reading suggestions for my dissertation project

[oryantin]

Hi all,

I am beginning the D.Phil program in Oriental Studies at the University of Oxford this October. For my PhD dissertation, I plan to examine a group of unemployed bachelors in the Ottoman Empire who have been settled in Istanbul to seek employment between the mid-sixteenth and mid-seventeenth centuries. This project is an interdisciplinary one as it relates to migration, gender, labour economy etc. I don't want to write an outdated history of these migrants based on merely historical methods. Instead, I want to make use of contemporary theories of these non-historical disciplines, in which I am not trained at before.

Where should I begin? Do I need a course on Quantitaive methods? Which books should I read?

Thanks for any help.

Edited June 25, 2012 by oryantin

[Sigaba]

@oryatin--

Find works that will help you understand the historiography of your topic. Examples of these works include extended review essays in historical journals that center around your fields of interest, recently completed dissertations, and recently published monographs. (Conceptually, the task is to define the forest so you can focus more effectively on the tree. You need to know if you're writing about an oak in a forest of oaks--in which case you need to argue why your oak is different enough to justify additional study--or if you're writing about an elm.)

"Reverse engineer" these works to find the path that leads from the "outdated" histories to the cutting edge you want to sharpen further. (That is, read every footnote and every entry in the bibliographies.) Along the way, you start to recognize the key issues and academics related to your topic, works that can serve as "models" for what you want to do, and references to the theories you want to use in your own studies.

In regards to the last, once you've identified the theories you want to explore, go and study them in their original form. That is, do not settle for "D for historians." Instead, go and read D itself and "D for those who study D." This extra effort will help you to understand the potential benefits and limits of an inter-disciplinary approach to history and potentially help you to avoid making a huge mistake. (For example, those who study D may have moved on to T.)

[oryantin]

Sigaba, thank you very much for your reply. Reading secondary sources first is definetely a good point to start with. You are right that I should begin reading with what has been written before. Though there is a problem that not many works have been done so far on the topic I plan to explore, I will be able to figure out what has been left unmentioned by the previous contributors.

Funding I received for my studies at the University of Oxford is for 3 years, meaning that I have to start reading immediately so that I can finish in time. I chose the English system instead of American one, but I am still not sure enough if that is a good choice. Within these three years (if I can find further funding, I'll make it 4), I'll also have to polish my languages. Uh, God, save me!

[Sigaba]

Though there is a problem that not many works have been done so far on the topic I plan to explore, I will be able to figure out what has been left unmentioned by the previous contributors.

Oryantin--

I respect and I applaud your ambition and your vision. If I saw a work similar to the one you want to write, I'd definitely take a look at it to see how it could inform my understanding of history.

That being said, I want to point out to you that the leading edge sometimes can be the bleeding edge. I urge you to be very careful when you contemplate your options. Sometimes, the gap in the historiography one is trying to close ends up being much deeper than one initially thought.

Think of your dissertation as a three-legged stool. Do what you can to make sure that the legs of that stool--one's present skill level (especially when it comes to crafting an analytical lens out of theories), one's access to resources (including secondary works), and one's level of support--are well matched.

HTH.

[Riotbeard]

This might be a stupid question, as this is not my field... but just in case you are missing the obvious, have you read orientalism by Edward Said? I would suggest reading that.

[oryantin]

Sigaba, thanks for the good advice! To finish within the time limit set by the University, I must be sure enough that there is a satisfactory gap that should be filled. I made such a mistake when I was writing my Master's thesis, my guess that there should have been enough sources to support my claims was ended up being not true after reading a lot on the topic. However, that was partially the mistake of my supervisor who was not interested, even not informed enough. Now, I think that I chose an appropriate one who seems to be very interested, modest and versed. Nevertheless, probably because of the English system of graduate study, instead of a close relationship, she does expect me to see her bimonthly after having done the necessary work. I am afraid of doing everything on my own, though.

Riotbeard, it is not a stupid question as I am sure many of the Ottomanists have not read Orientalism. I have read the whole corpus of Said, though. As Said emphasized, I also believe that the Middle East (or the Orient in a broader sense) cannot be studied properly by only taking account of the theories and understandings of Western history. In this regard, it would be shallow to judge the East on the lack of Reforms or Renaissance in its history. Even though I respect the idea of connected histories, I am also not sure they were connected enough to reach meaningful results. I would not say history of the orient should be fully understood seperately, in its own context. Therefore, I prefer to place mysef in a position between them.