I think, and this is not to be snarky, the predecessor question is "Why should we [in science and technology] support the humanities more". I feel a lot of the

I think, and this is not to be snarky, the predecessor question is "Why should we [in science and technology] support the humanities more". I feel a lot of the answer of "How" will be in the "Why". If area/endevour is not seen as producing value or being rewarding, it'll naturally atrophy. If we have a compelling reason for Why that area is rewarding or producing value, it may need as little as an informational/awareness campaign to promote that value/reward. (note that I am NOT defining "producing value" in dollar terms necessarily, but more generically as "something that somebody or society values". Otherwise, it becomes "something you do for fun for yourself", which is an awesome hobby and everybody should have some, but may not necessarily need to be externally sponsored. I.e. I pay to play music and paint and photograph as a hobby, other people are paid to play music/paint/photograph/etc, and I'm not sure either model is the only right model). I notice the Historian PhD's only track is defined in that article as somebody who will teach history, not as somebody who will research/write/promote history. This makes it a a very small subset of what I would've considered a Historian / History PhD, and as such, again, I return to "Why" they may need external support if their interaction is strictly inward/cyclical.