I was recently watching a YouTube video from Because Science where the host, Kyle Hill, discussed the differences between scientists and science communicators. Science communicators like Kyle Hill and Bill Nye aren’t scientists like theoretical physicists or chemists,but their job is to take scientific concepts, theories, and principle that scientists have researched or discovered, and present them in understandable, relatable, and comprehensible ways for people who are not scientists.
My question being; is there a similar position/concept in the field of historical academia!
Follow up; if there is not, would such a position be beneficial or of value to the historical community in the sense that it can get more people interested in history?
(I.e I like watching the YouTube channel Extra History and it has often made me want to go out and do more research on the historical subjects they bring up. Would more stuff like this be beneficial?)
We have something even better: Public History.
Public history is its own subfield within the discipline of academic history and in many places its own accredited study program, resulting most often in an MA. It's specifically designed to provide training, education, and methods for people who professionally work with history to reach out and connect to the public. This can include such activities like historical preservation, archival science, curatorship, and much, much more. It teaches you to work in museums and historical sites, both in terms of designing exhibitions as well as tailoring public outreach; to communicate history to interested lay persons and design educational programs and content based on history.
In the US, the National Council on Public History, the professional membership association for people working in such diverse fields as museums, historical sites, parks, battlefields, private and government agencies dealing with public history, defines its mission as "To promote the utility of history in social through professional practice."
While the field became heavily professionalized in the 70s and the NCPH was founded in 1979, it is a field that especially in light of changing technologies is still developing and has recently added digital history as one of its core fields and methods. Following recent journal publications in the fields shows that the idea of historical outreach over the internet is one many people in the field are excited about and are strongly trying to improve and develop effective methodologies for. It's among the reasons why we were once featured with a panel at their national conference. I also know that there are several flairs on this site who work professionally as public historians.
The development of the field of public history has also inspired other disciplines to develop similar styles and methods in trying to reach out to an interested public, f.ex. in the US since the late 1980s the field of public sociology has started to be developed heavily.
So, basically what I am saying is that we have developed historical outreach and engagement with the public before many other fields, including science, and what is commonly known as science communicators would be, in our case, public historians who are often, and unlike some of the more popular communicators, actually specifically trained and educated in what they are doing.
This is also one of the reasons why people like Dan Carlin and Extra Credits don't have the best reputation: While especially Carlin frequently uses his "I'm not a historian" shtick as a defense to shield him from criticism, there actually are people who have studied public history working in historical outreach and going very often completely unacknowledged by the public at large that they are working so hard to educate in history.
For more, see among other things the NCPH website.