According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word ‘historiography’ means ‘the writing of history; written history’. In other words, ‘historiography’ refers to the study of how history is written and interpreted, or, in the case of A-Level History, how historians have interpreted, debated, and written about the past. It is important to remember that historians can look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions or offer different interpretations. All A-Level History courses involve some level of engagement with historiography, often through the coursework module, which requires students to critically engage with historians’ arguments about the topic under investigation, or in exams when students are asked to evaluate or compare interpretations. In this blog, an expert history tutor explains what historiography is and how to analyse or evaluate it.
History vs historiography: What’s the difference?
History is the study of the past, i.e. ‘what happened?’. Historiography refers to how historians have examined, interpreted, and explained what happened, often in different, sometimes opposite, ways.
For example, the French Revolution began in 1789 and ended in 1799 when Napoleon seized power. That is history. Historiography on the French Revolution asks why it happened, why it was significant, and what longer-term consequences followed. Historians disagree on these questions.
Why do historians disagree?
Historians’ interpretations and explanations of historical events can differ for a variety of reasons.
Firstly, the evidence bases that historians use to formulate an argument can be different. If one historian examines the long-term consequences of decolonisation in Nigeria using British governmental and policy documents, they will probably come to a different conclusion than another historian using first-hand accounts from Nigerian anticolonial activists.
However, even if historians use the same evidence, they can still reach different conclusions. This is because the perspectives from which historians write influence their arguments and interpretations. For example, a social historian (who focuses on the everyday and lived experiences of ‘ordinary’ people) will write a different account of the same event—using the same evidence— from a political historian (who may adopt a more ‘top-down’ approach). Beyond their disciplinary focus, historians also bring their own lived experiences and perspectives to their research, whether they mean to or not. It is impossible to write a completely objective account of a historical event because the way a historian interprets it will depend, to some extent, on their own ways of thinking, evaluating, and arguing.
The time period in which historians write is also important. Often, the way we think about past events changes over time. A historian writing about the Second World War in 1950 will most likely have a different interpretation than a historian writing in 2020. Generally, though not always, with time comes more perspective.
Relatedly, the body of available sources can change over time. For historians who use official government documents as their main source base, restrictions on access to these sources can influence the arguments they make. Records held in the National Archives, the main state archive in the UK, are usually closed for 20 years, but this can be longer in the case of ‘sensitive’ documents. Another example of source availability is the sudden inaccessibility of archives and documents due to the outbreak of conflict. Historians of Ukraine or the Soviet Union have found it very difficult to visit archives in the region or access primary sources since 2022.
Finally, historians can disagree or offer differing interpretations of a historical event if they ask different questions or adopt a different approach. A historian interested in the economic concerns of Henry VIII would offer a different argument about the Break with Rome than a historian focusing on the matrimonial and dynastic crisis. This leads us to our next topic to consider: the different approaches adopted by historians.
Major approaches to historiography
Historians tend to write from one or more historical approaches, depending on the specific type of history they are interested in. Here is a list of some the most common historical approaches we find in historiography:
Political history: focuses on governments, leaders, wars, and diplomacy, sometimes referred to as ‘top-down’ history.
Social history: examines ordinary people and their lived experiences, society, and social structures, otherwise known as ‘bottom-up’ history or ‘history from below’.
Economic history: focuses on wealth, trade, production, and economic forces.
Marxist history: emphasises class conflict and pervasive economic structures.
Gender history: examines how ideas about gender and power have shaped the past.
Cultural history: explores beliefs, language, identity, and cultural practices.
Revisionist history: challenges established interpretations and offers alternative explanations.
These categories can overlap, and sometimes historians adopt more than one of these approaches. For example, a historian writing about the history of women’s work during and after the Second World War might draw from the fields of gender history, economic history, and cultural history.
A-Level History: Historiography in action
Let’s look at a familiar A-Level topic to see how historians’ interpretations can differ.
For example: ‘What caused the English Civil War?’
Depending on their specific focus, expertise, interest, or position, historians will answer this question differently. Historian A might focus on political conflict between Charles I and Parliament. Historian B may emphasise religion, while Historian C could stress social and economic tensions.
Examining a range of historiography allows you to compare these interpretations and come to your own reasoned judgement.
How to evaluate historiography at A-Level
To effectively evaluate historiography at A-Level, there are several key questions you should ask yourself when reading an interpretation. These include:
What is the historian’s main argument?
What evidence supports or challenges their argument?
What assumptions does the historian make?
What historical context might have influenced their interpretation?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the argument?
How does it compare with other historians’ interpretations?
How convincing is the argument?
These questions will help you to critically engage with and evaluate historiography in your exams or coursework.
Historiography in A-Level exams
In your exams, you may be asked to assess or compare historical interpretations. Sometimes, you will need to use these interpretations to make your own judgement or conclusion.
When you are evaluating historiography in your exam, it is important that you first identify the key argument or arguments that the historian is making. You will then need to apply your own contextual knowledge - are there any details or information you can bring in to support or challenge the historian’s argument/s? This will enable you to test their claims against evidence, before you reach your own reasoned judgement. Is their interpretation convincing? If so, why or why not?
Be careful not to fall into the trap of simply dropping historians’ names with no explanation! You should explain and evaluate their interpretations with clear context.
Avoid these common traps
As we have just seen, you must ensure that you don’t simply memorise lots of historians and mention them in your essay without explaining what their interpretations are. This is an easy trap to fall into, but it won’t grant you automatic marks.
Other common mistakes include:
Treating one historian as automatically correct. You should always critically evaluate historians’ arguments and think about why they are arguing what they do.
Calling an interpretation ‘biased’ without explaining why. You need to be clear about why exactly you think an interpretation is biased. Is it based on a limited source base? Does it only consider an event or process from one perspective? When was it written, and why does this matter?
Using quotations without understanding the wider argument. You should only use quotes from the extract that effectively reflect the historian’s wider argument and that illustrate your broader point. Don’t include quotes for the sake of it, but be intentional with your choices and clear about why you are using them.
Separating historiography completely from your own historical knowledge. You need to integrate your discussion of historiography with your own knowledge. What details, information, or pieces of evidence can you use to either support or challenge the historian’s claim? Separating out your paragraphs on historiography and your own historical knowledge won’t help you to gain marks as it doesn’t show the examiner that you can draw on extra information to evaluate the interpretations.
A simple historiography toolkit
This checklist should help you to clearly and effectively evaluate historiography:
A - Argument: What is the historian saying?
E - Evidence: What details or information support or challenge the argument?
C - Context: When and why was the interpretation written?
C - Comparison: How does it differ from other interpretations?
J - Judgement: How convincing is the interpretation?
Conclusion
Studying history doesn’t just involve learning ‘what happened’; it is also understanding how historians construct accounts and explanations of the past. Disagreement between historians is completely normal and helps to make history an interesting subject! Honing your evaluative skills and learning to engage critically with historiography will help to strengthen your A-Level coursework and prepare you for exam essays.
