Perspectives on History Survey Results
Question 18
Briefly tell us how we can improve Perspectives on History (278 responses)
1. Sorting job ads by region makes no sense any more. The job market is national, not regional. They should be sorted by field.
2. More coverage of events concerning historians in other countries
3. Improving layout/design (article continuations really bother me)
4. It is excellent. Continue to emphasize the state of the history discipline.
5. The layout could be easier on the eyes—better type font and perhaps a bit larger.
6. How about more articles having to do with the experience of being a historian and a professor?
7. Pretty balanced content but would like to see more news about international academic History
8. Make it more truly relevant to members’ interests and concerns.
9. It is fine as is.
10. I would like to see more that applies to issues those of us who teach at smaller colleges and universities from let’s say 500 to 5,000 enrollment.”
11. What about a regular feature on an important historian—before he or she passes away.
12.
13. More complete job listings
14.
15. I like it. I would be very sad if I stopped getting the paper version. I like to read it while I wait for the bus to take me home or while I eat my lunch. If it were electronic, I’d likely never read it.
16. There seems to be too much focus on public history; or, to be frank, a little more than is necessary. You might instead focus less on this particular “field” and redirect your attention to academic, non-university environments, e.g., scholarly institutes.
17. Better balance of time periods and themes (gender history, history of sexuality)
18. Please don’t make all of the issues for one year the same color. It makes it difficult to remember whether I’ve read that issue or not, unless the picture is really distinctive.
19. It’s already pretty good. More of the same is about all I can say.
20. I wouldn’t mind having Perspectives in a single downloadable .pdf, though I suppose that raises issues about being too easily distributed.
21. Make it “peer-reviewed” so it carries more weight for contributors, since it already has a lot of influence. And the ads for fellowships are randomly scattered throughout and are hard to find. I think you could make a contents listing of those ads so they can be found.
22. I’m retired and have vision problems. The font is not an easy one to read.
23. At this point it seems to be trying to be too many things to too many people. I would focus on timely developments and teaching and leave the research to the AHR
24. Apart from jobs, perhaps include grad student issues amongst the topics covered in professional issues/features/viewpoints (funding, what demographic changes amongst faculty means for us, challenges when tech adapted grad students first hit un-tech friendly archives, networking at conferences, amongst more of the things no one warns us about yet we are expected to deal with gracefully)
25. More information on international issues, professional development as a non-academic.
26. Fewer soundbites. Dare to have an article run a few pages if the topic warrants it.
27. Fewer graphs/tables on historians’ status in the field; more on strategies for change in the system.
28. Overall, it’s fine. The timeliness of the some of the news is less than useful.
29. The magazine is so dull, so drab. I would like to see articles about historians at critical junctures in their careers—getting a first job, how to get tenure, denied tenure, the endowed chair, surviving adjunct status, and so on. First person and direct. I couldn’t care less what the president or the editor has to say.
30. More on Teaching History in Community Colleges—and the outstanding CC Professors of History
31. The negative tone about the prospects for younger scholars - especially those who are older/female/non-traditional - gets a bit wearisome. Given that those of us who are older and female can change neither our age nor our gender, what can graduate students who are not 27-year-old single white men do to navigate academia more successfully—rather than simply be discouraged by yet another doom-and-gloom Perspectives article?”
32. The presidential columns are often (not always) very good and insightful. Maybe there could be a committee chair column, which would rotate between individuals?
33. Interview some historians about their careers.
34. More on historians as part of the academic community—how we fit in with other disciplines within the university.
35. Remember the old folks and has-beens.
36.
37. N/A
38. The liberal perspective is not the only perspective on history, nor is it typically the correct interpretation. Modern historians have ruined American history.
39. I think the surveys done by Robert Townsend are particularly useful since they put trends in the profession in context. More such articles would be helpful.
40. It’s great. If every article were interesting to everyone, it would be so generalized that it wouldn’t serve the readership.”
41. Too much about American History and modern history, not enough about pre-modern.
42. More coverage of news happening in history departments across the country
43. As a K–12 teacher, I find most of the magazine irrelevant. Even much of the teaching parts are aimed at college level teaching. I am interested in teaching ideas relevant to high school or middle school. I would also enjoy reading short articles about history, perhaps highlighting new research or insight to the topics that are taught in high school.
44. We need a better coupling of the top 200 research institutions with the 2,000 involved primarily in teaching.
45. Please add balance. This should be a magazine of education for all historians and not primarily a trade association publication for university professors. Although much of what appears is useful and entertaining, its tone reinforces the idea that university historians (the “academy”) owns and controls the interpretation of history. If this ever was the case, it is no longer. There are many who are not nor strive to be tenured professors at research universities. Let the others have more than token space.
46. Increase discussion of graduate student issues and occasional articles broadening the discussion of multidisciplinary research.
47. Have a column on grad school issues written by a graduate student.
48. I feel that the publication is geared towards tenure-track faculty at research universities. While it has made small moves towards being more inclusive, it is not enough. I enjoy reading about those issues; however, there are many faculty now who are in nontenure-track positions. As a profession, more must be done to address this group. Older faculty must understand that the profession in terms of jobs and what is required of graduate students as well as faculty has drastically changed. I would like to see the publication address those issues.
49. Layout and format of design—make it more appealing to readers
50. Already a strong balance between various issues
51. Perspectives has not seemed to be a truly serious publication—except for the job ads. I’d like to see it have more heft.
52. I am generally satisfied with what I see.
53. It is pretty good now; but I just don’t have time to read everything I’d like to
54. More articles by and about history writing outside academia. Coverage of publishing and libraries, among my special interests, has been disappointing.
55. A little more emphasis on topics of importance to the student.
56. As a retired public high school history teacher currently working as a library assistant, I count on Perspectives (and have for years) to keep me in touch with the history I knew as an undergraduate at Goucher College and in grad school at Columbia. In that context, perhaps, I’m not particularly discriminating, but I think the current format and content are just fine!
57. A better layout would be appreciated, but overall I think it’s fine.
58. More pages, more articles, more writers.
59. For the most part, keep doing what you are doing. I would like to see more material pertaining to that nexus where scholarship meets teaching.
60.
61. More on cutting-edge technology
62. Analysis of the job market that younger historians will take more seriously
63. The formatting appears to be constructed by an octogenarian. If we want more young professionals to stay engaged after getting their first jobs, the primary means of communicating with them shouldn’t look like it borrows its formatting from a 1980s textbook.
64. Perspectives seems to regard itself as a magazine almost solely about institutional aspects of our lives, and sometimes incidentally about some very narrow vision of history in the public sphere. We are actually a large community, united by our common pursuit of a particular form in intellectual inquiry. Address us on those grounds.
65. More on members doing interesting things related to history
66. Maybe some ongoing exchanges of ideas from members about social, political, religious, and economic issues that affect our profession.
67. I am satisfied with the publication.
68. Include articles by precollegiate teachers discussing the problems in teaching history at the K–12 level and articles by professional historians about how they have assisted precollegiate teachers in framing and interpreting the past.
69. So much content seems to hold a bias towards socialism. I would like to see more balance between left-leaning content viewpoints and more positive content focused on freedom and democracy. I know the older professors are more left leaning, but the younger people like me are tired of it. It is so outdated. We just want balance in the content.
70. Improve the quality of photos! Looks like a yearbook from 1930. The technology is out there and cheap. Check out most highschool newspapers.
71. I appreciate Perspectives, and mainly open it to review the President’s message for the public stance we—the AHA—are hoping to take on a matter of importance to our greater community—such as opening access to archives, or against the war.
72. Better layout; very stodgy and old fashioned, not as easy to read as it could be.
73. Take a hard look at the nature of the articles that AHR publishes; you will see very trendy but few sturdy, old fashioned scholarship. Whatever happened to military history?
74. More articles on world history and comparative history.
75. I’d like to see even more content on other fields besides US History.
76. More attractive design
77.
78. The reports on the profession, salaries, tenure, and so forth, are excellent.
79. By keeping political partisanship/ideology out of the content. It has soured my experience.
80. I think the magazine does its job. I would appreciate more articles on professional development especially written by senior faculty for the benefit of junior faculty. For, example, when I was on the job market, I appreciate advice on interviewing and writing cover letters. Now that I have my first job, I would appreciate some advice on publishing, balancing teaching and research, and how people continue to find new career opportunities after their fist position.
81. Updates on digital sources of interest to historians for research (and not just for teaching).
82. More letters from editor—is that the same as Viewpoints?
83. Like many people, I’m confused about whether the job listings all now appear in the H-Net job listings or simply overlap to some degree. It would help to know whether some institutions only advertise positions on H-Net.
84. Teaching issues and research on teaching should be given a treatment closer to that of research articles in the AHR. One possible avenue might be to approach the History Teacher, the only leading refereed journal on the teaching of history, to co-publish an important article every couple of Perspectives issues. Try to coordinate the publication schedule more closely with the job notice deadlines. Often the deadline passes before the print version arrives; this leads people to use the electronic version instead, which is exclusively electronic and much more quickly updated.
85. Include more on classical, medieval, and renaissance pieces. I am having the same problem with the university I’m attending; everything is geared toward US, Texas, and more modern eras.”
86. Although I realize this is an general overview of all historical topics, published in America, which therefore means there will be more American content, I do wish there was more coverage of non-Modern and non-American fields, especially Medieval Europe and Middle East, as well as Ancient (Classical) History.”
87. Perhaps a section listing new hires.
88. I’d like to see some of the articles on teaching and technology written by faculty working in premodern European and non-Western fields. The challenges there are often different than in US and modern, which tends to be the emphasis now.
89. Offers snapshots of trends in the field outside the United States.
90. Organize the job ads by field rather than area of the country. No one searches for a job in a national market by place.
91. You might save a lot of money by asking members whether they wish to continue receiving a print version.
92. I think the Film area has taken too much space, and needs to be trimmed back. The issues about archives and preservation are always important.
93. Too much focus on American history field. Too much news coverage on US history issues, archives, professionals, for example. Maintain focus on inequities faced by grad students. Fight against trend towards adjunct faculty.
94. Somewhat broader critical perspectives on issues would be welcomed here. Too much reliance on the conventional wisdom of the profession.
95. Be honest about the issues confronting the profession. Recognize that most PhDs are not following the traditional path (teaching in a history department at the university level) and create a community where everyone feels welcome. I think even academic historians would like to see this. Know your audience!! Most people join the AHA when they are looking for jobs so provide people with more and better information which focuses on professional development.
96. You are doing well—don’t mess it up.
97. Try to hit as many issues concerning the entire workforce of professionally trained historians as possible: adjuncts, liberal arts/community/4-yr university, consulting, publishing, etc. Question sixteen is annoying in its repetition.
98. I think it does an excellent job for the sort of magazine that it is
99. I realize you have many different types of readers, so I should mention I am retired. Therefore, little interest in “teaching.”
100. Occasional interviews with PhDs in history who are using their historical training in non-immediately history related (but nonetheless useful) roles in society
101. Expand on practical teaching and research articles.
102. More book ads. Perhaps several reviews of someone’s opinion of key recent books published that have a reach throughout various approaches to historical interpretation.
103. The layout is getting better, but it still looks rather dull aesthetically!
104. Pick new cover art.
105. By Texas standards, the AHA tends toward a bit of political correctness. Work to maintain professional objectivity. Avoid taking gratuitous political positions.
106. Higher quality paper; new layout
107. Content and layout is great.
108. The physical appearance is cluttered; too many items on too many pages. Too many type fonts, all clashing with one another. Too many articles that jump from the front pages to the back pages; they should move from one page to the next to bring the reader all the way through one article before moving on to the next.
109. Not interested in the pre-college level issues.
110. Design quality to make it more attractive
111. I like it the way it is
112. Most of the teaching articles are about American History. I would like to see more on World history.
113. Is there anyway to streamline it? I am new to the field, but find the amount of reading in AHR overwhelming.”
114. Keep up the very good work!
115 . The articles on trends in the numbers of AHA interviews in different fields are nothing more than exercises in fantasy. Not all interviews are logged at the Job Register. And many schools, including mine, never use the convention. We invite candidates directly to campus. Your articles should be based upon real research (the number of degrees awarded, major surveys of departments), not based upon counting things in Perspectives itself.
116. I’m generally satisfied with the product as it stands, although I don’t have much of a comparative perspective.
117. No opinion
118. I really enjoy the information on trends in the profession, teaching advice and news from Washington. It might be interesting to have a column aimed at different stages of an historian’s career and the ensuing problems/challenges/rewards.
119. Perhaps Perspectives can address the relationship between historians and the Internet, for example, History News.
120. Job ads first, they drive interest in the publication.
121. Include more articles on changing views in specific historical fields, especially British History, Early Modern European History, and Historiography.
122. Generally I like it. I’ve appeared in it!
123. In all honesty, if I didn’t get the paper copy, I’d read it online. The same goes for AHR (which I usually read online). I’d like to see it gradually go online, and skip the paper versions, and save a tree or two.”
124. It is dull and elitist and Washington-oriented.
125. I feel the content is driven by the conventional interests of the ‘majority’—US and Europe; and non-west creeps in largely only if there is a comparative or new theoretical perspective applied. Asia seems very marginalized, or rather, it is just ignored.
126. Don’t assume everyone possesses a left-liberal/progressive outlook.
127. The layout of the magazine is rather blah. I think it could be produced in a much more attractive format.
128. Trends and issues in history
129. Be more like a magazine and less like a report. The whole design just feels like a boring quarterly report from a corporation.
130. The job listings are too difficult to use. I don’t know anyone these days who is looking for work based on geographical location. Also, on-line sources for job listings are easier to use.
131. Sop thinking of historians as only teachers and only educational faculty members
132. I believe the magazine is fine the way it is.
133. Better copy editing, especially of articles by those who are not AHA staff members.
134. Start over from scratch. Focus on serious historical issues that should be of concern to us as historians and citizens. The Unholy Trinity of “race, ethnicity, and gender” has made the AHA a joke.
135. Illustrations; more controversial content; emotion—the writing is very dry.
136. Recognize that you face the problem that your readership is too diverse to satisfy completely, and that most of us are too busy to give the magazine much more than a cursory read.
137. Stop being so liberal. It might surprise you but some historians are not liberals (please don’t read that to mean that we are Republicans either). Getting rid of obvious political bias would be a nice change.
138. How to coexist with H-net? I don’t know the answer.
139. I liked President Weinstein’s articles because they raised issues that I, and many others, confront. They dealt more with the tensions of being a historian and all the other demands placed on our in our lives.
140. Improved quality and variety of articles on teaching, as there used to be.
141. Have more dedicated to graduate student issues.
142. Strategies on effective instruction, syllabus preparation, writing cover letters and application materials, and interacting with other faculty for new or incoming junior faculty.
143. The current format is a little boring; but I still read almost the whole thing anyway, so redesign is not necessary on my account!
144. For grad students, the job and fellowship listings are the most immediately important service Perspectives provides. Any expansion you can make in that area would be greatly appreciated.
145. This is a pretty stodgy publication. It’s a lot like a user’s manual; you read it because you need to. Some professional advice on format would not be remiss.
146. I most enjoy the data-driven articles about the state of the profession (PhDs by field; job availability; how history salaries are faring in comparison to other fields; and so forth). But those articles can be terribly frustrating for two big reasons. First, the author does not understand statistics very well and sometimes makes statements in the prose that are simply wrong when compared with the data. You may want to consider reassigning that feature to an author who has a better grasp of how to interpret such data. Second, the graphs that accompany those articles (graphs that could be wonderful) are often so poorly constructed as to be near useless or unreadable. Surely a new graphic artist or a new graphic software program will allow you to do better.”
147. I see no problems with it.
148. Cut back on the organizational data, which perhaps should be more frequent and in electronic form.
149. Stop printing crap about affirmative action and the devious ways someone has devised to hire people who cannot stand on their own accomplishments. AA has harmed enough people and created an impressive body of injustices all on its own; you don’t need to remind us of that.
150. Gabrielle Spiegel’s column on accountability in a recent issue was excellent. More essays of this kind, addressing issues of general interest to the profession, would strengthen Perspectives. I’d also like to see more obituaries.
151. Our department has had trouble with getting Perspectives to print our job ads in a timely fashion.
152. I think Perspectives is a good read. I would like to see some more on the analysis of particular documents in history.
153. My friend asked me if there were indigenous people in Europe. I thought of the Lapps. If “indigenous” can be applied to people who favor oral traditions over literary tradition, I would like to read a continuing column about Indigenous people. If Indigenous is not an acceptable term, another term should be crafted.
154. I realize that AHA is geared toward college/university faculty, but those of us not in academia have less interest in issues of tenure, promotion, etc.”
155. Our profession is changing and I’d like to know more about how people adapt to technology, teaching, a different student population, etc.
156. Design wise I think it could be modernized. Also as a foreign subscriber I’m always disappointed it comes so late by post—I know I have access to electronic version but I find it easier to read in hard copy.
157. Layout: Perspectives should feel more like a magazine, not like a newsletter a well-meaning corporate HR department might publish.
158. Give us some sense of urgency about why it matters that we write and teach history.
159. By addressing professional development for students.
160. Would it be possible for you to rewrite some of the committee reports in a more journalistic style? I have read far too many reports of this nature within the academic world and Perspectives could do better. They’re fine as far a reports go, addressed to the Board, etc., but we really do not need to know who appointed this committee or when the appointments were made, but would like to get on with it.
161. I usually read Perspectives on History for pessimistic news about the historical profession, so I expect more of it.
162. Make it less oriented to United States History
163.
164. Resurrect Roy Rosenzweig so he can write some more articles.
165. Try to make it more practical, more usable, for someone about to teach a course. Instead of offering a high level overview of an issue, provide specific and concise content that interested parties can immediately employ in teaching and research.
166. It seems that there has been a greater focus on K–12 and teaching. This is nice for some people I’m sure, but I couldn’t care less. I think there have been too many articles in recent months on these topics.
167. Encapsulate more—like Scientific American does.
168. More coverage of controversies involving history and historians. Often the Chronicle has better and more current coverage.
169. More bacon. Less sizzle.
170. I would make the design of Perspectives less bland and bumpy.
171. I’ve received my first issue a couple of weeks ago, and it is all right for me.
172. A couple more pages would be nice, more research on the state of the profession.
173. Better layout, more modern graphics.
174. Occasionally, I have the impression that job ads appear rather too close to the deadline. This may be the result of late submission by the hiring department. The more notice that can be given the better.
175.
176. The magazine at present is rather ugly; better graphic design would be an improvement
177. More world history
178. I think the layout is a little pedestrian. It looks like a high school magazine. I think the target readership should be for the more sophisticated. Sometimes I think you’re dumbing it down a bit.
179. I think it could have a more sophisticated look and feel.
180. I really like Perspectives, especially coverage of professional issues and research techniques/technologies. I would like to see more coverage of public history work AND public history job listings.”
181. The staff is doing an excellent job. Keep up the good work!
182. I have no desire to receive it in its current form.
183. Put job listings online only, not in the paper version. I think that linking the electronic job listing to the paper listing sidelines Perspectives as a place to advertise jobs. We have not advertised in Perspectives for many years because your deadline is so ridiculous and I can list on H-net instantly for little money.”
184. Fewer lengthy statistical analyses of hiring trends, PhD production, etc.—they usually don’t seem that useful or interesting”
185. Eliminate (or make optional) the paper version. I read the paper copy sometimes, but I don’t really need it. Electronic is sufficient for my purposes.
186. Please continue to produce the print version. Many professional organizations have discontinued their print versions but I find print very convenient.
187. Include more articles on best practices for teaching history.
188.
189. Don’t have articles go over too many pages—it’s possible to lose one’s place going back.
190. Making a “Hybrid Section”: that way, as Historians we cover everything. It is not a matter that we need to make our profession better than other fields. However, how we become more efficient and better historians capitalizing on other fields and embracing incoming historians whose training was not in history.”
191. You are doing a fine job. The layout needs updating, though
192. Diversify its coverage to include more non-Western history topics—there have been encouraging developments in this direction and they should continue
193. The job listings are probably decreasingly useful with the availability of online listings. You could use the space for more advice about teaching, research, outreach to the public, etc.
194. “it’s fine when I read it. I should just read it more often. Probably will, since I am reminded of it thanks to this survey.
195. Multiple perspectives on the same issue or event—especially differing opinions.
196. Special articles on a specific viewpoint of historical research, era, or person.
197. I think it is fine as is!
198. Digitize teaching articles in back issues. I often assign them in my history methods course.
199. Publish more URLs as links to the subjects being discussed.
200. You are doing a FINE JOB.
201. Continue as you are
202. I am having a hard time figuring out if I am answering your questions correctly—I use the online job ad section regularly, but do not read anything else from Perspectives online”
203. I like its balance and the depth of the articles. Please don’t go down the road of a very glossy magazine which doesn’t really give enough space to explore specific issues of importance to the profession.
204. Perspectives should go online only. The existing magazine is worth reading, but doesn’t warrant the cost of printing and mailing. I always read it, but rarely twice, and never keep my copies, so it would be ideal online.”
205. I’d like to see more critical coverage of the conservative politics of the profession and the discipline.
206. Eliminate the Table of Contents. I can skim a publication this small. Don’t waste the space as the New York Times has recently decided to do, appealing to the ADHD crowd
207. I can’t think of anything.
208. Perhaps you could give more concrete advice or examples in your articles dealing with making the transition from student to faculty.
209. I’m generally satisfied.
210. I think its layout/design could be crisper.
211. The best thing you have done is to provide a highly public forum for innovative teaching developments. Sure, there are journals for this sort of thing. But Perspectives has made developments such as the scholarship of history teaching and learning more public than they otherwise might have been.
212. It is the dreariest professional journal I have ever seen. Every time it arrives my heart drops. I read it out of obligation and never pleasure
213. Wider range of “perspectives” should be represented.
214. For a good half of the year, Perspectives seems preoccupied with the Annual Meeting; would like to see briefer treatment of this. (Advice for job candidates is always the same, for example—send folks to the website instead.)
215. Layout
216. Basically I like it.
217. Don’t accept those ads from departments celebrating their newest hires. It only re-opens old job market wounds and contributes to the meat-market atmosphere of the profession.
218. I like it quite well and don’t have any specific recommendations.
219. I’m not sure the job ads are really necessary. Most who are looking will go on-line, either to the AHA’s own site or to H-Net.
220. The main problem is the organization. You really have to skim the thing first (in print form) to figure out what is what and what you might want to read unless you are in the habit of reading all of it regularly. (I reserve that practice for the TLS.)
221. Lower membership fees
222. I would be happy to see more content, but I realize that this is not necessarily the function of Perspectives.
223. Not a direct answer to this question, but I wanted to tell you that although I never read the online version, if the AHA elected to only publish online (or give members the option of not receiving a print version) in the interest of economy and the environment, I would gladly switch to online only.
224. Is it possible to expand the page limit/content? I often wished the articles were about a page longer. Maybe add room for another article? I think the technology focus could be expanded, if so.
225. Include interdisciplinary work; urls/reference materials for navigating archives, university and other libraries, etc. online outside of the U.S. That is, practical aids for bibliographic work.
226. Bigger print!
227. Layout is a bit dense and difficult to read. Text is very small.
228. Increase non-European, non-American history items. Add more Ancient History items”
229. Get a new editor
230. It is fine as it is.
231 Think more about the range of interests in the field and write less about constitutional/by laws or committee reports; that is, on administrative issues of the AHA”
232. I was a graphic designer for a while, so... I don’t like how blue it is. And in particular, I don’t like that the sidebars are outlined in blue AND that the bold text is in blue - it makes it harder to look at the page and see clear distinctions between the main text and the sidebars. The sidebars with gray backgrounds are easier to read. Also, it’s not always particularly clear where articles start and stop, especially those that contain subsection headings. In short, I’m actually more interested in a graphic design overhaul than major adjustments to the content.
233. Perhaps modify layout.
234. Keep covering issues related to government transparency/availability of government records.
235. Reduce the number of statistically based articles about historians’ salaries, job prospects, age distributions, etc. etc.
236. The visual layout could be improved for reader’s attention.
237. Enhance international coverage, more focus on professional issues.
238. More on career development. Can’t have enough of this.
239. Good writing always helps any article no matter what the topic. Eye catching graphics can draw the reader in, but I would not sacrifice content for graphics.”
240. I think the content, organization, and overall strategic vision behind Perspectives has improved immensely in the past few years, especially its blossoming relationship with the AHA Today blog. The aesthetic/graphic aspects have lagged far behind. A visual overhaul would attract a wider readership, within the membership and beyond.
241. More modern design.
242. Make it less about History PhDs and more about history itself.
243. Though I am a traditional, research-oriented scholar, I would like to see us reach out to secondary school teachers and community college teachers. (We teach both in our undergraduate and graduate programs!) I would be interested in what scholars and teachers are doing at lesser known institutions all over the country. And, last but not least, I would like to see far more coverage of what historians—both in professional organizations and not—are doing in other countries. Our transnational ties are weak!
244. Maybe a new style—everybody uses YouTube to teach history. Less hi-brow, more about the real historians’ challenges.
245. Give space to non-US historians to discuss issues of concern/interest in the historical professions where they work.
246. NA
247. More from the minority historian’s perspective.
248. Do not feature only teaching in America.
249. I think you are doing a fine job; I would devote less time to PC issues of race and gender and more to traditional areas.
250. Spend on the work historians are doing now in the field, outside of the classroom.
251. This is a difficult question. I’m afraid that Perspectives accurately mirrors many of the faults of the historical profession today, such as trendiness, politicization, dumbing down, careerism, and excessive interest in technology.
252. More reports from “outside”: what are historians doing about the quality of the profession, about graduate training, about free speech?
253. It seems like Perspectives focuses mainly on social and cultural history while mostly ignoring political and especially military history. This is a bias that reflects current trends in academia but one that diminishes the value of Perspectives for political and military historians.
254. Make it more exciting and relevant.
255. More about research, less about teaching in community colleges etc.
256. Livelier would help. Often dry. Personally I prefer thought pieces to specific “recipe” style discussions of how people think through intellectual or pedagogical issues.
257. I don’t even know what to say. As a job-seeker, I find this newsletter not very useful, and often insulting. I am still reeling from “How I Learned to Stop Whining” as the title of an article run by a professional newsletter in response to concerns over the lack of jobs and the plethora of job-seekers. What can I say to that?
258. Something we can read to students (History Majors and Minors) in the classroom about the state of the profession for (potential) future historians.
259. Acknowledge that even historians at non-elite institutions are doing great work so that it doesn’t appear that someone who just discovered PowerPoint a few years ago knows more than someone who has been using it for over a decade and constantly updates and incorporates new technology.
260. Select more ethnically/racially diverse authors for articles.
261. I don’t always understand the rubrics—for example, sometimes reports on the profession are listed under “news,” I’d like to see the reports on AHA committees published more coherently in one section; if you have a series, for example, “Film and History,” I’d explain in one paragraph the background of the series; I don’t understand the difference between the rubrics “news” and “noteworthy,” and would clarify that—I’d also clarify the background of the rubric “Viewpoints.” This is nitpicking, but I don’t like to read text in italic font, and I’d change that (if you print interviews, the questions are set in italic font).
262. More about practical issues facing historians and those who run history departments, grad programs, undergrad advising, how to balance teaching with research, tenure, publishing tips, etc.
263. Am satisfied.
264. I think you ought to stop the print version.
265. I think it is already quite good—I sometimes fine the job listings a bit less organized than I might wish.
266. More news from outside the United States.
267. Generally satisfactory.
268. Cut the print version of job listings. People check H-Net now instead. Focus on practical issues facing historians today (salary, tenure, technology, debates over what/how to teach, film, etc).
269. My problem is not your publication but my life. Scads of teaching, a backlog of scholarly obligations of all shapes, a dog to walk, a house to help run, friendships, emails, the morning paper with its fresh but familiar disasters, that novel by my pillow I cannot finish. Life is overfull and Perspectives, which I appreciate, piles up on the study floor awaiting that empty moment that, like Revelation, never comes.
270. I would support going to ONLINE only for environmental purposes. Thanks for your work!
271. Broaden the perspective to be more aware of popular history and its importance in furthering interest in the discipline.
272. I am SOOOO glad Perspectives is out there. I am paying the bills with a factory job, and teaching on the side. Perspectives has helped me stay close to the profession. Thank you so much. P.S. I have not yet used the online version but I intend to starting today.
273. Better looking front cover.
274. Make the full version available online, and then don’t send me a paper version. Same for the AHR. I don’t need the paper if I can access it online.
275. I don’t think there is anything particularly wrong with Perspectives (other than a cluttered visual appearance), but there are other publications that more directly address my professional information needs.
276. More on Public History, and on career opportunities outside of academia.
277. More on secondary and university level teaching of history (actual practice) - those features are indispensable reading for both my wife and I as history educators.
278. Sometimes I wish for more depth to articles in which I am especially interested.
© American Historical Association
Last Updated: November 18, 2008 4:16 PM