Hi Penny,

You highlight the difficulty of really identifying a "historian." At the most basic level, pretty much anyone who studies and writes history could be a "historian." But, in my conversation below, I was talking about history as an academic or professional field, which includes people who have at a good deal of accredited historical training and education. I use that standard because they are the people who truly represent "historians."

I believe that a bachelor's degree in history would be an absolute minimum requirement for one to be considered a trained historian. A master's degree in history would certainly qualify someone. And, of course, anything above that firmly establishes one's credentials.

The reason I say that a bachelor's degree would be a minimum requirement for one to be a trained historian is that even taking a few college history courses does not really prepare or train someone in historical study. It really isn't until one takes research seminars, historiogaphy classes, and methods classes, that one's education in history goes from learning about history to learning how to be a historian.

I will point out that individuals without a history degree who have built up their credentials and reputation through high quality and well-received work can respectfully bear the title "historian." I don't think that a piece of paper with the word "Bachelor of Arts" makes the historian. It is the work behind the degree that counts. If someone proves their historical merit through articles or books that (which means work accepted and praised by established historians), then I welcome them into the field.

You point out that the comparison between history and medicine is "thin." In many ways, I agree with you. History PhDs do not have licensing requirements like doctors, and thus it is more difficult to separate "historians" as a group from the general populace. Yet, history PhDs undergo as much schooling (time and research-wise) as MDs. Are their credentials less established or less valuable?

History is one of the only academic fields that does not stand so sharply from amateur interest. Unlike medicine, or law, or engineering, or other fields, historians do not have their own "language." My wife is an MD, and it was virtually impossible for me to help her prepare for medical school tests (and I tried)---I couldn't pronounce most of the terms she was studying. I literally cannot understand articles she's published because the terminology and style of writing is unique to the medical profession. Also, much published history---even academic history---deals with concepts that non-historians can understand. This is not always true with law, medicine, engineering, etc.

Thus, the field of history does not have inherent mechanisms, like other fields, that make it exclusive to other experts.

Now, this characteristic of historical study is good in many ways. It makes history more relevant to a larger audience, or even the general public. I can write an academic article that my friends and family who are not historians can understand. And, people without extensive historical training still can contribute to the field.

But, this characteristic can be frustrating and problematic. Because the historical field is not exclusive, low quality work, or material written by non-historians with political or other agendas (such as the Kennedy brothers), cannot be so easily separated from work by trained and respected historians---particularly by non-historians. With the ease of publishing and spreading information on the internet, this is even more troublesome.

Your reference to theologians is useful, as there are many people who have little formal religious education or training...but who are extremely interested and active in religious issues and events. Many established (and trained) theologians throughout history have been very frustrated by the presence and success of lay-preachers (this was particularly true during the Second Great Awakening). I am not a theologian, but I understand that theological training includes a good education in religious teachings, ideas, and principles, as well as instruction in presenting religion to others and generally working, thinking, and writing at the "expert" level. This type of instruction includes becoming familiar with the popular themes and interpretations of previous theologians. Untrained preachers can provide very useful service to theological study, but may not be qualified to work in advanced theological study.

What I describe certainly has an element of elitism. Professions that guard entrance to their ranks, whether literally in the form of licenses, or more generally by reputation and recognition, are separating themselves from others according to merit and accomplishment. But, as I mentioned to Jaime, such attitude is not only understandable, but probably shared by just about everyone. If you've spent years and thousands of dollars learning a skill, trade, or profession, you understand that people without at least some degree of that training are not up to the same level. And we see this in daily life too...who has more credibility in regards to child raising---parents or a person who has never had kids?

Finally, this exclusive approach does have important value. For instance, we want (actually demand) our medical doctors to be held to high standards before they prescribe us medicine or cut us open. We want the engineer who designed the bridge we drive over each day to have qualifications recognized by experts in the field. We want the attorney taking our case to know the law and be respected in the court. And we want our theologians and religious leaders to be experts in their field too. I do not believe it should be different for historians. When you read a history book, ASK who wrote it, what their credentials are, where they went to school, who published the book, who reviewed the book, what their sources are, etc. While Civil War history is not a life and death matter, we still want it to be of the highest quality.

A degree doesn't make one an expert or perfect historian...but at least it establishes credentials and, perhaps more importantly, places upon them the expectations and standards of the field.