Applied History Project

The mission of Harvard’s Applied History Project is to revitalize applied history by promoting the production and use of historical reasoning to clarify public and private challenges and choices. Founded by Professors Graham Allison and Niall Ferguson in 2016, the Applied History Project builds upon the foundation laid by Professors Ernest May and Richard Neustadt in the 1980s, reflected in their book Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision Makers. 

Advancing its mission, the Project sponsors the Applied History Working Group of faculty members across Harvard University to organize discussions with scholars and practitioners; supports historians and policymakers in producing Applied History; develops courses in Applied History; funds the Ernest May Fellowships in History and Policy for pre- and post-doctoral students; and holds Applied History Events open to the Harvard Community and the public. Harvard’s project is one of the leaders among a rapidly expanding network of universities and think tanks that are furthering the discipline of Applied History by clarifying predicaments and choices to inform better decisions.

The Project gratefully acknowledges the Stanton Foundation's generous support for its Applied History endeavors. 

Quote of the Week 

“History without political science has no fruit; Political science without history has no root.” – J. R. Seeley, Introduction to Political Science (1896). 

(More Quotes ») 

Article of the Week 

“King of Kings—the 1979 revolution that changed Iran and the world” – Charlie Gammell, Financial Times, July 26, 2025. 

Gammell draws lessons for today from Scott Anderson’s new history of the 1979 Iranian Revolution. If revolution is about “dislocation,” “frustrated expectations,” and a viable political challenger—the concoction that swept Pahlavi Iran’s “greedy elites” away in favor of the nationalist Ayatollah, according to his reading of King of Kings—then Gammell predicts Iran is far from regime change today. Whereas spies and diplomats missed plentiful signals in the 1970s, Gammell writes, today’s analysts must value cultural literacy and admit dissenting voices to better forecast political change.