As public historians seek to follow historical narratives out of the library and into the street, a new relationship is forged between old and new methods. Katharine Corbett, Graham Carr and Benjamin Filene all cite examples of the relationship between advocates of conventional practices and public historians which can be both antagonistic and cooperative. On one hand, as Carr aptly puts it, there is an ongoing argument over which side has the “right to do history in public.” On the other, Corbett maintains that history and heritage (popular and conventional methods) have become “blurred.” What has emerged in the twenty-first century then, is an overlapping of two methods of historical practice: conventional and popular history. One the study of documented narratives and the other tangible pursuit of popular heritage.
Corbett acknowledges this overlap by noting that “traditionally…history was a narrative of the past whereas heritage was…more tangible” and “could be inherited.” Moreover she argues that “since the 1950s, popular usage has blurred the terms, but they still stand for different approaches to the past.” Filene similarly finds that conventional and popular history currently face different audiences: “museums and sites struggle to attract audiences and bemoan the public’s lack of interest in history” whereas “genealogists, heritage tourism developers, and re-enactors…working outside museums and universities, without professional training, and often without funding, are approaching history in ways that fire the enthusiasm of thousands.”
The relationship between conventional and popular history becomes even more interesting when methodological differences are laid aside and advocates from both sides choose to rally around the same historical project. This situation is best illustrated in the case of the 1992 Canadian television documentary miniseries The Valour and the Horror which Carr describes. The films, which examined three significant Canadian battles from World War Two, appeared highly credible by conventional standards. They were co-produced by the CBC, the National Film Board of Canada and Galafilm Inc. In addition, they were directed by award-winning journalist Brian Mckenna. Despite these credentials, the miniseries was subject to intense criticism from veterans groups for allegedly creating a biased and incomplete portrayal of Canadian military actions. Interestingly, the side in support of the films included both conventional military historians such as John Keegan as well as organizations which fit more on the popular history side such as the Writer’s Union, the Guild and the Producer’s Association. Perhaps this cooperation is what Corbett had in mind when she suggested that “with effort and luck, [professional historians] can join in the public’s ongoing conversation.”
 Carr, Graham. Rules of Engagement: Public History and the Drama of Legitimation.” The Canadian Historical Review 86, no. 2 (2005): 354.
 Filene, Benjamin. “Passionate Histories: ‘Outsider’ History-Makers and What They Teach Us.” The Public Historian 34, no. 1 (February 1, 2012): 11.
 Corbett, 38.