Paolo Macry engages with Chrisof Dipper’s argument and points out that, despite the validity of that many of his points, the German historian misses the originality that characterizes contemporary Italian historiography. Fulvio Cammarano adds that Dipper’s essay is methodologically flawed, and lacks a precise quantitative analysis. Vinzia Fiorino, on the other hand, highlights the merits of some of Dipper’s critiques, and argues that Italian historiography is in many ways behind, for instance in the field of cultural history (and she agrees with Dipper that there is a strong gender inequality among faculty members). Finally, Antonio Bonatesta and Andrea Claudi point out that many of the problems of contemporary Italian historiography depend on more general structural, political and economic issues, and argue that what is needed is a thorough quantitative study of university faculties.
Keywords: Historiography, Contemporary History, Research Assessment
Paolo Macry, Fulvio Cammarano, Vinzia Fiorino, Antonio Bonatesta, Andrea Claudi, in "ITALIA CONTEMPORANEA" 283/2017, pp. 242-280, DOI:10.3280/ic283-oa2