Colin Kidd

Yes, I think, in general, there is a considerable gulf. While investigative journalists focus largely on telling particular stories, not all historians are committed to the construction of narratives. Indeed, many historians are more intrigued by explaining contexts and backgrounds. It is this primary interest in contexts which, I believe, differentiates most historians (or at least the type of historian I am) from investigative journalists. I suspect that most historians are very sceptical of the existence of conspiracies, or at least of unrevealed conspiracies. We tend to be more attuned to the roles of unfolding processes in combination with unplanned contingencies in the working out of historical events. We are also very suspicious of monocausal explanations of complex events, and similarly not so interested in simple events - such as the actual assassination of one man by another, say - which tend to be simple events in themselves which do not require complex explanations. There is a hierarchy of evidence, and the historian is duty bound not to believe all of it - such as, for example, legal evidence from witchcraft prosecutions which speak of the real existence of supernatural practices. Generally, the historian is in debt to his sources and, but sometimes he has to reject evidence in the sources which appears suspect.

I have always had a love of the past. It was certainly a prominent feature of my childhood. I think, however, my initial choice of the eighteenth century as a period of specialisation was inspired by my love of ther literature of the period, particularly the work of Sterne. Yes, I think, in general, there is a considerable gulf. While investigative journalists focus largely on telling particular stories, not all historians are committed to the construction of narratives. Indeed, many historians are more intrigued by explaining contexts and backgrounds. It is this primary interest in contexts which, I believe, differentiates most historians (or at least the type of historian I am) from investigative journalists. There is an element of serendipity here, of course. But , in general, I formulate questions to ask of the past based on issues which surface in the detritus of the past, usually printed matter, pamphlets especially. To some extent I am an archaeologist of old arguments, and I particularly enjoy reconstructing the terms of bygone debates. These are my primary inspiration. I suspect that most historians are very sceptical of the existence of conspiracies, or at least of unrevealed conspiracies. We tend to be more attuned to the roles of unfolding processes in combination with unplanned contingencies in the working out of historical events. We are also very suspicious of monocausal explanations of complex events, and similarly not so interested in simple events - such as the actual assassination of one man by another, say - which tend to be simple events in themselves which do not require complex explanations. Yes, I am in broad agreement. There is a hierarchy of evidence, and the historian is duty bound not to believe all of it - such as, for example, legal evidence from witchcraft prosecutions which speak of the real existence of supernatural practices. Generally, the historian is in debt to his sources and, but sometimes he has to reject evidence in the sources which appears suspect.

Professor Colin Kidd teaches at the University of Glasgow. He is the author of Subverting Scotland's Past: Scottish Whig Historians and the Creation of an Anglo-British Identity 1689-c.1830 (1993) and British Identities before Nationalism: Ethnicity and Nationhood in the Atlantic World, 1600-1800 (1999).