Comments on: Of fraudsters and scholars, Part II: two kinds of historians

By: Dr. Ofnothing

Dr. Ofnothing — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:53:45 +0000

This is a great discussion, and an important one. My situation is a little idiosyncratic since my first book was on a topic that had nothing in common with my dissertation except time period. I’d already abandoned my diss. as a possible book project, and now I’ve published two of the five diss. chapters as articles and am building a second book on the remaining material + ten years of perspective and intermittent new research. Unlike Ikea furniture, the bits leftover from your Malmnoord futon/file cabinet (or whatever) actually can have a use, if you’re creative about it.

That having been said, for the next, next project, I’m going in a very different direction. Same time period, and same overall core topic, but vastly different region, totally distinct literature, and very different academic culture surrounding it (also highly politicized, yikes!).

If I have any advice to give, it’s that, once you’ve completed the all-important first work (i.e. qualified for tenure) you should _always_ be thinking one big project ahead, for three reasons. First, it gives you valuable perspective on your current work and helps you avoid tunnel vision. Second, it means when you formulate a new idea, find a new source, or scan the current journals, you are twice as likely to come across something useful. And third, it means that by the time the current project is complete, you have at least a foundation for starting the next. You’ve already done some thinking about it, have a list of titles, a few ideas, and put together some possible contacts, so it’s not really unfamiliar territory any more. Popular wisdom says that an outside perspective often sees things most clearly, so, if you have your scholarly chops, there’s a good chance you’ll bring something new, albeit with the humility of a tyro in that particular area.

Our career as scholars has a very long trajectory, and we should always keep that in mind after the initial slog of tenure approval is done. The scariest thing in the world is a blank page, but in the digital age, there’s no cost for keeping extra files open.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:28:14 +0000

Not long after I finished my master’s degree, I moved back in time about 90 years and began working on something completely different. In the fall, I am starting a Ph.D. program in the new field, but I have already been writing and presenting on it for nearly three years. Because I was learning the historiography mostly on my own, I worried that I was missing major parts of the literature, and it took a couple of years to convince myself that I really wasn’t overlooking anything crucial. And, like many of you who changed fields between Books 1 and 2, I found that the training I received in thinking about history made it possible for me to make that transition.
Regarding Lance’s point about having more credibility with the press, I was really lucky when I submitted my first article. The anonymous reviewer disagreed with my interpretation and wrote a negative (and quite harsh) review based on that rather than judging my scholarship. Fortunately, the editors of the journal realized what had happened. They helped me discern what was productive criticism and what wasn’t, and I improved the article without substantially changing my argument. As a young grad student, I wouldn’t have known why the review came back so critical, and if the editors hadn’t been so hands on, the experience would have been extremely discouraging.

By: Widgeon

Widgeon — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:24:30 +0000

Like many, I let the intimidation of writing on a new time period and topic for my second book stall me. I regret this and hope to not fall into the same trap again. But I do get frustrated reading manuscripts and articles as an outsider reviewer from authors who do not cite the basic literature in their field, and yet present their own findings as “new.” There needs to be a balance. As I begin research on my third project I’ve decided to start by teaching a class on toenail clipping so I can get a handle on some of the basic sources–both primary and secondary. But I will do my best to avoid the decade-long “must read everything” trap I fell into previously.

By: Clio Bluestocking

Clio Bluestocking — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:58:19 +0000

I have nothing particularly helpful to add, or even moderately insightful. The first book was from the dissertation. This one is in the same period dealing with some of the same questions (slavery and anti-slavery and women), but between the two books I had a job that introduced me in a very detailed way to the specific subject matter of the current book. So, the steps between my first and second books weren’t particularly traditional.

That said, when I started this second one, I freaked out thinking, “I have so much to read! Ack!” I was thinking that I needed to know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING related to the subject. As I get down to the nuts and bolts of putting the thing together and researching in the archives, I find that I don’t feel that I need to read for EVERYTHING, I need to read for ideas and approaches that will help me ask (and answer) better questions about what I find in the archives (and some of it is so juicy and I can’t beleive no one ever used it before like this!).

By: Lance

Lance — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:09:21 +0000

Books 1 & 2 were on radically different topics, time periods, and regions – and book 3 is just the same. And I agree that you encounter and embrace your background reading in a very distinctive fashion as you write the first book. Go for it! But the real difference, for me, came in the review process for book 2, where I had greater authority to push back against some tough critiques. Glibly summed, I could stand on my reputation as an established scholar of subject X, and say to the press, “hey, this person and I are just never going to agree about this, for the following reasons,” and the press would actually take me seriously. In one case, my editor actually round-filed a negative review! In the end, our conversations made the book much, much better. It helps, too, that I’d worked with the same, delightful editor, and that we’ve established a warm relationship in the years since the first monograph.

By: Notorious Ph.D.

Notorious Ph.D. — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 01:58:19 +0000

Still following the discussion (but from Puddletown), and want to clear up one thing: the precise phrasing about the dump was lifted verbatim from Esteemed Former Advisor’s e-mail to me. He is actually a wryly witty guy. He just doesn’t going to get a chance to show it much.

By: Mamie

Mamie — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:19:02 +0000

I am inspired! I am going to go write something. I even know what.

Thanks, everyone.

By: Perpetua

Perpetua — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:04:50 +0000

squadrato: I don’t have anything substantive to add, I just wanted to throw in that I’m there with you on the panic bombs. Thinking about my second project (and beginning a bit of reading) is increasing my sense of dread, of “ohmygodcanireallydothis?” It seems to be impossibly ambitious, and so much more complicated than Soon-to-be-Book-#1 at least in terms of source material. I’ve done a tiny bit of archival research that has already forced me to reframe the project because it turns out the X sources I was hoping for don’t exist, but I can probably use Y instead. For me, I don’t think I will become calm until I get back into the archives – once I find some source material and something starts to come together, I don’t worry so much about the fraud feeling. But it’s *contemplating* how major it is to start something totally new that’s freaking me out. Now, to get myself to the archives!

By: Historiann

Historiann — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:43:12 +0000

takingitoutside–if you miss anything really un-missable, the peer-review process will set you straight.

I like this from Katherine: “So I think writing is an act of bravery, faith, and hubris. I’m considering writing that on a piece of paper and framing it to hang above my desk.

Thanks for the intel on second books from those of you who are in the know.

By: takingitoutside

takingitoutside — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:53:13 +0000

This is a bit off-topic as I’ve yet to even publish a first paper, but one of my advisors told me that she likes to hear what grad students are doing because we haven’t gotten bogged down in what’s already been done (by ourselves as well as others), and so are at least interesting. That’s been really encouraging to me – I may miss out on referencing Ye Grande Important Paper, but I hope those who hear/see me can get still get something out of my work.