What are modern trends in historianship? Are there differences in style or methodology that would tend to distinguish a history book from 2022, from a book from 1972?

Hi,

A couple things off the top of my head that are changes in perspectives amongst historians as well as the way that the discipline itself has grown.

Since the 1970s there continues to be growth in what some call “revisionist” history. Some mean that term negatively and other positively or neutral. In my personal opinion, the term on its base level is reinterpreting and reinvestigating historical periods, topics, and people through different lens. At its best, it is examination of the facets of the historical object because — well, history is complex. It is not historical negationism. I think this goes further to the belief by some that history even academic history (like museums) are not neutral as in the historian has biases and/or is trying to persuade with their work (which is not necessarily bad). The truth is that history grows along with new perspectives and new evidence.

Here are some ways the history discipline has expanded since the 70s:

Generally, the topics and people being covered have expanded substantially since pre-1970s history.
Public History is now a discipline that is also known as “applied history” which is about the methods and ethics of presenting history to the public and/or creating history with the public so it includes things such as museum studies, oral history, historic preservation, museum education, and so on. Talking about concepts such as “public memory” and material culture are popular, for instance. It’s history for the use of non-academics. This is my current field.
Queer or LGBTQ history has become an academic discipline in line with those civil rights movements beginning in the 1960s and 1970s.
African American history has blossomed and become increasing available in academia as a major or minor. For some time, African American history was widely not considered a legitimate field of study. Carter G. Woodson and others struggled with this throughout his career pre-1970s
People’s history and/or social history which focuses more on “regular” people and daily life instead of political and military leaders, for instance.
Other similar changes in approaches to subject include disability history, women’s history, indigenous history (actually done by indigenous people), etc. Topics that were rarely (if ever) handled in respected historical writing or presented in museums is a certainly new.

So I would say one of the biggest changes you’d see in textbooks or monographs between 1970s and now is the variety of approaches to well-worn topics through different lenses AND with new findings. For example, not just the great generals of the Civil War but perhaps the German immigrant perspectives on the Civil War or concealed female military participation in the war. Hope that makes sense.