 |
| "Sa-meow-rai" |
If it weren't for Chris and the rest of the regulars (and some not-so-regular these days) characters at the Samurai Archives, I cannot imagine that I would be writing and thinking about a second career in Japanese history today. Goes to show you what having a solid group of like-minded people as your support base does for you.
As I prepare a couple of papers to present at the Society for Military History conference (and Chinese Military History mini-conference) in a few months, I'm reflecting a lot about audience. One of the papers, of course, I've already presented twice. I've gotten good feedback both times, and even had a professor track me down via email because he saw the Youtube link I posted of the first presentation. That eventually led to the invite I just got to speak at a conference on battlefield archaeology in Texas next October (I'm really excited about that one, by the way).
All of that is fine and dandy. So why am I presenting the same paper again? Well, both times I've given it, the audience was Japan/Asia specialists. They knew Japan, but weren't necessarily historians, or if they were, they weren't military historians. At SMH, they may not know Japan, but they know military history. What they do know of Japan largely builds on sources that were incomplete at best and downright horrid at worst. I think this will be a much bigger test than the two conferences I've been to so far.
Which brings me to something I've mentioned here on the blog before: I'm not sure if I'm a Japanologist who studies warfare, or a military historian who studies Japan. I'm also not 100% sure what the difference is, or how much it matters. It will be interesting to gauge the reaction I get at SMH and see where it leads.
Part where the above becomes a problem is looking at graduate schools for future PhD work. The standard advice is to look for professors that do similar work in a similar area to what you are interested in, and pursue them as possible advisers. That's great advice. But what happens when you want to do the intersection of a geographic region (Japan), time period (premodern, or before 1600) and a subject (tactical and operational warfare in social and political context), and no one at a university offering a program covers those three bases?There are plenty of historians studying premodern Japan...who focus on culture or literature or gender or social class or economics, etc. (Professor A)
There are plenty of historians studying premodern warfare...of Europe and China. (Professor B)
There are plenty of historians studying Japanese military and politics...from the Meiji Period forward to WWII. (Professor C)
Professor A would be great to work with because they could help me learn to understand access to Japanese original sources, premodern social and economic structures, translation issues, cultural context, etc. They might not understand, and be tempted to push me away from, operational history of military campaigns and detailed tactical analysis.
Professor B would understand exactly the kind of history I want to write about, and would be a great help in developing methodology and conceptual understanding. They'd be little help in dealing with heavy Japanese kambun sources and would likely funnel me more into a comparative context than I want. Comparative analytics are important, but Japanese history should be studied as Japanese history, not simply as an alternate example of developments in Europe (yes, I'm looking at you and scowling, Geoffrey Parker).
Professor C...well, let's say I'd love to have that as a secondary area of expertise, but studying the Japanese Army in Manchuria of the late 1930's is actually more different than studying 16th century European armies contemporary to Nobunaga. Reading prewar Japanese texts is different than reading current stuff, but it doesn't help me read kambun, etc.
 |
| Professor C is a Sonny Chiba fan |
I guess the ideal, and what I will look for over the next few years, is to find a place that has at least 2 of these professors, ideally A and B. And who knows, maybe Professor AB (a Karl Friday or a Thomas Conlan) is out there to be found at a grad institution. Sadly, neither of them are at the moment.
Oh well. I've got at least 5 years to figure that out, and who knows what will happen at conferences, etc. in that time.
More thoughts of a historical nature to come soon, I promise. It was probably a bad idea to start this blog during the holiday season, but it will start to come more regularly! Thanks for reading!
Another option: create your committee by drawing on profs from more than one school. Find a main advisor who would be open to a committee member(s) from another school. For example, at Ohio State I had John Lynn from Illinois on my committee (he was actually the closest fit to my topic), while a friend there had a Dutch scholar on his committee. Contact them all before you apply and see how willing they would be to working like that (and how amenable a Japanese non-military specialist as potential main advisor would be to you doing a diss on military history).
ReplyDeleteWhich combination you chose might also depend on what you want when you finish - an academic job (in which case overall school reputation and Japanese field might be most important), or if you go a military route, choosing a modern Japanese military historian might make sense.
If a joint committee isn't practical, you can still work with scholars at other schools - they just wouldn't be on your committee and will have limited influence on your diss. They can still write you letters of recommendation, serve as collaborators, etc.
Although I didn't have the ideal advisor-advisee experience, I don't get the sense that there's much secret knowledge that academics only divulge to their closest advisees, other than often-generic advice on research skills, note-taking, organization... A lot of this advice is discussed on blogs these days in any case (e.g. mine!). Advisor intangibles include building up a personal relationship with your advisor, which might help you get hand-me down projects or funding, and advisors can really help by keeping your nose to the grindstone, but this is independent of whether they're of the A, B or C variety. Check out how many of their advisees finished (and in what time frame), and whether their advisees have the type of job you would like. You can finish and prosper without the ideal advisor, but it will require more effort and attention on your part.
In short, I don't know that there's much that you can't pick up at conferences, from informal discussions with other scholars/grad students, from reading books/journal articles/blogs... But you need to ask the right questions. Historiography will be easier to pick up anywhere than methodology (e.g. from conferences), but most historical methodology is pretty rudimentary anyway (unless you want to go the theory-laden route). Sources will also tend to be discussed in a variety of venues and should be discoverable through catalogs and citations. There should be courses/resources about reading 15th century Japanese sources that you can take (e.g. in Japan or in summer school somewhere). You could even start up a kambun blog for group help (if it doesn't already exist - Wikipedia has a surprisingly detailed entry with various links). I don't know if it's common for advisors to share their sources with their advisees, but this probably won't matter unless the advisor is directly in your field/period.
So I'd think the biggest question will be whether a non-military Japanese specialist will try to point you towards a less-military topic.
Dr. Ostwald--
DeleteThanks for the thoughtful and very helpful reply. I've looked at having professors from another university as an option, and it certainly would help round out a committee with the broadest expertise possible. There are several professors I think might be perfect for me, but they are not at institutions that have PhD programs; this might be a way to get their input even at a different institution. I think my ideal committee would have Professors A, B, and C on it in some combination, and it's up to me to figure out the best way to make that happen. I'm trying to put together a list and read works of professors that interest me, so that when it's time to contact them I have an understanding of their research.
Also, you are right in that it does matter what I plan to do after a PhD. My preference right now is a university job teaching and writing, but as you point out I can write anywhere. As I'll be retired from the military, there are options, and it is made easier by having a retirement income at that point. I'm in a good position, but even so I've got a lot to sort out in the meantime, and sometimes it seems very daunting. Some of what I write here is stream of consciousness "oh no Mr. Bill!", and once I get it out, I can calm down and see things a bit more clearly.
Your comments at the end make me feel better about my immediate course of action--work on my own, go to conferences, meet people, get feedback. I've had very good reception at the two Asia-focused conferences I've presented at, and made some very helpful connections. Hopefully SMH will provide another round of feedback and connections, as will the archaeology conference I'll be at in October. Now if only I can avoid being sent to NTC or SE Asia at the wrong times...
I've got a group of friends who also study premodern Japan--perhaps I can organize a kambun study group with them. Again, thank you for the idea. It's easy to sit here behind a keyboard and freak out, I appreciate the push.
Thanks again, and I'll certainly be watching your blog for more helpful information!