Blog CXVIII (118): Eight Questions: Sports History

The next essay in the Eight Questions series comes from Maureen Smith, a professor of Kinesiology and Health Science at California State University Sacramento.  She earned her Ph.D. from The Ohio State University.  Her teaching and research interests focus topically on the Olympics and physical education, and thematical on race and gender issues.  She is the author of Wilma Rudolph: A Biography (2006).  She was president of the North American Society for Sport History in 2010. Smith also served as secretary and then later as the president of the Western Society for Physical Education of College Women.  Smith was also the co-editor of the International Society for the History of Physical Education and Sport Bulletin.  She currently serves on the executive committee of that organization.

What is the greatest strength of your field? In the history profession?

One of the greatest strengths in the field of sport history is the diversity of topics. Scholars focus on time periods, themes, countries, specific sports, etc. Within sport history, we have Olympic historians, baseball historians, historians of women in sport, etc. I think this is similar to the broader field of history, that scholars choose their era, subject, focal point, etc. I am always amazed by the range of subjects presented at conferences and articles published in sport history journals. Sport and history are the two umbrellas under which we all reside, but our individual interests and pursuits make our field a diverse and engaging subject for academic study. I’d also include the methods of approaching and analyzing our topics--from traditional descriptive history to postmodern theoretical approaches--which make for interesting reading and dialogues among colleagues.

What is the biggest issue facing your field? The history profession?

For sport historians, the biggest issue facing us at this point in time is academic positions and availability or lack thereof. Kinesiology departments, including sport management programs, hire sport historians to teach classes in sport history, as well as other coursework in the social sciences and humanities pertaining to sport. Fewer history departments hire sport historians; rather, they hire a historian who has an interest in sport and then designs a course in sport history. There are several graduate programs in sport history in the United States and Canada, located within kinesiology departments. Many are finding jobs that provide them with the opportunity to teach a class or two in sport history, with the remainder of their teaching load covering other programmatic needs.

What is the most interesting work being done in your field? Why?

This is really, I think, an individual and personal preference. For me, I am partial to the issues and topics related to diversity, specifically the sporting experiences of African Americans, during the period of post-World War II America. The line of inquiry has encouraged other scholars to examine Asian American sport experiences, as well as other ethnic groups that are often marginalized in sport (and society). There have been some great articles detailing the integration processes at a number of universities. I am also very interested in the work being done by scholars on material culture, whether it be photographs, postage stamps, statues, or other tangible objects that serve both as artifacts and as the subject of inquiry. To answer the question more broadly, there are a number of journals publishing quality sport history research and while I am not always personally interested in the topic or time period, sometimes the methodologies and approaches are more than enough reason to continue reading.

How valuable is teaching in the professional development of a career?

The value of teaching in the professional development of a career largely depends on the type of university one works. At a university where teaching comprises the major portion of one’s responsibilities, and your tenure and promotion are determined by your teaching materials and evaluations, teaching is of the utmost importance. In the California State University system, faculty routinely teach four courses a semester and their teaching performance is the area which is valued the most in their tenure and promotion process. Faculty at research universities have a much different teaching load, with a greater emphasis on research. I don’t think this means they value teaching any less, but their teaching is valued less in the process of awarding tenure and promotion.

What direction or type of publishing would you advise a new Ph.D. to conduct?

As a mentioned above, there are a number of journals, many unrelated to sport, that publish sport history research. Some scholars will write an article with a specific journal in mind, others will have a ranked order of journals to send their article. Depending on one’s department, non-traditional means of publications may be considered in their tenure review, such as blogs or other forms of social media platforms. As to direction, I would encourage the new Ph.D. to focus on what interests them. They’ve just finished a dissertation and if they are like many of us, ready to explore some new materials.

What issues affect most the development of a career: family, school resources, popularity of field, reputation of alma mater, etc.?

Again, I think this is a question that relies largely on the individual and how central their career is to their identity, and how these various factors influence that career. We know that some fields are not only more popular, but well-funded. Sport historians are best not to fall into the natural trap of social comparison. The sciences will almost always enjoy a greater public celebration and value. However, no matter the type of academic institute one lands, the individual can really shape their career into whatever they want it to be. Perhaps your institution doesn’t value your work the way you’d like, but--your professional organizations do value it. Maybe your colleagues don’t even know what sport history entails and you’re the only one on your campus in the field--but you have colleagues around the country who are in similar positions. Your passion and commitment to the field is conveyed to your students and others in the field who value the work and ideas you share. One thing that sport historians may run into is the popular misconception that what we do is sport trivia as opposed to sport history. Sometimes, despite the popularity of sport, many people do not value the academic study of sport, believing it to be not serious or scholarly enough. Because it is fun for people to watch and participate in sport, studying it, which can also be fun, seems to not be taken seriously as an academic discipline. This is unfortunate. With the rise of ESPN and other mediated outlets for sport, more people really believe they know much more than they do. This is a fun challenge for us in many ways, to think about how to make our work more accessible to the public, without compromising our desire for footnotes.

What advice would you give to an undergrad interested in working on a Ph.D. in history?

If a student is in a graduate program in history and they are interested in focusing on sport history, I think the student is already on a path that will be helpful for an academic job. It is much easier for a history PhD to land a job in a history department than for a kinesiology PhD. Of course, the history PhD would most likely have to teach other topics in history, so sport would be an interest area that might not be initially open to them. The student should think about what department they’d eventually like to work in, and what courses they’d like to teach. If their focus is sport, then perhaps it is better to enter a kinesiology program and take coursework in history. They might also consider American Studies programs, which offer a range of coursework from multiple departments and disciplines.

What advice would you give to a new Ph.D. unable to find employment in a history department?

For someone interested in teaching sport history, you might consider departments of American studies, kinesiology, and sport management. I think some non-history departments would be reluctant to hire a historian to teach sport history, largely because they would need you to be able to teach in other areas of kinesiology, but it’s possible depending on the size of the program and the graduate degrees offered.

Adminstrative Note 18

Work related travel will prevent a posting for this week.  Return next week for another entry in the Eight Questions series.

Blog CXVII (117): Eight Questions: Women's History

The next contribution in the Eight Questions series comes from Susan Rensing of the  University of Wisconsin Oshkosh.  She earned her Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota and is currently Assistant Professor of History and Women’s Studies at Wisconsin Oshkosh. Rensing’s teaching and research interests include American women’s intellectual history and contemporary reproductive rights debates. She is working on her first book manuscript, Sexual Eugenics: Redefining Love, Marriage, and Reproduction in America, 1900-1939. This book explores the eugenic vernacular of early twentieth century America and examines the gender politics that were central to public discourse surrounding eugenics.

What is the greatest strength of your field? In the history profession?

The greatest strength of women’s history is its feminist foundation. As Anne Firor Scott has said, “from the beginning, women’s history developed in close association with women’s activism.” The core assumption of the field since its beginning has been that uncovering women’s pasts is an important step toward shaping women’s futures. Women’s history has been critical to illustrating the social construction of gender and to inspiring activist movements in our own time.

What is the biggest issue facing your field? The biggest challenge facing the history profession?

The biggest issue facing women’s history as a field is the extent to which it is being replaced by “gender history.” In one sense, the history of gender has always been one of the goals of women’s history and so gender history is just a natural evolution of the field. But, in other sense, the many successes of women’s history have lead to the widespread adoption of gender as a category of historical analysis in virtually every field. Obviously, this is a great development in many respects, but the downside is that this dilutes the identity of women’s history as a field of historical study and, in some cases, severs the field from its feminist foundation.

The biggest challenge facing the history profession is the same challenge that is facing all of academe: the deskilling of the profession.

What is the most interesting work being done in your field? Why?

I love scanning recent dissertations in women’s history to see where the field is headed. Here are some that have excited me lately: Katarina Keane, "Second-wave Feminism in the American South, 1965-1980" (University of Maryland, College Park, 2009); Erica Jean Ryan, "Red War on the Family: Sex, Gender, and Americanism, 1919-1929" (Brown University, 2010); Stacie Taranto, "Defending Family Values: Women’s Grassroots Politics and the Republican Right, 1970-1980" (Brown University, 2010). I think that our understanding of anti-feminism in the U.S. is going to be really strengthened in the next decade, and I think the history of reproductive rights movements in the South is still largely untold.

How valuable is teaching in the professional development of a career?

Teaching is the career and I think it is important not to lose sight of that. Historians are always teaching someone about the past, whether it is in the classroom, or with published research, or in a public history setting, or just as an intellectually engaged citizen.

What direction or type of publishing would you advise a new Ph.D. to conduct?

It depends on the kind of career you want. If you are interested in public history, then publish in local history journals and get savvy about social media and digital history initiatives. If you are interested in public policy careers, then you need to demonstrate that you can write broadly and are not rigidly academic. If you want an R-1 tenure-track job, then your dissertation should be ready for press within a couple years and you should try to publish an article in a top-tier journal by the time you finish grad school (or shortly thereafter). If you want to work at a community college or a regional college, you should engage in the scholarship of teaching and learning and demonstrate that you are passionate about educating first-generation college students.

What issues affect most the development of a career: family, school resources, popularity of field, reputation of alma mater, etc.?

Anyone who tells you that the reputation of your alma mater doesn’t factor into hiring decisions is lying to you. It matters, and particularly the reputation of your adviser matters, so choose carefully. The institutional climate and resources at a college and university matter enormously, especially for women, LGBTQ folks, and people of color. Weigh these factors heavily when considering job offers: faculty mentorship programs, research & teaching development funds, childcare facilities, parental leave policies, domestic partnership benefits, and departmental culture. The popularity of your field certainly can help or hinder your job prospects, but your approach to your field matters just as much. If you are innovative in your research, eclectic in your teaching abilities, and creative in your professional skill set, then having a Ph.D. in American history will not be too much of a hindrance.

What advice would you give to an undergrad interested in working on a Ph.D. in history?

I would advise taking a year or two off before beginning graduate school to get more work experience, save up some money, and make sure that a Ph.D. is what you really want. If it is, then go for it and don’t let all the naysayers get you down!

What advice would you give to a new Ph.D. unable to find employment in a history department?

Think beyond the academy. When I mentally thumb through the rolodex of my graduate school cohort, only about half of them are currently employed in departments in a college or university. Others are archivists and curators at museums, policy analysts, grant writers, popular history writers, editors, administrators for various undergraduate programs, institutional historians for various government agencies, etc. More importantly, all of those people are fulfilled by the work they are doing and loving life. Your success or failure as a human being doesn’t depend on whether or not you find a tenure-track position.

Blog CXVI (116): Twentieth Century U.S. History

The next entry in the “Eight Questions” series comes from Timothy Stanley. He is an associate fellow at the Rothermere American Institute, University of Oxford. He previously taught at the University of Sussex and was the Leverhulme Research Fellow at Royal Holloway College, University of London. Stanley earned his Ph.D. in history at Trinity College, University of Cambridge in 2008. His main areas of interest are religion, conservatism, elections, and culture.

He is the author of Kennedy vs. Carter: The 1980 Battle for the Democratic Party's Soul, and a biography of conservative commentator Pat Buchanan: The Crusader: the Life and Times of Pat Buchanan. He also co-wrote: The End of Politics: Realignment and the Battle for the Centre Ground and edited the anthology: Making Sense of American Liberalism: Taking the Pulse of the Left in Contemporary Politics. Stanley focuses his writing on biography and narrative, and approaches his subjects on their own terms. He interested not in what he think motivates a subject but what they think motivates them. This approach has enabled him to get close to both liberals and conservatives. He uses their stories to draw a social history of politics, and truly believes that history is made by great men and women, although many of them have started out rather modestly. His next project is a history of politics in Hollywood.

Stanley has also written as a journalists, writing for magazines on both sides of the Atlantic such as The Atlantic, History Today, The Spectator, and National Review. He has also written for British newspapers like The Guardian. In 2012 he covered the U.S. presidential election for the Daily Telegraph. His personal website is: http://www.timothystanley.co.uk/

What is the greatest strength of your field? In the history profession?

The great benefit of studying or teaching US 20th century is that there’s a lot of public interest in it. Depending on how close to 2012 your field goes, you may have to spend a lot of time justifying why it’s really “history” to other historians. But for the average student, this is the kind of subject that has immediacy and relevance. Your classes will always be well subscribed and publishers will always be interested in your books.

What is the biggest issue facing your field? The history profession?

Maintaining detachment from the subject is a big problem when it comes to American 20th century history. I’m at an advantage because I’m British – the evils of Bush or the saintliness of Kennedy (real or imagined) aren’t personal to me and so I can teach them with objectivity. But there’s no denying that much of the 20th century field is heavily politicized. That’s one of the reasons why it’s been relatively slow to produce research on conservatism or religious politics: many scholars are contemptuous of both.

What is the most interesting work being done in your field? Why?

In the last ten years, political historians have moved away from seeing conservatives as either mad or bad. We’ve grown a greater appreciation of the intellectual tradition and emotional motivations behind the American Right. Slowly, that political perspective is broadening out into the cultural and social – so Matt Lassiter is examining life in the Sunbelt suburbs and Jennifer Burns unveils the sex lives of the Objectivist.

How valuable is teaching in the professional development of a career?

It’s obviously important for getting faculty jobs to have plenty of teaching experience. No matter how great your publishing profile, appointments are informed by whether or not you can carry or create a course. But teaching is also important as a way of articulating and testing your ideas. I’ve always designed courses to match my current research – and there’s no better way of clarifying your thoughts than detailing them to 19-year old novices.

What direction or type of publishing would you advise a new Ph.D. to conduct?

Look to publish an essay in a good journal as early on as possible. That way, you always have a “calling card” that introduces your work to others. When picking a thesis, bear in mind the ability to publish with a trade press. Make the most of the fact that there’s a big popular field for your audience and don’t be ashamed to cash in on it. When you do, the thesis will require a total rewrite. Don’t think you can just submit your dissertation and it will automatically get a popular audience – it won’t.

What issues affect most the development of a career: family, school resources, popularity of field, reputation of alma matter, etc.?

Experience and perseverance are the two most important qualities to an early stage history career. You need experience of teaching and writing before landing an assistant professorship. And you won’t get the experience unless you’re prepared to do part-time teaching work and you publish at least one major journal piece. Nowadays, it’s typical for postgrads to “float through casual work” for a couple of years before getting a position. If you can afford it, persevere. You also have to be prepared to move a lot, which is tough on relationships.

What advice would you give to an undergrad interested in working on a Ph.D. in history?

Go with what you’re interested in, but try to bear in mind an angle that could be publishable. A Ph.D. at a highly regarded university will impress more than one at a less celebrated school. You’ll find that your life develops in a different way from your peers. They’ll be earning money and building a career much earlier than you. But by 30, they’ll be burned out and you’ll just be taking off. You’ll never earn as much as them, but your quality of life will be significantly higher.

What advice would you give to a new Ph.D. unable to find employment in a history department?

You’ve spent several years getting that PhD, so don’t waste the qualification. If you can, move in with your folks or with a friend and do part-time teaching. Wait and the job will find you. I took a year, which is unusually brief. It was a year of panic and despair, but in the end it was worth it.