tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8250013.post112065530074856956..comments2023-10-06T12:28:48.452-04:00Comments on Spinning Clio: Does Field Specialism Occur too Early?Marchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09263223781051175207noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8250013.post-1120683291962218152005-07-06T16:54:00.000-04:002005-07-06T16:54:00.000-04:00Thanks, Sharon. I can see why focusing on a narro...Thanks, Sharon. I can see why focusing on a narrow topic would enable the better learning of the baseline methodological skills. More time to focus on said skills when the topic has less of a research load. Perhaps a requirement (or a return to the requirement or a more widespread requirement?) that one must complete at least one historiographical essay in each area of expertise. Then again, maybe it already is required. Not being in academia, I know not of what I speak! Yikes.Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09263223781051175207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8250013.post-1120668521661127052005-07-06T12:48:00.000-04:002005-07-06T12:48:00.000-04:00I found myself strongly disagreeing with Sutherlan...I found myself strongly disagreeing with Sutherland. (And I thought the scenario he described was just absurdly exaggerated. For one thing, no department could afford to be that casual about working out its teaching arrangements.)<BR/><BR/>A PhD, if you plan on having an academic career, is an apprenticeship. An advanced apprenticeship, because you'll already have done shorter undergrad and MA dissertations, but still an apprenticeship. The point of starting your research career small and narrow, even if you want to be a generalist later, is so that you can thoroughly learn the fundamental principles and rules of your discipline. Get the foundations right, and you can build outwards and upwards subsequently. The topic of a PhD is not unimportant, but it is less important than the process of researching, writing and defending it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com