|
|
Women's History: the Ivory Divide
 |
The Ivory Divide, What is it and why does it matter? |
|
| |
| Tamara Mazzei |
| Posted: 22 Feb - 09:05 am |
|
|
Discussion Leader
Group: Admin
Posts: 28
Member No.: 1
Joined: 16-February 03
|
That the general public has an ongoing interest in history is illustrated by the popularity of novels (and movies) set in the past. Historical authors repeatedly express their desire to paint an
accurate picture of the settings and people in their stories. Readers often have different perspectives to writers. Some readers ask, "Is it accurate?" while others simply assume that it is (or isn't). And
historians themselves (and some knowledgeable readers) are often critical of historical fiction, citing a general lack of research, errors in interpretation, and other problems that may lead the unwary
astray.
These issues relate to historical fiction, and also to many widely-available works of popular non-fiction, the ones you're most likely to find in the "History" section of your local bookstore. Works
by professional historians aren't as easy to find, and they often assume a level of background few non-specialists possess. That is the essence of the ivory divide: the gulf between the ways
in which the interested public learns about history and the ways in which historians teach about history.
This points to an underlying difference in interpretation -- most readers and viewers are simply not looking for the same past worlds as most historians, even when they are looking at
the same material.
These thoughts lead to many questions. Firstly, what is the ivory divide? Why is it there? How does this affect women's history? Why does it matter?
There are no easy answers, but those are among the many questions we would love to discuss in this topic.
Whether your interest is in learning more about women's history, or in teaching others about it, we hope you will join us and post ideas and questions of your own -- as many as you like.
All we ask is that you avoid personal criticisms of other posters in your threads.
We will start by introducing ourselves - and invite you to tell us about yourself and your interest in history as well.
|
 |
| Gillian Polack |
| Posted: 28 Feb - 01:56 am |
|
|
Discussion Leader
Group: Discussion Leaders
Posts: 44
Member No.: 4
Joined: 21-February 03
|
This is a crucial topic to my mind. It is a vexed and vexing one as well.
It is impossible to understand why people see women's history the way they do unless you understand where they are coming from, who they are, what they read, and what ideas they have contact
with. How they access their past. Why they access their past. What pasts they think of as accessible.
The ivory divide for me, is the difference between the pasts accessed by specialists in the study of history, and the pasts accessed by other people (note those plurals! I love complicating
things  ). Some of the best published research is just not making it to booklists
of the reading public, which means the reading public misses out on some really crucial ways of understanding women's history.
One of my obsessions (only one - I must be an extraordinarily obsessive person) its to try to bridge that ivory divide for the history of the Middle Ages. I teach writers, community groups
and adult students.
I am not at all sure that the history I teach is always the same as the one I research. I end up becoming very enthusiastic about explaining proof for portable toilets in the Middle Ages, and
looking for fun parallels between Chalet School books and the Medieval French epic legends. When I talk about these sorts of things, or about sexuality, or about ghosts, eyes light up and
everyone is fascinated. But these are not my prime area of research. I don't teach historiography or nearly enough methodology, because we never get enough enrolments in those classes - my
potential students seldom have enough background to know before they enrol that that they are going to enjoy looking at the ways history was written just as much (and maybe more) than who killed
whom and when or what the earlier tales of King Arthur were about. And let me emphasise, my students are usually very bright and very motivated, with higher than average education levels.
I am certain that the history I read in fiction is not the history I research, too. I am almost tempted to issue a challenge to the historical fiction writers participating in Women's History Month - to turn a
part of my doctoral thesis into a decent short story, communicating the ideas in all their (painful) complexity. I could not do it, I fully admit this.
Fiction is a legitimate and thoroughly fun way of expressing history - it presents the past in a wonderfully vivid fashion and it is a very strong vehicle for communicating and teaching human truths - but it
is seldom the same past that most scholars write about: that ivory divide is very real. Both sides of the divide "do" real history, to my mind - but we do very different history, and things can get very
tangled.
Why does that divide exist? (and are people like me at all successful in crossing it?)
For me that is what this discussion is about. If we can work out where we get our pasts from, and why some approaches to history are more accessible than others, then maybe we can bridge that
divide more successfully. And maybe more of the superlative work being done on woemn's history in universities will reach the wider public.
What a polemical start! And I haven't even said who I am.
I am Gillian. I change hats depending on the day of the week, and sometimes on the hour of the day, but I am in this particular forum mostly as an historian: there are better historians than
me, and there are many more mainstream historians than me, so please don't take my views as representing all historians.
Please forgive me if my truly execrable typing or my even more execrable sense of humour get the better of me in this or any of the other forums.
Gillian Polack
|
|
| Tamara Mazzei |
| Posted: 01 Mar - 12:13 pm |
|
|
Discussion Leader
Group: Admin
Posts: 28
Member No.: 1
Joined: 16-February 03
|
Gillian is here to represent historians (at least in this context), but I'm here to represent those trying to cross the ivory divide starting from the other side. To give a bit of detail, I'm a reader, writer, and
publisher of historical fiction. I am, however, interested in the serious study of history as well. Since I'm not a professional historian, my path to learning has been very different from Gillian's. I have come to
feel that I've partially bridged the gap, but not completely, and I'm not entirely sure why the last part of my journey looms so large. I have some ideas about that and I would like to explore those in our
discussion; I would also like to hear ideas from others who may have better insight than I do.
One particularly difficult area for me relates to identifying the best paths to use to obtain the information I'm seeking. I don't have the time (or access) to take courses, nor do I wish to become a
professional historian, and the problem seems to lie therein. The multiplicity of "pasts" to which Gillian refers does more than cause the public to "miss out" on crucial aspects of history; it can also serve as
a barrier with the potential to keep us out altogether.
Why does the ivory divide exist?
One aspect of the divide may be that we (non-specialists) want to learn about things that are different from what we find in many scholarly works. It seems to me there is more to this than simply
providing reading lists or making academic history accessible enough for the non-specialist to comprehend. An equally important difference between historical fiction and the history written by scholars is
the focus of the lens.
So, in response to Gillian's polemical start, I'd like to play the devil's advocate and suggest that by not paying enough attention to the interests of the reading public, historians are missing out on some
crucial ways of understanding women's history too! 
~Tamara
|
|
| Joannie |
| Posted: 01
Mar - 05:58 pm |
|
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4
Member No.: 39
Joined: 6-March 03
|
Hi
all,
Wow what a great site and month - am hoping
to attend at least some of the sessions
coming up in Canberra at least.
My name is Joan. I majored in History at
uni and have continued an abiding interest
in the topic. One of the things I find
frustrating with women's history is the
past focus on 'great' women - histories
of women who made particular and often
extraordinary contributions. This is all
well and good and yes three cheers for
these women - they managed in often hostile
circumstances to make wonderful achievements.
But I am finding this doesn't help me to get a sense of the life
experience of my female ancestors, mother, grandmother etc. I
must admit I am only speaking personally here - but then I guess
there could be others like me whoes mothers, grandmothers etc
did what most women did at the time.
It seems to me that this touches on the thing about valuing what
women did. Hastening to add - thank heavens there are many more
choices and opportunities today but I, for one, don't want to
throw the baby out with the bathwater - if you know what I mean.
Some historical books that I have found very helpful on this
level are: Myths of Motherhood, Shari Thurer, The Floating Brothel,
and Of Woman Born, A Rich. I think this topic is one that is
a reflection of a difference between the professional historians
and the general public.
Thoughts?
cheers, Joan
|
|
| Elizabeth |
| Posted: 03
Mar - 04:01 pm |
|
|
Discussion Leader
Group: Discussion Leaders
Posts: 7
Member No.: 63
Joined: 13-February 04
|
Well,
here I am, checking in late to Women's History
Month, main due to external pressures and
a dead brain!
I'm historical fiction author Elizabeth Chadwick,
although I also answer to Susan.
What do I think on the matter of the Ivory
Divide?
I write novels set in the Middle Ages, but
I have no formal training in Medieval history
and unless the sources are published for me
in the English language, I find them inaccessible.
I'd like to see a lot more works translated
rather than listening to the older ones being
quoted, discussed and pontificated over ad
nauseam. There is tons of material waiting
to be translated from Latin and Old French
into English.
Like Gillian, I can become very enthusiastic about Medieval toilets.
In keeping with, I suspect many other people who enjoy history
but are not historians, I find such details are what colour in
the often grey and frequently boring sketches of the past painted
by professional historians. But then not all professional historians
are good authors with a penchant for bringing their subject and
the past to life. I think a lively writing style would help no
end in some cases.
While there are authors of popular history who often only half-know
what they are talking about and are vilified by both the profs
in their ivory towers and those amateur historians in the know
(Alison Weir for example) there are others who are capable of
creating a staircase between the ivory tower and the gawping
peasants on the ground. David Crouch for example who manages
to write lively prose and combine it with in depth research.
He's almost as easy to read as a novel and yet erudite at the
same time and respected by both worlds. Ditto Robert Bartlett.
What I believe we need are more historians who can create these
staircases and give us greater access to our past.
I hang out on a list of professors of Medieval history and I
am frequently astonished at how little they seem to know about
everyday life in the Middle Ages. Ask them to discuss an obscure
point of Medieval philosophy and they'll go at it ad-nauseam,
but ask them about Medieval toilets and they not only haven't
got a clue, they don't want to have a clue and quickly change
the subject as if it's a bothersome irrelevance. But surely how
people used toilets is as important to our understanding of what
made our ancestors tick as is the writing of their philosophers
- perhaps more so, as everyone has to use the loo, but you don't
get that many philosophers to the pound.
The above is something of a ramble, but as I apologised earlier,
my brain is currently half-fried!
Elizabeth
|
|
| Gillian
Polack |
| Posted: 05
Mar - 06:26 am |
|
|
Discussion Leader
Group: Discussion Leaders
Posts: 44
Member No.: 4
Joined: 21-February 03
|
Wow,
so many things to talk about!
The thing that came to mind when I was
reading everyone's posts is that we are
contemplating quite different things when
we use the word "history". Tamara talked
about historians not paying attention to
the needs of the reading public - and it
is largely true. And Elizabeth is right
(so is Susan
) and a bit more attention to writing style would make a big
difference for those who have that writing talent to be developed.
But... but.. This is where I sit for a moment and ponder on some
of the reasons for the gulf.
From the direction of academic writings it *is* a gulf. The most
specialist histories are not targeted at the general public.
In fact, they are not even targeted at most historians. It is
specialist writing for specialist. And the exactness of what
you are trying to say has traditionally been more important than
writing a pleasant style.
Historians are usually not preselected for their capacity to
write well (unlike novelists) - we are all highly literate and
write effectively, but that is mostly a by-product of our training.
We are chosen for our research skills and our capacity to think
in certain ways. Those who write in a lively and engaging fashion
are the lucky few, mainly because of the research dynamic being
so much more important than the writing one.
There are reasons for specialist writing to specialist to be
more concerned with substance than style, though everyone I know
in universities praises lucid styles. And there are some really
nasty economic reasons (high competition for very few jobs, need
to publish in order to get tenure etc) which forces a lot of
historians to write that scholarly book rather than the more
lively and interesting work for the wider public.
So I guess, from that point of view, it is less history we are
talking about than the arc of most academic careers. Jobs (not
the reading public) dictate what gets written. What gets you
employed and what keeps you employed is key.
And peer groups dictate heaps of stuff - Medieval philosophy
has a really strong scholarly tradition (Gilson for ever !!)
and Medieval toilets haven't . It is hard to get masses of students
learning a subject without teachers who can teach it or at least
teach how to research it - and what most university teachers
focus on by choice depends heavily on what those teachers have
been trained in.
There is some overlap - Montaillou is the classic overlap book.
But Montaillou was canned in a very famous review by Leonard
Boyle (well, famous in the very limited circles of Medievalists)
. Fr. Boyle used it as an object lesson for what he considered
to be bad scholarship.
What I am trying to say, I think, is that most readers are not
looking for what scholars write - and scholars are (on the whole)
not writing with a more general reader in mind. This fits Joan's
comments on great people - books about Eleanor of Aquitaine sell
to the wider public, so a publisher is more likely to commission
one. It doesn't mean that every Medievalist in existence studies
her - in fact, we are more likely to study the development of
canon law, or the impossibility of satisfactorily defining feudalism.
Gillian
|
|
| Elizabeth |
| Posted: 07
Mar - 03:46 pm |
|
|
Discussion Leader
Group: Discussion Leaders
Posts: 7
Member No.: 63
Joined: 13-February 04
|
Gillian
said:
What I am trying to say, I think, is that most
readers are not looking for what scholars write
- and scholars are (on the whole) not writing
with a more general reader in mind. This fits
Joan's comments on great people - books about
Eleanor of Aquitaine sell to the wider public,
so a publisher is more likely to commission
one. It doesn't mean that every Medievalist
in existence studies her - in fact, we are
more likely to study the development of canon
law, or the impossibility of satisfactorily
defining feudalism.
This seems to suggest that scholars are studying between themselves
as such and that their numbers when set against the mass of the
general public must be minute. So you begin to see that when
economic pressure is applied, the powers that be can justifiably
ask 'What's the point?' Who are they writing for? Who's going
to benefit from this?
Obviously there have to be keepers of the knowledge but if that
knowledge is kept in the hands of the few and only the few trained
to use it, then it seems a little futile and a waste of resources?
Best
Elizabeth - speaking as a total outsider to academia
|
|
| Tamara
Mazzei |
| Posted: 09
Mar - 09:31 pm |
|
|
Discussion Leader
Group: Admin
Posts: 28
Member No.: 1
Joined: 16-February 03
|
I
had to think about this awhile before replying
because on the one hand, I don't want to
sound as if I'm suggesting lower or less
scholarship, but on the other, Elizabeth
has a point when she says:
| QUOTE |
|
Obviously there have to be keepers
of the knowledge but if that knowledge
is kept in the hands of the few
and only the few trained to use
it, then it seems a little futile
and a waste of resources?
|
Upon reflection, I think this is possibly
true, but I also think it's more because
of the system than because scholars don't
care (though they may not; I really can't
say). When academics (and I'm definitely
not one) are rewarded for researching and
publishing in areas aimed at other academics,
it's inevitable to a certain degree; I think
the system is broken.
To the wider world, I don't think there really is much point
to the idea of a scholar writing a paper that only 4 other scholars
in the world can understand. There may well be a point that the
rest of us don't see, but everyone paying taxes and fees for
their own or their children's schooling would probably like to
better understand what they're paying for.
I think this leads many of us to find our history where we can.
That said, I don't think the ivory tower should be demolished;
what I would like to see are a few more doors (and bridges).
~Tamara |
|
| Gillian
Polack |
| Posted: 10
Mar - 07:35 am |
|
|
Discussion Leader
Group: Discussion Leaders
Posts: 44
Member No.: 4
Joined: 21-February 03
|
There
are some very real issues coming out here.
No matter how much scholars care, only
a very few of them can write good history
that is readily accessible to the general
public. Many (especially in the UK) care
enough to put themselves on reference groups
and to advise TV documentary makers, local
groups interested in a particular historical
topic or problem, serve on committees that
help safeguard the national heritage and
so forth. But all of this (including writing
histories aimed at the general public)
is not actually what they are paid to do.
The chief roles of most university-based historians are to teach
(undergaduate and postgraduate) and to research and communicate
that research professionally.
The relative importance of that teaching and research (and the
concomitant admin tasks) varies a bit from university to university
and according to the actual roles a given staff member plays
in a particular department. But maintaining the capacity to do
both requires in-services and a zillion meetings and seminars
and conferences and journal articles and academic monographs.
It means carrying quite heavy teaching loads - making sure that
undergraduates have what they need to think and operate after
they leave university. This teaching includes, as far as the
system allows it (some history departments are more flexible
in their course offerings than others for instance, and History
101 type courses are always needed before students can advance
to the cool stuff closest to particular person' s heart), the
subject matter they specialise in. There are grants that can
free a bit of time to write, but they are very competitive and
hard to get.
All this is happening in an era of shrinking employment for historians.
Most end up in other jobs eg the public sector doing policy or
admin, or teaching high school. There are more students now than
ever before, but fewer jobs to go round.
My friends work shockingly long hours - very much the Red Queen,
running to stay on the spot (why I am taking my own path, rather
than looking for a regular academic job). And yes, this also
impacts on the possibility of daringly writing that neat book
that everyone is hanging out for.
I guess I might have to argue that teaching lots of undergraduates
is the way most historians inform the wider world - they hope
that their students will carry on learning and thinking and teaching
in their own right. And yes, this is not very accessible to people
who do not live near the unis where those subjects are taught
or who are not able to do courses (work obligations, family etc).
Books are more accessible to a wider population - but you can
see why the system doesn't encourage the production of those
books.
It is not lack of caring - at least, not with the people I know
- they want to be able to talk about the history they love. Rather,
it is too many constraints, and not enough resources.
Some presses are publishing cool stuff - I know in Australian
women's history there are some very good reads coming out - a
couple of solid academic presses actively solicit stuff that
is sound (in research terms) and well written for a wider audience.
So there are things happening, and they have been happening for
a few years.
I have not seen the same level of this sort of publication for
Medieval history - we get lots of coffee table books that recycle
the same overviews, and a few works by authors like Bartlett
or Stephen Knight, but not huge amounts. Lots of stuff on everything
Arthurian, some great and accessible works of Medieval literature
(the TEAMS groups has even put a heap of great stuff online)
but still not the quantity or covering all the topics that many
readers want.
And now I am curious. Is there any aspect of the view from the
publishing end of it that can loosen up this terrible log jam
and get larger numbers of interesting books out to the wider
public?
Gillian
|
|
| Tamara
Mazzei |
| Posted: 10
Mar - 02:48 pm |
|
|
Discussion Leader
Group: Admin
Posts: 28
Member No.: 1
Joined: 16-February 03
|
I
can only comment on this from a US perspective,
and I sincerely hope it is better elsewhere,
but I think Gillian's reply highlights many
of the problems facing those interested in
history, regardless of which side of the
divide they're on.
As Gillian says:
| QUOTE |
|
The chief roles of most university-based
historians are to teach (undergaduate
and postgraduate) and to research
and communicate that research professionally.
|
I agree. It's not their job. It's not, in
fact, anyone's job and that's why I think
inititives like WHM are so important. (And
why I've volunteered WHM web space and design
time for 3 years running, though it's not
my job either).
| QUOTE |
|
All this is happening in an era of
shrinking employment for historians.
Most end up in other jobs eg the
public sector doing policy or admin,
or teaching high school. There
are more students now than ever
before, but fewer jobs to go round.
|
And there are fewer jobs to go around because
of funding, no? I realise funding is often
controlled politically, but even so, the
situation is driven by lack of funding, regardless
of who holds the pursestrings.
| QUOTE |
|
I guess I might have to argue that
teaching lots of undergraduates
is the way most historians inform
the wider world - they hope that
their students will carry on learning
and thinking and teaching in their
own right. And yes, this is not
very accessible to people who do
not live near the unis where those
subjects are taught or who are
not able to do courses (work obligations,
family etc). Books are more accessible
to a wider population - but you
can see why the system doesn't
encourage the production of those
books.
|
I can see that the system is broken -- and
that a large part of the reason is *because*
the system doesn't encourage the production
of those books. Those books generate additional
funding and create a base of political support
for the profession itself.
| QUOTE |
It is not lack of caring - at least,
not with the people I know - they
want to be able to talk about the
history they love. Rather, it is
too many constraints, and not enough
resources.
Some presses are publishing cool stuff - I know in Australian
women's history there are some very good reads coming
out - a couple of solid academic presses actively solicit
stuff that is sound (in research terms) and well written
for a wider audience. So there are things happening,
and they have been happening for a few years.
|
I'm glad they are happening in Australia
because they are certainly not happening
here in the US. e.g., Just today, my publishing
newsletter tells me that the University of
Idaho Press will be out of business on July
1 because of a $385000 deficit even though
substantial debt was forgiven in 2002. State
support for the University of Georgia Press
will reportedly be cut in half on the same
date.
This sort of thing obviously affects academic authors much more
than the wider public because it reduces the avenues for scholars
to publish even within their disciplines. The other aspect of
this is that many US universities receive significant amounts
of public funding. The "public good" of scholarship is the rational
for that funding. The public, in turn, applies pressure to politicians
and universities themselves to direct that funding to areas they
support.
That's why I think it is extremely important for anyone interested
in history to pay attention to the public.
| QUOTE |
|
And now I am curious. Is there any
aspect of the view from the publishing
end of it that can loosen up this
terrible log jam and get larger
numbers of interesting books out
to the wider public?
|
I wish I had a great answer for this, just
as I'm sure many others do, but it's not
easy to see a clear solution.
On the academic front, funding (for publishing)
is obviously critical, but I don't think
pure commercialisation is an answer because
it brings its own negative consequences.
e.g., the Association of Research Libraries
(www.arl.org/stats) reports that scholarly
journal prices jumped by 215 percent between
1986 and 2001. Big commercial journal publishers
also report terrific earnings during the
same period, so their gains appear to be
higher education's loss. For example:
Cornell University recently announced it was cancelling over
200 subscriptions to journals from Reed Elsevier.
Duke announced it would cancel $400,000 worth of Elsevier titles.
Those cancelled subscriptions mean that the affected journals
won't even be available to scholars in the library any longer.
Print publication of monographs is clearly on its last legs because
the subsidies just aren't there and the expense of print publishing
for an audience of maybe 200, is a dead loss that drags down
UP's abilities to publish anything at all. The History E-Book
Project (www.historyebook.org) sponsored by Harvard, Columbia,
and several other respected US universities is working to address
some of the cost issues by encouraging scholarly publishing on
the web.
On the commercial front, books that sell will continue to be
published. The key word, however, is "sell". Even the most altruistic
publisher cannot continue to publish books that don't sell.
The point of all this is that it's nobody's *fault* but it is
a problem. So, my question is: where do we turn if we want to
learn more about history (women's or otherwise) and we're not
undergraduates with dedicated teachers to show us the way?
~Tamara |
|
| Gillian
Polack |
| Posted: 20
Mar - 08:52 pm |
|
|
Discussion Leader
Group: Discussion Leaders
Posts: 44
Member No.: 4
Joined: 21-February 03
|
I
mentioned this on another thread and it is
apposite here. There are some big public
institutions that are webbing some remarkable
material.
The Brits have the British Library and the Public Records Office
(though you have to pay for a lot of the mterial), the US has
got American Memory (Library of Congress) which is a totally
briliant resource http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amtitle.html ,
Australia has the National Library (nothing dramatic yet, but
online access to stuff is growing) and France crosses all borders
and is scanning an enormous number of old texts which can then
be downloaded (slowly) through its National Library portal.
There is a lot more stuff than this out there: Project Gutenberg,
the University of Virgina material, a bunch of Medievalish stuff
by various organisations and people. More primary sources are
readily available to the reading public than ever before. Quite
a few scholarly histories are available for download. Lists of
contents for academic journals can be read online in a glance.
I know this is not what was being talked about - most people
do not want to wade through Medieval Latin or nineteenth century
verbosity to find what they are after. But it is a step towards
bridging the divide and a big one - it assumes that anyone with
an interest can read and think for themselves and that material
should be available. It is very liberating to be able to download
major primary sources to your own computer - but yes, major primary
sources are usually only predigested to the level of an edition,
it is not explained for people without background knowledge.
That background material can be self-taught these days, you know:
university currciula on huge ranges of subjects are posted on
the web and anyone can access it and do the reading themselves.
It is not the same as attending a university class, but it is
pretty cool (I have no idea what to call it when you take someone
else's reading list and work through it - directed reading?).
If we use the web wisely, we are suddenly back in the 19th century,
and it is possible to be an independent researcher and do seriously
cool stuff.
But what do readers *really* want? (wasn't there a film about
that?) If the current popular writings aren't enough, and the
plethora of web material isn't really meeting the need - then
what exactly is the need? And who can meet it? Is the market
big enough for commerical publishers to take up the challenge?
Gillian (who suddenly feels chasms underneath her feet) |
 |
| Tamara
Mazzei |
| Posted: 22
Mar - 05:07 pm |
|
|
Discussion Leader
Group: Admin
Posts: 28
Member No.: 1
Joined: 16-February 03
|
These
web resources Gillian listed here and on
the other thread have the potential to be
truly wonderful. I definitely think these
projects are helping to provide all of us
an opportunity to learn more, and in many
cases, without incurring huge expenses.
That said, I also think it's difficult to locate information
on many of these sites unless you are searching for very specific
information. For example, I decided to take a look at the link
you posted for the US Library of Congress. It leads to a long
list of items, 3 of which include "women" in the title. Two of
those lead to information and photos on women's suffrage, and
the other leads to the LOC women's history "gateway".
The suffrage stuff is great, but very specific, so leaving that
aside, I headed for the gateway. There I found a page that is
mostly devoted to locating and using information within the library
itself. Not very helpful since it is 2,000 miles away. The page
does, however, include a link to "topical essays", so I chose
that one to see what else is available online.
Links to the following items were available on the Topical Essays
page:
- an introduction to the research guide which appeared to be
mainly devoted to describing how feminism and women's history
has changed since the 1970s.
- a 600 word article that discusses American women's patriotism
by focusing on a broadsheet produced in 1780.
- A slightly longer article that uses a search of the library's
collection for women in pre-1800 America to conclude that "stereotypical
and allegorical representations of women belied the reality of
most women's lives and helped to limit women's roles in early
America."
- an article about a 1913 women's suffrage parade.
- an article abstract about the introduction of the Equal Rights
Amendment into the US Congress.
- an abstract about 18th century women who went to California. This
would have been closest to something I might want to read, but
the text itself wasn't online.
- an article about a woman who founded an artist's retreat in
1908.
None of this was particularly promising, so I searched the collection
to see what I else I could find. Since I wasn't sure of what
to search for, I used "Arkansas" because it's where I'm from
and I'm particularly interested in reading about my female ancestors
and the conditions in which they lived. This search produced:
- a research guide for the Jewish Area Studies collection
- a one paragraph description of the motion picture/sound collection
of the NAACP
- a description of the LOC's 19th and 20th century university
catalogs collection
- a research guide for finding music by women composers
- a discussion of materials in the collection of the American
Folklife Center
If it isn't obvious, I accidentally searched the guide instead
of the collection, but searching the guide doesn't give you links
to online documents. In fact, I never really did figure out the
best way to locate online documents. After a good deal of aimless
surfing, I happened upon a link to another site that said it
was part of the National Digital Library, and then more surfing
found me the site map. Still more surfing brought me to a description
of the collection with the information about the 18th C. women
who went to California item for which an abstract was listed
in the original research guide. The guide said it wasn't online,
and that assumption nearly caused me to miss a tiny link to another
page where I could actually access the information. To my amazement,
there were approximately 190 texts in this collection and they
all seemed to be online. Alas, I'd wasted over an hour getting
to them, so I didn't have time to read any.
The point of all this is that while the information may be there,
it's seriously tough to find unless you're looking for very specific
information and you know how to navigate. Browsing by keyword
would have been very helpful, and maybe it exists, but I didn't
find a way to do it!
With regards to publishers, and what they're doing, I have decided
that maybe they're OK on things after all. I searched for "Arkansas
women" on Barnes & Noble's website and found 252 entries.
Most of them were fiction, but maybe that really is the best
way to learn more. At the very least it might provide some mental "hooks" for
search terms to use for locating online resources.
~Tamara |
|
| mnewton56 |
| Posted: 22
Mar - 09:44 pm |
|
|
PenmanReview
Group: Members
Posts: 17
Member No.: 27
Joined: 1-March 03
|
Tamara
said:
>To my amazement, there were approximately 190 texts in
this collection and they all seemed to be online. Alas, I'd
wasted over an hour getting to them, so I didn't have time
to read any.<
This is the frustrating part for me, of searching the internet.
Wonderful stuff there -- if only we can find it.
Before reading this discussion, I have to say I really wasn't
aware of the scope of the "ivory divide". Thanks for bringing
it to my attention and describing some of the problems, reasons
and approaches to bridging the divide.
All this said, I, like Elizabeth, would love to see more material
on everyday life of everyday people in different historical periods,
especially the MA.
Mary N.
|
|
| Gillian
Polack |
| Posted: 26
Mar - 12:19 am |
|
|
Discussion Leader
Group: Discussion Leaders
Posts: 44
Member No.: 4
Joined: 21-February 03
|
Mary
summed it all up when she said, "Wonderful
stuff there -- if only we can find it." Her
comment made me realise that I have been
researching for so long that I no longer
know what level of research skills to expect
in others. I generally assume that what is
there, is findable, whether it be known usage
of Middle English words or Rashi's comment
on keeping large amounts of water hot in
Medieval France. Obviously I was wrong.
What tools do we need to make material available? If the bibliogrpahies
and public accesss stuff is not doing the job, then what will
do the job? How do peopel find out where the material is that
they want, without already knowing a great deal about the subject
and without doing a uni degree to get research skills?
Simply, how do we teach people to find what is already out there?
Gillian (sorry, I am in a tendentious mood today!)
|
|
| Sue_W |
| Posted: 28
Mar - 08:38 pm |
|
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2
Member No.: 88
Joined: 11-March 04
|
| QUOTE (Gillian Polack @
26 Mar - 12:19 am) |
What tools do we need to make material available? If
the bibliogrpahies and public accesss stuff is not
doing the job, then what will do the job? How do peopel
find out where the material is that they want, without
already knowing a great deal about the subject and
without doing a uni degree to get research skills?
Simply, how do we teach people to find what is already
out there?
|
Gillian, this is a question I'm very interested in, from a personal
point of view and also as a teacher. I wish I knew the answer
because I am sure it could make my fortune
I think there are different kinds of skill involved in research.
You need qualities like curiosity, lateral thinking, persistance,
anal retentiveness even. I am not sure how you teach people these
things.
You need practical skills - to be able to use use catalogues,
databases and so on. While these vary a lot, developing confidence
in using some catalogues and databases equips you to cope with
unfamiliar ones.
And you need subject specific skills, to know where is the best
place to look for information in your particular area. This is,
I believe, best learnt from someone who is already familiar with
what is available, by mentoring I guess.
The practical and specific skills I believe are best learnt by
doing, so what people need is a context in which they can practice
these skills on a real task.
For my part, I started my doctoral research with quite good practical
skills and a good dose of those personal qualities, but my subject
specific skills were patchy. Developing them has been a challenge,
but that may well be because I am using diverse kinds of data
and so I've had to look in all sorts of different places, some
of which are new to me.
What has been interesting to me, though, is that whenever I talk
about the kind of detective work involved, many people comment
that they wouldn't have a clue how to go about it. So I guess
finding things is an issue for lots of people.
That isn't much of an answer, is it? I suspect that the answer
to how we teach people to find things depends a lot on why they
need them in the first place.
Sue W
|
|
| Tamara
Mazzei |
|
Discussion Leader
Group: Admin
Posts: 28
Member No.: 1
Joined: 16-February 03
|
Gillian:
| QUOTE |
|
Simply, how do we teach people to find
what is already out there?
|
Sue_W:
| QUOTE |
|
I suspect that the answer to how we
teach people to find things depends
a lot on why they need them in the
first place.
|
I think Sue_W has a good point here: the information
we want does seem to depend quite a bit on
why we want it in the first place.
I know we can't address gigantic areas like "women's history" or even "ivory
divides" in the course of a single discussion in a single month, but I think
we've done a good job of at least identifying some of these issues in ways that
can help us next time we want to learn something or to help someone else find
what they're looking for.
There's room for improvement, but discussions like this one at least give us
a start!
Best,
Tamara |
|
| Gillian
Polack |
| Posted: 29
Mar - 09:39 pm |
|
|
Discussion Leader
Group: Discussion Leaders
Posts: 44
Member No.: 4
Joined: 21-February 03
|
Tamara,
I think you hit bullseye with your last post.
Discussions like this help people identify
issues: what is out there, and, most of all,
what we all bring to our looks into history.
There are a whole heaps of things that were brought up in the discussion that
I just had not thought about properly before now. Elizabeth, your comments in
particular were really enlightening. My mind had acknowledged the ivory divide
(I have even based some of my life choices on helping minimise it), but I had
not realised that it gets in the way of the work of people with solid historical
undertanding, such as yourself and Tamara.
Maybe something we shoud think of is how to keep this sort of dialogue happening
- there would certainly be less frustration if we understood more about what
we are all working on or interested in and why, what limitations apply to our
work and why, and who out there wants to know what and why and how they access
it. Until we understand the obstacles, they will continue to annoy us all, is
my thought.
In terms of what I write, knowing what people want to read might change my choices
(do I write that very technical article on English political influences on the
Latin and Old French Arthurian material of the twelfth century, or do I write
that introduction to Medieval food?)
This discussion ahs been a good beginning - but only a beginning. How do we move
on from here? Especially, how do we keep the discussion lines open and extend
them to include more people?
Gillian |
| |
|
| |
|
