Blog CXIII (113): Eight Questions: Canadian History

Nic Clarke received his Ph.D. from the University of Ottawa in 2009. He is a sessional instructor at both the Royal Military College of Canada and the University of Ottawa.  His research primarily focuses on the history of disability in Canada. His current work explores the different perceptions of martial ability and disability held by lay people, the medical profession, and the military during the 1910s. He is using Canadian Expeditionary Forces enlistment papers and service records as a means to identify common health problems afflicting Canadians.  It is the first study to provide a detailed description of the mechanics of the Canadian Expeditionary Force medical examination, the evolution of physical standards for service, and the increasingly complex categories of fitness developed by military authorities as the Great War continued.  He has had articles published in The International Journal of the History of Sport, First World War Studies, Canadian Military History, Histoire Sociale/Social History and BC Studies.

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

“Canadian History” is an umbrella term that encompasses a wide variety of fields of historical research that are founded on the experiences of the myriad peoples that have lived (and continue to live) within the boundaries of Canada. As a result, the field of Canadian History is not only vibrant, but also constantly expanding into new and exciting areas of research. In relation, the growth of interdisciplinary studies—such as the Canadian Century Research Infrastructure—that ally historians with other academics have provided important new approaches, viewpoints, and tools for the study of Canada’s past.

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

The biggest issue—and this has been developing for some time—is the ever increasing devaluation of the discipline of history. Historians must shoulder some responsibility for this reality. Too often we have been content to keep our research within the guild, rather than engaging with the wider public. As a result, large sections of the public have little idea of what we do. Concomitantly, the profession is facing a general devaluation of academia, especially in the field of the Arts. This is evinced in Canada by the belief—held by a number of different sectors—that academic research must be utilitarian or have direct commercial applications. Few of the people who hold this belief see Canadian History as utilitarian beyond, perhaps, a vague idea that Canadians should know some ‘important’ dates, individuals and events from Canada’s past. This position both overlooks the fact that historical research has multiple utilities outside the ‘ivory tower’, and negatively impacts on the support provided to the discipline. Take for example: (1) the Government of Canada’s announcement in the 2009 Federal Budget that “[s]cholarships granted by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council [were to be] focussed on business-related degrees”; (2) the slashing of the Council’s budget by $14 million in 2012 Federal Budget; and (3) the repeated funding cuts to Library and Archives Canada –Canada’s national library and archives.

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

All of it! I am constantly amazed and enlightened by the myriad different studies—ranging from work on Canada’s First Nations through explorations of childhood to reinterpretations of Canada’s experience of the two world wars and beyond—that are sprouting in the field of Canadian History.

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

I would argue more valuable than most people realize – even though our profession lives by the mantra of “publish or perish”. Members of history departments are, as a general rule, expected to teach. Hiring committees look at teaching experience when vetting candidates for positions. In some cases short-listed candidates’ teaching skills are directly tested by hiring committees. Therefore, a strong teaching dossier and extensive teaching experience can greatly aid one’s quest to gain a position.

More generally, teaching provides you with assets that can be employed in your professional life far beyond the classroom. For example, the information presentation skills (and confidence) one gains from lecturing undergraduate students can be leveraged when presenting conference papers, public lectures, and media interviews. You can also gain important new insight into your own research when preparing lectures or discussing material with students. Many academics learn as much from their students as they teach them.

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

Book, book, book! Rightly or wrongly, many hiring committees tend to look much more favourably on those candidates with a book or a manuscript than on those candidates without one. This does not mean that you should stop publishing articles (especially if you are publishing them in well-regarded journals), going to conferences, or teaching (all of which are valuable assets in the job hunter’s quiver). Rather, you should focus your energies to ensure you get your manuscript completed as quickly as possible.

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

This is a very difficult question to answer because the issues that influence—both positively and negatively—one’s career development vary from individual to individual. Even when two individuals face the same issues, those issues can have widely disparate affects on their careers depending on a wide variety factors (down to, and including, the temperament of said individuals). That said, I will comment on the question of one’s alma mater and family.

While having completed your Ph.D. at a highly ranked institution can not hurt your career, ultimately it is your contributions that will carry more weight and get you noticed. In other words, your actions will influence your career development more than the institution from which you gained your Ph.D.

I have two small children and I would be lying if I said they did not impact on the time I have available to write and research. However, I believe the benefits of family far outweigh the disadvantages. The support from a partner, children, and wider family provide cannot be overvalued, nor can the fact that they stand as a constant (and at times loud) reminder that there is more to life than your research. Both the support and the reminder are immeasurably important to career development. Family support will help you through the evitable tough times you will face as you travel down the rocky road that is an academic career. The reminder will save you from burnout.

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

Make sure that you know what you are getting yourself into. Doing research for your Ph.D. will not be the history equivalent of The Big Bang Theory. While you will have fun and meet a lot of interesting people, you will also do a heck of a lot of work, most of which you will conduct by yourself. (That is not really shown on TBBT, now is it?) Doing a Ph.D. can be very lonely, not to mention frustrating and alienating. In all likelihood many of your friends and family will not understand what you are experiencing, no matter how hard they try. A few of them might also question the value of what you are doing altogether. Others will wonder why you cannot just finish this “Ph.D. thing” in a year or so. In relation, doing a Ph.D. can place significant stresses on your relationship with your partner. I was very fortunate to have a very supportive wife. However, our relationship was still negatively affected by my (ultimately successful) attempt to complete all my coursework and comprehensive studies in a year and a half. We barely saw each other.

Do not expect to gain a tenure-track position immediately after gaining your Ph.D. While some lucky individuals do graduate from Ph.D. straight into a tenure-track position—and I know one of them—most people do not. Expect to be unemployed or underemployed for sometime. Also expect, if necessary, to work outside your field altogether.

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

First, do not get down hearted and do not give up. The current economic climate is tough and that fact, combined with the large number of new Ph.D.s being minted every year, means that competition is fierce. As such, you have to expect rejections, and often quite a few of them (I’ve had 20+ so far). Keep building your academic dossier with publications and—if possible—part-time teaching gigs. Sure it is not the tenure-track position we all dream of, but a well-developed dossier helps you get on track to gaining such a position. Second, be honest with yourself. Do you really want to work in academia? Both public and private employers highly value the research, analysis, writing skills, and experience that you have. Often the jobs these employers are looking to fill with someone with your skill set pay well and provide intellectual challenges (and, therefore, job satisfaction). Importantly, taking such jobs does not require you to completely divorce yourself from academia. You can still research, publish, and teach. Sure this work will be conducted on your own time, but it leaves the door open for a return to academia – often with valuable new skills and knowledge– should the right position come along.

Blog CXII (112): Eight Questions: Chinese History

Denise Ho is assistant professor of history at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, where she teaches undergraduate and graduate courses on the history of East Asia and the history of China. She studied at Yale College, where she also began learning Chinese. After graduation, she spent two years teaching for the Yale-China Teaching Fellowship in Changsha, Hunan Province, and a year working and interning in Washington at the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. She completed her PhD in modern Chinese history at Harvard in November 2009. Before joining the faculty at the University of Kentucky, Ho was a visiting lecturer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a teaching fellow at Harvard. Her work has been published in The China Quarterly, and she is working on her first book manuscript: Antiquity in Revolution: Museums, Exhibitions, and the Politics of Culture in China. Ho has also blogged about her research, and on teaching and learning about China in Kentucky, on The China Beat.

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

One of the wonderful things about studying Chinese history is that the field is so vast, the language so complex, and the contemporary interest so great that I will never be bored. In teaching a course on modern China, one always gets to add to the syllabus. Among those you teach, even students who may not have a prior interest in China (whether they are entering freshmen, non-traditional students, or retirees taking courses) will be curious and think it relevant to their lives. Universities are hiring in East Asia in general and China in particular, many institutions are building Chinese programs for the first time, and one therefore gets not only to teach, but to build institutions. Right now in Kentucky, for example, the University of Kentucky just approved majors and minors in Chinese and Japanese, Western Kentucky University has an up-and-coming China program, and the University of Louisville is working on an Asian Studies major. Even smaller liberal arts colleges nearby, Transylvania University and Center College, have hired their first Chinese language instructors within the last two years. At a time when so many university budgets are contracting, it is a rare privilege that both institutions and students believe that your teaching is necessary.

It is also an exciting time to be a scholar in modern Chinese history. One and two generations ago, our advisors would study Chinese in Taiwan, and have limited access to archival materials or the opportunity to do oral history. Today we benefit from the opportunities to study abroad in China, to conduct research even in local archives, and to learn from and learn with talented students from China. I think that the next generation of China scholars will be even more interconnected, and increasingly completely bilingual; I imagine that it will be the rule (rather than the exception) among future scholars that they will have completed degrees in China, or spent significant periods under the direction of Chinese scholars, such as when John King Fairbank studied in Beijing. And of course, the digitization of historical records has and will continue to transform our research, much the way it has transformed the work of our colleagues in other fields.

In my own work, I am interested in the history of the People’s Republic of China, which in many ways is only just beginning to be treated as history. It is an exciting field, and we have colleagues coming out of several major institutions in the United States (especially the University of California at San Diego) and Europe, and an increasing number of students in China. Historically, study of the Mao era has been the purview of our cousins in political science, sociology, and anthropology, and we are certainly benefiting from the interdisciplinary nature of this work. For those who are interested in learning more about this field, I would suggest looking at edited volumes like Brown and Pickowicz, Dilemmas of Victory: The Early Years of the People’s Republic of China; Strauss, The History of the PRC (1949-1976); or Kirby, The People’s Republic of China at 60: An International Assessment. In Chinese, the East China Normal University Center for Research on Contemporary China has also published volumes of essays, entitled 中国当代史研究.

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

The issues facing my field are in many ways separate from the ones I think are facing the history profession, in part because we are so fortunate to be teaching in a field that both the general public and indeed, the government, think are critical to America’s future. As for my field, I think that one of the major drawbacks to studying contemporary China is the limits on research. These limits are both in terms of materials and in terms of the ability of our colleagues in China to publish. Firstly, access to archival materials is still limited. I am fortunate to work mostly in the Shanghai Municipal Archive, which is quite open and has an electronic catalogue. But to work in most Chinese archives, one needs to have an official sponsoring work unit and one needs to have the archive’s permission to research his chosen topic. Many of us have benefited from increased access, but others researching sensitive topics (or topics thought to be sensitive) may be denied access, or never even able to know what materials they are being denied. Further, digitization has been both a blessing and a curse; on the one hand you can look through much material that has been scanned, but on the other hand the process of scanning the material may have resulted in “sensitive” material not getting scanned. As for the second issue, it is important to remember that our colleagues in China are still working and publishing in an environment with constraints. Overall however, I am optimistic about the future of the field and a great deal of my optimism comes from being inspired by my fellow Chinese historians.

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

I think that one of the most interesting aspects of current work is local studies. When I was an undergraduate at Yale, Jonathan Spence taught a seminar on the history of Shanghai, which he also had offered in years past as a history of Beijing and Shanghai compared. A lot of what we’ve learned about China comes from the history of such big urban centers, from the history of places where there has been considerable foreign contact like Shanghai, and from the places where there were the most materials. Although I am guilty of being Shanghai-centered in my research, or what we might call 海派, I think that some of the most interesting work has been the study of local places. Students who are interested might look at Stephen Platt’s Provincial Patriots or Yeh Wen-hsin’s Provincial Passages, to name two examples of alternate ways of thinking about modernity in China. An extended and related way of thinking about the study of local places is of course the doing of oral history. One recent example of such a study is Gail Hershatter’s The Gender of Memory, which relies on many years of oral history interviews to understand how rural women experienced revolution. For an insightful essay on how to do such work, students might read the blog posting by Di Yin Lu on Dissertation Reviews: “Doing Oral History in the PRC.”

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

I’ve noticed that most of the other guest bloggers have been faculty at the associate level, so my response should be taken with the caveat that it is coming from someone in the earliest stages of the tenure track. My first response is that graduate students should have teaching assistantships with a variety of faculty (to get a sense of whose teaching style you’d like to emulate), to teach at least one course that is a general survey or outside of your own field of expertise, and to find a chance to teach your own course at least once before finishing your PhD. In my own experience, I was quite fortunate to teach for two instructors at Harvard who were truly thoughtful about teaching, Peter Bol and Mark Elliott. The course was the introductory survey to the history of China, and we had a team of about seven teaching assistants. Each week we’d meet for two hours with the instructors and they would find out how each of our sections was going, and then one of us would present a lesson plan for the following week. It was only later that I learned that such faculty commitment is the exception rather than the rule.

In general what I wish I had known is how much the students at my PhD-granting institution would be different from the students that I currently teach. My teaching in grad school was based on the assumption that my students would be highly motivated and interested in the subject. One of the things that I’ve had to learn at Kentucky is how to create interest, how to create more structure, how to create a syllabus that is considerate of how many of our students are working full-time, how to aim at a broad range of levels of preparation, and how to motivate as well as to teach. I realize that most centers of teaching and learning focus on the undergrads that are currently being taught, but I think that more could be done in grad school to help PhD students anticipate their future classrooms.

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

Once again, I am this new PhD, and so far have only one journal article to my name, though I have a second article, a chapter in an edited volume, and two book reviews in the pipeline. My sense so far is that having a publication allows you to be a known quantity, and also affirms to your home department that you are establishing yourself in the field. As I’ve stated above, historians of China are lucky in that there are more new jobs opening up to us, and it is often the case that one gets hired before finishing the dissertation. So unlike the other bloggers here I wouldn’t necessarily counsel PhD students to publish. From my experience on searches, I would say that an article would help, but wouldn’t be a deal-breaker. What is sometimes a deal-breaker is whether the dissertation is close to completion…so finish that dissertation!

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

One of the challenges of being a new professor of Chinese history is being at a school where there may not be that many resources for your field, whether they are library resources, other colleagues, or funding to travel to China for archival or field research. But of course, this is the consequence of these institutions hiring in China studies for the first time and building China studies programs—perhaps the reason that you have this job in the first place! Leaving Harvard’s library, its dozens of China faculty, and its deep pockets can feel, as I can attest, like being cast out of Eden. I myself was lucky in that I did have a start-up package, access to some conference funding, and a modest library budget, and realize that this is more than many of my colleagues hired at the same time (2008-2009 job market cycle).

Nonetheless, it is hard not to feel isolated, even though I have a supportive department and two fantastic colleagues in Chinese literature. The advice I would give is that you have to make your own networks. Take advantage of the internet and exchange work with your grad school friends, make time to read their work and talk on Skype as you work through revisions. Join the regional AAS, get on the mailing lists of nearby universities, and go visit their East Asian Studies Centers. It may seem prohibitive to drive three or four hours to attend a talk, but this is what your Asian studies network is now. Finally, I have found it invaluable to attend the Association of Asian Studies annual meeting. You will get feedback, you’ll feel invigorated, and you’ll remember why you choose this field in the first place. Even if you don’t have funding from your university, or if you’ll end up paying out of your own pocket, you have to go. Grad school was one continuous annual meeting, now you have four days to drink from the firehose. The same logic applies to going to the archive; even if you don’t have funding, you have to go.

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

Go learn languages. The first piece of advice I would give is for the undergrad to go and live abroad for at least a year, and try to get at least newspaper reading knowledge under their belt. Acknowledging the fact that learning Chinese is a life-long endeavor—I still feel like a beginning student—starting graduate school will be so much easier if you aren’t still learning to read. Other side benefits of spending the time to learn languages is that you’ll really immerse yourself in the history and culture of the place, and you’ll have some time to learn and think more about whether it is really for you.

Second, I’d suggest that you learn as much about a PhD as possible, using your home institution as a place to start. What a PhD student does is very different from what you do, so talk to your teaching assistants, listen in on the graduate student conference, and attend a few academic talks to get a sense of what professors do. You might also consider asking your teaching assistant or your professor if they would give you feedback as if you were a graduate student, and see how you respond to it. When I was a junior in college one of my TA’s, unsolicited, informed me that he would evaluate my paper on early American social history as if I were his colleague. He proceeded to tear me apart, but I guess I wasn’t dissuaded.

Third, for those specifically interested in Chinese history I’d suggest doing a master’s in East Asian studies first. This is something I wish I had done, to get a better sense of the field, to get my language skills up to speed, and to be socialized before I was thrown in. There are of course many reasons not to do this, including that it is time-consuming and expensive. But a career in academia isn’t a race, and many programs will have scholarships. If you decide it isn’t for you, than you are in a much better position to change careers with an East Asian studies master’s than with a history master’s.

Finally, go for a Ph.D. in history if you can’t imagine doing anything else, if you think you would love it for the experience, and if you can come to terms with the fact that you may not be employed as a professor of Chinese history after 6-8 years of preparation in a doctoral program. It goes without saying that you should not go unless you are accepted to a top program and are funded. Full stop.

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

Hopefully it will not come to the “new Ph.D.” That is, part of the national conversation in history departments has to be that our doctoral students are coached throughout their course of study on how to find jobs inside and outside of academia. I’ve suggested to my department that part of our graduate training should include an “outside outside field,” i.e., something like public history, library science, distance learning, or some kind of internship, so that everyone has a Plan B. I think it is our responsibility to our students to let them know how difficult the market is, to prepare them as best as possible for that market, and to give them an outside option. Students who would like to learn more might find Basalla and Debelius’ “So What Are You Going to Do With That?”: Finding Careers Outside Academia helpful.

If it is indeed a “new Ph.D” I think the answer depends on what that person’s goals are. Again, graduates with a Chinese history PhD will have a range of options that are enhanced by their linguistic abilities. Classmates of mine, for example, have joined the State Department in the Office of the Historian, as foreign service officers, and have found non-academic employment in China as consultants or as administrators in international education. Some people who have chosen this option have even found ways to remain active in the field, publishing their dissertation or parts of it, and continuing to organize panels and do research on their own time.

If the goal is still to find academic employment, I think that there must be a fair and balanced evaluation of what the student’s other life goals are, including any financial or familial restraints. The job market is so competitive and so much is based on chance and not ability, that the extent of “trying again” needs to be balanced against the student’s other goals and his or her tolerance for disappointment. One of the tragedies of this profession is that there are people who are brilliant at research, talented and passionate teachers, and who would be excellent colleagues who will not be able to secure a job. One of the best pieces of consolation I received in 2009 was that, no matter what happened on the job market, I would still “be an intellectual.” By extension, there are other jobs in the world that will use one’s skills as a teacher and a researcher, but they may not be academic ones. You have much to give the world, and if it is not in academe, it will be in a role that you yourself will define. Remember the old man who lived at the frontier 塞翁失马; you have yet to find out what fortune may come of this misfortune.

Blog CXI (111): Eight Questions: African American History

The next post in the Eight Questions series comes from Chad Williams who is an associate professor of history at Hamilton College.  Williams specializes in modern U.S. and African American history. He did his undergraduate work at the University of California, Los Angeles.  He then earned his master's degree and Ph.D. in history from Princeton University. Williams' specific teaching and research interests include World War I, African Americans in the military, war and society, African American intellectual history and the African diaspora. His first book Torchbearers of Democracy: African American Soldiers in the World War I Era (University of North Carolina Press, 2010) won the 2011 Liberty Legacy Foundation Award from the Organization of American Historians and the 2011 Distinguished Book Award from the Society for Military History. This book studies how the First World War helped shape African Americans' identity as Americans.  One reviewer noted: "Williams’s study does an excellent job of weaving these complex ideas in a clear narrative. The narrative is written in a clear and accessible way."  A recipient of a 2011 Dean’s Scholarly Achievement Award, he has published articles and book reviews in numerous leading journals and collections. Williams has earned fellowships from the American Council of Learned Societies, the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, the Ford Foundation and the Woodrow Wilson Foundation. He is currently completing a study of W. E. B. Du Bois's historical writings on World War I.

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

The greatest strength of African American history continues to be its methodological and conceptual breadth. African American history has always been at the cutting edge of developments in the historical profession. The field of African American history is characterized by intellectual creativity and the unique ability of historians to craft new frameworks for understanding the black experience. For example, Thomas Holt's recent book Children of Fire offers a fresh take on the African American history survey by eschewing a traditional linear narrative and instead adopting a generational approach. African American history pushes the boundaries for how we view and study history more broadly by revealing the full human complexity of peoples of African descent.

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

The dearth of tenure-track employment opportunities remains the biggest issue facing the profession. I think this challenge is especially acute for scholars of African American history. On the one hand, there is fierce competition over the small number of positions offered each year in African American history, unfortunately leaving many highly qualified candidates without employment. At the same time, job searches in United States history often do not give specialists in African American history a serious look. This is due to the continued, and quite frankly, pernicious assumption that African American history somehow falls outside the scope of American history proper. I cannot keep track of how many times I have been asked, "Can you teach an American history survey course?" The most significant issue facing the field of African American history is thus the continued need to not be seen merely as a "sub-field" of American history but as absolutely central to how we think about history as a whole.  

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

The current vogue of the "long civil rights movement" has certainly spawned a wealth of recent scholarship that has broadened the temporal and geographic scope of the African American struggle for equal rights and citizenship. However, the proliferation of “long civil rights” scholarship also threatens to obfuscate as much as its reveals. In the search for agency, resistance and activism, historians of the “long civil rights movement” run the risk of losing sight of the full complexities of black life. Indeed, the everyday actions and daily motivations of African Americans have been shaped by a multitude of factors, the quest for civil rights among them, but not always the most determinative.

Some of the most exciting work that both addresses and goes beyond the “long civil rights movement” framework examines black life during the interwar period, the era of the so-called “New Negro.” Historians have explored the seemingly familiar terrain of the post-World War I years and shed new light on the complexity of the black experience. Books such as Davarian Baldwin's Chicago's New Negroes, Anastasia Curwood's Stormy Weather, Erin Chapman's Prove It On Me, and Minkah Makalani’s In the Cause of Freedom have offered wonderful reinterpretations of issues such as black migration, urban consumer culture, African American marriage, gender and sexual politics, and radical black internationalism.

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

I view teaching as incredibly important. A small liberal arts college will obviously emphasize teaching more than a research institution in hiring and promotion decisions. But irrespective of the institution, quality teaching can only serve as a boon to ones career, while poor teaching may in fact be a detriment. I also find that teaching helps sharpen my scholarship, allowing me to test out new ideas and think them through with my students. So beyond simply career development, teaching should be a key component of your intellectual development as a historian.

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

Given the current realities of the market, establishing a publication record should ideally begin in graduate school. While finishing the dissertation and obtaining your Ph.D. is obviously the main goal, I would encourage doctoral students to consider opportunities for early publication. Aiming to publish a peer reviewed article is ideal, even if it is not in a top tier journal. Don't waste time waiting months for a reply and the strong possibility of rejection. Most important, begin the process of transforming your doctoral thesis into a book. Even before embarking on the exhausting journey of securing a publisher, seriously think about what type of book you want to write, as opposed to simply how you plan to revise your dissertation.  

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

Of all the numerous intangibles that can affect an academic career, institutional support looms large. This can encompass a number of different things, such as funding for research, resources for course development, assistance in spousal hiring, and the active promotion of a collegial environment. In the case of scholars of African American history, the importance of institutional support goes hand in hand with the issue of intellectual community. We all ideally want to work in environments with supportive colleagues whom we can share ideas with, learn from, and who take genuine interest in our scholarship. Finding such a place can be a challenge for African American historians, who often must look beyond their place of employment for a sense of community.

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

I have never flat out told an undergraduate interested in pursuing a Ph.D. in history to think again. If someone has a true passion for the study of history I would wholeheartedly encourage them to consider graduate school. With that said, they must have a clear understanding of the challenges that lay ahead, especially the gloomy reality that immediately securing a tenure-track appointment will be extremely difficult. I would therefore emphasize that it is no longer tenable to approach graduate study, in history or any other discipline, with a narrow set of career goals. Think creatively. Graduate school should be seen as a once in a lifetime opportunity to mature as a holistic scholar and develop a broad array of skill sets that can be put to use both inside and outside of academia.

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

The inability of new Ph.D. recipients to consider employment opportunities beyond the traditional tenure-track appointment in a history department route is a failure of the current system of graduate training. The AHA's recent focus on encouraging historians, especially recent Ph.D's to consider careers beyond academia narrowly defined is welcome and long overdue. Because graduate school lends towards specialization, most Ph.D. holders do not even realize they are qualified for jobs outside of academia. Working with museums, foundations, and teaching at the secondary level are all more than viable options. Curriculum development is a potentially exciting opportunity as well. While various aspects of African American history are now regularly taught at the secondary level, many teachers lack both the knowledge base and resources to effectively convey the complexities of their subject matter. There is a need for qualified historians to engage in this type of work.

Blog CX (110): Eight Questions: Religious History

The next entry in the "Eight Questions" series comes from Angela Lahr.  Oxford University Press published her first book, Millennial Dreams and Apocalyptic Nightmares: The Cold War Origins of Political Evangelicalism (2007).  A reviewer in Church History called it a thoughtful and thought provoking analysis." Another writing in The American Historical Review, observed: "Lahr's book is significant and persuasive contribution to our understanding of the origins of political evangelicalism in the twentieth century, and it should receive a wide readership."  Lahr is currently an Adjunct Professor of U.S. History at Finger Lakes Community College.  Before that she was a Visiting Assistant Professor of History at Westminster College for five years.  She was also a Visiting Assistant Professor of History at Texas A&M University--Commerce for a year.  She earned a BA in history from the University of Evansville and recieved her MA and Ph.D. from Northern Illinois University.

 

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

A recent AHA study of history departments shows that the history of religion is one of three fields – along with diplomatic history and military history – to have increased over 6 percent in departmental representation over the last five years (Perspectives on History, September 2011). At its best, the history profession seeks to understand the human condition as it evolves over time. Religious historians who study the role of belief systems in societies highlight a fundamental component of the human condition. Because of its focus on what people believe, why they believe it, and the impact of those beliefs on individuals, cultures, societies, and institutions, historians who research religion can also be an asset in demonstrating the connections that exist between other fields (both topical and geographic). 

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

According to the 2007 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, 28 percent of American adults have left the faith in which they were raised. Among its conclusions is the claim that “religious affiliation in the U.S. is both very diverse and extremely fluid.” (http://religions.pewforum.org/reports) “Very diverse and extremely fluid” could also be used to describe other periods of American religious history, and explaining how and why religious landscapes differ and remain the same over time is one of the tasks of historians. This survey underscores a basic challenge for historians of religion. How does one communicate and explain the belief systems of the past to the present? This challenge is undoubtedly not new, nor is it unique to the field of the history of religion, but it continues to confront historians nonetheless.

Some of the most interesting work historians of American religion are doing recognizes the role of fluidity in understanding the belief systems of the past. These historians address the changing belief patterns of individuals and groups and evaluate the significance of those changes. Others examine the causes and consequences of the fluidity of belief systems across porous borders. Studies on religion and the Atlantic world have long taken up this challenge. In his recent book, Darren Dochuk discusses the influence of migrating Bible Belt evangelicals on Sunbelt conservatism (From Bible Belt to Sunbelt: Plain-Folk Religion, Grassroots Politics, and the Rise of Evangelical Conservatism). Other scholars have tackled the impact of immigrant groups on the religious practices of communities and on larger cultural and political forces.

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

Institutional support (or the lack thereof) can greatly impact the value of teaching on a professional career. Aside from that, teaching can be as valuable as one makes it. It can be frustrating. It can be time-consuming. It can inspire new questions and spark new areas of interest. It can improve and clarify speaking and writing skills. It can be rewarding.

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

Career development is a process that is largely unique to each individual, depending on a combination of personal goals and values on one hand and the state of the field and quality of education on the other. Obviously, individuals who earn a degree in a sought-after field from a top-tier school and who are willing/able to move anywhere for a job will have more opportunities. Speaking from my own experiences, changes in my personal and professional goals have also profoundly impacted the direction of my career.

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

Make sure that you are well aware of the state of the job market and ask yourself if you are prepared to face the worst-case scenario after earning a Ph.D. – not being able to find your “dream job.” If you decide that you are prepared, do some serious research into the discipline, your field of interest, and the reputations of the Ph.D. programs you are considering. Then, develop a back-up plan . . . and a back-up plan for your back-up plan. Don’t stop there. Make some efforts at working toward your “Plan B” so that if you do need to fall back on it you won’t have to start from scratch.

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

Be realistic. At some point you should assess available opportunities outside of academia and take stock of the skills that you have acquired in attaining your Ph.D. Which of those are transferable? Focus on highlighting those skills to find employment elsewhere. Earning an additional degree is always an option, but other well-known opportunities include positions in public history, the government, secondary teaching, library work, and college administration (among others). Be prepared to be patient. You may have to start out in an entry-level job.

Blog CIX (109): Eight Questions: Medieval History

John D. Hosler is currently an associate professor of history at Morgan State University in Baltimore, Maryland. He holds a B.A. and two M.A.s from Iowa State University and the Ph.D. from the University of Delaware. He is an historian of medieval military history, particularly in England and its sphere of influence, with interests in generalship, the conduct of warfare, military historiography, the art and theory of warfare, and the influence of warfare on political history. He is the author of Henry II: a Medieval Soldier at War, 1147-1189 (2007) as well as articles in Haskins Society Journal; the Journal of Medieval Military History; and the collection Mercenaries and Paid Men: the Mercenary Identity in the Middle Ages. He is currently writing his second book, titled John of Salisbury: Military Authority of the Twelfth-Century Renaissance, which is under contract with Brill Academic Press.

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

The vitality of medieval military history is remarkable and has been for the last twenty years. There is a tremendous interest in the subject and its scholars can boast of robust publication numbers. Several trade presses (Ashgate, Boydell, and Brill, for example) have actively pursued and published studies and collections on medieval war, and there is now the highly-acclaimed Journal of Medieval Military History. Contributing in large part to this phenomenon has been a renewal of interest in the Crusades since the events of September 11; while I am not certain that one has anything to do with the other in a historical sense, the terrorist acts certainly renewed interest in Western vs. Middle Eastern conflicts. Undergraduate students routinely fill classes on warfare, and we have seen noticeable numbers of graduate students in the audiences at our conference sessions. Perhaps best of all, medieval military historians are collectively a friendly and collegial group that encourages student aspirations and shares its knowledge broadly and openly. I should know: in 2000 I was one of those students who, prodded by a number of helpful, established scholars, decided to study medieval war!

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

Medieval  history is most threatened by an ongoing phenomenon we call “the death of the past”; that is, the general belief in higher education that history before 1500 is less interesting to students, less informative to the discipline, and therefore expendable. For years colleges have reduced the number of medieval courses and faculty, with much of the impetus coming from fellow historians. Those courses that have survived are expected to cover huge swaths of history. In my department both my ancient and medieval surveys are expected to cover one thousand years of history in a single semester, respectively. Our American surveys, on the other hand, cover small slices like 1787-1861, 1877-1932, or 1932-present (there is an implicit—and entirely false—assumption that too little can be known about, say, 1272-1312 to warrant such a catalog listing). In addition, retiring medieval faculty lines are not being replaced but are “retagged” into other historical fields. As a result, medieval history (along with ancient history and classics, both of which, one could argue, are actually in worse shape) is slowly disappearing from college catalogs and faculties. For example, my undergraduate institution, Iowa State University, has over 28,000 students but only one medieval historian. Some will scoff at all of this as a bit of whining—and I am sure that my own colleagues tired of my “whining” long ago!—but there is no denying that preferential treatment is given to modern history, and the discipline will need to eventually come to grips with it.

This unfortunate situation is not necessarily due to the shifting of interests to newer methods or thematic approaches to history—think gender studies, for example—because one could spend an entire career studying gender in the Middle Ages. Rather, it often stems from the ignorance and prejudices of modernists and, particularly, Americanists who refuse to include medieval studies within those subject areas and interdisciplinary studies. Over the years I have routinely heard the common beliefs: everything before 1500 “is already known”; pre-modern historians have “relatively few sources to read”; “international studies” should not include pre-modern history; and so on. This has unfortunately carried over into graduate programs: there are hardly any historians of medieval war who teach in doctoral programs in the United States. As with many problems in higher education, those enabling this “death of the past” (whether intentionally or not) are oblivious to actual student interests and demand. Most medieval historians, I suspect, will tell you that their classes are quite popular and usually fully-enrolled.

In terms of the profession at large, history is under threat from shifting local and national emphases towards applied research and the STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). Research and teaching that does not result in an immediate payoff is lightly regarded, and the phrase “lifelong learning” is rarer on campuses these days. History is not the only discipline watching its perceived importance decline; all the humanities and many of the social sciences face demotion as institutions and governments increasingly favor students as “customers” and education as “job training.”

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

The hottest work in medieval military scholarship today is in the area of prosopography. It centers on the identification of individual soldiers, which then enables more in-depth analyses of the profession of arms in the Middle Ages. A chief example of this is The Soldier in Later Medieval England project; based at the University of Southampton, its staff have assembled a free, online database of nearly 250,000 records of English soldiers serving in the period 1369-1453. Three edited collections of essays and a monograph, all using in some measure this vast resource, have already been published since its completion in 2009. The unambiguous conclusion from these studies is—much to the surprise (and, in some cases, chagrin) of modern military historians—that medieval warriors were professional soldiers in every sense of the word.

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

A solid record of teaching is essential (and by teaching I mean independently-instructed courses, not courses for which you were the teaching assistant). Depending on the field, a doctoral student or adjunct/visiting professor should teach both halves of their basic surveys at least twice: U.S. History I & II and Western Civilization I & II. And everyone, regardless of field, should also teach World History I & II, which is not only replacing Western Civ around the country but is also frequently being taught by Ph.D.s in American history. An upper-level course or two added to these surveys makes for a fine vitae. Versatility is the goal here: hiring committees want teachers who can cover the freshmen sections, and you will teach more of these courses than anything else over the span of your career. At my mid-level state university, each semester I teach three sections of world history and one upper-level course for the majors. Notice the 4-4 load: it is becoming more common these days, not less…

That said there is the law of diminishing returns. Once you have taught 10 sections of U.S. History, I daresay that teaching 10 more adds little to your vitae; moreover, too much teaching will inevitably impact your research output. Now, if you are contemplating community-college jobs or teaching-intensive small liberal arts colleges this is less of a negative, but if you are interested in any school with a research burden (i.e. calculated for raises and/or tenure) you need to dial down the teaching upon reaching the totals advised above. Otherwise, you might become that adjunct who is an awesome teacher but never published anything…and got beaten in a job search by a shiny new Ph.D. with an article and two book reviews.

Some qualification is needed with this last point. By now most of us are aware of the massive problem with universities hiring contractual lecturers, asking them to teach heavy course loads, and paying them peanuts and no benefits. The scarcity of full-time positions means that new Ph.D.s often labor for years on the instructor track just to pay rent—and this forces them into the “too much teaching” issue that I mention above. This is obviously a major problem, and I do not presume to have the answer for it. All I can suggest is that while you are toughing out such contracts try to keep up with your research so that you can someday transition to a full-time gig.

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

Carpe diem! New Ph.D.s should seize every potential publishing and speaking opportunity that comes their way. So, when asked the questions:

• “Would you like to review this book that is somewhat out of your research field?”

• “We are thinking about publishing the proceedings of this conference—would you like to submit your paper for inclusion?”

• “I know two months is a short timeline, but would be able to revise your paper by then?”

the answer should be “YES!” Journal review boards, conference organizers, and publishers are looking for dependable scholars who can meet deadlines and accommodate disparate needs. I know several historians who turn down such offers because they imagined their research appearing elsewhere; as a result, their work was not published in time to get a job and/or tenure. Over-committing, in my opinion, is one hallmark of a good young scholar.

I would also urge new Ph.D.s to create opportunities for themselves. One of the first things I did upon getting my Ph.D. was to contact the review boards of my field’s major journals and offer to write reviews, not only in my primary research specialization of Anglo-Norman military history but of books on medieval England and France, church history, the Crusades, and other areas. Presuming that you are dedicated and actively reading, you should be able to cover a similar scope. Active and reliable book reviewing (meet your deadlines!) will eventually open up opportunities in reviewing articles and books, joining editorial teams and boards, and publishing.

In addition, new Ph.D.s should be cognizant about the state of publishing in their discipline. In my field of medieval warfare some of the best research does not appear in traditional academic journals. Instead, collections of essays are now ubiquitous, and the good publishing houses peer-review the submissions. Slowly—very slowly, I should say—tenure and promotion committees are recognizing this change, and while journal articles still reign supreme book chapters do count towards tenure. In a similar vein, I would urge new Ph.D.s to think hard about publishing their first book with a university press. Obviously, one should not turn down an offer from the Yales and Oxbridges of the world, but there are several excellent trade presses that are highly ranked, peer-reviewed, and, often, better-suited for one’s specific project. Typical tenure-track faculty members have between four and six years to get the dissertation published as a book, but waiting two or three years for that perfect university press contract may mean publication happens after one’s tenure file is submitted. Obviously the particular tenure requirements of one’s institutions should be taken in account.

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

High on my list would be the issue of family. I made a deliberate decision to finish my Ph.D. before having children and it made a world of difference. A full course load is difficult enough by itself, but toss in the other activities upon which history doctoral students should be embarking (giving conference papers, traveling and conducting research, and writing book reviews and that elusive first article) and one’s schedule fills up quickly. Family slows down research. In addition, most students are constrained financially, and even those on full tuition waivers typically receive them for only a set number of years. It is crucial to finish the Ph.D. in a reasonable time span: remember, most graduates today are not finding tenure-track jobs, so spending a decade or more on a degree that results in a failed job search can be financially and emotionally devastating.

I would also warn against hubris when applying for jobs. Some grad students believe that the reputation of their program or major professor will be a major factor, but I would argue that this is only true in some cases. Medieval history, as a victim of “the death of the past,” is certainly an exception. Due to the paucity of medievalists on campuses, the hiring committee will likely reflect an assortment of fields outside the Middle Ages: in this case, no one will have heard of your adviser, much less know the scholarly impact of his/her work. At small and community colleges, the committee may even include one or two non-historians. In other words, do not bet the farm on your adviser’s letter.
My final suggestion (for those who get appointments at research institutions) would be to think about your second book. I know the dissertation is a huge project that dominates your life for years, and it will likely be your first book. But once it’s finished you will need to do something else, and many historians have a difficult time deciding upon a new project without the aid of their adviser—the result has been a number of historians who have failed to get tenure or who never moved beyond the associate professor rank.

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

My suggestion would be to explore other career options. There are so few jobs these days that I cannot with good conscience recommend the Ph.D. track to a student without reservation. Only those with a burning passion for historical inquiry and the emotional/psychological fortitude to cope with disappointment, failure, and a massive debt load should attempt it.

That said, I would encourage those who do become doctoral students to discern a dissertation topic quickly; then, you should find ways to orient as much of their coursework around that topic as possible. Papers written for writing seminars should address aspects of the dissertation, for example. This helps to build your research base, which not only allows for an easier transition into the dissertation itself but also expanded conference and publishing opportunities. The scarcity of positions has really raised the bar for applicants’ vitaes, and few students will get appointments without having something in print. Grad students who put off conferences and the writing of smaller publishable pieces (such as encyclopedia entries and book reviews) until their coursework and comprehensive exams were completed, thinking that they would present or publish after beginning their dissertation research, have a harder time finding jobs. Finally, doctoral students should remember that the dissertation is not meant to be your magnum opus: anything beyond two years spent actually writing it is, in my opinion, time that could be better utilized getting published.

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

The skills of a Ph.D. holder are routinely misunderstood and underappreciated by potential employers. In many cases, however, the applicants themselves suffer from a similar handicap: they are unable to cast their learned skills and personal abilities in a non-academic context. History Ph.D.s can conduct research, read and write critically, teach and instruct, meet deadlines, read foreign languages, and absorb and interpret large quantities of information—all of these are desirable skills in the private and public sectors. My best advice would be to give consideration to how these skills would benefit the business or institution to which you are applying. For the former, think about how your particular skills and/or knowledge create value for the business; for the latter, think about how your skills advance the mission statement of the institution.

Blog CVIII (108): Eight Questions: Revolutionary America

  The next essay in the “Eight Questions” series comes from Peter Messer, an associate professor of history at Mississippi State University.  At MSU he serves as the graduate coordinator and teaches classes on Colonial America and Revolutionary America.  His main interest lies in the theory and practice of politics in eighteenth-century America.  He is the author of  Stories of Independence: Identity, Ideology, and History in Eighteenth-Century America (Northern Illinois University Press, 2005).  In that book, he traces the emergence of distinctively American attitudes about society, politics, and government.During the colonial period, provincial historians celebrated the autonomous origins and local institutions of their communities as a way of arguing for greater independence from Great Britain. Imperial historians, on the other hand, stressed allegiance to the mother country and the English institutions that continued to sustain them. When relations with Britain reached a crisis, these visions of provincial pride and imperial loyalty came into open and irreconcilable conflict. The resulting debate produced not only a declaration of independence but a new political order grounded on the provincial vision of the origins and progress of America.  Messer's next major project explores the relationship between committees and crowds in Revolutionary America. It focuses on the ways in which Patriot leaders organized opposition to Great Britain and coerced and cajoled a reluctant population to embrace a cause to which many of them felt only tangentially connected or concerned.  He did his undergraduate work at the University of Oregon and earned a Ph.D. from Rutgers University.  Prior to working at Mississippi State, he taught at Texas A&M University—Commerce. 

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

The greatest strength of the field is its diversity; scholars are taking a wider perspective on what counts as history (emotions and senses) while continuing to investigate the margins of the traditional narrative of United States History (race, class, and gender), and expanding our understanding of some of the better studied subjects (the coming of American independence, the ratification of the constitution, the various electoral controversies, wars, the rise of capitalism, the rise of the plantation economy). Of late, I should note, it has done the first two with more consistency and focus than the last one, and I think this is true of the historical profession in general. We have become very adept at expanding our sense of what history is and who is included in it so that we know more about our past and present (though some historians may still subscribed to the quaint notion that they are only writing about the past). The result is that we have a much better sense of what these supposedly transformative events in the history of the United States meant to the people who experienced them and the degree to which they were, in fact, transformative.

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

In the broadest sense, for both, the lack of jobs. One relatively unique problem that faces the field of Revolutionary America and the history of the Early American Republic lies in the contemporary political fascination with the period. We are constantly bombarded with politicians and social commentators who want to compare themselves to the founding generation to argue that the nation reconstitute itself along the lines envisioned by the founders. This moment of contemporary relevance offers both an opportunity and a challenge to historians of the period. It is an opportunity because it has the potential to allow historians of the period to speak to and be heard by the general public, and to provide meaningful commentary on past events and a useful perspective on current ones. That opportunity, however, becomes a challenge when we realize that in order to do so historians will have to become conversant again in the stories that people outside of the academy want to hear. To be sure scholars have continued to produce work on the subject of “the Founders,” and the war for independence—David Hackett Fischer’s Washington’s Crossing, Pauline Maier’s Ratification, Richard Beeman, Plain Honest Men, Gordon Wood’s Empire of Liberty—but if we really want to reclaim these subjects for history then they will need a sustained reexamination from a broad cross-section of the professional. Alfred Young’s treatment of Deborah Sampson in Masquerade, for example, revisits well covered ground from a new and different perspective. Benjamin Carp’s and David Fowler’s recent work on the Boston Tea Party and Sons of Liberty, respectively, offer other illustrations of how we might revitalize some of the traditional historical topics much out of fashion with academe, but a subject of continued fascination outside of it. In truth, nothing can prevent self-serving presentists of whatever stripe from appropriating the past for their own ends (they have been doing so since Thucydides at least); nonetheless, historians should remember the emotional investment people have in the myths of the nation’s founding and to treat that investment with a respect and diligence commensurate with that investment. This moment in time offers historians of the Revolution and Early American Republic who do that a useful opportunity to make a meaningful contribution not simply the profession but to civic discourse as well.

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

I’m going to cop out a little bit and say that the most interesting work being done in the field is the most interesting work being done in the field. The reason I say it that what is most interesting is always the work itself. You can look at Thomas Slaughter’s recent biography of John Woolman and be drawn into a compelling narrative that raises an important question about the role of ethics and morality in history and history-writing. You can also look at Peter Silver’s book on white/Indian relations in Pennsylvania and find it a compelling argument about how racial identities are shaped in the late eighteenth century. Annette Gordon Reed, on the other hand, provides a fairly standard biography, but of people who are not usually and have not been the subject of biography. Finally, you could consider Kathleen Brown’s book on the subject of cleanliness that offers a history of something that until recently we not necessarily considered having a history. So there are four very different books, each compelling and thought provoking in its own way, but really having nothing in common other than being well researched and well written. And yes, I realize that of the books I listed only one even remotely fits into the genre of big stories about the big events that historians have lost control over, which I think only underscores my point about how historians have ceded that ground to other writers.

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

It depends entirely on where you work. Some schools take it seriously, some say they do, and others openly ignore it. So the moral of that story is to figure out what your institution wants and act accordingly. If you do not yet have an institution, just remember there are more jobs at schools that have to value teaching than there are at schools that can only value research and devise your entry on the job market accordingly. Also, and having done two searches this year I am reminded of how many people do not do this; try to figure out what the school to which you are applying values, and craft your self-presentation accordingly, unless of course you will only take one type of job, but that is a luxury most people do not have.

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

The flip answer is whatever people like. The way the issue is unfolding here at MSU is that anything that is evidently and documentably peer reviewed is OK; the caveat, of course, is that especially at the level of the administration people are obsessed with documenting the impact of a journal and for the most part new electronic formats won’t have the impact yet. Then there is the fact that people are still uneasy about new formats, so you do not want to make yourself appear too novel in that regard. Now to contradict myself, to a point; it is clear that the old style of monograph publishing is on the wane; students can’t read a whole book or won’t and publishers are increasingly skeptical of the model of pages between hard covers. A new Ph.D. would be well advised to prepare for a shift in format that will occur in their professional life time to a style of publishing that will emphasize more interactive content and formats, and minimize traditional journals and books. If you are prepared you will be at the head of the wave and not get washed out by it.

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

I imagine it differs as to what you want as a career; at the beginning the most important factor is the popularity of your field and the reputation of your alma matter; obviously, that is not true for all people at all times, but if you had to bet on something I would advise those categories. As your career develops both become less important, what matters is what you are able to do as universities value producers. At that point school resources become important. If schools can support your research that will enable you to progress faster in the field than if you have to rely solely on outside sources (funders like evidence that the school believes in you before they fund you). Where does family fit in? A family can provide the spring board for a career or it can direct your career in directions you may not have envisioned, or perhaps desired. So the flip answer is that it depends entirely on how you choose to use it.

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

Don’t do it unless you can get a fellowship and not take out any loans, and are comfortable with the idea that you may well end up selling insurance anyway. I would also stress, as above, that students familiarize themselves as much as possible with alternative outlets for historical research and alternative methods for publishing and reaching an audience.

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

My advice would be to teach where you can and to continue to try and find venues for your work; the key to eventually finding your way to an academic job is to appear to remain engaged with the profession. I would also recommend that people scour the web (or anywhere else) for employment opportunities that do not tie you to a university. The government and the private sector both employ historians, though the work is not always what you would have prepared to do as a graduate student. A Google search of “Beyond Academe” turns up a bunch of sites including one dedicated to historians looking for work outside of academe. For better or worse I’ve not yet needed to use such a site, so I can’t attest to its actual utility, but in theory it seems worthwhile.

Blog CVII (107): Eight Questions: Early Modern Europe

The next entry in the Eight Question series comes from Isaac Land.  He received his B.A. from Oberlin College and his M.A. and PhD from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He was a Fulbright Scholar in London. He has taught at Wayne State University and Texas A&M University--Commerce.  He is currently an associate professor of history at Indiana State University. His teaching and research interests have focused on the intersection of national and international histories, and on a related topic, the history of sailors and port cities. His first book is War, Nationalism, and the British Sailor, 1750-1850 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009). He has also edited a volume of essays, Enemies of Humanity: The Nineteenth-Century War on Terrorism  (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). He is currently writing a methods textbook aimed at senior undergraduates and junior graduate students. 

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

One of the most exciting and unexpected developments of the last 10 years has been the emergence of vast, searchable databases.  This includes subscriber-only digitized books (ECCO, Eighteenth-Century Collections Online) but also court records (Tim Hitchcock’s nearly 200,000 transcripts of criminal trials, http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/ ) and the slave trade website, http://www.slavevoyages.org out of Emory.  Remarkably, both of these are accessible to the public without a subscription.  It will be interesting to see how the opportunities presented by these (and future) databases transform graduate student research and also the way that we teach methods courses.  I am not a number-cruncher, but clearly anyone who is going to use these vast databases in a serious way needs to learn some social science methodology.  Check out the program for January’s American Historical Association meeting in Chicago and notice how many technology-driven projects are out there now.  Crowd-sourcing?  Text mining?  Geographical Information Systems (GIS)?  It’s a brave new world, folks.

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

There has never been a better time to be interested in history (see above), but the job market for people who call themselves “historians” is bleak.  Nonetheless, conferences are well-attended by young graduate students (I just hosted the Midwest Conference on British Studies here in Terre Haute, which drew 140 people, mostly people in their 20s presenting their first conference paper), and the fascination of the subject matter remains a powerful draw.  In an economy in which people are coming to expect to have multiple careers, maybe we should encourage the young to pursue a well-paying career in another field, saving money with the intention of “retiring” to follow the Ph.D. path in their 40s, 50s, or 60s, paying hard cash to do so.  Without being a financial Luddite (I will not join Ezra Pound in condemning money-lending as the root of all evil), perhaps we need to move away from the notion that we’ll borrow lots of money today in the vague hope of being able to pay it all back with interest tomorrow.  I would also endorse the idea of shortening Ph.D. programs as a way of lowering the overall cost.  It’s a bitter truth that you reach the job market, doctorate in hand, panting with exhaustion, only to be told that a doctorate by itself won’t get you a job anyway.  (We seem to be moving toward a model where it’s the doctorate plus the published book that earns you credibility.  So why the lengthy Ph.D. program, then?)

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

In the past, debates about early modern Europe often centered on the chronology: What counts as modern, anyway? (Ask a medievalist some time, and they’ll give you an earful about how the Renaissance is overrated.)  What forces drove “modernity”?  More recently, the geographical categories have come into question as well.  Does “the modern” arise out of Europe, or out of Europe’s interactions with the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and the Americas?  It is a sign of the times that recent work by prominent figures in the field (Natalie Zemon Davis, Lynn Hunt, Carlo Ginzburg, and Simon Schama) situates Europe in a global context and engages with new conceptual frameworks such as borderlands theory and Atlantic history.

The lively debate over books like Kenneth Pomeranz’ The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the World Economy and Dipesh Chakrabarty’s Provincializing Europe decenters Europe in one sense, but reminds us that countries like Britain, France, and the Netherlands remain an indispensable reference point, even for scholars who do not “work” on European history as such.  A glance at the editorial board of the Journal of Early Modern History confirms this trend.  Notable “crossover” books like Timothy Brook’s Vermeer’s Hat: The Seventeenth Century and the Dawn of the Global World and Anne Salmond’s anthropologically-informed The Trial of the Cannibal Dog: The Remarkable Story of Captain Cook’s Encounters in the South Seas show that this oceanic, transnational approach to the European experience is a way to make what used to be called “early modern Europe” accessible and intellectually exciting to a wide readership.

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

This really depends on whether you are hoping to work at a small liberal arts college or a major research university.  If you are interviewing with both kinds of schools, just remember to go easy on the teaching when you are talking with the research institution so that you do not get typecast as someone who’s “soft” on the research end of things.  That said, everyone values teaching, so don’t speak dismissively about it, even if you need to move on quickly to what your second and third book will be about! (Yes, the research universities expect to hear about second and third books in the interview.  Not unreasonable, given that some schools have a two-book standard for tenure now, so do not get stuck on talking just about your dissertation.)

            You may be surprised at how much the communication skills that you learn in teaching will help you give more effective conference papers, write better book proposals, and so forth.  It’s all about explaining what you think is important to people who don’t know much about your particular topic… and whose attention may waver.  Odd that the same techniques work with sleepy 100-level students and a room full of brilliant people with doctorates, but maybe all audiences have certain traits in common?

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

In History (unlike many other fields), journal articles are good but books are the coin of the realm.  Publish an article or maybe two in the best journal you can, but then concentrate on the book manuscript.  Do not let anything else distract you.

Get letters of introduction if you want to approach a publisher.  Watch out!  A number of prestigious publishers have submission guidelines on their website inviting “cold call” book proposals, but they throw them in the trash if they don’t come already recommended by someone known to the editor.  Cultivate big names in your field, or perhaps someone who has published a book with that editor recently, and get them to open the door for you.

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

People who work with a well-known advisor, do a good job of networking (both within and outside their graduate program), and find a way to publish just one article in a major peer-reviewed journal within their field either before receiving the Ph.D., or within about 12 months of receiving it, can do quite well.  I got my doctorate in 1999 and a number of people from my cohort at the University of Michigan are at places like Cornell, Stanford, Duke, and a host of flagship state research institutions like the University of Illinois.  It can all work out quite well, but do not assume that a letter from your advisor or just the name of your degree-granting institution will magically open doors for you, because they won’t.

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

One might think that following the stock market crash of 2008, students would be ultra-practical, but I am surprised at how many young people I encounter who have reached the opposite conclusion: The job market is lousy all around, so I might as well pursue my dreams.  Just in the last year, I have met a student who changed his major from Accounting to History and another who dropped out of an elite engineering program at a college down the road to pursue History instead.  (Another student showed up in my methods class after his ex-wife advised him to go back to school and major in History.  One might wonder about the source of this advice, but he did quite well, so maybe she meant it sincerely.)  I find that it is difficult to discourage students with horror stories about the academic job market; they imagine that they would be happy adjuncting at a community college without job security or health care benefits. I think part of what attracts them is the prestige of pursuing “the life of the mind.”  (People who admire laws, sausages, and doctorates should not inquire too closely about where they come from.)  I show my students some grad school syllabi: a book a week in every course, plus additional material, plus whatever you are reading for the paper that you write.  That puts off some people, and it’s wonderful that the Web allows this generation of young scholars to conduct a detailed reconnaissance of grad programs before even considering applying.

            If you must pursue a doctorate, do not take out any loans to do so.  There are some elite programs that will give you something approaching a free ride if they admit you.  To be blunt, if you aren’t good enough to get into those sorts of programs, you’ll probably do poorly on the job market with your less-than-prestigious degree.  How will you pay the loans back then?

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

It will sound hollow coming from someone who is comfortably tenured, but not getting an academic job may be a blessing in disguise.  Many people imagine that an academic career is intellectually stimulating, but too often we send overqualified people to teach elementary skills and concepts to students who are not especially committed to the learning process (recall the Robin Williams character in Good Will Hunting—we don’t all end up at MIT).  Frankly, we send people to college at a time in their lives when they are not very contemplative, so even smart college students from strong academic backgrounds are often underachievers because their minds are on, well, other things.

Pursuing research can also be very isolating work (solitary reading about things that do not interest anyone you know, except colleagues at conferences—and that’s on a good day).  Think about what you value most in life and what will bring you into contact with lots of people who share those values.  In 2008, I helped out with flood relief efforts in my community (my wife works for the American Red Cross) and it was really fun to be part of a team and see how appreciative people were to receive simple things: bottles of clean water, toys for their kids, and so forth.   Maybe you could work for a nonprofit in an arena that matters to you.    When I saw the movie Love Actually, I envied the people who worked in the London office that was all about providing famine relief.  I know every job has its office politics and frustrations, but at the end of the day, wouldn’t it be nice to have a simple explanation for what it is that you do—and have spent your day with people who understand the purpose of your work?
A bright student of mine is quitting his job as a manager at a gourmet sandwich shop to pursue a Ph.D. in History.  He has every right to pursue his dream—I told him he’s going through his midlife crisis a little early, in his 30s—but the market for a really good sandwich is much larger than the market for sophisticated books (and the people who write them).   There is a local food renaissance going on in the United States and many other countries.  We need more small farms to raise healthy produce and livestock.  Work the land and philosophize in your spare time.  Voltaire would approve.