| Abstract: | The aim of this article is to contribute a greater understanding of the processes by which nationalism passes by unnoticed in research and distorts knowledge about the past. It identifies four narrative practices typical of methodologically nationalist history‐writing and explains why they should be rejected as dubious scholarship. These are: concept overstretch; selection bias; the misrepresentation of governing bodies; and the conflation of culture with identity. It is argued that each functions as a hidden authentication route, entrenching nation‐centric understandings of the past as valid perspectives in scholarly discourses under the legitimating cover of scientific protocol. By increasing awareness around methodological nationalism in history‐writing, this article serves at least two normative purposes. First, it emphasises the reflectiveness required for analysts to avoid co‐option by ideology. Second, it functions as a critical vantage point for dispelling misunderstandings that fuel interstate disputes, interethnic tensions, and the oppression of minorities among populations understanding themselves as heirs to timelessly national property. |
