Comments on: Of fraudsters and scholars, Part I http://www.historiann.com/2010/06/21/of-fraudsters-and-scholars-part-i/ History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:22:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 By: Grad School and the Fraud Complex « Shitty First Drafts http://www.historiann.com/2010/06/21/of-fraudsters-and-scholars-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-656372 Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:33:10 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=11439#comment-656372 [...] been filling up due to my being preoccupied with my paying job–and discovered this wonderful pair of posts by Historiann on feeling like a fraud in academia. I think most graduate students are [...]

]]>
By: Of fraudsters and scholars, Part II: two kinds of historians : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present http://www.historiann.com/2010/06/21/of-fraudsters-and-scholars-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-649915 Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:27:00 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=11439#comment-649915 [...] relates very closely to the subject we’re exploring here in this space, namely, feeling like an untrained fraud when you move on to another book project and/or contemplate retraining yourself in another sub-field (or even an entirely different [...]

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2010/06/21/of-fraudsters-and-scholars-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-649452 Tue, 22 Jun 2010 02:02:52 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=11439#comment-649452 Maybe, but we have lots and lots of evidence. (Or, we should, anyway.) Historical methodology, so far as I understand it, is read a lot of stuff, collect a lot of evidence, think about it analytically, and build an argument while telling a cool story.

Various interpretive lenses (feminist, Foucauldian, post-structuralist, Marxist, consensus, etc.) can be applied to this methodology to vary the interpretive result. But, this is basically what we do.

Kathie makes a great point: retraining is perhaps not just possible, but necessary for many people. I know that I’ve wondered just how much longer I can roll out of bed and teach the same courses, however much I vary them internally. In the past, I got a new job and thereby changed my job description and routine of expected courses. But post-tenure, we all have to find ways to keep our brains interested in what we’re doing. Inventing new courses is also a common strategy for exploring a new field. (Why not make our teaching work for us?)

]]>
By: Comrade PhysioProf http://www.historiann.com/2010/06/21/of-fraudsters-and-scholars-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-649419 Tue, 22 Jun 2010 01:02:19 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=11439#comment-649419

As for historians and methodology: oy. Don’t get us started. I once sat in an interminable meeting in a former department about what we meant when we made our majors take a “methodology” course.

If you don’t have any methodology, then you’re just pulling shit out of your ass, right?

]]>
By: Kathie http://www.historiann.com/2010/06/21/of-fraudsters-and-scholars-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-649396 Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:43:24 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=11439#comment-649396 About a decade ago I came across a document by a family member that took me into a completely new geographic area of research – some of the issues were similar to my graduate and subsequent work, but I was woefully ignorant about the new area. It did take a lot of reading, and as others have suggested, humility in approaching scholars in the new area – but it all worked out, I made some new friends, and in addition I thoroughly enjoyed myself. And I recently published an article based on that document. I can say that I found again some of the excitement of discovering new stories that I had kind of lost over the years.

And at the same time, two colleagues and friends have been expanding their research beyond our original (shared) geographically-focused research, one by moving into a new geographic area and learning a difficult language for her new project; she even got a Fulbright for a year’s research in the new area. The other friend is shifting her research from family history (her first book) to art history; she took art history courses at a local research center to help get the disciplinary language and to help her think about new approaches.

I actually think it may be a necessary step for many of us, to begin some really new research after a decade or two in one field.

]]>
By: DeeDee http://www.historiann.com/2010/06/21/of-fraudsters-and-scholars-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-649362 Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:22:41 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=11439#comment-649362 To change gears, I read for a year, then went to the specialized conference to listen to how they talk about what they do; it made me think I was starting to have a grasp. I read for some part of another year, at which point I was able to submit something to their specialized conference and be part of the conversation. Coming from an odd angle, to be sure, but in the game.

]]>
By: Notorious Ph.D. http://www.historiann.com/2010/06/21/of-fraudsters-and-scholars-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-649346 Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:15:19 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=11439#comment-649346 Actually, what I learned originally was the really out-of-date stuff that was fashionable in the 60s, and very little since then. And I do acknowledge that I have a great deal of breadth, a lot of it because of my training, but some of it just because I was grasping at straws. Fortuitous, but I’ll take it.

But what you’ve all said here gives me a lot of hope that this sort of thing can be done, and that, in fact, it’s fairly standard procedure. Now, I’m looking forward to reading that Part II!

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2010/06/21/of-fraudsters-and-scholars-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-649252 Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:52:20 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=11439#comment-649252 I thought what PoliSci Prof. meant was that it was a good thing that Notorious knows the older stuff AND will soon master the newer stuff. (That’s how I read it, anyway.) Ze was suggesting that it’s not all bad to have been trained the way she was (and I agree.)

As koshem Bos suggested, there’s depth and breadth, and we all have to pick one!

]]>
By: squadratomagico http://www.historiann.com/2010/06/21/of-fraudsters-and-scholars-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-649245 Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:48:36 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=11439#comment-649245 I thought Notorious was saying she *did* know the older literature, because that’s what her advisor assigned. What she had to learn on her own (and did) was how to identify the most up-to-date new stuff.

]]>
By: Feminist Avatar http://www.historiann.com/2010/06/21/of-fraudsters-and-scholars-part-i/comment-page-1/#comment-649242 Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:47:51 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=11439#comment-649242 Just to be controversial- maybe this is a UK thing or the field I work in, but my arm of history are quite obsessive about methodology, thinking about it, coming up with new ways of thinking about it, talking about it, having journals that deal only with methodology etc. This is becoming even more important in the UK as funding is all tied to ‘impact’ (which shouldn’t but does mean can your research make money?) so we all tie ourselves into the social sciences and methodology is how we do that.

]]>