Limits of Heavy Specialization

Dear Editor:

Professor Ronald Glasberg is to be congratulated for writing, and AHA Per­spectives commended for publishing, “Beyond the Monograph” in the De­cember 1984 issue of Perspectives. The issue of extreme specialization and, indeed, intellectual isolation of too much research and writing is certainly an issue that must be squarely confronted more openly, more often. But while it is cer­tainly a challenge with which historians must come to grips, the predominant character of scholarship is a serious problem for higher learning generally.

Heavy specialization in very limited and arcane research areas not only ex­cludes any general audience for scholar­ly work, but severely limits the reader­ship even within professional disci­plines. Not only is scholarship in danger of reducing itself to a sort of tractarian­ism among a small congregation of area specialists, but it becomes increasingly difficult to convincingly demonstrate to the society we are supposed to serve the value and contribution of scholarly work in the disciplines. And if we are not able to make clear the significance of the results of our work to our world, not only is our claim for support undercut, but integrity demands that we examine ourselves and the values and as­sumptions by which we pursue our ca­reers and guide our institutions.

As Professor Glasberg outlines in his stimulating article, the way to redress the balance, in history or any other discipline, is to rediscover and reempha­size the vital importance of much broad­er, multidisciplinary issues and interre­lationships. The development of formal research skills and the cultivation of a wide, informed knowledge and outlook that takes in the connections among disciplines and areas of knowledge cer­tainly are not mutually exclusive. Work that draws on formal research and anal­ysis as well as informed, thoughtful reflection on broader issues is not less scholarly than the restricted mono­ graph. It is more scholarly and will help us to reestablish intellectual contact with each other and the larger society that can benefit from our work. Why should scholars have to wait until they are be­yond the reach of personnel committees to show that sophisticated research skills and productive speculation complement each other very well? Shifting and ex­panding our viewpoint is a way to show the importance of our work and have that contribution recognized.

Professor Glasberg has initiated an important scholarly discussion’ and the AHA, along with historians in the col­leges and universities, should be among the leaders in taking steps to ensure that these issues are discussed and that ac­tion is taken to create an environment that better serves us, our students and our society.