|area studies vs. history|
area studies vs. history
Mar. 22nd, 2010 @ 11:21 am
|Date:||March 22nd, 2010 06:40 pm (UTC)|| |
The reason, as already stated above, many people in "_____ Studies" (the ones that involve challenging languages, at least) take longer is because we have language requirements way above & beyond those of our American & Europeanist colleagues, generally speaking. I'm in an Asian historical field & we have to pass three language exams, as compared to one or two for other field groups. In my field, we also have more challenges when it comes to accessing archival sources, tend to go abroad for a year minimum while doing our research, etc.
I do work in a non-area studies "____ studies" field, in addition to my more obviously historical research, and I have ALWAYS been told (by both historians & people in other fields) it's better to come from a solid disciplinary background, whether that's history, sociology, or whatever. I take classes outside my primary field & get plenty of exposure elsewhere, but people do seem to feel better when they know what they're getting (or think they know - which is easier to do when you have a degree in 'history' vs. '___ studies')
|Top of Page
||Powered by LiveJournal.com|