Are There too Many Historians?

From the newsletter of the Chronicle of Higher Education (1-14-05):

A glance at the current issue of "Historically Speaking": The professionalization of history

The field of history suffers from "mass professionalization," Bruce Kuklick, a professor of American history at the University of Pennsylvania, writes in the lead essay in "The American Historical Profession in the 21st Century: an Exchange," a section based on papers presented at the Historical Society's 2004 conference.

Too many people have doctorates in history, and there are not enough jobs in higher education to accommodate them, Mr. Kuklick says. The result is "a growing helot class of non-standing faculty, exploited and underpaid."

Publication has traditionally been the way for scholars to distinguish themselves from the pack, he writes, but the staggering number of journals and books being published now makes it "more difficult for scholars to publish their way 'out' or 'up.'" There is too much material for most scholars to keep track of what is out there, he says, much less evaluate what is especially good.

"In the old days," he argues, "standards may have been narrow and determined by a group of old white males who successfully passed on their rigidities. But at least one knew who to read, and the number of historians was limited enough so that supply did not so entirely exceed one's ability to consume."

In a response to Mr. Kuklick's essay, Marc Trachtenberg, a professor of political science at the University of California at Los Angeles, is less troubled by the volume of publications available. "The more basic problem," he says, "is that I would not want to read much of it, no matter how much time I had."

And in another response, Leo P. Ribuffo, a professor of history at George Washington University, says: "Ain't it awful? You bet. It always is."

The essays are online at http://www.bu.edu/historic/hs/septemberoctober04.html#profession