how did you overcome the gap with different/foreign academic cultures

[ignoredfab]

A question that applies perhaps to those that don't study the history of their country, i.e. studying American history as an American. 

As a European, I'm focusing on 20th century Russian/Soviet history. My contact with scholars from Russia recently made me realize how different their academic culture is from where I come (although I was prepared for it): professional careers, modes of research and writing, styles of publication and so. 

While language is totally not the issue, I sometimes have problems in sharing my ideas (say, how I'd like to contribute to theoretical debates on my topic). I don't want to generalize at all, but I do feel that not everybody seems to be receptive to my ideas. While it can be a case of different research focus, it seems rather that certain topics or ways of discussing them are totally not on their radar. 

Anybody who had similar experiences and advice on how to close gaps with academics from different parts of the world (e.g. Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia; vice versa as well of course). Which problems did you encounter? 

 

 

 

[TMP]

I'm in touch with scholars on 4 continents including North America.  It is quite challenging to navigate the academic cultural norms outside of the country you're earning your PhD in but you just have to keep observing and listening.  You might want to reach out to  a trusted colleague who might be able to answer your questions about what's appropriate.  Always be conservative and have excellent manners (according to the country's standard anyway) and you can adapt as you get to know the scholars and the academic culture they work in.  People are always interested in meeting others from outside their country because foreigners bring different (if not refreshing) perspectives and share knowledge from their academic training (I've had quite a few people in Europe being envious of my US PhD training because it's so broad).

[rising_star]

Seconding the advice to be conservative and have excellent manners. In Latin America, the academic culture tends to be much more formal, especially when making initial contacts. Consequently, you'll want to make sure you're addressing people by title, affording them proper respect, and being as clear and explicit as possible regardless of the language you're communicating in. It's a challenge but it's also an opportunity, so keep that in mind too as you progress in your training.

[ExponentialDecay]

You have to keep in mind that the Russian historical school did not develop in the same way the Western historical school did because of the Soviet Union. For 90 years it was an expression of historical materialism, like the rest of the Russian humanities and social science scholarship. You have to keep in mind that your Russian colleagues don't read the same people, don't revere the same scholarly traditions, and that yeah, they are hostile to some lines of thought because the 60s never happened in Russia and those modes of analysis essentially don't exist (I have seen some gender or race-based critiques, but they are not done in an institutionalized prejudice lens - this lens is not recognized in Russia). Russian historical scholarship is still largely determinist, and maintains the Enlightenment Era ideals that were its last contact with the known world in 1917 and which were propagated further in the era of Marxism-Leninism. Even Russians say that the Russian humanities were destroyed and never recovered. I don't know how it is with other cultures, but ime Russian humanities and social science scholarship is not infrequently irreconcilable with its western counterpart, even in more quantitative disciplines. I would read it as a primary text rather than a secondary authority.

[AP]

I thought a lot about this response, because I thought that my initial reaction was silly. But it's not. 

The question you are asking is basically (also) how we –international students– come to the US to do a PhD. As I read responses and think of my own experience, I picture more and more the transition from abroad to a US system, with its history, its tensions, its tacit rules... Language is not the issue, but they way you present ideas is. I have been writing in English since I was 8, and I still struggle with several awkwardness in my work. Similarly, the American historical tradition is different from the one that influenced the production and teaching of history in my home country, which means that when I arrived I hadn't read "obvious" authors (like WEB Du Bois) and that many others were "basic" to me. 

Maybe the best response to your question is: immersing oneself in the other culture –either as a historian, a journalist, an observer, a traveler– is probably the most efficient way to overcome any distances.