The Borders of "Acceptable" Historical Method and Perspective

[Neist]

1 hour ago, telkanuru said:

1. Withdrawing from the discussion by depicting it as irresolvable seems to be a form of surrender to me. 
2. That's usually the purpose of these forums, so that sort of reaction doesn't seem very out of line. And I've re-read your initial post after seeing this; it still looks like you're seeking advice. 
3. You got a discussion, it's just not the one you wanted. What conclusions do you draw from that?

1. Sure, I guess? You've been very congenial, but not everyone has. Why would I willingly engage a hostile situation? Willing disengagement is a choice, and I don't consider that choice the same as surrender, though I won't fault you for thinking otherwise. 
2. Your first point makes perfect sense, but again, I can assure you, I'm definitely not looking for advice. I was looking for fellowship. Perhaps a poorly worded seeking of it, but that's what it was. I have plenty of failings, and an inability to communicate effectively is definitely one of them. Further, people repeatedly trying to convince me that they know my intentions more than I do is rather insulting. Who has the gall to think that they know another person better than that person does? 
3. Conclusions? My conclusion is that this forum is a far less friendly place than I imagined it, and if those responding to this post are a representative sample of historians in general, I need to seriously reconsider becoming a historian who works within the historical discipline because there are plenty of disciplines within which I can produce historical scholarship. Again, you've been congenial, and I greatly appreciate it, but again, some were certainly not.

I'm really disappointed in this community if this is the way it is deemed acceptable to treat others. And I'm doubly disappointed considering that some of the most long-standing members took part in this behavior. 

[Sigaba]

18 hours ago, Neist said:

I'm done with you. I refuse to engage further.

 

You say, but hours later...

7 hours ago, Neist said:

 Re-evaluate? What exactly? 

A lot of @Sigaba's post presupposes so much about who I am (which, just to clarify, is very much off-base and occasionally, borderline offensive), that, quite frankly, I don't know how to respond. If I respond to these mild suggestions then I affirm his view about who I am. I don't need to validate myself to a bunch of strangers online. Nor do I have the time to.

 

And again...

2 hours ago, Neist said:

And I'm doubly disappointed considering that some of the most long-standing members took part in this behavior. 

1

How about that.

My theory is that you're having a bad case of pre-qualifying exams jitters.

Notwithstanding the disappointing experience that TGC is turning out to be, one could find threads in which graduate students share their experiences and studying tactics. No, this isn't a suggestion nor advice. You've demonstrated that you know yourself, you've got it all figured out, and that you don't need help. But the threads are there nonetheless.

Or you can pick up the shovel back up and dig yourself deeper in the hole into which you've foxed yourself. I think you left off at I don't need the field of history to produce historically-informed scholarship... Or was it It's a waste of my time to talk about my vision of how history should be done with anyone who doesn't agree with me?

 

[Neist]

1 hour ago, Sigaba said:

My theory is that you're having a bad case of pre-qualifying exams jitters

 

Just to stick a nail in that coffin. I'm in a double degree program which requires a profoundly long period of time to degree. I won't take comps until, roughly, Spring 2021. 

So, yeah.

[TMP]

1 hour ago, Neist said:

Just to stick a nail in that coffin. I'm in a double degree program which requires a profoundly long period of time to degree. I won't take comps until, roughly, Spring 2021. 

So, yeah.

As I tell anyone worrying about their exams before completing their MAs, don't.  Focus on the next goal post, which I think, for you is getting the master's degrees.  Earning MLIS/PhD is not a sprint; it's a marathon.  As a marathon runner myself, I don't think, I've got 20 miles to go when I'm at 6.2 miles (10K).  Instead, I tend to think, "Okay, let's hit the 10 mile marker, then the half marathon."  Marathon runners sometimes have a 10-10-10 thought process when deciding on their speed (10 miles + 10 miles + 10 km = 26.2 miles).  

Also, as you move from one stage to another, your current thought process will shift.  Right now,  it sounds as if  you're taking a lot of MLIS coursework, which can get your head in that hole, making engaging with your peers and professors in the History department/history discipline difficult.  Once you move squarely into the qualifying exams preparation, your thought process will move away from MLIS materials into whatever it is that your exams are on.  Then when you work on your dissertation, your thoughts will then move into the areas that the dissertation deals with.  The constant change up in intellectual thinking/reading/writing with both exciting and exhausting.

[Sigaba]

On 10/3/2018 at 5:03 PM, TMP said:

As I tell anyone worrying about their exams before completing their MAs, don't.  Focus on the next goal post, which I think, for you is getting the master's degrees. 

 

I respectfully disagree with this recommendation. Yes, one should focus on the journey, one step at a time. But some legs of the journey are less complicated (if not easier) than others.

The sooner one can decide definitively on one's fields, the sooner one can start mastering the historiography of that field. That work not only prepares one for qualifying exams but can also improve the quality of work in a master's program.