From the Ideal-Type Historian and its Associated Conceptions of Teaching History to a More Embodied and Practical Life Approach

In his commentary, Zanazanian identifies two areas of reflection with two concomitant tensions that emerge from the book’s chapters and from the broader scholarship in history education on epistemological beliefs about history and its epistemic uses when teaching. Given the evidently strong overreliance on history-as-discipline for viewing history and its workings and the consequent assumption of a direct influence between epistemological beliefs and how (disciplinary) history should be taught, Zanazanian calls for scholars to self-reflexively problematize their thinking patterns and to be open to transforming their unintentional preferences and normative assumptions when conducting research in the field. By espousing a more embodied and practical life approach to history, Zanazanian argues, the inclusion of other (non-disciplinary) epistemologies, along with newer thoughts and practices, can emerge.