I'm not sure if this is strictly the right place for this post, but it is a question about history, and I hope that some people in the community can give me a bit of help/advice!
Last year I completed a masters degree in medieval history and have been working full time in an unrelated field ever since. I now want to return to education and do a PhD.
I've hit a stumbling block, due to the fact that the topic I want to pursue is not directly related to my masters' research. My previous research focused on racial and cultural identity and prejudice in medieval Europe, with my submitted work being made up of three 4,000 word essays on related topics in 12th - 14th century Britain, and a 15,000 word dissertation on portrayals of 'barbarian' peoples in 10th century monastic writing.
For my PhD topic, I want to keep the theme the same, but shift the focus to Hong Kong and Singapore under British rule in the 19th and early 20th centuries, looking at colonial attitudes towards native culture and race, as well as the development of specific Hong Kong and Singaporean identities. As you can see, the themes are very similar to my previous research, but are chronologically and geographically removed.
Although I have done my own research and reading on the topic, I don't hold any qualifications specific to east Asian history, and am worried that this will prove an insurmountable obstacle in terms of my application. I'm wary of emailing potential supervisors and being dismissed because of my background, and potentially ruining a chance for future engagement. Essentially, I've hit a bit of a wall.
Basically, my question falls into two parts: is this too great a leap in terms of topics considering my existing qualifications and knowledge and, if so, what can I do to close the gap to make applying for such a topic feasible? I'm open to the idea of doing another masters course on world history, or similar, that I can use as a bridge, but would prefer to go straight onto the PhD if it is possible.
My previous degrees are from UK universities, and I'm applying to do the PhD in the UK as well, in case that makes a difference to people's responses.
Sorry for the wall of text, and thanks for reading!
So first off, how dare you abandon the pre-modern world. Ok, with that out of the way a few things to consider.
Take this with a grain of salt as I have not completed a PhD in the UK, only in America, but at least in the states almost any PhD program you go into will have an MA component, even if you have an MA. Usually this functions as a sort of pre-quals 1st-2nd year process. You don't necessarily write a thesis, but you do course work and are tested to see whether you are qualified to advance to the next stage. If this is the case then your masters work will hold you in good stead and demonstrate some abilities but won't be taken as proof that you are ready to move on to the dissertation.
But this may very well be different in the UK. I know there is much less of an emphasis on course work and pre-quals stuff there so you may in fact be in a different boat where your MA in medieval won't be particularly useful except in perhaps a methodological sense or as proof that you know how to suffer.
The big elephant in the room seems to be languages. Do you have the languages you need to study modern East-Asia? if not then there is almost no way they will be interested in you and you need to actively consider how you will get these languages. If you have some language skills but aren't "research ready" then another masters or some active independent classwork to get these up to snuff seems necessary
If you do have the necessary languages already then I think you should pitch yourself as someone with a firm grounding in historical skills and methods, as evidenced by your masters, who wants to make a change.
And then you need to address elephant number 2 and explain why you are capable of doing the research required for this very different focus. You need to lay out the experience you have with the subject, the skills/knowledge about the area you already have etc. This is especially important regarding the historiography. Do you have at least some grasp of the people/ideas you will need to be engaging with. Obviously part of their job is to give you this knowledge, but you don't want to be coming in as a completely blank slate. Of course being able to present a firm theoretical grounding in the wider ideas/methodologies of colonialism, post-modernism, ethnic studies etc. would be very useful. Demonstrate how, even though the facts on the ground are different, the reading and thinking you've done is transferable.
Otherwise they will see you as someone who will require all kinds of extra time/effort before you can be let out into the world to research and write. PhDs in history are already in many ways a losing bet so they will want to slant the odds in favor of producing a person who finishes in a short period of time and then can get hired. This isn't an attempt to dissuade you, just an attempt to present the way they will probably be thinking.
With all that being said, I wish you much luck and hope you can pursue your interests! If this is really and truly what you want to devote your life to, onwards I say!
Of course there is always medieval...