Theory Thursday | Academic/Professional History Free-for-All

by AutoModerator

Previous weeks!

This week, ending in October 02 2014:

Today's thread is for open discussion of:

  • History in the academy

  • Historiographical disputes, debates and rivalries

  • Implications of historical theory both abstractly and in application

  • Philosophy of history

  • And so on

Regular participants in the Thursday threads should just keep doing what they've been doing; newcomers should take notice that this thread is meant for open discussion only of matters like those above, not just anything you like -- we'll have a thread on Friday for that, as usual.

NMW

It turns out that trying to finish your dissertation while a bunch of construction workers pound and drill and saw things mere feet from your desk, for weeks, is not great.

yodatsracist

I'm only getting to it today, but I assume most others have already read, "Why Academic Writing Stinks", an article which has clearly gone viral in at least my corner of the academic world.

Any other writing accumulated academic writing advice? Dad, an emeritus professor now, always tells me, "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

DerbyTho

I don't know if this is late, but:

Philosophy of history: On a podcast I listened to recently, Dan Carlin talked about the tension of trying to deliver history "objectively". He said that in trying to be as removed from the subject as possible, you can miss out on something crucial to history if you remove yourself from the human element.

I'm of two minds and I'd like to hear professional opinions: is a historian's job to present as close to objective truth as possible, only portraying the facts as we know them? Do we miss out on the truth if we don't try to connect to historical events, or is that someone else's job (ie not a historian's)? Is there a way to find a happy middle ground?