Last week I attended the 2013 annual meeting of the Southern Historical Association in St. Louis. One of the panels, a round-table discussion on the importance (or lack thereof) of emphasizing military history in American Civil War studies, generated a fair amount of passion in attendees and panelists alike.  A number of distinguished historians served as speakers, and more distinguished historians attended. The panel got heated at times. And, as is often the case, these exchanges generated more heat than light.

As I sat and listened, animated conversations sometimes verged uncomfortably close to ad hominem criticisms, and I found myself wondering a couple of things: first, how can I get these two hours of my life back? Second, what, if anything, can I learn from what I saw?

It occurred to me that there was a lesson here.  As a teacher, part of my duty is to facilitate better discussions in my history courses. After all, upper-level seminars addressing historical “problems” are sometimes similar to these kinds of round-table discussions, with similar potentialities and pitfalls to negotiate. So, after some thought on the plane ride home, I came up with a short list of suggestions for discussing history as a problem in a seminar or other discussion-based course, drawn from my observations of this panel.

1. Set up your historical problems with open-ended questions.

Don’t try to stimulate discussion with a question that students can answer with a simple “yes” or “no.” The military history panel started off poorly, I thought, because most attendees and all of the panelists had already resolved the historical problem before they arrived. To wit:

Q: “Should military history be at the center of Civil War studies?”
A: “Yes. Next question.”

Instead, perhaps we should pose questions that begin with “why,” “how,” “what,” or even “what if.” If the panel had instead presented its problem as “What is military history and how can it complicate our understanding of the American Civil War?” as one attendee helpfully suggested, the conversation might have been more fruitful.

2. Don’t lead. Guide.

Discussions aren’t cross-examinations; they are exchanges. If we are too forceful or insistent, students may go into defensive mode, or even worse, assume you are looking for a specific “right” answer. This requires an element of trust between instructor and students. This is sometimes tough.

3. Don’t manufacture controversy where it doesn’t exist.

This one is self-explanatory. Some historical problems lend themselves to heated discussion, but passionate conversation is not necessarily inspired conversation. Why create an artificial controversy simply to generate conversation? And, when we do tackle controversial topics, shouldn’t we make sure that it doesn’t simply devolve into an exchange of opinions?

4. Leave students with a “takeaway.” Or better, encourage them to discover their own takeaway.

Conversations about historical problems should have a purpose. Even if the takeaway is simply another line of inquiry to pursue at a later time, a takeaway lends structure and purpose to a discussion.

I would love to hear what others think about setting up and discussing historical problems. I realize that many of you have already dealt with aspects of this topic. What resources do you draw on? How do you organize these kinds of conversations? How do you assess your students? Is it too artificial to think of history as a series of “problems” to be worked in a seminar room, or is this a useful arrow in our quiver?