Theory as Practice – Transfer of the Theory(ies) of History in Research and Teaching

Theories of history have gained considerable prominence in recent scholarship. Much has been written on the significance of theory in the field of historical science. Since Reinhart Koselleck’s seminal essay, ‘Wozu noch Historie?’ (Why History?), published in 1970,¹ it has become evident that historical science is fundamentally dependent on theoretical foundations.

Furthermore, the cultural turn and the advent of the digital humanities have led to a proliferation of theoretical approaches. There is also increasing recognition of the need for theoretical discussions, with the question of what constitutes historical theory remaining a topic of ongoing debate.²

However, a gap persists in the (university) teaching of historical-theoretical thinking in connection with the instruction of historical research practice. Surprisingly, this key issue is seldom addressed in discussions surrounding the relevance of historical theories, or in specific reflections on individual theoretical frameworks. Moreover, the influence of the various theories underpinning historical thinking on the production of historical knowledge has only been addressed unsystematically.³

We believe that the instruction of these theories is a pivotal aspect of historical study. The learning of historical theory should culminate in a theoretically informed practice, for without this foundation, historical thinking, argumentation, and writing can hardly be regarded as scientific. The following blog issue, entitled ‘Theory as Practice’, builds on a workshop held at the University of Bielefeld on 25 August 2022⁴. It invites participants to discuss the implementation, opportunities, and challenges of teaching the theory of history, as well as its implications for university education. The objective is to foster open and constructive dialogue regarding the diverse understandings, goals, and practices of teaching and utilizing historical theory. In the actual practice of history, there are a number of implicit theoretical assumptions that are rarely, if ever, explicitly expressed or addressed in teaching.

The question of how to effectively convey theoretical approaches and historical-theoretical thinking is highly relevant, especially considering their significant role in various areas of historical work. This encompasses not only reflections on one’s own position and epistemological stance, but also on the consideration given to methodological approaches, the selection and analysis of sources, and the communication of historical insights, especially as they pertain to the following aspects of historical practice: the choice of an appropriate theoretical approach, the formulation of research questions, the selection and analysis of sources, reflection on one’s actions, and the communication of historical findings. They also extend to the writing of narratives and exhibition design.

The choice of theoretical perspective has a profound impact on interpretation and narration. For instance, approaching a subject from the perspective of cultural, structural, or political history entails different assumptions about time, norms, causalities, or explanatory contexts. A crucial element of reflective historical thinking is the theory of history, which engages with the rules of argumentation in narratives, as well as the pre-narrative assumptions that are deemed legitimate. It becomes clear that there is no strict dichotomy between theory and practice in historical work and thought; rather, components of historical theory are integral to historical thinking itself. To engage in reflective practice, it is insufficient to possess merely theoretical knowledge. Theories only become relevant when they are actively considered and applied in practice.

The marginalization of theoretical reflection in history curricula is surprising and concerning, given the significance that the theory of history holds in historical thought processes and knowledge production. In universities especially, where historical research and teaching practices should be critically examined, the discussion about teaching theories should play a more prominent role. This discrepancy is increasingly pronounced due to the proliferation of “interdisciplinary” theories that have gained traction through various “turns” in historical research. Furthermore, these theories seem largely absent from the discourse on reflective practices in history studies. At the very least, their mediation and influence on historical reflection are rarely discussed in the literature; there is a surprising lack of sensitivity to transfer and appropriation practices.

These observations on the theory of history lead to a series of questions: How can we integrate and render explicit the content, knowledge, and skills related to the theory of history? This should be done in history studies, gradually in history lessons, as well as in all public presentations of history. How might we stimulate and generate reflective historical thinking? Regardless, the question of how to teach the theory of history presents a significant challenge. It does not just involve defining the theory of history, but also depends on the specific foundations, tasks, and objectives that are considered relevant to the discipline of history in relation to its role in society and historical culture. There is little agreement within the discipline of history regarding this point⁵, with the societal response to this question being even more complex. Accordingly, discussions on teaching historical theories should adopt a reflective approach that acknowledges methodological diversity and its various applications within historical practice.

Given the intricate nature of the subject matter and the multifaceted considerations involved, it is evident that imparting knowledge of historical theory within the context of history studies represents a significant challenge. A thorough examination of the diverse views and concepts of historical theory—in addition to the foundational objectives and responsibilities of historical science—seems to be a prerequisite. In light of the aforementioned issues, the focus of this discussion should centre on how to teach the theory of history. Such a discussion might also encompass an analysis of the nature of these theories, as well as their intended outcomes in the context of historical study and subsequent professional practice.

Further consideration could be given to the following points:

• To clarify the significance of historical theories for the subject itself and for syllabus design, particularly against the backdrop of disciplinary developments in recent decades, and to assess whether university teaching practices reflect the state of development of the subject.
• To more precisely define the relationship between theory, empiricism, and practice in the discipline of history, and to explore whether the dividing lines are perhaps not as sharp as they seem.
• To clarify the value of teaching and applying historical theory in various historical fields, including its role in museums and schools. This raises the question of whether there can be a practice of teaching historical theory that is independent of one’s understanding of theory, or whether this must inevitably evolve alongside one’s understanding.
• To explore how to incorporate historical theory into university teaching. What are some successful examples of this? This also raises the question of how the teaching of theory in the field of history can be effectively implemented in terms of university didactics.

You can comment in German, English, French or Italian under the german version of the blog contribution.

---

Jana Kristin Hoffmann is a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of History at the University of Bielefeld. She is currently researching historical processes of forgetting. Her other research interests include theory and methodology in the study of history, nineteenth- and twentieth-century German history, the history of religion in the United States, gender and queer history, and the history of sexuality.

E-Mail: j.hoffmann@uni-bielefeld.de 

Philipp McLean is an Akademischer Rat at the University of Cologne in the Department of History and Public History. His research focuses on the philosophy and theory of history as well as its teaching, the promotion of Mündigkeit, critical thinking and reflexivity through historical education, and the question of historical imagination.

E-Mail: philipp.mclean@uni-koeln.de

---

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

1. Reinhart Koselleck, “Wozu noch Historie?,” Historische Zeitschrift 212, no. 1 (1971), 1-18. [↩]
2. For further insights, see the section entitled ‘Theory of History Polyphonic‘. [↩]
3. Jana Hoffmann and Philipp McLean, “Theorie als Praxis – Geschichtstheorie in Forschung und Lehre vermitteln,“ Werkstatt Geschichte 2 (2024), 75-87. [↩]
4. The conference report is available at https://www.hsozkult.de/conferencereport/id/fdkn-135884. [↩]
5. Andreas Frings, Geschichte als Wissenschaft lehren. Theorieorientierung im Studieneinstieg. Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau, 2016, 11f. [↩]

---

---