I’m a Sociology major and next semester I am taking an Interdisciplinary Studies course (History/English) on monsters in western history & literature. From my experience, every discipline/field has a different way of doing things. Words and concepts can have different meanings and uses compared to other disciplines. Frames of reference also differ.
I’ve never taken a history class before, so I’m looking for reading recommendations on how to study and “do history.” More specifically, how to make sense of, and produce, historical research.
Are there contested topics/methods/ideas? What are the current trends in History? There are probably different perspectives on these things. I’m mainly interested in finding a good way to get a picture of what they are before next semester. I’d rather ask these questions now than when class starts and I realize that I’m not clear on what’s expected.
TL;DR What are you historians up to these days?
Also, I’ve read lots of Foucault. He’s kinda polarizing, but I find him quite useful. How is he regarded among historians? If I did a project using Foucauldian methods, would that be acceptable?
Hi there! First of all: It's great that you are interested in current epistemological questions in historical studies. The theory of history is one of the most controversial and most discussed fields at universities. Briefly about me: I am from Germany and did my master’s degree here this year. Theory was a focus for me. First of all: I think that the theory of science should be more important for many historians. Many of them work largely "theory-free" and that is problematic, so I am very happy that you are asking!
How do you study and practice history? A good question. Writing history is a practice indeed, and with Foucault you are basically already there where the questions about this practice are asked. Today history is viewed as highly discursive, so that historiography as a text production is also explored from a literary perspective.
Literary criticism is therefore a particularly strong influence. Especially since Hayden White and his influential work "Metahistory", the fictionality of history has become indispensable. This is about narratives of meaning and the transformation from chronicle events to a story that links these events in a certain way.
The "linguistic turn" thus plays an extremely important role in academic history at the meta level. When it comes to epistemological philosophy, a lot revolves around the ontological status of the past and how it is dealt with. Because of this epistemological barrier, the essence of "facts" and "sources" and their connection is fundamentally in question. This relativism is often (unfounded) rejected, since historians consider themselves to be scientists who are close to the facts, which, however, is untenable on closer inspection. All post-structuralists are therefore important for modern history. In addition, there are many German historians who work on this, but I don't want to bore you with them. In the Anglo-Saxon area I highly recommend everything from Frank Ankersmit. Regarding your last question: yes, Foucault is not only important, his theories are extremely "trendy" and often misunderstood.
Regarding the topics themselves, the focus is on gender history, postcolonialism and microhistory. The more precise the question, the better. The rule here is that the consideration of minorities plays a major role and the story of the "great white men" has fortunately been replaced.
I will be happy to help you with detailed questions, including articles and references. But I don't want to burden you with a huge amount of text now. I hope I could help you out!