Editorial

As phrases go, ‘disciplinary pedagogy’ ranks alongside ‘dystopian sub-cultural discourse’, ‘chronic apoplectic Brexititis’ and ‘polymorphous perversity’ in the lexicon of mystifying and ugly terms that pepper the English language. It refers to a discipline-based approach to learning in which teaching practice is shaped by, and in turn shapes, its discipline, in the same way that a discipline is influenced by, and influences, the research effort that yields new knowledge and understanding in that particular field of enquiry. Delving further into this strand of educational theory leads to the contention that, within each discipline, there are a limited number of concepts that are ‘threshold’ in nature, so-called because they act as ‘conceptual gateways’ to disciplinary ways of thinking. Students and researchers who gain an understanding of a threshold concept acquire ‘a transformed internal view of subject matter, subject landscape or even world view’, leading not only to new ways of understanding a subject area, but also to a shift in the learner’s sense of identity. ¹ To achieve such a beneficial outcome, the educator and the researcher need to ensure that such an approach is explicit, rather than simply implicit, in the design of learning programmes and the dissemination of research findings.

Such postulations might appear somewhat remote from the purpose and content of the International Journal of Maritime History. But that is not so, for the IJMH serves to inform learning in history and cognate disciplines by publishing research-based articles concerning the maritime dimension of the historical process. Such contributions tend to be implied, however, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of the IJMH’s authors explicitly set their findings in the context of the current state of knowledge and understanding in their sub-discipline. Rather more explicit in relation to disciplinary pedagogy are the reflective pieces that have appeared from time to time in the pages of IJMH concerning the development of the sub-discipline of maritime history. In this issue of the journal, for instance, as well as seven articles that more or less explicitly enhance knowledge and understanding in our maritime subject area, there is a set of articles specifically devoted to an appraisal of the strong and not so strong characteristics of maritime history in comparison to other sub-disciplines of history. This Forum (commissioned by Ingo Heidbrink) considers the ‘blue hole’ that has allegedly emerged in the historical field of enquiry due to shortcomings in maritime history as a sub-discipline. However, despite their detailed comparative analyses, popular music analogies and insightful historiographical surveys, none of the Forum’s five participants seeks to identify the key concepts that could be deemed to shape the sub-discipline of maritime history. In closing this particular ‘blue hole’, six ‘conceptual gateways’ have been devised by the IJMH’s editorial team to provide another perspective on the disciplinary health of maritime history.

Passing through the first of these intellectual portals, those embarking on the study of history learn that knowledge of how people lived in the past can be generated through the application of historical techniques to primary source materials to yield validated evidence from raw historical data. The process and limitations of knowledge accumulation have been well demonstrated by maritime historians over many years. This is partly because shipping, overseas trade and navies have long been subject to regulation and documentation by states, and therefore primary sources relating to these signature maritime activities are voluminous and well preserved in many countries. This has enabled maritime specialists to transcribe and list basic information concerning ships, voyages and seafarers, a perfectly valid and laudable scholarly endeavour that has exposed them – somewhat ironically – to accusations of ‘shipspotting’ and antiquarianism. Indeed, such data mining facilitates the passage of historians through a second disciplinary strait, which separates knowing what happened and understanding why it took place. This, in turn, requires an appreciation of historical context, empathetic awareness and evaluation of the significance of events, people and social forces. That such vital ingredients of historical scholarship imbue studies of the historical interaction between human societies and the sea is evident in a range of historiographical and bibliographical works. ²

Learners cross a third threshold when they appreciate that history is not merely a store of interesting facts and interpretations, but is also highly relevant. As such, in providing data and insight relating to previous scenarios, historians can help explain the present and provide some of the knowledge and understanding required to predict the future. In this respect, maritime historians can contribute as much as any other breed of historian, which is clearly evident in the article by Justin Pyvis and Malcolm Tull in this issue of IJMH. Here, it is revealed that the events and policies of the 1970s shaped the current state and likely future course of the port of Tauranga in New Zealand. Pyvis and Tull, moreover, consider the extent to which path dependency has influenced business development on a decadal scale; a historical approach that illustrates how analyses of the maritime past can inform perceptions of the contemporary world. Such an approach can also lead students and researchers through a fourth conceptual gateway by highlighting a key element of historical enquiry – that studying the past is neither neutral nor objective. History does not exist for us to discover; rather, it is something we choose to make, and is therefore subjective, contested, significant and potentially dangerous. Among many examples of this kind of controversy in the maritime sphere, the phenomena of piracy past and present raises a number of particularly pertinent questions. Why do we choose to study the activities of a relatively small proportion of the population in any given setting who decided to engage in violent, high-risk, often criminal, prize-taking activity? Is it because we are fascinated with behaviours in which we ourselves would never engage – is it a form of escapism or voyeurism? Is it because the so-called ‘general public’ appears to be fascinated by such subjects that we apply our professional expertise to them – are we anxious to set the record straight, to unveil the reality that counters, confuses or confirms the myth? Or do we want to use the commerce-raiding past to reveal uncomfortable, dangerous truths about the inequalities, injustices and constraints of our current political, economic and social systems?

Changing tack towards the substance of history, at some stage in the learning process it will occur to those who seek to know and understand the past that history is inherently interdisciplinary. Although it is primarily humanist, its main subject – the human experience over time and space – has been shaped by factors studied by other breeds of scholar. Maritime historians are well placed to guide learners across this fifth conceptual threshold, for their sub-discipline interfaces with a broad range of disciplines. Among the most significant are: biology, for the attributes of being human – birth/death; gender/race; tastes/desires; emotion/belief; health/medicine – have greatly influenced how and where people have lived and acted; psychology – behaviours, decision-making, group dynamics, individualism, collectivism – is a factor in why people consciously decided to work at sea, play at the seaside and eat fish; social and political science – the evolution of states, institutions and social forces – elucidates the societal and legal frameworks in which shipping, trade and prize-taking took place; environmental factors – the interaction of humans with natural resources and other species – are vital to the historical process, especially with regard to overseas trade, sea transport, navies, fisheries and other activities undertaken in, influencing, and being influenced by, the marine environment.

Once historians have appreciated that their discipline creates knowledge, enhances understanding, and is relevant, controversial and interdisciplinary, they will approach the sixth portal in their voyage of disciplinary pedagogy fully aware that the study of history is never constant, and that historical research can never reveal the full truth about people, themes and events in the past, the full comprehension of which lies beyond the boundaries of what can possibly be known and understood. But reflecting on the nature of their calling at that transformative point, they will realise that rather than striving to find all of the answers, historians should seek to ask better questions. And rather than perceiving the ‘blue hole’ as a sign of failure, maritime historians should see it as a gaping opportunity to pose the intellectually stimulating questions that will enrich and progress their sub-discipline.

David J StarkeyEditor-in-Chief, IJMH ijmh@hull.ac.uk