This week, ending in March 17 2016:
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.
Here is more of a pedagogical question than anything else: When should you really get into issues of theory with undergrad students?
One of the big problems I had as an undergrad was that we were expected to use a theoretical system and concepts which weren't really fleshed out for us until the final years of the degree. It is true that I wouldn't have fully appreciated/remembered Marxist theory until later in the career, but because it wasn't systematically taught at the beginning I often felt lost and like I was being imprecise because of the lack of discussion of theory.
This holds true of other theoretical problems and systems.
It seems to me like a class on theory should be imparted each year, slowly digging deeper each year until you get to heavier issues late in your degree.
Thoughts from more experienced professors or students with different experiences?
A question: why are historians so much more active online than other branches of the humanities?
This is purely anecdotal at the moment - but if I go to a history conference, there will be side conversations on a Twitter hashtag, half the people I talk to will have blogs, and 'digital humanities' will be a thing that makes people perk up and pay attention. If I go to a literature conference (and I've helped organise and run websites for a couple, so I've seen this up close), there's a half-hearted attempt at an official hashtag, on which the conference organiser and maybe one other person will post, nobody mentions having a blog, and 'digital humanities' makes people remember that they need to get a good seat for the next talk, and oh jeepers, look at the time.
I've heard similar things about philosophy and to some degree sociology (although sociology is closer to history on this particular spectrum). So why is history the online behemoth it is?
I have a question about a really specific historiographical matter that's been bugging me for weeks.
Can anyone explain why historiography has switched to the term "Sasanian" over "Sas(s)anid"? It doesn't match the naming pattern for any other Iranian dynastic empire (while Sassanid does, cf. Seleucid, Arsacid, Samanid, Safavid), yet it appears to be universal in all modern sources I see on the last pre-Islamic Iranian empire.