I have noticed that historians from the US, UK and, to a lesser extent, Germany, seem to form a sort of circle, when it comes to the works that they reference most often, while France, Spain and perhaps Italy seem to form an opposing side, with France as the flagship. I have noticed this particularly in medieval history, as I have noticed that English speaking historians rarely reference the great French historians like Duby, Le Goff, Febvre, Pirenne, etc.
I assume this relates to a general disregard for the Annales School. What are your thoughts?
I wouldn't say that the Annales School is easily discarded, it was an innovative attempt to redefine historiography and at that it did succeed. Historians have used the Annales School as a stepping stone to further their historical methods and we owe much to those famous French historians. I'd say that most historians recognize the historiographical value of the Annales School. Would they consider them relevant today? I guess that really depends on the information you are after. Some of the work these historians did is really thorough and holds up to our standards. There's a reason why only part of their work has been expanded upon or corrected. No historian has felt the need to improve on all aspects of the research done by many of the historians of the Annales School.
It's true that certain historians are more often referenced within the regions they used to operate, but I think that the explanation is a fairly simply one. I'd say that there are three factors which might give life to this bias. I'll start with the most important one :
These historians mostly did work within a certain region. Pirenne is actually from Belgium and while his methods and work are considered "dated", he is still an icon of Belgian historiography. The work he did was very extensive and there often isn't an alternative or the alternative simply builds on what he has written. So when you are writing a paper on Belgian history, it makes sense to atleast mention Pirenne and see if his findings fit within the current academic concensus. He did a lot of the groundwork on which the history of Belgium is built, so it's only natural to consult his works. His work is not as relevant for historians who are - for example - studying the history of the United States. Even if they are doing comparative research, they will most likely reference more recent papers written by Belgian historians, who in turn will have used and compared the works of Pirenne or atleast works which reference him. Historiography is like a pyramid and every paper is a building block. The closer you get to the bottom, the more likely you will find regionally specific research which references these authors.
The way education works also plays a huge role. It's not a coincidence that great historians often expand upon the work of another great historian under whom they studied.
Finally, language barriers will often still play a role. Though this is starting to dwindle a bit given how more and more historians are either writing in English, providing an English translation or atleast a short abstract in English.
Overall, I'd say that historiography has become remarkably global and that most University educations are not simply providing their students with one train of thought, but instead they are showing them all the available options and providing ways on how to deal with all these options.
What do you mean? As an english speaker how does french historiography go? Thats a big question but it sounds interesting, if you have an accessible resource you could point me to I'd love to read it.