New to History and in the early stages of contemplating a PhD

[loveyourlibrary]

Hi All,

 

I would really appreciate any guidance from some history people, so this seemed like a good place to go.

 

I did a BA with a major and honours in English at a (relatively) good university in Australia, before coming to London where I am currently doing a Masters in International Relations Theory. I have done one history unit previously, and around 4 ancient history units. 

 

One of my professors this term has been talking with me and recommending that I consider doing a history PhD. If I decide to apply I would be applying for 2015 entry, so I still have quite a while. Anyway, my issue is that with no real formal background in history I am struggling to even begin to think about potential areas of interest/research topics etc.

 

Some books that I've read and enjoyed lately are: Provincialising Europe, Alabama in Africa, Patterns of Empire, Terrorist Assemblages. 

 

I like issues of identity/gender/sexuality, liberalism and empire, labour and empire, popular culture. I feel like if I was going to pick an 'area' I would probably be most interested in global or transnational histories. IR has also informed some of my interests in terms of foreign policy, grand strategy, third world states, war, conflict and diplomacy (very broadly speaking). 

 

I feel like my issue now is that my education thus far has felt very interdisciplinary, and I am finding it hard to tell how open History departments would be to this combination of disciplines. I have started to trawl through universities faculty pages, and have seen some academics who are interested in IR type stuff which is reassuring. I know that it would vary a lot from uni to uni, but if anybody could let me know about any history departments or academics that they think might be somewhat relevant for me, I would really appreciate that.

 

I'm still a while away from applying, at the moment I'm mostly interested in book recommendations, potential schools that might be good fits, just general thoughts on what I should be thinking about over the next year or so if I do want to transition to history.

 

Sorry for the length! Thanks in advance for any insight.

[dr. t]

The best advice I've received is to give yourself a moderate workload - a book or 3-4 journal articles a week on items of historical interest - for ca. 6 months. If you manage to keep it up, the subject still interests you, and it's not a relief to be done, then maybe a PhD program is for you.

 

Your given location is London. Would you be thinking of doing your PhD in the UK, the US, or elsewhere? It makes a substantial difference in terms of how prepared you need to be to start.

[Bactrian]

I think your first step is to really try and figure out what it is you want to work on--any recommendations we could make would very much flow from that. Following telkanuru's advice would help in that regard. Since you said a faculty member has suggested you pursue a PhD in history he or she is probably your best resource at this moment. Is the professor a historian? If not, maybe you can ask to be put in touch with one.

[loveyourlibrary]

Thanks guys! I think the reading list plan is a good one, and I'll continue with that and see that it is still enjoyable and interesting in a couple months time.

 

Regarding my professor, he is actually an IR professor, but his work is kind of interdisciplinary anthropology/history/IR. We are going to meet early next semester (mid Jan or so), but I just wanted to kind of make some progress myself rather than feeling reliant on only his guidance. When I speak to him I will ask him if he knows anyone who might be useful for me to speak to though. 

 

I guess my best bet is just to keep reading and narrow down interest areas! Are you guys current grad students? Are there many people in your cohorts who don't have history backgrounds?

 

Oh, I'd be interested in doing a PhD in the states, and I am aware about the time this would take, language requirements etc.

[jamc8383]

I actually came to history with an undergraduate degree in business.  This type of transition is hardly unheard of.  History is becoming more and more interdisciplinary (some of my recent projects have incorporated sociological and musicological theory), so your background could prove to be an advantage.  That being said, you would have to demonstrate an ability to think historically, that is, to ask historical questions and to show that you understand the work of historians.  

 

I think, as telkanuru has suggested, doing reading in your field of interest (transnationalism is sooo hot right now  ) is a good first step.  I would also encourage you to meet with history faculty at your university.  I successfully made the transition under the guidance of a knowledgeable graduate coordinator within the field.  Such an advisor could also help you develop a reading list that would include some of the more canonical works in historiography.  

 

Hope that helps!  Good luck.

[dr. t]

Oh, I'd be interested in doing a PhD in the states, and I am aware about the time this would take, language requirements etc.

 

That's probably actually better - you still need the language work, but you don't need to actually jump right in to a diss.

 

The one warning I've received about British academia recently (or, Oxford) is that academics there seem to be aggressively quiet on the subject of the job market. Maybe worrying about a job is something that shows how lower class you are? In the States, if you express interest in a PhD, it is almost universally expected that you will receive the response "Don't do this. Here's how you do this." 

 

Definitely find someone in the history dept before going forward.

[loveyourlibrary]

That's probably actually better - you still need the language work, but you don't need to actually jump right in to a diss.

Yes, this seems like a huge benefit for someone like me! I'm going to investigate my current university's history faculty over the holidays which should be useful. 

 

Cheers!

[Riotbeard]

Depending on what you want to do UPenn could be a good fit for you.  A lot of students do empire there.  To be fair transnational history is somewhat of a myth.  Most people do transnational history of a specific country, so you would still need to pick some sort of geographical focus or focii for when applying, even if you want to look at it in transnational methods/contexts.

[loveyourlibrary]

Depending on what you want to do UPenn could be a good fit for you.  A lot of students do empire there.  To be fair transnational history is somewhat of a myth.  Most people do transnational history of a specific country, so you would still need to pick some sort of geographical focus or focii for when applying, even if you want to look at it in transnational methods/contexts.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll have a look at their faculty. Yeah, it also seems like only some schools offer transnational/global history as an option or field, but I guess that focusing on the US or Europe would enable a transnational perspective in regards to empire.

[Henry Hudson]

That's probably actually better - you still need the language work, but you don't need to actually jump right in to a diss.

 

The one warning I've received about British academia recently (or, Oxford) is that academics there seem to be aggressively quiet on the subject of the job market. Maybe worrying about a job is something that shows how lower class you are? In the States, if you express interest in a PhD, it is almost universally expected that you will receive the response "Don't do this. Here's how you do this." 

 

Definitely find someone in the history dept before going forward.

I fully agree.

 

As I understand it, loveyourlibrary, British-style PhD programs are pretty much entirely focused on the dissertation project itself. In the US you will be able to get coursework in theory and methodology, grad-level coursework in your general areas of interest, and also be more engaged with a cohort of grad students in the same program. he North American system will round you out in a way that will address your concerns.

 

Since a lot of US PhD programs accept people from disciplines similar to yours, and people with BAs (generally you get the MA along the way), your background will not hurt you, and indeed may actually help you. But if you do delve into some theoretical works on History beforehand, and/or follow some of the journal discourse on your particular areas of interest, that will certainly help as well.

 

Do not be shy about approaching a historian you want to work with. They are generally quite happy to advise, even if they are not taking on grad students. 

[loveyourlibrary]

 

 

As I understand it, loveyourlibrary, British-style PhD programs are pretty much entirely focused on the dissertation project itself. In the US you will be able to get coursework in theory and methodology, grad-level coursework in your general areas of interest, and also be more engaged with a cohort of grad students in the same program. he North American system will round you out in a way that will address your concerns.

 

 

Yeah, I can't really see myself doing well in a History PhD program in the UK (or Australia) because of the lack of coursework etc.

 

Something I've been thinking about over the last few days is how contemporary or current a History project can be? Several schools seem to have a few History professors who have either IR backgrounds or focuses, and from that perspective you could look at a country's diplomatic history with other countries, but it seems to be a topic that (unless you were looking at foreign policy in a specific era) that could quite easily be both historical as well as contemporary? Like doing a dissertation on the war on terror, unless you were looking specifically at historical causes, could be relatively contemporary? I'm interested in the war on terror and neo-orientalism, but I suspect this is a topic that has been looked at a lot, so I would need to narrow it down quite a lot.

 

Hmm does anybody here have contemporary historical interests? Or is this much more a cultural studies type approach? Does anyone here do cultural studies informed history? 

 

Hope these questions aren't too inane - it feels so overwhelming to be looking at a discipline that I have no experience in and trying to narrow down interests! Thanks again everyone for all your help!

[Henry Hudson]

no, good questions.

 

it can depend on the program. I know one program that does not think of anything more recent than 50 years as actually history, yet in other schools the 1990s are fair game (ideally with consideration of historical roots/aspects, of course). Certainly projects with relatively recent foci can face a bit of skepticism. At my last U, someone was doing an MA on 1990s Northern Ireland; a visiting prof told her she was basically being a journalist! 

 

my own area of research does not really have an endpoint and can certainly approach contemporary times, but I myself am mostly focused on 1945-1985. 

 

I am aware of some who place the war on terror into long-term historical perspectives, and neo-orientalism by the term itself implies such a connection too. As you make contact with potential supervisors whose work overlaps with your interests, they will be able to give you better advice. All I can say is not to rule yourself out, and that there is pretty much always a way to make it work, whether as 'pure' history or something interdisciplinary. There is certainly nothing wrong with your other areas of study continuing to influence your own approach.

 

I would also suggest seeking out a specific historiographical work on or close to your research area to get a better sense of how historians are already approaching your interest areas.

[poliscar]

In terms of books, a few general recommendations I suppose are Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities, Saba Mahmood's Politics of Piety, Afsaneh Majmabadi's Women with Moustaches and Men without Beards, Paul Gilroy's The Black Atlantic, Partha Chatterjee's The Nation and its Fragments, Achille Mbembe's On the Postcolony, and John and Jean Comaroff's Ethnicity Inc.

It might also be worth it to look at some Wallerstein/Arrighi/Abu-Lughod if you're interested in transnational or world history. World Systems theory is pretty significant at the moment. 

 

As an aside, Vivek Chibber's Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital is making big waves at the moment; it's more or less an attack on Subaltern Studies, so if you're interested in Chakrabarty it's probably worth a read. 

Edited December 16, 2013 by poliscar

[loveyourlibrary]

Henry Hudson - cheers for the perspective! I was wondering whether there would be a prejudice against such recent historical stuff, but as long as some professors have overlapping interests I guess I can sound it out with them. 

 

Poliscar - thanks so much for the reading suggestions, a couple of them were already on my list but it's really nice to have them confirmed as useful for this area. From a brief look on wikipedia world systems analysis sounds relevant too. 

[CageFree]

Yeah, I can't really see myself doing well in a History PhD program in the UK (or Australia) because of the lack of coursework etc.

 

Something I've been thinking about over the last few days is how contemporary or current a History project can be? Several schools seem to have a few History professors who have either IR backgrounds or focuses, and from that perspective you could look at a country's diplomatic history with other countries, but it seems to be a topic that (unless you were looking at foreign policy in a specific era) that could quite easily be both historical as well as contemporary? Like doing a dissertation on the war on terror, unless you were looking specifically at historical causes, could be relatively contemporary? I'm interested in the war on terror and neo-orientalism, but I suspect this is a topic that has been looked at a lot, so I would need to narrow it down quite a lot.

 

Hmm does anybody here have contemporary historical interests? Or is this much more a cultural studies type approach? Does anyone here do cultural studies informed history? 

 

Hope these questions aren't too inane - it feels so overwhelming to be looking at a discipline that I have no experience in and trying to narrow down interests! Thanks again everyone for all your help!

 

I work on recent history (1980s-1990s). You do have to be very careful to make sure it is rooted in history and not, as someone else mentioned, journalism... which can get tricky if you use a lot of oral sources, but it still can be done. However, I would probably say it's field-dependent. In Latin America, the history between 1970 and 1990 is just too rich and too important to say, "we are not going to deal with this for another 20 years because you need 50 years for it to be history." Studying, say, 1980s Nicaragua or Chile is probably different from studying 1980s Europe in terms of how the field would accept that research. In fact, Latin Americanists have a term for it... Historia Reciente (Recent History). I suspect it's the same with the Middle East (i.e. recent history is more acceptable).

Edited December 18, 2013 by CageFree

[Sigaba]

MOO, you should do the telkanuru but at a significantly higher level of intensity and at a faster pace than recommended in post number #2. That is, you should go through at least two to three journals and at least one book a day for an extended period of time. This exercise will give you an indication of the amount of work you'll need to process as a graduate student in history. I recommend that you pick at least three journals in  your primary fields of interest (even if that interest is provisional) as well as a journal on a trajectory of historical scholarship that is at least a stone's throw away from any tertiary field of interest and then proceed to plow through at least a decade's worth of issues. In my view, this task should be done in a periodical library, if not the library stacks, and not using a computer. (Doing this work "by hand" will allow a different kind of intellectual and psychological immersion that is, IME, superior to doing such work via a computer.)

 

To be clear, you don't need to read every article. I do recommend that you focus on those articles that are clearly important as well as all significant historiographical essays, and long and short book reviews of works you find interesting and/or are written by scholars of note. By delving into the periodicals in such a fashion, you will teach  yourself how to read selectively as a historian.

 

Concurrently, I recommend that you defer taking the guidance offered in post #13 until you've got more general reading on historiography under your belt. It is my view that before you go much farther along, you need to find answer to more basic questions like "What is history?" "How does history differ from IR?" and "What are the boundaries of modern history, contemporary history, and journalism?" (In regards to your question about contemporary history, I recommend to you D.C. Watt's essay on the historiography of the Yalta conference in Diplomatic History.) To be clear, what ever answers you find to these questions will likely be provisional. But these answers, as temporary as they may be, will help you ground yourself before you start grappling with issues like postcolonialsm.  Also, by doing more general reading in historiography, you may well avoid a pitfall that ensnares most graduate students--the belief that the cutting edge of inquiry is always the leading edge of knowledge. This belief has, over the past fifty years or so, sparked some tremendously bitter brawls among historians that may not have been necessary.

 

Meanwhile, I urge you to start finding historians and historical works that capture your imagination. These scholars and these works do not need to be in your fields of interest (although that will help down the line). What you're looking for is people--living and dead--whom you want to emulate professionally, intellectually, and, if possible, as human beings. The goal here is not to find people that you can parrot or works that you can ape, but rather to find pathways for intellectual and psychological connections to professional academic history and its practioners.

 

Once you've found a reasonable comfort level with the above recommended tasks, then I suggest you follow the guidance in post #12 and post #2. That is, I recommend that you define the forest before looking at the trees, rocks, and streams therein. To some of the experienced graduate students here, this approach may seem back assward. However, I think you specifically would benefit from taking a big step back from an interdisciplinary approach until you teach yourself how to grapple with the past as a historian, not as a multidisciplinarian.

 

My $0.02/YMMV.

[dr. t]

MOO, you should do the telkanuru 

 

[loveyourlibrary]

MOO, you should do the telkanuru but at a significantly higher level of intensity and at a faster pace than recommended in post number #2. That is, you should go through at least two to three journals and at least one book a day for an extended period of time. This exercise will give you an indication of the amount of work you'll need to process as a graduate student in history. I recommend that you pick at least three journals in  your primary fields of interest (even if that interest is provisional) as well as a journal on a trajectory of historical scholarship that is at least a stone's throw away from any tertiary field of interest and then proceed to plow through at least a decade's worth of issues. In my view, this task should be done in a periodical library, if not the library stacks, and not using a computer. (Doing this work "by hand" will allow a different kind of intellectual and psychological immersion that is, IME, superior to doing such work via a computer.)

 

To be clear, you don't need to read every article. I do recommend that you focus on those articles that are clearly important as well as all significant historiographical essays, and long and short book reviews of works you find interesting and/or are written by scholars of note. By delving into the periodicals in such a fashion, you will teach  yourself how to read selectively as a historian.

 

Concurrently, I recommend that you defer taking the guidance offered in post #13 until you've got more general reading on historiography under your belt. It is my view that before you go much farther along, you need to find answer to more basic questions like "What is history?" "How does history differ from IR?" and "What are the boundaries of modern history, contemporary history, and journalism?" (In regards to your question about contemporary history, I recommend to you D.C. Watt's essay on the historiography of the Yalta conference in Diplomatic History.) To be clear, what ever answers you find to these questions will likely be provisional. But these answers, as temporary as they may be, will help you ground yourself before you start grappling with issues like postcolonialsm.  Also, by doing more general reading in historiography, you may well avoid a pitfall that ensnares most graduate students--the belief that the cutting edge of inquiry is always the leading edge of knowledge. This belief has, over the past fifty years or so, sparked some tremendously bitter brawls among historians that may not have been necessary.

 

Meanwhile, I urge you to start finding historians and historical works that capture your imagination. These scholars and these works do not need to be in your fields of interest (although that will help down the line). What you're looking for is people--living and dead--whom you want to emulate professionally, intellectually, and, if possible, as human beings. The goal here is not to find people that you can parrot or works that you can ape, but rather to find pathways for intellectual and psychological connections to professional academic history and its practioners.

 

Once you've found a reasonable comfort level with the above recommended tasks, then I suggest you follow the guidance in post #12 and post #2. That is, I recommend that you define the forest before looking at the trees, rocks, and streams therein. To some of the experienced graduate students here, this approach may seem back assward. However, I think you specifically would benefit from taking a big step back from an interdisciplinary approach until you teach yourself how to grapple with the past as a historian, not as a multidisciplinarian.

 

My $0.02/YMMV.

 

 

Thanks a lot for your advice. I have been feeling a bit lost without a real history grounding, so I think what you have suggested is probably going to be a necessary first step for me. 

 

I'm currently in graduate school, so I don't know that I'll be able to keep up with that amount of extra reading, but I'm definitely going to endeavour to keep up my history reading during the term. I like the idea of picking a couple journals and trawling through them especially. I've just downloaded the Watt essay and it sounds like it will be helpful for my thinking. 

 

Yeah, I'm hoping to keep up with reading historical texts alongside my other reading, so I can get some sense of different approaches, interests, agendas etc. 

 

It feels like a daunting amount of work from this perspective, but I am looking forward to becoming more familiar with history in general.

 

Thanks again everybody for your insight!