Humanities desk
< December 13	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 14

Dabbling in historical research

I have a strong interest in history, but have a PhD in an unrelated field and a strong and well paid career in that same field that I enjoy very much. As a bucket list-type thing, I'd like to actually do a genuine bit of research in history, perhaps demonstrated by a published journal article (yes, I am an academically oriented type of person). One option is to actually leverage my expertise into some sort of collaboration with an actual historian, but I feel that I wouldn't really be doing history research in that case, my collaborator would be. I would actually like to do a bit of what an actual historian does. As it happens, I am paid well enough that by the time my kids will be off to college and I actually will have time, I could probably take a lot of time off, or even retire (but I'd rather not because I really like what I am doing now). My question is about options I might have, and also how to prepare.

My interests are primarily in Roman or medieval history, so not something easy to do on your own. Clearly I need training. Basically, my advantage is that I require no funding, and can pay tuition, but the downside is that I don't want to abandon my current field altogether. I looked at a few top history PhD programs, and it seems that they probably would be an overkill, since I don't think I want to become a professional historian - I don't think I'd be as good at this stuff as I am in my own field. Also foreign language requirements are daunting and my undergraduate preparation for a history degree is minimal. I do know some Latin and am learning more, but I don't know French or German which seem to be required. It seems like my best option might be a Master's degree, but my main concern is that this will not be enough to actually accomplish my goal. My impression (and this is what I am asking professional historians that may be reading this) is that to do something worthwhile you need to spend significant time going through archives or other such things, and this is not likely to be possible in a master's program, especially one located in the US when all the materials are in Europe. I wonder if it might be possible to do a master's on a part-time basis while I am working and establish a good relationship with some professor and then take some time off to go to Europe and do research there. However, of the two good schools in my area, Berkeley has no terminal master's at all, and Stanford seems to only have a full-time master's. In short, I am looking for information and advice on how I can accomplish a little something worthwhile in historical research without becoming a professional. 108.202.177.21 (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for boasting to everyone about how well paid your job is . . . 121.90.137.109 (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant, since we need to know that he doesn't need to be able to make a living in this field, in order to make appropriate recommendations. StuRat (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a historian here, but I'd think Latin would be sufficient for studying the Roman period, and perhaps the medieval period, too, especially if you specialize in Catholic Church documents. Perhaps your Master's thesis could be to translate and analyze some obscure Latin document, and you can then publish that. StuRat (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latin may be sufficient for primary sources but not for dealing with the secondary literature. A reading knowledge of German and French at least is essential for that. Contact Basemetal here 13:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I mentioned an obscure document, meaning one that's never been reviewed by anyone else until now. StuRat (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a PhD in medieval history, and I can tell you about the requirements where I studied, at least...you're absolutely right about Latin, French, and German, to begin with. A working knowledge of classical Latin was an asset when I first started, and after that we had a, I will say "thorough", training in medieval Latin - it was like being beaten over the head with Latin until you got it, and if you didn't get it, you could be kicked out the program. It was pretty harsh, but lots of fun if you like the challenge (I did!). You could study things that don't really require Latin - my school also taught Old Irish, Old Welsh, Old Norse, Old/Middle English, and Middle German, but even those students had to pass the Latin exam whether they needed it or not. We also had to pass Modern French and German exams, because there is a huge amount of modern scholarship in those languages. On your own, you're also expected to study whatever other languages you might need for your own research. In my case, I also studied Old French and Arabic.

So you pass all those tests and you know the languages - that's a good start, now you can read published editions of medieval works, and modern scholarship on the issue. But what about reading the original documents? For that we also had classes on palaeography, to learn to read all the different kinds of Gothic script (and several other scripts besides that), and diplomatics, and about reading vernacular manuscripts which can be quite different from reading Latin manuscripts. And what if you want to publish an edition of a medieval work? Then you can study critical editing, codicology, learn how to collate manuscripts, etc.

That all takes several years in a PhD program, and you can spend several more years putting all this to practical use while writing a thesis. You can do a Masters degree in 1 or 2 years, but most of what I learned as an MA student was relatively basic (learning about Medieval Latin, how to use/read different sources, things like that). In total, MA and PhD, it took about 6 1/2 years for mine - some people can do it in less time, some people take even longer. So if you were just looking to finish an MA, I'm sure it would be helpful, but maybe not helpful enough to do meaningful research.

I'm not sure where you could go in California. I seem to recall that UC Davis has a medieval program, but if you're in the Bay area maybe that's too far away.

Hope that helps! Adam Bishop (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Adam, it helps, and I actually had you in particular in mind when I posted this question. I am quite aware that it's not a very realistic undertaking for me to do all that, unless I abandon my current line of work and spend many years working on a PhD - I've done that sort of thing once already. I guess what I am thinking of is whether I can grab one little corner of some area and do something meaningful with it, where as a PhD has to be well-rounded and prepared for many things. E.g. I can avoid learning Old English by picking a really specific topic that only requires Latin, and where major secondary sources are in English (maybe history of England?). I might be able to skim French or German articles or books with the help of Google Translate and dictionaries, French at least is relatively easy to read if you know English and Latin. I don't need a degree, so I don't have to fulfill any formal requirements. I was thinking of doing a master's exactly to learn palaeography and so on, to acquire the needed skills. By the way, I found an interesting online program from University of Edinburgh - do you think this can be worthwhile? Overall, I think this plan would hinge on finding some professor willing to direct research under such informal conditions - I have no idea how realistic this might be. 108.202.177.21 (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? I'm famous! If I may ask, what is your PhD in? It certainly helps that you already have a doctorate. I know it happens that people work in one field and then switch to another without having to go through the whole process of getting another PhD. You already have one, so that's enough, it's assumed you'll be quite capable of learning to do research in another field. I'm not sure if people ever become prolific in a completely different field, but someone would probably be willing to help. It would be worth contacting a professor at Berkeley or Stanford (or UCD or wherever else). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My PhD is in Computer Science, and research there is quite different, in particular it's not mostly reading and collating, and the output is mostly not writing - so my skills aren't up to par. My specific research has applications for historians in some of their technical work, so I could likely get involved from that side, but as I mentioned I would like to do the historian's work, not just a technical helper's. Still, you may be right, I should talk with some professors directly. 108.202.177.21 (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the technical help would be a benefit. I'm sure you know about the "digital humanities" - one aspect of that is that historians have often tried to use computer programs to help with their research, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. I worked on a project like that, and there was often a disconnect between what the IT people could do and what we historians imagined they could do. A historian who was also a computer scientist would certainly be welcome everywhere :) Adam Bishop (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, watch and/or read Robert Graves I, Claudius. Then read Will Durant's Caesar and Christ and read Suetonius, who wrote the original for Grave's fictionalization. Marcus Aurelius's Meditations are also worthwhile. This is very cheap and can be done in a month or two. At that point you'll have a basis upon which to decide your area of interest. There's always Gibbon's Fall of the Roman Empire but that's a good year's reading unabridged, assuming you have a full time job. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gibbon's work (and the correct Wikipedia article about it) is titled The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. --Jayron 32 23:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. μηδείς (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, but I already know something about Roman history, it would be rather stupid to plan to do research in it otherwise. There's a big difference between reading fiction about Rome or Roman classics and doing actual research. (I have read parts of Gibbon, but I gather it's more useful as a study of 18th century English intellectual thought than a fair take on the Roman history). I know than I like it as an amateur, whether I can get immersed in it and dig something useful out is a completely different story. 108.202.177.21 (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you probably know more about Gibbon than I, but I've done a history major for an unfinished arts degree, and I've read a fair bit of stuff where he is quoted without embarrassment or irony as a perfectly valid secondary source. You can't read him uncritically, but I'm sure I've seen somewhere the claim that, whilst details have been revised, his work is still essentially valid. All the same, I doubt you'd really need it - for essays I just read the relevant portions, and cited it occasionally. IBE (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion, but rolling up your sleeves and getting involved in WP:Middle Ages and/or WP:Classical Greece and Rome might be a good place to stick your toe in the water. Both have important (and not so important) articles that could do with the work, and practical contribution wil give you a fair idea of your own strengths, weaknesses,and preferences, maybe even showing you avenues for research you never previously considered. It will also give you a good idea of the resources available online (there's more than you think). Your background says you already know about regular expressions and search engines. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IBE, I don't mean to diss Gibbon in any way, I rather liked him. Fiddlersmouth, it sounds like an interesting idea, but I don't yet feel very confident when there are so many better qualified people around. I did contribute bits and pieces when Wikipedia was young and major articles were not yet there. 108.202.177.21 (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't think you were dissing him at all - just thought I should add that single point. I read Gibbon for the literary value, and feel pleased as punch that I occasionally learn a trite thing or two about the Empire as well - my interest is in the style, and a microscopic bit of the erudition rubs off as a bonus. Also, as for contributing to WP, well, that would be easier than contributing to the professional field of history. Schools have had projects which involve contributing to WP as the end product, so much of what happens here is not elite. You can click on the talk page for an article to get an idea of the current quality. Here is one example: Talk:Children's Crusade, read the line "WikiProject Middle Ages / Crusades WikiProject Middle Ages / Crusades (Rated Start-class, High-importance)" to see the rating within a particular WikiProject. So this one is "Start-class", which is apparently not very good, surprising for such an important article. There are many things that count against contributing: it's time-consuming, unpaid, and uncredited, to name a few. You may find it a waste of time on other grounds, but don't be afraid of us being too high in qualifications. Worry about too low, even though there are some bright sparks around. IBE (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had such lofty goals for the Crusades WikiProject once upon a time. Now, I can't even remember the last time I made a substantial edit to any Wikipedia article outside the Reference Desk. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could make a valuable contribution to historical research by finding a voluminous original source or sources in translation and then finding an interesting an original angle to examine it by. The tricky part of doing more than one source is that the odds are that you're randomly leaving out other sources that deserve to be treated together. So, for example, "What we can learn about xxxxxxx from the existant works of Herodotus". If you want to be pedantic about it, you could partner up with someone who is expert in that language, to get them to confirm that your interpretations from the translation match the intent of the original language. --Dweller (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking along these lines too. That's why I'd need an experienced mentor who could help figure out what the relevant other sources and current research is. 108.202.177.21 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Science

Are humanities and sciences really two opposite intellectual fields? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.229.215 (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask C.P. Snow... -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call them "opposite" fields. Perhaps a better word would be "distinct". Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally complementary, even, but with increased specialisation, it's harder and harder to realise the potential gains. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Humanities begin where sciences end. Why did you post your question here and not at the Science desk? Contact Basemetal here 16:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's like asking if apples and chicken are two opposite foods. Being different doesn't make them opposite. But if you want to read what some have written about the interplay of science and the humanities, perhaps I could recommend the book The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox. --Jayron 32 17:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Answers moved from science where dup Q was posted]

Science is a body of knowledge. Humanities is a body of knowledge. They are two branches of knowledge. And they use different methods to acquire knowledge. However, in some cases, they can overlap. For example, psychologists may use experimental data in their research and improve their clinical technique. Where did you get the idea that science and humanities were two opposite intellectual fields? On what spectrum? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See social science. The social sciences are midway between the "hard sciences" and the humanities, because of what they study; if the sciences and the humanities were opposite fields, there wouldn't really be a way to have something that's kind of midway between them. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Science is not primarily a body of knowledge, it is an approach to gain knowledge via observation, hypothesis testing, and reasoning. Knowledge is the fruits of science (cue WP:Reference desk/Languages on proper singular or plural of that phrase ;-), not science itself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are different ways to obtain knowledge. That is a subject of epistemology, though, which I won't go through here. I did say that Science and Humanities use different methods to acquire knowledge, such as a different understanding of something. Many professors of Humanities (Religious Studies, Classics, Middle Eastern Studies) propose theories and examine the world in a critical way. If you have ever read a journal article from the Humanities, they may begin with an Introduction, some detailed analysis, and a Conclusion. It's like an essay, really. 140.254.136.178 (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waltzing Matilda singer in On the Beach

To my Australian friends, I apologize in advance.

I'm stuck on a 1959 post-apocalypse movie, On the Beach, and its incredible, metaphorical, use of your unofficial national anthem, Waltzing_Matilda, which I have come to truly love. No other country has such a song. No other movie has made so much use of one song.

Very effective movie score, at least for one American, not previously over exposed. I've viewed it three times in two days, heard parts dozens of times, searched IMDB, YouTube, etc. & still can't find the singer who makes the most romantic moment of all movie time. At about 1:50 on the DVD, Ava Gardner and Gregory Peck are stuck in a rainy hotel room, listening to drunk renditions, when, while lighting the fire, an incredible voice transcends all - "You'll never take me alive!" said he - and moves them to passionately kiss.

WHO sang that magnificent verse? Where can I hear it? Other versions recommended? Thanks, mates! Paulscrawl (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb lists Delos Jewkes as "Solo for Waltzing Matilda (voice, uncredited)" - presumably that's not it? Tevildo (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This site suggests it may be by the same group who sings it drunkenly during the fishing trip, but without identifying them. Tevildo (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For some background on the song itself, the National Library of Australia has this section. Some notable versions of the song are available for listening at the The National Film and Sound Archive of Australia page here. There are many more versions of the song — I would recommend searching YouTube. Hack (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A belated thank you to both Tevildo and Hack. Alas, I am not able to definitively nail it - the IMDB attribution of Delos Jewkes as the solo singer seems a good bet, but no confirmation from any other source, except this comment:

"My wife and I were watching ‘On the Beach’ - 1959 - this evening and were left essentially awestruck by the Peck/Gardener kiss scene that was so lushly accompanied by Mr. Jewkes soaring vocals and upon whose wings the scene was so lovingly lifted to a place far above any like scenes in film history."

-- my feelings also, perfectly expressed by Steve Bassi, following a wonderful photo-essay bio/tribute (penned 1984 by Ralph Woodward) to the pioneering and prolific Hollywood movie singer at Jesse Delos Jewkes: Basso Profundo (1895-1984) - worth a glance for any movie buff. Not much on him on YouTube, alas.

Greatly enjoyed searching through the many links provided in the pages you both linked above and on YouTube. Thanks again. - Paulscrawl (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is lying effective in western politics?

I often see scientific lectures and discussions where the the costs and benefits of course of action discussed objectively. When I see politicians and lobby groups discuss the exact same issue, the debate is full of blatant lying, oversimplification and meaningless soundbites. Do they choose to this because it is an effective strategy to get their policy implemented? The alternative is that they really are ignorant, which is an unpleasant thought. I would love to see quotes from studies about the effectiveness of different political campaign tactics and modus operandi. Thanks --Goose Geyser (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a much-cited 2007 paper in Games and Economic Behaviour (link, but it's paywalled), the authors created a model of election behaviours to test what happens when lying by candidates is introduced as a factor in campaigns.

They write in the abstract: We find that candidates more willing to lie are favored, but that this advantage is limited by the electoral mechanism and to such an extent that more honest candidates win a significant fraction of elections. Most notably, the possibility that some candidates lie more than others affects the behavior of all candidates, changing the nature of political campaigns in an empirically consistent manner. Taknaran (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Web search finds that paper here along with lots of other promising leads. Medeis, I think Jayron's advice could have been phrased a little more diplomatically but his point is well taken. 70.36.142.116 (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the most effective strategy is to be deceptive, but not actually lie. Take the case of Michigan Governor Rick Snyder. When asked if he would sign a right to work (anti-union) law, he could have honestly said yes, which would have lost him many votes, or lied and said no, which would have lost him votes once the lie was exposed when he signed it. Instead he said "That's not even on the table", which everyone took to mean no, but which he could pretend meant something else later, after he signed the bill into law. So, deniability is key. StuRat (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Falsehood and delusion are allowed in no case whatever: but, as in the exercise of all the virtues, there is an economy of truth." (Edmund Burke). From our brief article: Economical with the truth. Alansplodge (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]