It is a truism that historical (like all social science) research is influenced by the preoccupations and moods of the society in which the historian works. (In this sense, as Croce put it, all history is contemporary history.) The direction of research is oriented by concepts whose pervasive influence is based on affirmations of widespread, if not universal validity. Inevitably the assumptions underlying such affirmations subsequently emerge as at best limited in space and time, at worst doubtful or unverifiable, while the nature and type of explanation appears as conditioned more or less heavily by contemporary concerns. To identify such phases of research and place them in their precise historical context can be of practical use (beyond its intrinsic historiographical interest) as the very underscoring of the limits of previous work facilitates the identification of new objects, concepts or methods of research.

As the pace of change has accelerated in all domains so dramatically in our lifetime, so arguably the aims, methods and strategies of historical research have shifted at a faster pace than in the past. Most striking has been the move away from the optimistic assumptions of the 1950s and 1960s, codified in the dominant academic modes of historical research, to the more sceptical, self-enquiring and necessarily pluralistic approaches of the past decade. This is not the place to engage in a discussion of the theoretical, epistemological and philosophical bases on which historians base their research.