Collaboration

Lately, I’ve been thinking quite often about history as a social process, as a collaboration. Truth be told, this has been a recurring theme in my approach to history for years, but it is only in the past few weeks or months that I’ve been able to find the words to express the ideas that drive me, and my work. In my recent interview with Dr Alan James, of the Department of War Studies at King’s College London (who happens to be my primary supervisor), I asked how important collaboration had been in his work. My question was a leading one, stating that history must be practiced as a collaboration, if only with one’s sources. His answer was complicated, in that first he talked about how historians must be, by practice, able to deal with isolation. This has more recently been echoed in conversation with my friend Kelsey, who described history as “the most unsatisfying conversation,” where “even the people you study can’t properly communicate with you.” Of course, every historian knows that this isn’t a reason not to study history, but rather something that draws us in and makes us look for things, hints in the documents and items so that we can communicate more clearly with those we study. Although this isolation can be physical (as anybody who has spent a few hours in an archive surrounded by boxes of documents can attest to), it can also be academic. There comes to be a point, probably during one’s PhD, where one is the world’s leading expert on their very specific topic. As much as historians might talk shop when we get together, it is noticeable that except for very specific situations (like when one historians is asking another historian for help) we don’t really talk about our work other than in formal situations like conferences and seminars where we are presenting our work. Even then, there isn’t much collaboration as it seems many academics are loathe to present works in progress, but rather finished projects. I don’t think that physical or social isolation are necessarily issues- although they can be. On the other hand, I do think professional isolation is an important issue. There are several reasons for professional isolation, and I think the primary influence driving people apart is competition. At the moment, there is tremendous competition whether its for places in graduate programs, spaces to present at conferences or seminar series, for funding, and for employment. The second major reason I can see for isolation is the need for original work. Several times recently I have taken part in conversations where fellow graduate students have considered not participating in conferences in order to limit the chances of their work being ‘stolen’ by other academics. Related is the pressures brought on by the need to ‘tick boxes’ when it comes to publication and maintaining the originality of one’s work- whether it is for REF, or for CV purposes many academics seem loathe to publish their ideas, even in unfinished versions for comment and feedback. This isn’t necessarily an academic’s fault- the truth is that it’s not professionally wise to publish your work in more than one location (and often not allowed). Given the need to tick boxes (with journal articles, books etc), individuals cannot be blamed for wanting to conserve their work for those kinds of output.
I would argue that collaboration is necessary, inevitable, but then I’m someone who is pretty socially outgoing (at least when it comes to academics). When I present at a conference, I will only present part of my PhD work, so that I can get feedback. And every time I have done so, somebody has asked a question or poked a hole in my argument that has made me go back and do work to sort it out. I’m always willing to ask for somebody’s opinion on my work, or to read new bits of research or other monographs even though they may change what I have already done. I started my PhD in 2012, and did a large amount of secondary reading, as was required. In the past few months, I have had a number of things sent to me which were published in 2013 and are incredibly important historiographical contributions to the various discussions. Recently, I have been frantically reading Sarah Kinkel‘s thesis, her article on the 1749 Articles of War and Kevin Sharpe’s Rebranding Rule in an effort to make sure that I continue to collaborate with the ongoing discussions on my topic and not simply those discussions as they stood when I began my project.
For me, another part of collaboration between academics is a willingness to wander beyond our specific topics, and discipline to engage with other academics, and their ideas. With the many pressures placed on academics- the requirement to produce work, to teach, let alone the time required for family and friends, we can only do so much and partake in a limited number of events. That said, there are a number of historians and other academics I have spoken to who, when they have time, will not go to an event because it’s not specifically on their topic. Setting aside the reality of bad individual seminars, I think that it is important for academics to partake in an entire series of events, especially when the topics are not a match. When I have gone to presentations on historical geography or maritime insurance or various other subjects, I usually come away with new questions and approaches to use on my work. When I began my PhD I did certainly not think that I would be actively incorporating ideas like discussions of space or post-structuralism into my framework and analysis, but talking to other historians has convinced me that they need to be there.