What is a "Historian" in 2026?

Anthony Delaney took to Instagram posing a question for his audience: What is a historian in 2026?

While the immediate assumption would be that a Historian is conferred the title based on degrees and training, the history of the historical profession says otherwise.

E.H. Carr, author of What is History and a comprehensive study on the history of the Bolshevik Revolution was not a historian. As Richard Evans wrote, Carr “did not have a degree in history. He never taught in a History Department at a University.” Yet, his words are taught in history programs across the country, alongside the shapers of historical craft, including G. P. Gooch, Leopold von Ranke, Marc Bloch, just to name a few.1

The historical profession of the 20th century was complete with scholars from across disciplines. They were journalists, political scientists, linguists, classicists, and they shaped our field to become as it stands today. These interdisciplinary and varied backgrounds impacted the perspectives and questions by which history was determined, debated, and catalogued. These debates shaped exhibitions in museums, the way archival material was bound and collected, and the conversations which take place today.

In fact, it is the history of history which excites me most as a historian.

Curious that. The title of it all. The way I now introduce myself. They way we position our work. Yet the title “historian” means a great many things in 2026.

On the one hand, historians as we know them in the public sphere might not even consider themselves historians at all. Take Eric Larson, an example given by Anthony Delaney in the original video, and a prime example at that because he is, by trade, a journalist. One whose integrity as a researcher and storyteller is nearly unmatched (in my opinion). Indeed, it was his book In the Garden of Beasts which was my introduction to 1933 Berlin and the Chicago World’s Fair in Devil in the White City. His work is worthy of assignment to undergraduate students in History, Creative Non-Fiction, Journalism and more. He does not present himself as a historian but he certainly writes history in a way that is accessible, entertaining, and no doubt rigorous in its pursuit of the past.2

Many of the Historians we watch on HistoryHit, PBS, or BBC have no more than a masters degree in the subject and no one, aside from the curmudgeonly conversations of the old guard professors sitting pretty in the ivory tower, would ever question their contribution to spreading historical knowledge.

Or is a Historian a researcher? One whose sole mission is to move scholarly discourse forward. To present new perspectives and theories for the study of a primary source. To challenge previous studies and engage in a rigorous practice of intervention.

Is it determined by publication? Certainly not. Since many can publish a history book with a trade press without adding directly to scholarly discourse or holding a PhD.

Is it a PhD? The qualification which many now argue lacks worth due to its limited applications beyond academic posts. Certainly not.

Is it peer-review? The process of having your research examined by a range of scholars in the field to determine the validity of your argument and the strength of your primary source analyses?

Anthony states that perhaps the best answer is two fold. Being named a historian has something “to do with your ability to contribute to the field....and your interaction with primary source material.”

I believe this is about a good an indicator as any. Though I would add than an engagement with the scholarly discourse is what separates Public Historians and Academic Historians.

A Public Historian, one whose primary objective is to make historic knowledge accessible and legible to public audiences may contribute to scholarly discourse, though that is not their primary aim, while engaging with primary source material and sites. They are architects in the translation of history to the public. Yet, they may, if they choose or by accident, provide substantive knowledge to those in academia.

An Academic Historian has one primary objective: scholarship. They work to advance the discourse, not simply contribute to it. They are the makers of new models for historical research and they present these models, similarly to the way a mathematician presents a new formula, through the study of primary sources. These sources are often those which have yet to be studied or which require a second look. They are responsible for making it possible for new historic discoveries to be made. They are the tailors, the curators, and the archivists all working together behind the scenes.

One cannot exist, nor survive without the other.

The Academic Historian relies on good will and public investment in the humanities to continue their research. To advance the field and therefore advance what can be known about the past. And it is the Public Historian which grants credence to the work of the Academic. They bring attention, commercial interest, and new eyes to bear witness to the work performed behind the scenes by the Academics.

We are an ecosystem of history fanatics. And we must rely on one another to continue our work another day.

Authors Note: Everything written here is by me, a human. I make typo errors sometimes and often don’t take the extra time to polish my drafts (I’m saving that for my actual dissertation 😅). Thank you for reading <3