IMHO, this sounds like a made up term for the sake of made up terms.
When I was still in college, the academic term was Monograph. A telling of history through one specific thing. My favorite historical book, "The Faithful Executioner" by Harrington is typically referred to as a monograph because sure, it's telling a story of Nuremberg, but it's telling a slice of it through one specific person, and his journal.
I could see "microhistory" being the social history/popular history version of a monograph, but why not just call it a popular monograph instead?
“Monograph” is just the word for an academic book. It doesn’t have to be a microhistory, and it doesn’t have to be history at all. You can write a monograph on sociology, or physics, or African literature, or religion, or psychology, or anything else. It’s distinguished from something like a textbook that gives a broad overview.
As someone who is both a librarian and spent time in academia, you are both kind of right! In academic research, it is used for research works on specific topics, as opposed to a textbook or survey or reference work.
In library cataloging, it has a broader meaning to differentiate books from serials.
And then there is third definition that is used by the FDA for standards.
I didn’t get into all of it in my post, but microhistory was partially coined as a reaction to the Annales school of history, which emphasized very long chronology and geographical scope. So this was a specific reaction at the time. And yes, as the librarians below commented, monograph has a different meaning.
For example, in Ireland in recent years historians specialising in Ireland's revolutionary period have researched and tabulated casualties and circumstances. Civilian deaths which might have been glossed over now get analysed.
rvakate1 | 16 hours ago
Today I learned about the origins of microhistory. Thank you for the detailed post!
ilanarama | 5 hours ago
So then, what is the academic term for "an in-depth historical look at a single narrowly-defined subject?"
cardamomanddad | 5 hours ago
This is my favorite type of history to read so I would also like to know the answer
BottecchiaDude253 | 17 hours ago
IMHO, this sounds like a made up term for the sake of made up terms.
When I was still in college, the academic term was Monograph. A telling of history through one specific thing. My favorite historical book, "The Faithful Executioner" by Harrington is typically referred to as a monograph because sure, it's telling a story of Nuremberg, but it's telling a slice of it through one specific person, and his journal.
I could see "microhistory" being the social history/popular history version of a monograph, but why not just call it a popular monograph instead?
trivia_guy | 17 hours ago
“Monograph” is just the word for an academic book. It doesn’t have to be a microhistory, and it doesn’t have to be history at all. You can write a monograph on sociology, or physics, or African literature, or religion, or psychology, or anything else. It’s distinguished from something like a textbook that gives a broad overview.
Source: I’m an academic librarian.
gyabou | 12 hours ago
As someone who is both a librarian and spent time in academia, you are both kind of right! In academic research, it is used for research works on specific topics, as opposed to a textbook or survey or reference work.
In library cataloging, it has a broader meaning to differentiate books from serials.
And then there is third definition that is used by the FDA for standards.
trivia_guy | 5 hours ago
This is a better answer than what I gave and is totally correct.
[OP] chevalier100 | 9 hours ago
I didn’t get into all of it in my post, but microhistory was partially coined as a reaction to the Annales school of history, which emphasized very long chronology and geographical scope. So this was a specific reaction at the time. And yes, as the librarians below commented, monograph has a different meaning.
CDfm | 7 hours ago
A great topic btw.
In Irish history we had and have very biased narratives which can be inaccurate when compared to local and family histories.
Do microhistories disrupt the narratives ?
[OP] chevalier100 | 7 hours ago
The original intent certainly was to disrupt the narratives. I haven’t studied much Irish history, so I can’t speak to those narratives specifically.
CDfm | 7 hours ago
History relies on facts.
For example, in Ireland in recent years historians specialising in Ireland's revolutionary period have researched and tabulated casualties and circumstances. Civilian deaths which might have been glossed over now get analysed.
pushaper | 3 hours ago
it basically sounds like historical ethnography or a sub genre of ethnography.