Findings from an online survey of almost 1,000 history practitioners. This is the first in a series of articles drawn from my Public Histories MA dissertation.
~
Between December 2024 and July 2025, I surveyed 968 history practitioners, gathering data on who they are (location, gender, age), what they do (qualifications, employment, history genres, audiences), and perhaps most interestingly, why they do it (inspirations, ambitions, influences).
The answers to these latter questions (which were all open-ended, or free text) were particularly insightful, and – broadly designed as the survey was – attracted a wide variety of responses.
In addition to keeping the questions broad, I deliberately didn’t – and don’t – describe all those who practise history as ‘historians’. My survey sought the views of anyone who explores the past and shares what they learn with others – from family and local historians, to writers, podcasters, and tour guides, and from students and teachers, to curators, collection managers, and academics – whether they do it in a paid or hobbyist capacity, whether for an expert or public audience, and whether for personal benefit or historical posterity.
As such, the data I’ve collected may be unique in spanning the full breadth of history practice, stretching across the academic and public, or popular, history divide, and may provide useful insights for other researchers.
What the data says
Demographics
The 968 history practitioners who responded to my survey came from 40 different countries, with the vast majority located in the United Kingdom (468 people or 48%) and the United States (290 or 30%). This was followed by Canada (46 or 5%), Ireland (36 or 4%), the Netherlands (23 or 2%), and Australia (19 or 2%). Respondents from the remaining 34 countries ranged from 13 to 1 person per place, which represented 1% each or less of the total.
The majority of respondents were women (545 practitioners or 56%), followed by men (380 or 39%), and 33 people (3%) who identified as non-binary or gender non-conforming.
Respondents’ ages were largely evenly spread. The percentage variation between the upper four of the six age brackets was just 3 percentage points, predominantly ranging between 35 years old and 65 and older (774 people or 81%), with the highest number being in the 45-54 age group (210 or 22%) followed closely behind by 55-64-year-olds (199 or 21%).
History practice
The history practitioners who responded to the survey largely held post-graduate degrees (525 people or 54%) or had no formal qualification (247 or 26%), and a further 150 (15%) had an undergraduate degree.
The primary practice of survey respondents was predominantly evenly split between being an unpaid hobby (285 people or 29%) and being full-time paid (279 or 29%). A further 187 (19%) practised part-time or as a side project in an unpaid capacity, while 199 (12%) were part-time paid.
A similar pattern can be seen in practitioners’ primary audiences, which were mostly either the public (292 respondents or 30%) or academia and other history professionals (287 or 30%). This was followed by respondents who practised purely for themselves (159 or 16%) and those whose primary audience was students (148 or 15%).
When it came to giving details of their history genre of choice, survey respondents frequently listed multiple, often disparate, areas of focus. In order to keep the coding of this data manageable, I used the first type of history mentioned, reasoning that people would list genres in order of importance or concentration of focus. Here, then, I found an almost even split between the top two genres: social history (256 practitioners or 26%) and the history of a place and/or period (255 or 26%). Cultural history came in at third (164 or 17%), followed by military history (79 or 8%), political history (62 or 6%), and then women’s history (47 or 5%).
Motivations
Respondents were mostly inspired to practise history for their own intellectual or personal curiosity (241 people or 25%), said they had always been interested in it (161 or 17%), or credited a teacher or their education more broadly as a motivating factor (146 or 15%).
For one 65+year-old man from the UK, it started with “curiosity about a stained-glass door panel with stars and crescents”, while another was “set alight as a small boy by old lady friends of [my] great-aunt who kept giving me old history books”. A 55-64-year-old woman from the US began her higher education as a literature major, before realising “history had all the stories, but they were real”, while for a 35-44-year-old woman from Ireland, “an outstanding female professor introduced me to women’s history as an undergraduate and I have never looked back”. A 45-54-year-old man from Australia simply said: “context is everything, and history is context”.
The ambition of most history practitioners was to share, teach, or inspire others through their work (349 respondents or 36%), to progress their career (159 or 16%), continue on their academic path and/or contribute to history discourse (158 or 16%), or simply for their own personal development (158 or 16%).
A 25-34-year-old woman from Nigeria said: “My vision for my practice is to be part of a world where even a little bit of history makes sense to everybody, because it has been communicated to them in the language, style, and medium they find most relatable.” An 18-24-year-old man from Spain wanted to “humbly contribute to our understanding of the past and hence to offer a critical view of our own societies and how they could be different, if better”, while a woman of the same age from the UK “would like to be a published historian and use my research to influence society through policymaking to create a better future”. A 35-44-year-old man from the Netherlands said he wanted to “unearth stories that are buried in archives” and a 25-34-year-old man from Canada aimed to make known “the historical realities of the First Nations” and see their history included in the national narrative. For a 35-44-year-old woman from Canada, it’s all about “lifelong learning”.
The majority of survey respondents (680 people or 70%) said their lived experience was an influence on their work, with one stating: “Any historian who selected ‘no’ is lying”. The most cited nature of that lived experience was gender (206 practitioners or 30%) and upbringing (such as place, period, or their parents: 106 or 16%).
A 55-64-year-old non-binary or gender non-conforming person from the UK said: “gender and sexuality are key to my lived experience and I am keen to provide fuller and more nuanced understandings of the past as viewed through these lenses”, while for a 45-54-year-old woman from France “doing trans history is my activism, the way I give back to the LGBTQ+ community”. A 55-64-year-old woman from the United Arab Emirates who grew up in apartheid South Africa said its “very sanitised history” had inspired her focus on “minority groups and women”. A 25-34-year-old woman from the US stated: “I grew up in low income rural America where many people did not pass a high school education […] I believe this is what developed my passion for public history and allowing historical education to occur outside of academia”. And a 45-54-year-old man from Ireland said being raised by “strong women” had “pre-disposed me to be interested in women’s history”.
A focus on women
Given my own interest in women’s history, I further analysed respondents’ answers to all the survey questions to understand the extent to which women’s history was an element of their work. I found that 122 people (13%) practised some form of women-specific history, and a further 183 (19%) practised history that was women-related, such as family history and genealogy, gender history, and the history of marriage and children. Of the 122 people whose practice was women-specific, 109 (89%) were women, 7 (6%) were non-binary or gender non-confirming, and 4 (3%) were men.
It is interesting to note that 84 women survey respondents (15%) explicitly cited the under-representation of women in history outputs as a contributing factor in their own history practice, while another 100 (18%) cited their lived experience of being a woman.
It is these themes – of women’s under-representation and how it motivates history practitioners – that I will examine in more depth in the next two posts in this series.
The survey data in full
Location:
- United Kingdom: 468 (48%)
- United States: 290 (30%)
- Canada: 46 (5%)
- Ireland: 36 (4%)
- Netherlands: 23 (2%)
- Australia: 19 (2%)
- Germany: 13 (1%)
- France: 11 (1%)
- Spain: 9 (1%)
- Italy: 6 (1%)
- New Zealand: 6 (1%)
- Belgium: 3 (0%)
- Denmark: 3 (0%)
- Finland: 3 (0%)
- Switzerland: 3 (0%)
- Japan: 2 (0%)
- Luxembourg: 2 (0%)
- Norway: 2 (0%)
- South Africa: 2 (0%)
- Algeria, Austria, Bangladesh, Belize, Brazil, Chile, China, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Portugal, Senegal, Sweden, Taiwan, United Arab Emirates, Zambia: 1 each (0% each)
Gender:
- Woman (including 1x transgender woman): 545 (56%)
- Man (including 1x transgender man): 380 (39%)
- Non-binary/non-conforming: 33 (3%)
- Transgender*: 6 (1%)
- Did not say: 4 (0%)
*I received feedback that the selection of possible answers to the question about gender – even though it included an ‘other’ free text option for respondents who did not see an answer they felt applied to them – was inadequately presented. To address this, the question was slightly edited after the survey opened to allow people to select up to two answers. As such, I can’t be sure whether these results are representative of how the respondents would describe themselves, or just the closest, albeit imperfect, option.
Age:
- 45-54 years old: 210 (22%)
- 55-64 years old: 199 (21%)
- 35-44 years old: 184 (19%)
- 65+ years old: 181 (19%)
- 25-34 years old: 143 (15%)
- 18-24 years old: 51 (5%)
Qualification:
- Post-graduate degree: 525 (54%)
- No formal qualification: 247 (26%)
- Undergraduate degree: 150 (15%)
- Professional course/certificate: 46 (5%)
Employment/time:
- Hobby (unpaid): 285 (29%)
- Full-time (paid): 279 (29%)
- Part-time/side project (unpaid): 187 (19%)
- Part-time/side project (paid): 119 (12%)
- Full-time (unpaid): 87 (9%)
- Hobby (paid): 11 (1%)
Audience:
- The public: 292 (30%)
- Academica/other history professionals: 287 (30%)
- Yourself: 159 (16%)
- Students: 148 (15%)
- Family/friends: 82 (8%)
History genre:
- Social: 256 (26%)
- Place and/or period: 255 (26%)
- Cultural: 164 (17%)
- Military: 79 (8%)
- Political: 62 (6%)
- Women: 47 (5%)
- Generalist: 28 (3%)
- Health: 22 (2%)
- Gender and/or sexuality: 21 (2%)
- Legal: 16 (2%)
- Economic: 11 (1%)
- Race and/or indigenous peoples: 7 (1%)
Elements of women’s history (analysis of all survey question responses):
- Women-specific: 122 (13%)
- Women-related: 183 (19%)
Inspiration:
- Intellectual/personal curiosity: 241 (25%)
- Always been interested: 161 (17%)
- Teacher/education: 146 (15%)
- Family: 89 (9%)
- Book/film/TV/game/podcast/site visit/event: 86 (9%)
- Want to discover/uncover: 75 (8%)
- Discovered through work/volunteering: 50 (5%)
- Just love it: 44 (5%)
- Want to change things/inspire others: 40 (4%)
- Lived experience: 33 (3%)
- Other/can’t classify: 3 (0%)
Ambition:
- Share/teach/inspire others: 349 (36%)
- Career development: 159 (16%)
- Academic development/contribute to history discourse: 158 (16%)
- Personal development: 158 (16%)
- Connect with/better understand the past: 73 (8%)
- Contribute to family/local knowledge: 61 (6%)
- None/did not say: 10 (1%)
Lived experience influence (70% of respondents):
- Gender: 206 (30%)
- Upbringing (place/period/parents): 106 (16%)
- Unspecified: 62 (9%)
- Nationality/cultural identity: 55 (8%)
- Work/hobby/travel: 53 (8%)
- Class/socioeconomic status: 50 (7%)
- Family/migration: 49 (7%)
- Sexual orientation: 30 (4%)
- Location: 26 (4%)
- Religion: 16 (2%)
- Politics/beliefs: 15 (2%)
- Disability/health/neurodiversity: 7 (1%)
- Age: 3 (0%)
- Race: 2 (0%)
