Changes

== Historiography ==

== Historiography ==

[[Historiography]] is "the writing of history; especially: the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods."<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/historiography Historiography - Merriam-Webster dictionary]</ref>

[[Historiography]] is "the writing of history; especially: the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods."<ref>[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/historiography Historiography - Merriam-Webster dictionary]</ref>

==Teaching==

==Teaching==

In the United States, history is a high prestige field, and is usually the most popular major, by far, at elite universities.  History faculties, furthermore, teach a much wider range of topics and methodologies than counterparts in Europe or Asia. In terms of majors, men outnumber women by about 2:1.

In the United States, history is a high prestige field, and is usually the most popular major, by far, at elite universities.  History faculties, furthermore, teach a much wider range of topics and methodologies than counterparts in Europe or Asia. In terms of majors, men outnumber women by about 2:1.

In the last 35 years, trends in teaching have emerged.  Intellectual and diplomatic history has lost ground, while women's history has grown explosively, as has social and cultural history.  Economic history has in many cases migrated to economics departments, while political history and diplomatic history has migrated to political science departments.  Ancient history long ago migrated to classics departments, and medieval history is a much smaller field than a century ago.<ref>Patricia Cohen, "Great Caesar’s Ghost! Are Traditional History Courses Vanishing?," [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/books/11hist.html?_r=1&hpw '' New York Times'' June 10, 2009]</ref>

In the last 35 years, trends in teaching have emerged.  Intellectual and diplomatic history has lost ground, while women's history has grown explosively, as has social and cultural history.  Economic history has in many cases migrated to economics departments, while political history and diplomatic history has migrated to political science departments.  Ancient history long ago migrated to classics departments, and medieval history is a much smaller field than a century ago.<ref>Patricia Cohen, "Great Caesar’s Ghost! Are Traditional History Courses Vanishing?," [https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/books/11hist.html?_r=1&hpw '' New York Times'' June 10, 2009]</ref>

==Approaches==

==Approaches==

===Whig Interpretation===

===Whig Interpretation===

The [[Whig Interpretation of History]] refers to histories that are too present-oriented when dealing with the past. Whig historians saw British history as the inevitable unfolding of progress, especially liberty and parliamentary rule, with the inexorable defeat of Toryism and absolute monarchy. 20th century downplay the Whig approach and drop the notion of inevitable progress. They now warn against looking at the past as a simple pathway to the present, insisting there were always multiple contingencies along the way.<ref>Herbert Butterfield, ''The Whig interpretation of history'' (1931)[http://books.google.com/books?id=Ia6IpQKrx58C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false excerpts]</ref>

The [[Whig Interpretation of History]] refers to histories that are too present-oriented when dealing with the past. Whig historians saw British history as the inevitable unfolding of progress, especially liberty and parliamentary rule, with the inexorable defeat of Toryism and absolute monarchy. 20th century downplay the Whig approach and drop the notion of inevitable progress. They now warn against looking at the past as a simple pathway to the present, insisting there were always multiple contingencies along the way.<ref>Herbert Butterfield, ''The Whig interpretation of history'' (1931)[https://books.google.com/books?id=Ia6IpQKrx58C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false excerpts]</ref>

   

   

Histories of science often take the Whiggish approach, ignoring the dead ends and focusing on the steps that led to the present.

Histories of science often take the Whiggish approach, ignoring the dead ends and focusing on the steps that led to the present.