Abstract
Historical empathy or perspective taking has been a bone of contention in studies on history teaching, and the concept remains ill-defined. This may have been caused by a lack of theoretical reflection, as well as by the application of diverse research methods: a more cognitive or 'rational' explanation of the concept has often been substantiated by quantitative methods, while the more affective dimension has regularly been explored by qualitative methods. In this contribution, we trace some theoretical backgrounds of 'empathy' in historical theory as well as social psychology. Then we present a mixed-methods study employing a quantitative standardized measure developed in previous research in Germany and the Netherlands, as well as qualitative measurements. Results suggest that while, on the one hand, the standardized measure proved to be unreliable, both quantitative and qualitative methods can shed more light on what is going on when students try to take the point of view of historical agents. Based on theory, as well as our explorations, our conclusion is that empathy or perspective taking should be seen as a cognitive operation. We propose to see the reconstruction of historical perspectives as a specific element of historical explanation, not as a separate concept of 'historical empathy' or 'historical perspective taking'.
Highlights
The reconstruction of the perspectives of historical agents in order to better understand and explain their utterances and actions is generally regarded as an important element in historical thinking as it should be taught in schools (Barton and Levstik, 2004: 208; Cunningham, 2009; Downey, 1995; Foster, 1999; Lee and Ashby, 2001; Seixas and Morton, 2013: 138; Shemilt, 1984)
It is striking that the educational debate hardly refers to the debate about historical explanation in historical theory, nor to social psychology about empathy and perspective taking, with the notable exception of Nilsen (2016), who explicitly connects historical understanding to social psychology
That contextual knowledge plays a decisive role here, as we have argued in our theoretical framework, is underlined by a closer study of Hartmann and Hasselhorn’s instrument
Summary
The reconstruction of the perspectives of historical agents in order to better understand and explain their utterances and actions is generally regarded as an important element in historical thinking as it should be taught in schools (Barton and Levstik, 2004: 208; Cunningham, 2009; Downey, 1995; Foster, 1999; Lee and Ashby, 2001; Seixas and Morton, 2013: 138; Shemilt, 1984). A competence or propensity that is often connected to this reconstruction activity is ‘historical empathy’ – a term referring to the inclination or ability to imagine how people in the past must have thought or felt, given their perceptions of reality, their convictions and beliefs (Dulberg, 2002; Lévesque, 2008: 142; Yilmaz, 2007). Empathy is often given the broader meaning of understanding or explaining human actions and thoughts in the past, in which case it virtually coincides with reconstruction of historical perspectives. It is striking that the educational debate hardly refers to the debate about historical explanation in historical theory, nor to social psychology about empathy and perspective taking, with the notable exception of Nilsen (2016), who explicitly connects historical understanding to social psychology. We try to make some connections between history education and historical and psychological theory
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
