishment for plagiarism is the sharply negative attitude of the scientific community.

Plagiarism also includes smaller violations, and not just the verbatim quotation of large volumes of texts by other authors without indicating the source. Plagiarism is also considered to be minor borrowings without indicating the source, concerning specific significant results and interpretations of other researchers. Of course, historical knowledge is cumulative in nature, and therefore in some situations (such as the creation of textbooks, encyclopedias, certain types of public presentations of knowledge) the requirements for references to sources are different from those that apply to scientific works themselves. When some knowledge becomes widespread, it ceases to relate to a specific person. The question of the personal identity of such knowledge is no longer so easy to answer. But even when writing textbooks, historians should give credit to sources that describe recent discoveries and provide new interpretations that have not yet become generally accepted in the profession. Likewise, although some of the work of historians does not imply attribution (for example, films and exhibitions), credit should always be given to scholars who engage in such work.

So, there are many types of plagiarism. The most indisputable case is the use of a fragment of other people's texts without quotes and links. It is more difficult to notice the appropriation of concepts or the use of data that can be found in recent publications, or the presence of references to borrowed work at the beginning of the text and further use of it without reference. Borrowing unverified references to primary sources from secondary works without citing them should also be considered unacceptable.

All these actions are a manifestation of undeserved disrespect towards the achievements of other scientists.

In any situation, the best way to avoid charges of plagiarism is to always acknowledge others' scientific achievements openly, fully, and generously.

Everyone in the research community, whether amateur or professional, student or established researcher, has a responsibility to combat deception. These obligations are especially important for university professors. The latter must show rigor in shaping young historians' understanding of the ethics of the scientific community. Thus, teachers are responsible for discussing, among other things, principles of scientific integrity.

After graduation, every historian can rely mainly on his own vigilance and self-criticism. Throughout his life, not a single scientist ceases to demand originality from his work and wonder how trustworthy it is from others.

The first way to avoid plagiarism is to develop professional skills that will prevent a scientist from falling into plagiarism. Typically, the person accused of plagiarism claims that he was “misled by the fact that the work he used was carelessly referenced”; this can only be accepted as an excuse if the work in question has other shortcomings.

The second method is related to the powers of organizations. Any organization that includes scientists has a responsibility to determine what procedures will be used to ensure adherence to ethical standards. Any organization that employs historians takes responsibility for how its employees adhere to the principles of academic integrity and maintain their scholarly reputation. This applies to government agencies, private corporations, publishing houses, and public institutions such as museums and libraries.

Typically, the organization that employs a historian accused of plagiarism will itself investigate and apply certain sanctions if the allegations are confirmed. The severity of penalties for violations of professional ethics may vary depending on the seriousness of the violation, and due process is an absolute must. In cases of persistent misconduct, public discussion or even termination of professional activity may be appropriate; In some cases, disciplinary action may be required.

All historians have a responsibility to adhere to high standards of intellectual integrity. Reviewing manuscripts, writing book reviews, evaluating the achievements of colleagues when hiring, promoting, or obtaining tenure - all this involves assessing the historian's honesty and reliability, his ability to use primary and secondary sources. Scientific activity thrives in an atmosphere of openness and objectivity, which means carefully monitoring fraud and discussing it publicly.

5. Training

Training is of great importance for the professional activity of a historian. It can be done everywhere: not only in classrooms, but also in museums, with the help of Internet sites, documentary films, textbooks, and newspaper articles. In the most general sense, teaching means imparting historical knowledge to people who do not possess it. Whether learning takes place in a university classroom or in public spheres, it involves solving the most important task: making sure that the past remains in the living memory of the present.

Quality teaching is the care and rigor in conveying factual information and the effort to place that information in a broader context to give it meaning. Being honest in teaching means presenting competing interpretations without bias. It is in this way that one of the most important goals of training is achieved - to arouse interest among those who first encounter a particular historical problem, showing that history is a process of living research, and not an uninitiated collection of undoubted facts.

A teacher's political, social, and religious beliefs will, of course, influence his or her work, but the teacher's right to hold and express such beliefs should not lead to falsification, misinterpretation, suppression of evidence, or the continued use of material unrelated to the subject of the course. Moreover, the teacher should be prepared for the fact that students or others in their circle may not agree with his interpretations or points of view. Students must be aware that different interpretations are possible. When studying a particular historical topic, the free expression of diverse, informed opinions should always be sought. The teacher must evaluate student work solely on its merits.

When compiling various history courses and textbooks, and when presenting the results of historical research to the general public, it is necessary to take into account the diversity of human experience. In addition, historical accuracy requires increased attention to the similarities and differences of individuals and cultural communities. The broader global and historical context into which communities fit must be taken into account. The American Historical Association is known for encouraging those who organize educational and public activities related to history to resist manifestations of aggression and discrimination within the walls of universities, in the public sphere. It encourages university administrations to make strong statements against all such manifestations. At the same time, the association does not approve of attempts to restrict free expression. We We condemn violations of the First Amendment, which proclaims the right to freedom of speech, as well as the harassment and denigration that people are subjected to at times for standing up for their rights.

6. History and public sphere

Because the interpretation of the past is so important to democratic debate and to the exercise of citizenship in the public sphere, historians always have the opportunity to discuss the results of professional work in the light of the problems and controversies of our time, including those controversies that concern the events of the past. One of the advantages of the historical profession is that there is always the opportunity to share our guesses and interpretations with the general public, wherever we work. We must exploit this opportunity in every possible way, and the organizations in which historians work must recognize the importance of this aspect of our work. Historians should not be subject to institutional or professional penalties for their beliefs and activities, and they should not speak on behalf of organizations when they are not authorized to do so.

Doing history in the public sphere is a great challenge because when historians communicate with the general public, they are obliged to provide them not only with some specific interpretation or bare facts, but with the best example of the practices of historical research as such. This means that they must inevitably balance between their own desire to represent one point of view or another and the obligation to adhere to the standards and shared values ​​that underlie their overall professional authority. This task is especially difficult for those historians working in the public sphere who have to deal with a number of levels of analysis in their daily work, as well as for historians working in public organizations.

In the course of public discussion of complex historical problems, many of the technical details associated with them are inevitably transformed and simplified; at the same time, new complexities and differences of opinion arise. It is natural for a historian to share his views with the public. However, we should also strive to demonstrate how “professional historians” build arguments on the basis of historical evidence, resulting in impartial, multi-nuanced, responsibly constructed interpretation of the past. The desire to score as many points as possible should not lead the historian to incorrectly interpret historical documents or misapply the methods used to interpret them in the historical profession.

Historians working for government, corporate and non-profit organizations, as well as those who occasionally find themselves in the public eye (as advisers to politicians, experts, intellectuals, consultants, witnesses, journalists or commentators), may face a choice between professionalism and political sympathies. They may need advice from other experienced professionals. As historians, they must be aware of the complexity of their discipline, the diversity of historical interpretations, the limits, possibilities of their own point of view, as well as of the discipline itself. Given this, historians should use sources, including the work of other scholars, in the most careful manner and always be able to explain what methods were used in research; Explicit the basic premises, connections between historical evidence and interpretation, as well as alternative interpretations of the subject of study.

8. Reputation and trust

Historians have a responsibility to list their achievements impeccably and honestly in all situations. They must accurately indicate their qualifications on resumes, applications, and publicly available information. You should apply the same rigor and honesty when describing your achievements as when working with historical documents.

The status of a book, article or any other publication in print is also important information for university personnel services, certification commissions, and admissions committees into any scientific community. Yet there is no generally accepted terminology for forthcoming publications, making their status unclear. The American Historical Association suggests the following terminology:

- "In the press" ( In press): the manuscript is completely ready for publication, the author has finished working on it, and it is in the publishing house or in the editorial office of the journal. This is the last stage of preparation for printing.

- “Preparing for publication” ( Forthcoming): a completed manuscript that has been accepted for publication by a publisher or journal.

- “A contract has been signed with...” ( Under contract to…): the publishing house has entered into an agreement with the author to publish the book, but the final version has not yet been submitted for consideration.

- "Is pending" ( Submitted or Under consideration): a book or article has been sent to a publisher or journal, but has not yet been accepted for publication.

You should not list degrees or awards on your resume that you have not received; work you didn't do; articles or books that you did not write, or otherwise mislead about your creative or professional activities.

Historians should take into account possible conflicts of interest that may arise during the performance of their professional duties.

A conflict of interest occurs when a researcher's personal interests or inclinations interfere (or appear to interfere) with the researcher's ability to act in accordance with his or her professional responsibilities.

Historians often encounter such situations when they are involved in procedures for evaluating the work of colleagues, such as reviewing grant applications, reviewing manuscripts, reviewing program options for annual conferences, or selecting winners of competitions. Care should be taken to ensure that, wherever possible, decisions are not made that create a conflict of interest. or its appearance. It is also advisable to avoid situations through which one can obtain financial gain at the cost of neglecting professional duty, even if this is only same visibility. You should refuse to participate in procedures for evaluating someone's achievements if you feel obligated to this person, are hostile towards him, or compete with him.

These Standards of Practice provide a general overview core values ​​and practices of the historian's profession.

Since no document of this kind can claim to be comprehensive, the American Historical Association generally amends the Standards only when new issues arise of a sufficiently general nature to warrant inclusion of such an issue in the formal standards.

For additional information on issues related to the ethics and practice of historical research, you should consult other statements and documents of the American Historical Association, including the Standards of Practice for Historical Research and other guidelines available on the association's website.

Valuable remarks can be gleaned from the documents of some other historical associations, for example in the “Ethical Guidelines” ( Ethics Guidelines ) National Council on Public History; or in the Standards of Professional Practice and Ethics ( Statement of Professional Standards and Ethics) American Association of National and Regional History; in the “Recommendations for quality assessment” ( Evaluation Guidelines) Oral History Association; in the "Principles and Standards of Federal History Programs" ( Principles and Standards for Federal Historical Programs) Historical Society under the Federal Government, etc.

We call on all historians to carry out their professional responsibilities with the utmost seriousness, to maintain honesty and openness, and to uphold the high standards of the historian's profession.

Published in abbreviation

A historian studies the events of the past, explores the life of the planet and people, important actions, incidents throughout the history of mankind, and sometimes even before it. After research, a lot of diverse material, documents and facts are systematized and put into one chronological chain, from which world history is obtained.

The activities of historians are very broad and depend on the place of work. This may include excavations, research, study and systematization of archives and libraries. Researchers write books, dissertations, monographs and even textbooks for teaching in universities and schools. Teachers teach. The study of history is a look into the past, made by every person to understand their origins, study their roots and, most importantly, learn from the mistakes of the past.

pros

To begin with, it is worth considering the merits of the profession, its attractiveness for a small child who has opened a book with pirates and treasures or an applicant facing a difficult choice of his own future. Why might this area be of interest?

The most positive side of the job is love for your business. Historians are very interesting people, they are smart, they know how to delight and draw people into conversation.

Constant research, libraries, archives, museums, the study of materials and antiquities are so captivating that time and problems are simply forgotten. Historians are not rich people, but they don’t need much, this area of ​​life is their personal paradise, and to feel great, all they need is a new interesting topic, paper for the next monograph and material for studying it.
The erudition of these people is sometimes amazing. And even more so, specialists in sources and literature - they probably have no equal.

Lots of places to work. To begin with, these are schools, although sometimes after six months of work, you additionally need to graduate from a pedagogical institute. You can also work in higher educational institutions, but this requires higher qualifications. It’s much more interesting here; institutes and universities open more doors for historians.

A person becomes a teacher, and over time a researcher, and can receive a candidate or doctorate degree. It is also necessary to mention the possibilities of foreign business trips, paid trips for scientific purposes, and so on. And students study more diligently and have fewer problems with them than with schoolchildren.

Historians are also required at museums and memorial complexes. This work is more interesting, at least because of the study of various historical monuments, their close location, and the opportunity to touch them, to examine them as one of the first people to see them.

Historians working in archives and museums often experience more inconvenience than benefit, although if this is a person’s vocation, then no amount of persuasion can get them out of there. The disadvantages of this work are painstaking work, mental and physical, contact with large amounts of dust and dirt that settles on boxes, books, documents, as well as relatively low wages.

And finally, there is an independent researcher at every museum and university. These people can sometimes give lectures, but most of their time is spent on personal research, writing scientific papers, participating in domestic and international conferences, and various debates. They often communicate with local and foreign experts, sometimes working together on some exciting research or writing scientific papers. In general, the lives of these people are interesting and multifaceted. They also interact with many collectors, influential and famous people.

The work of a historian, if he is not an archaeologist, is almost entirely mental. The brain never gets bored, but constantly in search of new things and remembering old ones.

Various travels- a kind of bonus. If not to some excavations as a scientific specialist, then to international conferences, symposiums, business trips, expeditions. This is, of course, one of the most attractive aspects of the profession, because in parallel with your work you can get acquainted with local traditions, study the culture, take many photographs as a souvenir and make many useful contacts.

Minuses

There are as many disadvantages in this profession as there are advantages, and before the final selection they need to be carefully weighed.

1. “A historian is not a profession, and history is not a science,” unfortunately, such public opinion will have to be taken into account and put up with, since you cannot argue with everyone. There are people who are sure of the opposite, but already in the first year of an institute or university, future specialists are prepared to be able to prove and substantiate the scientific side of history and its importance. Just like standing up for the profession itself, because being a historian is not as easy as many may think.
2. The salary here, as a rule, is lower than desired, for this reason it is in the minuses. However, if we consider each area of ​​a historian’s work separately, we will notice that activities in a museum and in a school are paid completely differently and in the first case the benefits in material terms are much greater. So this is not a definite disadvantage, and often the profession is well paid. The salary is also greatly influenced by the title of a historian; for example, more teachers receive a Doctor of Science.
3. Oddly enough, this specialty is often chosen because it is easy to study at universities and institutes. Applicants are sometimes confident that this is a simple profession and easy to learn, but this is a misconception. Studying history is quite difficult. There may not be any complicated writing rules or mathematical formulas, but a ton of scientific terms and dates will ensure sleepless nights throughout your studies. In addition, while studying, the student is completely immersed in scientific life, this is not only writing tests; if a person really strives to become a professional, he must research his topics, study them, and not copy ready-made material from the textbook.
4. Perseverance, patience, readiness for painstaking and routine work are only the minimum qualities that a historian should possess. Constant reporting requires these people to be able to write quickly but beautifully, and to be “friendly” with a computer, textbooks, books and historical sources. To find truly interesting, new material, historians have to spend days on end in libraries and archives, where it is often so dusty that they are forced to work in respiratory masks.
5. Despite the apparent isolation of each researcher, in order to carry out full-fledged work, researchers must be able to communicate with people who are influential and wealthy. After all, this is not only access to private collections, but also an opportunity to get a sponsor for future research.
6. The undeniable disadvantages of the profession also include a minimum of physical labor. And humans need it like air and food.

conclusions

The profession of a historian is fascinating and mysterious - it is amazing research, discoveries of new, sacred, secrets and mysteries of the world. But, despite all the attractiveness, there are also plenty of shortcomings. Humanity thinks more about the future than about the past, which affects both salary and attitude. Many consider this profession prestigious, while others do not notice it at all. You need to be able to live and put up with all this, challenge and defend in order to be a good specialist and professional in your field.