This article critiques Jonathan Hearn's views on evidence selection in the Race Review, highlighting implications for historical method.
This article responds to criticisms levelled by Professor Jonathan Hearn at the University of Edinburgh's ‘Race Review’ in this issue. It reflects on historical method, the selection of evidence in service of larger arguments, and scholarly propriety.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ian Stewart (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: