Doing Public History: A Look at the How, but Especially the Why

Abstract

MICHAEL FRISCH MAKES HIS MAIN POINT IN THE TITLE OF A SHARED Authority: that interview subjects, museum and historic site visitors, and the general public must share authority with the historian in the historical enterprise. He envisions a dialectic between the historian and the public that would give the latter a legitimate role in the process and outcome of the project. Frisch describes this as the right to make broader historical reflection and analysis (175). Frisch's book is a collection of thirteen of his essays which have all appeared previously in various publications.1 The essays cover a number of broad topics, although most are critical evaluations of specific public history projects. But the collection has importance beyond public history because it addresses basic issues in all historical scholarship, such as the role of audience, the use of evidence, and the relationship between scholar and audience. As the Chair of the American Studies Department at SUNY-Buffalo, editor of the Oral History Review, and a scholar directly involved in many public history projects, Frisch is highly qualified to address these themes. Frisch discusses the identity and growth of both public and oral history