English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This research has focused on understanding how effectively Hull 2017 UK City of Culture incorporated public history into its programme. This has been determined in context to the characteristics of ‘good’ public history highlighted in the historiography, as well as in context to the aims behind the event. Hull 2017 failed not only in effectively incorporating civic pride-inducing, and social memory-changing, public history, but, also, consistently ‘good’ public history that was in line with the ideals of the historiography. However, this research has pragmatically illustrated that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ public history are not mutually exclusive concepts and, in turn, that it is overly simplistic to dismiss the case study as merely ‘bad’ public history. More broadly, this research has shown how historians should adopt critical flexibility, rather than rigid adherence, when engaging with theoretical ideals, incorporating distorting factors into their analyses, and being measured in their conclusions.

Hull 2017 UK City of Culture: A Public History Analysis