Big Names in Your Field

[lemonparty]

This is probably going to come off as absurdly naive, but how do you know who the "big names" are in your field? How does one find out which professors/scholars are well known and respected?

[lindsey372]

I think you get a sense by immersing yourself in the discourse of that particular field. Who is citing who/m? What are the names that keep popping up, etc.

[fuzzylogician]

Who is invited to give keynote speeches at major conferences in your field? Who is cited as the "foundational reading on X"? Who authored the go-to readings in your topic, if you look at undergraduate/graduate course syllabi? Who is invited to write handbook or survey articles on major topics in your field? Who is inducted in your field's Society as fellows? Who has festschrifts written in their honor for major birthdays/retirement/etc? These folks will often be older (white, male), full professors, often with a named professorship, and you'll see their names coming up again and again. There is a bit more to knowing the politics of who likes who, but this is a good start. 

[silenus_thescribe]

3 hours ago, lindsey372 said:

I think you get a sense by immersing yourself in the discourse of that particular field. Who is citing who/m? What are the names that keep popping up, etc.

In addition to fuzzylogician's thorough questions, I think this point of Lindsey's has been the most true for me. It helps that I'm in a field -- modern and contemporary theatre -- where there is still much to be said, so the ones who make a big impact are quite obviously spotted. Older, more established areas will also tend to have robust critical histories that can easily be found in lit reviews in journal articles and in books. For instance, while a lit review of major playwrights in contemporary theatre will run comparatively short, Early Modern drama runs wide and deep critically speaking.

[bhr]

Look at your national convention and organization. Who are on the major committees? Who are winning the awards? Who are keynoting, or giving major addresses?
Take that list, then look them up to see who is being cited or publishing regularly. You'll get a good mix there of top names and emerging scholars, both of which are good to know.

Keep in mind that many of those names ebb and flow from year to year, and may not be as relevant to your specific work. A scholar may be a "big name", but stuck on the same thing they've been writing about for three decades.

[ExponentialDecay]

Foolproof? You study under a few of them, and they introduce you to their friends.

Conferences are slightly better than collections of articles, comprehensive reviews, etc., as they can be out of date and moreover they don't tell you anything about who hates whose guts.

[iExcelAtMicrosoftPuns]

Google scholar might help you track who is citing who and all that jazz.

Conferences - obviously, as other people have said.

Listening - to other students/researchers/etc. Do eyes light up when the talk about (that particular person at that program)

Asking -