What kind of history do you prefer to write?

[VAZ]

I'm leading a new topic of discussion. 

Do you (prefer to) work on event-based history (e.g. The 1848 Hungarian Revolution), theme-based history (Beer in the Middle Ages), theory-based history (Emotional Communities) or source-based history (Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scroll?)? I know it has always to be a combination of all, but what's your priority when initiating a research project?

[NoirFemme]

Theory. My ideas are always framed around the whys and hows of who, what, and where.

[maelia8]

I'm more of a themes person - I look at a time period of two decades or so and examine how the way that that theme was addressed changed during the aforementioned period (in my case, reproductive policy and travel journal propaganda in 3rd wave colonialism). It's a bit source-based too (why are these journals representative, and what about them indicates certain flavors in the editing process for publication as thinly veiled propaganda?), but what really gets me going is themes and change over time.

 

[nhhistorynut]

I'm a themes and theories person. I had a hard time picking just one lol. I specialize in race relations, so theme-based and theory-based research/scholarship are equally relevant and useful.

I'd add, too, that I avoid "great man" histories because they don't really interest me very much.

[VAZ]

1 hour ago, nhhistorynut said:

I'm a themes and theories person. I had a hard time picking just one lol. I specialize in race relations, so theme-based and theory-based research/scholarship are equally relevant and useful.

I'd add, too, that I avoid "great man" histories because they don't really interest me very much.

haha, i think I'm a themes and theories person too. As a historical sociocultural anthropologist, I like to work on a variety of themes and hypothesis, and after delving into all the primary sources available to find relevant evidences, I then create the storyline myself from what I have. One of my current projects also deals with ethnocultural elations. I also avoid "great man" histories as I believe in the history of the great PEOPLE.

Edited July 13, 2017 by VAZ

[dr. t]

My primary training is in the close reading of texts, paleography, and Latin philology, so my projects have tended to build upon trying to situate a source or set of sources. But my department is pretty theory-heavy, so more recently I've been working on writing from that perspective, particularly postcolonial and race theory. 

Edited July 13, 2017 by telkanuru

[ltr317]

This is an excellent and interesting question!   Having had no prior experience in history as an undergrad, all my learning and training is in my current MA program.  After completing nine courses and soon to take my tenth and final one, I have not yet decided on the type of history I enjoy writing most, though I'm leaning in a couple of directions.  Almost all of my research papers so far have been thematic, event based, or source based: political language of the U.S. Penny Press, 1877 Great Railroad Strike, British Gothic stained glass revival in the Victorian Era, British social services for West Indian immigrants during decolonization, and dueling newspaper presses during the first two years of the French Revolution.  I have also written on a historical person and used a multidisciplinary approach: the early life of the abolitionist Charles Sumner, and historicizing the Spanish Picaresque Novel (using literature and visual art for my argument).  At this point in my training, I write what initially piques my interest.  If I get accepted into a PhD program, I hope to settle into one or two types of writing during the first year.  Thanks for asking the question!

[VAZ]

15 minutes ago, telkanuru said:

My primary training is in the close reading of texts, paleography, and Latin philology, so my projects have tended to build upon trying to situate a source or set of sources. But my department is pretty theory-heavy, so more recently I've been working on writing from that perspective, particularly postcolonial and race theory. 

I'm just wondering how postcolonial theories can be applied to medieval (monastic) history? I think I may have seen books on postcolonialism and medieval literature, but how history?

Edited July 13, 2017 by VAZ

[nhhistorynut]

@VAZ I'd venture to guess that it's likely the other way around; how medieval history and theories apply to post-colonial and race theories. It's pretty interesting, actually, when you think about it, because many race-based laws and institutions were founded on (and defended by) the interpretation of religious texts.

[dr. t]

2 hours ago, VAZ said:

I'm just wondering how postcolonial theories can be applied to medieval (monastic) history? I think I may have seen books on postcolonialism and medieval literature, but how history?

Actually, @nhhistorynut, @VAZ has it the right way round. But some things you just don't talk about in detail on the internet until they're a biiit closer to publication. 

[Jerry Renault]

I enjoy theme-based history.  I have been teaching high school history class for twenty years, and I always enjoy linking the past to the present.  Its great to get the kiddos started on a conversation about an event that might have happened two thousand years ago, and watch them get passionate about how it relates to their present day "drama."

[VAZ]

7 hours ago, telkanuru said:

Actually, @nhhistorynut, @VAZ has it the right way round. But some things you just don't talk about in detail on the internet until they're a biiit closer to publication. 

So it is groundbreaking! 

[VAZ]

A side note. As a themes person, sometimes I found myself in disadvantage compared to an events historian when chatting with lay (non-history) people, since they are usually more interested in the "significant" events (battles, speeches, dates, who did what on which day, etc.), and I was not able to offer them a lot of details if the event is not relevant to my research or in my exact field (too bad as the majority like to ask about the past century/USSR in which my knowledge is very limited in that regard). I use events merely as historical context for my protagonists, and I believe any major social, cultural or psychological transformation should take substantial time to develop, a few generations if not a few centuries.

Edited July 14, 2017 by VAZ

[Concordia]

My master's dissertation ended up being a micro-historical look at a period, which drew on bits of intellectual/political/religious history.  My supervisor was terrified of what he saw as the theoretical bent of my university's faculty (he was from another, competing shop), so when people in the department suggested that I look at Quentin Skinner and also the theory of diaries, I made sure to pretend expertise on those areas.  [The examiners loved it.]

The follow-up won't offer the luxury of being quite that kind of study, unless I find another amazingly pregnant source.  So we'll have to work to find the precise tool to crack open the question-- once I know exactly what the question is. 

Although I'm not aiming to be especially thematic, faculty recommended that I slip a "why we care" paragraph in my application's proposal.  I did use that to observe that some part of the chaos I'll be studying might be analogous and relevant to present-day politics.   Yecch.   Time will tell if this winds up being a Poli Sci or Marketing paper.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Concordia

[qkhitai]

I guess I'm somewhere between themes and theory: I look at acculturation and identity construction in China from the angle of literature. But within that general framework it's easy to tap into other histories, for example I'm preparing a conference paper at the moment that is more event based. I think source and event kind of histories provide interesting opportunities for 'micro-projects' that can help to answer the broader questions I want to tackle with my research. I'm quite interdisciplinary though, and do a lot of comp lit work, so specific source work (poems, books, etc) in particularly comes naturally; I see it as more of a means to an end however.

[TMP]

Tough one.   My dissertation is all of above.

When I entered in the PhD program, I definitely intended to be theme-based, followed by events.  Things have changed a lot in the last 5 years.

[Neist]

I like historiographical writing. I know that's not everyone's cup of tea, but...

I'm an ecosystems person. I like to see the big picture.

[NoirFemme]

21 hours ago, VAZ said:

A side note. As a themes person, sometimes I found myself in disadvantage compared to an events historian when chatting with lay (non-history) people, since they are usually more interested in the "significant" events (battles, speeches, dates, who did what on which day, etc.), and I was not able to offer them a lot of details if the event is not relevant to my research or in my exact field (too bad as the majority like to ask about the past century/USSR in which my knowledge is very limited in that regard). I use events merely as historical context for my protagonists, and I believe any major social, cultural or psychological transformation should take substantial time to develop, a few generations if not a few centuries.

If connecting with the public is important to you, read!

I actually devoured history books before I went back to school. There would be these periods where I'd obsess over a topic, and I borrowed everything I could from the library. So I have a bunch of history crammed in my head, from multiple countries, across multiple centuries.  It helps me understand lots of theory, though my professors wag their fingers over my research not fitting into specific geographical and temporal areas.