Choosing a field (vs. international/transnational history)

[voprosi]

Hi everyone,

 

I'm an undergrad that has just made the decision to apply to graduate programs in history for the fall of 2015. I realize that the job prospects are horrible for history PhDs - I've been on the Chronicles of Higher Education website, talked to younger professors, perused the forums here, etc. and realize that my chances of coming out of a PhD program (even if I happen to get into one) with a job is very, very low. But, I think I'll regret it if I at least don't try.

 

Concerns about job markets or placement aside, I'm currently trying to narrow down my interests identify what programs that I might be interested in. I know what themes I would like to study and the general timeframe (empires and the process of colonialization from the 17th to the 19th century). As for geographic area, not so much. I know that many historians tend to identify the region he/she is interested in and then identify a time period and topics that they're interested in. For me, this seems to be the other way around. My broad geographic interest led me to look into fields such as Atlantic history, or Transnational/International history.

 

One concern that I have is that most of these programs (in the case of transnational/international history) state that students should be contacting individual advisors from different fields for research direction because the advisors are scattered in different fields and the connections are not well-established. Then, is it worth applying for programs in Transnational or International history, rather than applying to an established field and then, for your dissertation, working with faculty from different fields? Wha would be the advantage of applying to a Transnational or International program versus a more traditional one in East Asia, the United States, or Russia and then looking at the global implications and interactions?

 

Thanks in advance for your answers!

Edited January 3, 2014 by voprosi

[nescafe]

HI Vosprosi,

I think if you can get yourself into a good program in International-Transnational History, that's a better option. You will still likely specialize in a geographic area (or two), but the departmental connections will be more present, as will institutional support (a HUGE deal... funding is one of the most significant measures of who finishes a PhD and who doesn't). I did a dissertation on transnational history in a department that is more "vanilla" in its interests, and it took a lot of work to build a network and a committee... things that a more well-placed student might not have had to spend as much time on.

Regardless of your field, you ought to start making contacts with potential advisers as soon as possible, via email, through your current profs, etc. Your relationship with your adviser will be a huge part of the process... and you want to be certain that 1) this prof wants to work with you, and 2) she/he is tolerable and has a good track record with grad students.

Now, as far as field-specifics: I will tell you that for the average Atlantic History job call, there are well over 250-300 applications. I have a friend on that market right now, and it's brutal. If you have other interests (or related interests) you might be better served honing them... Along with European Studies, Atlantic History is easily the most over supplied sub-discipline in History. My friend ended up repackaging himself as an American historian and has done better this year on the market (although still no offers... it's still brutal out there and especially right now). 

Anyway, hope some of that helps. The only other bit of advice I can offer you is to never lose touch with skills that translate well outside of academe. The overwhelming majority of PhDs in History do not go on to tenure track positions (I read something like 80% or some-such). If you can also develop skills in relevant languages, GIS, or Public History, that would be to the good.

[voprosi]

Thanks for the insight! It's interesting that the Atlantic field is super competitive in terms of jobs.

 

I'm still curious as to the level of specialty a Transnational historian will gain, compared one from a more traditional sub-discipline. You mentioned that a Transnational or International historian will probably specialize in one or two geographic areas - will he/she be considered as qualified for a job position in either of those geographic areas as, perhaps, a historian from a more traditional program (and possibly more depth in a single geographic area)? Seeing from the example of your friend repackaging himself seems to suggest yes.

 

Broadly speaking, my geographic interests span East Asia, Russia and Eurasia, as well as colonial America. Do you think the rest of my time as an undergraduate would be better served if I spend more time focusing in on one geographic area (as a Russianist, East Asianist, or an Americanist) rather than exploring bit of everything?

[czesc]

Unfortunately, the discipline is still very heavily area studies focused and even great transnational historians like Ken Pomeranz and Sanjay Subrahmanyam have regional bases that they inevitably emphasize even in works about "world history". This may change in the future but for now it'd be smart to position yourself in such a way that you can go on the market either as a transnationalist or as a traditional regionalist depending on what's available. 

 

I think, maybe, at this stage, focus on your language skills. Not only is it best to get these out of the way asap - languages will dictate your research to a significant extent and may limit you in the future - or provide you with a potential niche. You may find that it's too hard or you don't like studying a given language and this might help you narrow your regional concentrations down. 

[voprosi]

Thanks for the insight, czesc. I can see why having one regional base as a specialty would be necessary, even in transnational history. I wonder if students in programs studying transnational history identify more as a transnationalist historian or a historian in their area(s) of specialty.

 

Your advice about revisiting my historical interests in terms languages is really helpful, although I don't think it necessarily narrows down the geographical areas of interest in my case. But it got me thinking on how I would like to utilize my set of language skills in terms of historical research. I'm fluent in one East Asian language, and I have also taken several years of Russian at the college level. I feel comfortable enough with the grammatical structures and language patterns that I can tackle reading newspaper articles armed with a dictionary (in case of archival work, I'm assuming I'll need much more language skills). I would love to utilize both languages, if possible. A thematic study on the Cold War immediately comes to mind, but it seems to me that topic has been researched to death. I could also look into studies on ethnic minority communities, migrations, or ethnic deportations in Soviet Russia.

[czesc]

No one in my program really identifies as a transntional historian; even the most "international history" types have one or two home regions that serve as bases around which they affiliate with members of the department who were trained in a more area studies mindset or with regards to which they seek funding. That said, this may be different in other schools.

 

I think you could definitely pull off being a historian of both East Asia and Russia, and would maybe focus on this strength rather than defining yourself more blandly as a "transnationalist". Throwing the US into the mix makes things more complicated - and frankly, more competitive and less fruitful with potential for original research, too.

[New England Nat]

It's worth noting that even Dan Rodgers, who I think of as one of the classic transnational historians, was officially an American Cultural/Intellectual Historian and the job search to replace him has that focus.