Hello all, I hope that this question is within the scope of this subreddit (it seems like it is as it's related to the general field of history but I can never be too sure).
I am a graduate student pursuing a Master's in History, but as an elective I took a course in Archives which technically falls under the category of Public History. I understand the differences between the two in theory, although I am not too certain about the differences in practical applications of each degree. Working for an archival institution appeals to me, but so does conducting independent research and producing historical scholarship. (On a personal note I'm considering switching my program while I still can but I'm torn about this.)
I was hoping that some Public Historians here might be willing to weigh in on how related (or not) the fields are in practice, and how (if at all) majors or doctors in Public History contribute to historical scholarship.
Thank you in advance for any advice, insight, or information you'd be willing to provide.
Over half of the historians in the US are public historians. When I took my position as the administrator of a state historic preservation office in 1983, I was scorned by many of the professors in the history department that granted me my advanced degree. Pretty universally, they declared that it was the end of me as a historian and that I should leave the job as quickly as possible so I could re-enter the profession.
That was 1983. And it was stupid (on their part).
To be honest, I have met many public historians who do next to no history, but that is, to some extent, their personal choice. To be honest, I have met many professors who do next to no history, but that is also a personal choice.
The choice to "do" history and to "be" a historian is a personal choice that does not need to have anything to do with career path. Over the subsequent decades of my career, I frequently lectured to public history classes. I encouraged public historians to take as many academic history seminars, etc., outside the public history program, because it was important for public historians to understand and 'practice" the craft of history as much as possible, so that when they interacted with the public, they did so as real historians, not bureaucrats with the title of "historian."
It is important to understand what a historian is and it is equally important, in my estimation, to practice the craft as much as possible, to retain the intellectual curiosity and currency in scholarship, so one continues to be a historian. That said, ... I could say as much to professors!
During my career as a public historian, I wielded a budget of tens of millions of dollars so that others could "do history," and I influenced the direction of history in my state, but with federal appointments under four presidential administrations, I affected national directions as well. I could not have accomplished any of that as a professor. In addition, with my several dozen peer-reviewed article and the dozen books written before retirement, I published more that the bottom half of my old university department - combined! So who ended up being a historian and who did not?
Some public historians, obviously, engage in independent historical scholarship. The difference is that I had to do my writing on my own time: I have always begun writing at 5:00 a.m., 7 days a week, and that has kept my publishing career going. It wasn't easy, and I ran into state administrations that became antagonistic to my publications (I survived and outlasted them). Professors are encouraged to publish (and when they don't, they are often punished). Public historians are not usually encouraged to publish (and when they do, they are sometimes - rarely - punished). The key is to be a historian - or not - it is a personal choice.