Specialization vs. Broad Historical Knowledge

[American in Beijing]

Like many of you, the boredom of waiting for grad school to start is killing me. So I figured I might as well start a discussion with other bored and impatient people, !

When deciding on which grad school to attend, I had to make a choice between two good programs that I liked and would fit well in. For me what the choice came down to was whether I would like to be the kind of historian who has a vast amount of specialized knowledge about her own field and never strays from her specialization, or would I like to be the kind of historian who has a broad knowledge base that covers several fields, but has slightly less specialized knowledge in her primary field of interest. In other words, which is better: the modern-day professional or a Renaissance man? Specialization or the broad application of historical knowledge?

I personally chose the program that offered greater opportunities to expand my knowledge of other subfields outside my own. I do not regret my decision at all, but I'm curious what the other historians on this forum think. Which do you think is more important? Which program would you choose?

[Riotbeard]

Like many of you, the boredom of waiting for grad school to start is killing me. So I figured I might as well start a discussion with other bored and impatient people, !

When deciding on which grad school to attend, I had to make a choice between two good programs that I liked and would fit well in. For me what the choice came down to was whether I would like to be the kind of historian who has a vast amount of specialized knowledge about her own field and never strays from her specialization, or would I like to be the kind of historian who has a broad knowledge base that covers several fields, but has slightly less specialized knowledge in her primary field of interest. In other words, which is better: the modern-day professional or a Renaissance man? Specialization or the broad application of historical knowledge?

I personally chose the program that offered greater opportunities to expand my knowledge of other subfields outside my own. I do not regret my decision at all, but I'm curious what the other historians on this forum think. Which do you think is more important? Which program would you choose?

I made a fairly similar choice between a program with like half the faculty in my specialty of Southern history and a good couple working in my state/time period. Instead I chose to got to the program with a few Southern historians but also strong concentrations connected to but beyond Southern Latin American and Atlantic history. My general plan is to keep my research specialized but my coursework more universal by majoring in U.S. and doing minor field as Atlantic. I think it's a professionally better decision, and I am excited the diversity of cohort, who often work in Latin American slavery and emancipation which I am excited to learn about but am woefully ignorant. I think my work will be better, because I know my stuff, but also get a lot of other perspectives to work with. As far as which is better history or research, I tend to approach history from literary/ humanities perspective than social science, so I tend to be more attracted to histories that get really close to their subject and create a humanistic narrative but that is in some way indicative of a culture. I think this is more successful on the highly specialized level but I don't necessarily think either is superior. That is just my preference. Cheers!

[chickadee21]

hmm, interesting question. My area of interest is WWII, and when I was applying I had trouble deciding which country I wanted to focus on, France or Germany. UVa has great professors in France and Germany, so I'm lucky because I'll be able to do transnational research. Some of the other schools I applied to were really only strong in one country. From what several professors have told me, grad students who do transnational history may have an advantage when looking for jobs, because a school may choose to hire someone who knows about 2 countries instead of hiring separate specialists for each country. But it may not actually be that simple - I'll see in 5 or 6 years!

[goldielocks]

Well, I'm kind of pursuing both veins. This fall, I'm beginning an MA at a very small regional state university, in a department where there's only one or two faculty per broad. regional/thematic area. The required curriculum is very much geared toward attaining a broad historical knowledge. So I'll be getting a strong foundational knowledge of global history and research methods. But I'm also going to do at least two independent studies with the professor in my specialization, so that I can begin to develop a specific focus in my area as well. I'm hoping that will help me to get into a PhD program with a strength in my area of focus.

[siue16171617]

Well, I'm kind of pursuing both veins. This fall, I'm beginning an MA at a very small regional state university, in a department where there's only one or two faculty per broad. regional/thematic area. The required curriculum is very much geared toward attaining a broad historical knowledge. So I'll be getting a strong foundational knowledge of global history and research methods. But I'm also going to do at least two independent studies with the professor in my specialization, so that I can begin to develop a specific focus in my area as well. I'm hoping that will help me to get into a PhD program with a strength in my area of focus.

Broad is the way to go in my opinion. The only way to get a job in academia is by demonstrating your usefulness to the department-- the ability to teach different time periods and topics. Frankly, undergraduates will not care about your dissertation topic or specialization. The ability to teach broadly will serve you well, while specializing in one topic will handicap your employment prospects.

[StrangeLight]

ehhh... yes and no.

my department did some hiring last year. they were looking for a world historian, which demands something broad, and a british imperialist, which doesn't necessarily demand anything other than british imperialism. yet some students, and some professors, asked the imperialist if he'd be willing to teach comparative imperialism, if he knew anything about french or spanish imperialism. he got all pissy about the question and basically said "no." it turned off a lot of people to him, but he also still got the job, which is a tenured position at a research university with a strong graduate program, so... i don't know.

you definitely want and need your research to be specialized. if you do transnational history, that's still a particular specialization. with transnational work, you're looking at migration, at linkages, etc. you're not looking at everything possible about each of those places. when people hire historians, they want someone whose research is this one, concrete thing that could be turned into a book. but they also want someone who can teach world civ or US history or mod west or something.

so... i'd recommend spreading your TA assignments around. teach outside of your field. you don't need to know the field to teach it. your job is basically just to make sure your students understand the readings. you don't need a minor field in world history to convince a job committee that you can teach world history. you need a TA assignment on your CV for world history.

yeah... spreading around the coursework... i'd stick with however many fields your school demands. one major and one minor? do that. two majors? one major and two minors? then fine. you really don't have that many graduate classes, and you'd be surprised how often your major field (i.e. latin america) doesn't actually touch on what you study in particular at all. you need independent studies for that, which i strongly recommend taking. you're not really going to have the time to take classes that aren't at least thematically connected to what you already do.

we're specialists. in terms of your enjoyment, maybe the renaissance man is the way to go. but in terms of employability, your research and coursework should be specialized. your teaching ability need not be, and should not be.

just my two cents, based on colleagues' recent (successful) job placements and my department's hiring pattern.