This thesis aims to examine the methodological questions raised since 1990s as an interdisciplinary approach and the key issues which became vital arguments in the viewpoint of Social-Humanities as a search for alternatives and an introspection about the institutional academic system. I also tried to examine critically the new trend of Korean history academia which is motivated by these arguments. The post-discourses was cited by the collapse of socialist states and raised in the form of a criticism and a search for alternatives of ‘Scientific practical history’ which was proposed by young progressive scholars in 1980s. The issues of the Post Discourses toward ‘Scientific practical history’was summarized by the criticism to the theory of immanent development and the history of people(Minjung). The scholars on the critical stance toward the theory of immanent development see the nationalism and the modernism as twins of modern and criticize the theory of immanent development as a nationalistic and modernistic view of history. They focused that the idea of ‘Minjung’ was discovered as a people in charge of resistance from the binarity of the exploitation and resistance and that it has some aspects of the public which has diverse existence way, trying to break away from the dichotomous historical awareness. In this criticism,Korean history academia raised a new tendency of historical perception and historiography. Their characteristics are firstly the switch from socio-economic history to social history and secondly the transition from the social history to cultural history. In the switch to social history, they were proposed that local history, regional studies, and ‘people’s history’, and the history of daily life, oral history, and the memorial studies shows us the symptom of the transition to cultural history. This new trend of history gave an impetus to change of history and progress paradigm of Korean history academia by seeing objectively and critically the values of modern and modernity which has been taken for granted in the past. However this trend influenced by the post-discourses exposure the limitation by adopting an air of indifference relatively in investigating historically the real problem of capitalism, imperialism, new liberalism, and the division system of Korean peninsula. The coming tasks are to overcome the conservativeness come from the institutionalization of ‘Scientific practical history’, and to recover the praticeness which embrace real problem as a question of ourselves. In this viewpoint, it is demanded the methodology of social cultural history which involve the cultural problem in the field of study.