Letter (email) from Stuart Forbes Macintyre, to Dr Neville Buch, 20 May 2017 at 16:07:
We know from the work done on public engagement in history (first in the US and then by Paula
Hamilton and Paul Ashton at UTS) that studying history is a relatively minor form of
participation and that teachers of history come some way down the list of sources of information
– family history is the most popular activity, museums are trusted sources of knowledge some
way ahead of university historians. The Hamilton and Ashton study affirms that history matters
to a large body of Australians, but they don’t think of it as dependent on the academic
discipline. My own view is that we need to do more to alter that perception.And again, the various forms of public history undertaken by professional historians make a
substantial component of history graduates. This is not my area but I’m struck, having become
chair of the Heritage Council of Victoria a couple of years ago, that the expertise of trained
historians is often at a discount in heritage. We get submissions from many consultants, usually
employed by owners, and archaeologists, architects and others are far more likely to do the work
than historians. For that matter, the quality of the historical evaluation of a place listed for
registration is often low. I know the PHA takes a keen interest in this.
Featured Image: Screenshot-2025-02-22-MBH-Project-on-the-Public-History-International-Map.png
February 22, 2025. Demonstrating the value of academic training for the work of local history and heritage.
Neville Buch
Latest posts by Neville Buch (see all)
- Death in Life and Life in Death: Affective, Intellectual, and Ontological Dimensions of Human Mortality – October 2, 2026
- Psychological Symbol Cards – October 2, 2026
- The Washington Post Impact Report and American Studies – October 1, 2026