Comments on: TL;DR for Historical Scholarship

By: Katherine O'Flaherty

Katherine O'Flaherty — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 01:53:10 +0000

I really like the idea of historians exploring other established forms of publication. Every time I write in a different format I find I have to rethink my writing, my audience and my argument…this is always a useful process. I am wondering what you think about the way historians are trained to write in graduate school? Would it be beneficial to incorporate other sorts of writing assignments into the graduate school experience? I remember writing research papers, historiography, the odd book review a few short amorphous responses papers and a dissertation. As a grad student emeritus/pre-employed faculty member I now find myself fumbling for examples of history writing beyond the monograph, journal article, book review. I have found working on a blog to be a great way to reorder my thoughts and connect with others who are in the process of writing.

Katherine O’Flaherty
stillwaterhistorians.com

By: professmoravec

professmoravec — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 22:54:54 +0000

I’ve read some pretty damn boring journal articles, so I’m not sure length is the key factor. I have to say I come down on the side of there are some things that can only be done in monographs which may indeed be boring to the public, and so be it. Part of being a historian is engaging in debates with other historians about history. Part of being a historian is engaging with people not known as historians about historical subjects as well. It needn’t be either/or but I’m also not backing down from my right to engage in both.

By: Darin

Darin — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:41:56 +0000

Sorry, the link was missing: William Cronon on â€˜Professional Boredomâ€

By: Darin

Darin — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:40:40 +0000

Tim, Thanks for the â€œquick thoughtâ€ on Crononâ€s essay. Many of the issues he raises and that come up in various ways in your post plague the history of science, perhaps more acutely. I am particularly interested in your thoughts on how better communicate the results of our specialized research so that the knowledge we produce can benefit the widest range practicing historians (whatever delimits that category). Certainly digital channels for disseminating our work hold considerable promise as do some of the more traditional venues you mention. But as you say, the form of dissemination is not only problem, or even the most pressing problem. We have to generate value. We need to convince both our peers in the academy and various audiences outside the academy that our work has value. Unfortunately, there is a lot a stake here. Itâ€s not just incentives that need to be changed. There are real disincentives, risks as you and Fitzpatrick put it, for scholars who pursue alternatives. Speaking for myself, as a junior member of the faculty, I carefully monitor what I do that doesnâ€t fit the narrow definition of a proper academic activity. While I am certainly not one of the cool kids, here are my initial 2Â¢ on Crononâ€s piece:

By: Timothy Burke

Timothy Burke — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:41:57 +0000

John, I read Cronon as indeed saying there are monographs he’d rather not have: boring ones. The question that Ben is asking is, “Can every work of historical scholarship be broadly engaging?” He’s saying no, and I’d say no. But that’s why the answer for me is that maybe it’s the form not the content that makes some works of scholarship ‘boring’.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:53:56 +0000

It seems hard to believe that in these latter days there’s any potential audience that’s “too small” to address with a particular scholarly work — i.e. “product.” As the “distribution” costs have gone to nearly zero (after all, what does it “cost” to publish on the internet?) it’s possible to produce very specialized works of narrow interest. If you further relax the requirement that they be self-supporting (by leveraging your paycheck at a college or research foundation…or post office or high school or even stamping plant), then what would the use of keeping a gate based on potential audience?

The problem remains that the “marketing” cost has remained stubbornly high. In academic or research circles as in general commerce, that’s the problem of notifying your audience (whom you may not be acquainted with a priori) that you have something they might value. Are there effectively clearinghouses for these kinds of materials? Or does the interested person have to rely on the Google, which is an imperfect solution if you don’t already know what you’re looking for.

By: john theibault

john theibault — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:56:44 +0000

Although I ultimately fall more on Ben Alpers’ side that the amount of genuine value derived from the long percolation of “boring” works is underappreciated, it would indeed be great if academic historians could embrace a wider range of communication styles to help bridge some of the gap between “professional historians” in the narrow sense and readers of “professional history” in the sense that Cronon advocates in that piece. The recent publicity about upward revisions in the death toll from the Civil War shows that even highly technical historical work can reach a wide audience — if it is a timely intervention on a topic that resonates with the general public. But unlike “science,” which gets a weekly section in the national daily papers, most history news is communicated in reviews of books rather than articles.

I think your last couple of sentences overreach. I don’t see Cronon suggesting anywhere that “there are many monographs that we and our publics could live without,” much less that their research would be “dispensible.” From what he has written so far, I’m sure he would embrace the diverse forms of communication you advocate, but without arguing that we need fewer monographs. After all, the other side of Fitzpatrick’s publication model is that it breaks down the gatekeeping function that prevents some work from getting published because its potential audience is too small.