Historiography can be as large as what history is and as small as what one particular line of text means. Most historians will wrestle with the larger issues but rarely outright address them, it underscores their approach but that might well go unnoticed, and will focus on the particular historiographical issues of their field. Historiographical schools and divides arise through a mish-mash of social, political, philosophical, and linguistic contexts.

On variation, Russian medieval historiography has not moved far from the emphasis on manorialism, and it has less of a post-structuralist skew (much like some French spheres of scholarship) due largely to the influence of politicians in twentieth-century Russia and the Cold War.

As the greatest barrier in scholarship remains to be language - it becomes very difficult to identify major divergences if you cannot know what they are. That Russian tidbit was from a seminar given by a visiting Russian professor at UCL in 2013. Had he not been on hand to tell us about the development of Russian historiography it would have been next to impossible to learn (although it might be speculated) about without learning Russian. He could not answer what other Anglophone historiographical debates Russia might have skipped - because he didn't know what they were.