FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2199740981> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2199740981 endingPage "177" @default.
• W2199740981 startingPage "177" @default.
• W2199740981 abstract "Negotiating the Personal and the Academic Carolyn Eastman Nowhere does our profession reveal its split nature more dramatically than in questions of identity. Data on gendered pay inequality, professional bullying, and bias in student evaluations remind us every day how much bodies matter on campus. All who have been asked to sit on committees “because we need a woman or a person of color”—a request that often comes from the very people who acknowledge the heavy service loads carried by such faculty—know well that the committee probably does indeed need a woman or a person of color, and for more than one reason. And yet when it comes to composing our scholarship, all open discussions of oneself must remain off the table, except perhaps for a few select uses of the first person in the introduction. Marion Rust’s account of Laurel Thatcher Ulrich’s “two lives” (qtd. in Rust 147) reminds us how much women scholars still perceive there to be “staggeringly huge” risks in using the first person, in “admitting that they are women” on the academic page, in Jill Lepore’s words (qtd. in Rust 148). I had considered myself an Ulrich completist until learning, now, that I had missed an entire genre: her personal essays. We see similar kinds of divides in the writing of younger scholars who blog (often anonymously, depending on their tenure status) or find other venues that welcome the combination of the personal and the academic. I asked Ann Little, the early Americanist whose wildly popular Historiann blog takes stock of history, race, and gender politics and succeeds not least because of her enormously appealing, truth-talking persona, whether writing the blog had altered how she composes her scholarship and whether her just-completed second book incorporates more of the first person. The answer to both questions was no. Her future writing? “I would use it [the first person] very advisedly,” she said, slowly (Interview). I’d like to suggest here that we have good reasons for reconsidering whether to incorporate ourselves more into our scholarship, albeit less as women or men or people of color per se than as scholars who could place ourselves into the story as thinkers, showing more explicitly our own questions and research processes on the way to writing in more compelling ways. And I suggest this in part because of Ulrich’s writerly innovations in A Midwife’s Tale and the few women writers since who have explored alternate scholarly voices for their [End Page 177] work. The point is not to be more self-indulgent, “politically correct,” or autobiographical but to find fresh, readable means of unfolding our scholarship that can also demonstrate, rather than conceal, our methods. Rust rightly notes that A Midwife’s Tale is modest in its explicit claims about methodological originality, but few readers have missed its bravura combination of intellectual rigor and elegant prose. Even now when I assign it to undergraduates, someone in the room inevitably praises it as an extraordinary work of scholarship. And let’s not feign naïveté about how much the book’s authorial stance, its “scholarly guise,” helps to undergird Ulrich’s authority in part because it appears to keep within the compass of acceptable scholarly writing by avoiding the first person. On the surface, Ulrich models the scholarly ideal of one dedicated, above all, to using evidence to tell her story. As she says in the first few minutes of the pbs documentary A Midwife’s Tale, “My connection to the past, like any historian’s, is through the stuff that’s left behind. It’s not an imaginative connection, although imagination is part of it. It’s about documents; it’s about sources, the clues, the leavings, the sherds.” Such a comment draws us in, cementing her scholarly modesty, while also almost subconsciously reminding us that when she finds “leavings” and potsherds (aka trash), she turns them into gold. As she speaks those words as voice-over, the documentary shows re-created scenes of Ulrich doing research: reading the diary aloud, creating maps that trace the spread of the yellow-fever epidemic, taking notes and comparing documents, developing handwritten spreadsheets..." @default.
• W2199740981 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2199740981 creator A5024357009 @default.
• W2199740981 date "2015-01-01" @default.
• W2199740981 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2199740981 title "Negotiating the Personal and the Academic" @default.
• W2199740981 cites W2219123339 @default.
• W2199740981 cites W622273677 @default.
• W2199740981 doi "https://doi.org/10.5250/legacy.32.2.0177" @default.
• W2199740981 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2199740981 type Work @default.
• W2199740981 sameAs 2199740981 @default.
• W2199740981 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2199740981 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2199740981 hasAuthorship W2199740981A5024357009 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConcept C199776023 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConcept C2778061430 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConcept C2778355321 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConcept C29595303 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConceptScore W2199740981C107038049 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConceptScore W2199740981C142362112 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConceptScore W2199740981C144024400 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConceptScore W2199740981C15744967 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConceptScore W2199740981C17744445 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConceptScore W2199740981C199539241 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConceptScore W2199740981C199776023 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConceptScore W2199740981C2778061430 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConceptScore W2199740981C2778355321 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConceptScore W2199740981C29595303 @default.
• W2199740981 hasConceptScore W2199740981C36289849 @default.
• W2199740981 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2199740981 hasLocation W21997409811 @default.
• W2199740981 hasOpenAccess W2199740981 @default.
• W2199740981 hasPrimaryLocation W21997409811 @default.
• W2199740981 hasRelatedWork W1607985828 @default.
• W2199740981 hasRelatedWork W2046273178 @default.
• W2199740981 hasRelatedWork W2085392219 @default.
• W2199740981 hasRelatedWork W2135723341 @default.
• W2199740981 hasRelatedWork W2157487042 @default.
• W2199740981 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2199740981 hasRelatedWork W2758202769 @default.
• W2199740981 hasRelatedWork W2996990943 @default.
• W2199740981 hasRelatedWork W3134382238 @default.
• W2199740981 hasRelatedWork W4296564611 @default.
• W2199740981 hasVolume "32" @default.
• W2199740981 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2199740981 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2199740981 magId "2199740981" @default.
• W2199740981 workType "article" @default.