The hokum of ‘History is more or less bunk’ – A masterclass in historiography

Abstract Osteopathic history has been largely dependent on narrative of undetermined quality; there appears to be little consensus within the osteopathic profession of historical "facts" backed by acknowledged primary sourced material. Although sociological researchers have made significant improvements in detailing unbiased work, there remains a relative absence of any real interpretation or analysis on a wider front. Little effort has been made by its own historians comparing osteopathic evolution with other alternative medical and manual movements, nor by opposing orthodox medical aspirations either. This unintentional stance poses problems; we should be entering into an historical dialogue with medical, chiropractic and alternative medical historians for balance and academic scrutiny, rather than working in isolation. This Masterclass paper is written to exhort and encourage those interested in researching and writing osteopathic history with discernment, interpretation and analysis. The origins of osteopathy have not only been taken out of context but also a number of A T Still's influences which formulated his practice and principles have hardly been discussed or acknowledged. A passion for the project alone is not an arbiter for sound historical research. Ultimately, reasonable osteopathic history stands and falls on sound quality research, interpreting these findings more successfully, as well as ending up with a more proficient, accurate basis to analyse one's endeavour.