next »

[lotsoquestions]

I recently attended a conference in a subfield that was really hot for several years -- but is no longer.  WIthout giving too many details, I was basically trained in a social science field where I did a lot of comparative research involving a specific geographic region.  Since then, it seems like anytime anyone wants to hire in the field, they're only interested in the "hot" geographic region, which is, of course, the MIddle East.  NOnetheless, I went to the conference in the geographic region in which I was trained, and was somewhat amazed to see that practically none of the panelists, presenters, discussants, participants were people who might be described as early or mid-career.  Rather, the conference was top-heavy with retired academics, about to be retired academics, and graduate students. 

I'm just wondering if anybody has had any similar experiences with a subfield that feels a bit like a sinking ship.  I kept wondering what had happened to my cohort.  I'm assuming they all either retrained in a different field, left for the private sector or . . I don't know.

I'm also wondering if the phenomenon is that the 'hot subfield' gets tenure track jobs and the
'not so hot' subfield gets to adjunct -- and so therefore no one could afford to attend the conference.  Just wondering if anybody else had any thoughts . . 

[fiona]

I think there are whole fields that are dying, yes. I've been at some recent conferences with very poor attendance. Not only were there very few people in the audience, but there were also more than a few no-shows among the announced presenters.

Some groups are going to meeting every other year, or every 3 years.

People don't have travel money or don't have jobs, or are losing their jobs.

In the humanities, two fairly dead fields now are Russian and German. Philosophy isn't doing well, either. Latin, I gather, isn't quite dead (!), because law and medical students take it.

I'm sorry you're in a dying field.

The Fiona

[offthemarket]

In the sciences, at least, dying fields decompose and fertilize fields that emerge from the dying ones.  People often can easily retool their skills in the old field to be ready to be a pioneer in the new field. 

So, what is it about that specific geographic region - or the comparative work that you did - that is ready for a new hot field?  Or potentially hot field?  Keep in mind that you don't want to hop into what is currently hot, but what is about to become hot.

[spork]

You may be mixing correlation with causation.  The walking fossils go to conferences because they enjoy hobnobbing destinations and have money.  The graduate students go because they think it will help them get a job.  No one else has an incentive.

That said, yes, hot subfields regularly become unhot.  Condoleezza Rice did ok after the Soviet Union ceased to exist, but if you're working toward a career in nothing but Performative Derrida Studies, it's a great way to remain unemployed.

[hegemony]

And just think about the folks who teach newspaper journalism.

[lotsoquestions]

I'd be interested to hear from folks who have retooled and how they have done it.  I have found some interesting projects of my own that are marginally related to my former field, now dead -- but honestly I miss the way the conferences used to be, the conversations we used to have, and am just wondering about the logic of hanging around, hoping the field will somehow revive.  How long does something like that usually take anyway (she said, half seriously).

[mountainguy]

A substantial portion of my graduate coursework (though thankfully not all of it) is in a subfield that is most definitely on the decline. Fortunately, I recognized this trend early enough that I was able to take courses in other areas and to retool my research. In my discipline, most "dead" subfields end up getting absorbed into part of a broader subfield. The trick is to figure out how to put the two into conversation with each other. Basically, look at what's being published at the moment and try to figure out how your knowledge can add to our understanding of current trends.

Also, I've noticed that in some moribund subfields, there is a tendency for old-timers to circle the wagons while they defiantly complain "We aren't dead yet!!! Don't listen to the naysayers." These people can be annoying, and more importantly, they give bad advice. Tread carefully around them.

[larryc]

It is hard to say with so few details but you may indeed be in a dying field.

Some years back I was in grad school and considering writing a dissertation about an east coast Indian tribe in the colonial period. There were a lot of books coming out on colonial Indian topics and it was hot. A very wise professor advised me to be careful. He noted that en years before community studies in the colonial period had been hot and that a generation of grad students picked out communities and got to writing. The trouble is that now there were too many community studies of New England villages for what was after all a limited market for such scholarship. Publishers refused to print another one, and lots of new scholars found that their dissertation research was unpublishable.

Is this you? I don't know. But is sounds like a reinvention is due.

And just think about the folks who teach newspaper journalism.

Ouch! I believe they are all hurriedly developing "Writing for the Web" and "Blogging 101" courses.

[ls410]

Could it just be that that specific conference is dying?  I also specialize in a particular region but don't always go to the region's meeting; it's poorly run and dominated by an unrelated disicpline.  I always go to my discipline's annual meeting though.  Especially now when my university has less (if any) travel funding, I couldn't afford both this year.  I choose the meeting that was more fun, better attended, and better for networking.

[cranefly]

While my PhD field isn't dying, per se, it's on the decline in terms of student interest/enrolment. I saw this coming and drastically retooled myself.

Interestingly, I found that once I got my head into the new field, I was no longer interested in old field. I could see why it was in decline.

If you're a scholar you'll find lots of interesting areas. I could probably go and start anew in any field and be interested... there's still lots to discover out there, if you go digging with a sharp eye. (how's that for mixing metaphors?)

[mdwlark]

Some subfields die and some cycle.  My totally unscientific observation is that cycles take 30 years.  We closet Jungians have this problem.  Carl last peaked in the 90's.

[fiona]

Some lit folks don't know that Marx is dead.

The Fiona

[t_r_b]

Some lit folks don't know that Marx is dead.

Of course not. Death is merely a cultural construction, and therefore ultimately unknowable.

[regular_joe]

Of course not. Death is merely a cultural construction, and therefore ultimately unknowable.

HOF

[fiona]

Death and Dying Studies does seem to be a fairly growing field, though as a program or concentration, not as a major.

I'm sure something clever can be made of that.

The Fiona