PhD: Having a Hard Time Picking a Field

[vm1138]

I have a Master's already, and after two years in the "real world" I'm ready to go back for my Ph.D.  But I'm trying to balance my personal interests with employability.  I don't want to pick a dead-end field.  It's hard enough to find work, I don't need to put up extra barriers to success.

 

I'm inclined to go with South Asian history, as it seems to be a field of rising importance, but I'm not sure if it will be "in demand" for years yet.  My background is in American history, and while I find it less intellectually stimulating, it's comfortable and I know more about it than any other field.  But the latest AHA jobs report showed that Americanists have the hardest time finding jobs as professors. But they stand better odds (supposedly) of finding non-academic work.

 

I also have an interest in Empire history and colonialism, but am not sure how much demand there is for that field. I also imagined I could find a way to combine South Asian history in with imperial and colonial history.

 

The lack of actual substantive data regarding job placement and specialties is frustrating.  The best I can hope for is anecdotal information but I'd appreciate any input anyone here has on what fields are in demand between American history (19th Century or later), Imperial and Colonial history, South Asian history, or some combination of MIddle East and African history.  I have experience in all these fields, so none of them are totally new to me, and I'm interested in all of them.

[poliscar]

Don't pick a field based on employability. It's not going to give you more than a marginal advantage; TT-track positions in History are highly competitive in any field. Making any decision in Academia based on trends, whether they are to do with the perceived importance of that field or on employability, is a bad idea. Pick something that thrills you enough for it to be something you want to spend the rest of your life thinking about. The last thing you want to do is to enter a field only to find out, three years down the road, that your interest in it was never going to be deep enough for you to complete a dissertation in the area. 

You also need to narrow done your interests a lot more. To say that you're interested in "South Asian history" or a "combination of Middle East and African History" is incredibly vague. Within those three geographical areas you're looking at numerous countries and languages. Are you interested in Lebanon? Syria? India? Iraq? Do you have language training in Arabic, Hindi, or Bengali (to name a fraction of the languages that might be necessary)? Moreover, even when you are most specific—i.e. when you mention the imperialism/colonialism—you're still looking at a vast timespan that you would need to delimit. One could foreseeably write about colonialism in any period from the 15th century to the present (that is probably a conservative estimate as well, considering recent work on colonialism in the Medieval period). 

If you're applying to doctoral programs, you should be able to describe a fairly specific field of interest. This might look something like "feminist and gender history in early-20th century Bangladesh," or "urban space in postcolonial Algeria." Once you've done that, look at the languages involved; if you have minimal to no experience with these languages, you need to rethink your suitability for study in that field at a doctoral level. Not only will you not have access to vital scholarship in those languages—crippling your grasp of the historiography—but you also won't be able to complete archival research, which is necessary for any dissertation. 

I think you should step back and really think about a) what you're interested in, why you want to complete a doctorate, and c) how qualified you are to work in various fields at a doctoral level. Even though you have an MA, it seems as though you still have a lot of decisions to make before you apply for a PhD. 
 

[TMP]

take the job market out of the equation.  Seriously.  There is much more than being a professor that you can do with your PhD.  You need to figure out why you're going for the PhD and why it's worth spending 5-7 years of your life completing the requirements.

 

Your research (and teaching to some extent) is limited by your language abilities.  Non-American history fields will be looking for your language skills in your applications.  

 

Find books and articles that interest you and read them.  Put down questions.  You should be able to see a pattern of themes and geographical areas that get you intellectually excited.

[thedig13]

I would parrot what the previous two posters wrote. Picking a field based on its apparent trendiness rather your actual interest level is folly. You should pick a field based on what interests you (in your case, admittedly something other than American history).

 

By the time you apply, you should have a reasonably refined field of interest (in my case, it was 20C-US, with emphasis on urban, race, and cultural histories). Right now, it seems like you're still in the early stages of deciding a general, general field (which is not going to get you admitted anywhere), so it's important that you take some time and really, really think about what interests you as a prospective historian and how you can present those interests in a coherent fashion.

 

If you pick a field based on apparent trendiness, I think you'll quickly find that trends reverse and that your own motivation burns out rather quickly.

 

Also, do you speak any languages other than English? If not, you should make an effort to pick some up -- if you can't speak the lingua franca of the society you're studying, you're unlikely to be admitted to a PhD program.

Edited August 24, 2014 by thedig13

[lyrehc]

One of the professors on my committee just completed his doctorate 2 years ago.  His biggest piece of advice to me is to follow my heart and become an expert in an area of my field that I love.  Trying to gain other skills that I'm not passionate about will often eliminate me from consideration when I'm on the job market because employers want to hire someone who not only has a specialty but who feels passionate about that specialty.  In other words, follow your heart.

[Professor Plum]

employers want to hire someone who not only has a specialty but who feels passionate about that specialty. 

 

I have been on five search committees in the past nine years, and "passion" has not entered into the decision-making process even once that I can recall.

[dr. t]

I have been on five search committees in the past nine years, and "passion" has not entered into the decision-making process even once that I can recall.

 

But that would seem to be because you'd pretty much have to have it to be applying in the first place?

[lyrehc]

I have been on five search committees in the past nine years, and "passion" has not entered into the decision-making process even once that I can recall.

Maybe passion isn't the term you would choose, but even when I would hire clerical staff I made sure that they cared about what they were going to be doing.  

[sacklunch]

I doubt you would stand much of a chance at all if you applied to some of those areas simply because you likely do not have the necessary language training. You may indeed have such training, but considering you studied American history I assume you do not/have very little. You will be competing against applicants who are fluent in English and whatever region specific language applicable to their subfield. Your writing sample, which I assume would not be something relevant to said fields, would be a dead giveaway that you lack such training. Be prepared to go back to school for another 2-4 years to get your footing in those languages.