Writing sample?

[historygeek]

1 hour ago, Tigla said:

For my MA, my advisors gave me a handful of tips for writing the historiography section, which may or may not apply to you. First, keep the arguments broad and concise. The smaller and finer arguments will be fleshed out in the body of your work as you place yourself directly and indirectly against specific ideas and phrases. The introduction is meant to give a broad overview of your work, not a blow by blow account. Second, do not write another introduction in the footnotes. Footnotes are meant to explain your ideas, but also provide further resources for the reader, not to explain finite points in depth. If these finite points are important, then put them in your body, not the footnotes. Lastly, do not fall into the trap of painting a hole in the literature that your work fills. It is a trope that a lot of students use, but rarely applies in practice. Instead, focus on the ways your work expands the literature and our understanding of your topic.

Best of luck with your writing!

This is great advice! Thank you so much!

[Sigaba]

 

3 hours ago, Tigla said:

Lastly, do not fall into the trap of painting a hole in the literature that your work fills. It is a trope that a lot of students use, but rarely applies in practice. Instead, focus on the ways your work expands the literature and our understanding of your topic.

Agreed. As written, the comment suggests that you think established academics have failed and that you're going to show them what they should have been doing all along. To many readers, it may instead seem that you've not done enough historiographical research to establish the parameters of the broader debates in which you want to participate. For some, that conclusion will be an excuse to stop reading and to move on to the next applicant's writing sample.

Would it be possible to cast a broader net?

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41601124

http://www.jstor.org/stable/29776197

ISBN-13: 978-0253209047

On 6/4/2018 at 1:10 PM, anon4578 said:

... if you're feeling plucky you can concisely editorialize on the scholarship in the footnote itself.

As someone who's prone towards editorializing, I strongly recommend not developing the habit.

No matter how well you do it (or think you're doing it), or how learned, charming, or entertaining your comments may be, you're still passing up opportunities to impress readers that you can do the job like a professional academic historian. My $0.02.

[historygeek]

13 hours ago, Sigaba said:

 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41601124

http://www.jstor.org/stable/29776197

ISBN-13: 978-0253209047

 

These are great resources, for my future research especially. Thanks so much. 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by historygeek

[historygeek]

Thanks for your advice, everyone! I just wrote the first draft of my introduction, which I'm fairly proud of despite it being a first draft.