Perspectives does a wonderful job following history PhDs in America, but I question the use of the term “production” in the recent front-page headline (Perspectives, January 2003). Not only does it employ a market term designed for commodities, which by all its associations denigrates the doctorate, but it’s also not accurate. When things are produced, the producers are the animate, thinking actors and the produced is passive. Surely, all doctoral students know who “produces” the work. Why can’t we confine ourselves to metaphors that capture what we do as well as what we value?
—Joyce Appleby
UCLA
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Attribution must provide author name, article title, Perspectives on History, date of publication, and a link to this page. This license applies only to the article, not to text or images used here by permission.