How to present a paper

I ran across this article written by former American Historical Association President Linda Kerber on how to present a paper - I think there are lots of good tips, including on proper length, the difference between written and spoken work, and just some basic pointers. Have a look!

THE CONCEPT OF MIXED MIGRATION: REFLECTING ON TODAY'S MIGRATORY POLICIES, MOVEMENTS AND PARADIGMS SHIFTS

From the Programme for the Study of Global Migration:

A conference on THE CONCEPT OF MIXED MIGRATION: REFLECTING ON TODAY'S MIGRATORY POLICIES, MOVEMENTS AND PARADIGMS SHIFTS.

Date: 8-9 April 2010

Place: AJF

Full programme here.

The Life Raft Debate

A week ago one of my favorite public radio shows aired an interesting story on the Life Raft Debate, which has taken place under the aegis of the University of Montevallo (in Alabama) Philosophy Club for about the past 10 years. The premise of the debate, as explained on the broadcast [FYI you can listen to the broadcast streaming here; the relevant section is about 42 minutes in, but be forewarned, the point of the story is, in part, to chastize pandering in public discourse], is that the audience is on a life raft, and that they can only select one of the faculty members on stage to join their life raft, thus surviving. Each of the faculty members on stage – from departments like English, Art History, Computer Science, Math, History, etc. – have to argue why their discipline would be the most useful to the raft – a parallel with the question of “what is the value of a liberal arts degree”?

One of the history professors who participated in a past debate was quoted as having argued that, in a life raft situation, the value of a historian was to provide instruction on how to be a benevolent dictator to the dictator which would inevitably arise in the chaos of a life raft situation. While this is amusing (and nefarious!), it begs an examination of what value to attribute to the discipline of history. How about this as a springboard for a discussion?

Go for the Gold: Obama, Reagan, and Nuclear Weapons

Sometime in the next few weeks, Barack Obama and Dmitri Medvedev will sign a follow-on agreement to the expired Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that eliminated the firepower equivalent to that wielded by the Death Star. Consequent Senate deliberations over a new treaty are sure to feature accusations that the Russians intend to lie, cheat, and steal, rather than uphold their end of the bargain. Senators opposed to the treaty will invoke Ronald Reagan's name with lusty enthusiasm. Already, Senator Jon Kyl, the number two Republican in the chamber, has indicated his willingness to fight along these lines, and on these terms.

Senators who invoke Reagan in 2010 would have bitterly opposed him in 1988, after he signed the first treaty ever to eliminate an entire class of nuclear weapons. His admirers forget that for five months after December 1987, when Reagan and Gorbachev signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty eliminating four Soviet missiles for NATO's every one, Republican Senators like Jesse Helms and Dan Quayle held up ratification on the grounds that the Soviets could not be trusted. "Believe it or not there are elements who are hinting it would be a bad treaty," President Reagan wrote in his diary after meeting with Republican leaders on the eve of Gorbachev's arrival.

The delay over INF ratification mattered then, because it made finalizing a START agreement impossible before the end of Reagan's presidency. A delay over a new START would matter now, because rehashing the same arguments of Helms and Quayle distracts from the more important question: what role should the United States assign its nuclear arsenal after President Obama has received a Nobel Prize, in part, for announcing in Prague last year his quest to eliminate nuclear weapons?

Proponents of low-yield, “bunker busting” nuclear bombs, argue that such weapons would provide a more credible threat to deter state-sponsored terrorism, and that they might prove indispensible to strike hardened targets in any potential military engagement with Iran or North Korea. Opponents fear that a new generation of less powerful nuclear weapons would lower the threshold by which the United States -- or another nuclear power -- might use them.

Neither position is so hawkish or dovish as the other might contend, and President Obama has shrewdly indicated his preference for zero nuclear weapons without vilifying those who may disagree. He has also managed to sidestep any meaningful debate about just how to get from point A to point B. This is a national discussion worth having; unfortunately, it is also one where complex matters of military strategy, long-term forecasting, and alliance management are likely to be obscured by political demagogy.

Obama can silence the Cheney Family Choir, however, simply by invoking recent history. Perhaps he might declare that his own attitude toward nuclear weapons derives not from Jimmy Carter but Ronald Reagan. Both men spoke of abolishing nuclear weapons, but only Reagan achieved any real success. And in the last year of his presidency, he wanted to eliminate still more nuclear weapons. "We need to go for the gold," Reagan instructed Secretary of State George Shultz in February 1988, when the administration was deliberating over whether to pursue a last-minute START agreement.

Like Reagan, Obama should go for the gold. The elder statesmen already in his corner could not be more distinguished. For the past few years, Shultz (arguably the best secretary of state since Dean Acheson) as well as Henry Kissinger (who would argue) have joined with Democrats William Perry and Sam Nunn in beating the drum for a "world free of nuclear weapons." A new documentary they have produced, Nuclear Tipping Point, illustrates that no matter how prudent their keepers, no matter the safeguards, these weapons continue to imperil our planet.

For the moment, support for nuclear abolition is growing. Unlike climate change, affirming one's support does not entail the everyday guilt that accompanies purchasing bottled water. The real test is coming, however, not just when the Senate takes on a new START but the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty after rejecting it over a decade ago. Critics will raise questions to which there are no perfect answers; the Obama administration should answer truthfully. Yes, whatever emerges to replace START will have its flaws. No, we cannot be one hundred percent sure that the Russians will not cheat. Neither questions nor answers have changed significantly over the past twenty years. But we do know today that Russia is no longer a sprawling empire with an ideological ax to grind. And we know conclusively that arms reductions contributed to ending one cold war, and that there is no compelling reason to begin another.

James Graham Wilson is a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of Virginia, and a 2009-2010 Gallatin Fellow at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies.

Public Lecture invitation

From the Programme for the Study of Global Migration:

The Politics of Privatised Immigration Detention

Given by Stephen Nathan of the Public Services International Research Unit at the University of Greenwich

Tuesday 2 March 2010, 12:15

Location: Room CV 342 (third floor)
La Voie Creuse, 16 - 1202 Geneva

Call for contributions/contributions

The IHP section blog is looking for new contributions and contributors!

As noted before, we'd be happy to welcome new regular contributors, as well as one-time pieces.

You could contribute to the ongoing interview series, or the newer archives visit series. Other ideas are:
- current events pieces
- book reviews
- write-ups of conferences
- notes on study-abroad
- or pretty much anything else under the sun! (want to share something about life in Geneva?)

Contributions with photographs are especially welcome.

There is no minimum/maximum length imposed on submissions.

Interested? Contact jaci (dot) eisenberg (at) graduateinstitute (dot) ch

Visiting Archives: The Arthur and Elizabeth Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study

I just had the opportunity to undertake an exploratory trip to the Arthur and Elizabeth Schlesinger Library at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study (Harvard campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts), and thought it would be worthwhile to report on it here!



Named for the prominent American Presidential Historian and his wife, the library and archive houses a remarkable collection of personal and organisational papers, searchable under either the general Harvard library catalog, or the more specific archival collections finding aid catalog (which permits in-text searching of key names and terms) [be sure to limit searches on both databases to the Schlesinger library so as not to return Harvard-wide results].


Portrait of Arthur Schlesinger hanging in the hall of the Schlesinger library.

The Schlesinger library is located at the intersection of Brattle and James streets; the main entrance is on the Radcliffe Yard side. Their holdings are consultable Monday through Friday, 9:30am to 5pm, in spacious and bright Carol. K. Pforzheimer Reading Room. Upon arrivial you have to present photo identification and register some personal and affiliation information at the welcome desk.



Researchers are permitted to photograph manuscript collections for note taking, although there are restrictions as to the quantity of photographs permitted from any one collection. Flatbed scanners are not permitted. Also available on-site are microfilm readers which scan directly to PDF - a godsend for researchers who wish to have the originals on hand for later verification.

The library staff was extremely kind and helpful, both in person and via email prior to the visit, which went towards ensuring I was able to make the most of this preliminary visit. The depth of the material available was much greater than anticipated - I would strongly recommend that anyone with topics pertaining to American history or perspectives, or American women, even as a tangential part of their research, consider examining this library's collection, as it is more than likely some collections will have valuable sources for your research.

On a practical note, several good lunch options exist in the vicinity of the Schlesinger library. Directly across Radcliffe Yard, in the basement of the Longfellow building, is a small Harvard cafeteria with a daily entree, a salad bar, several soup options, and a sandwich construction area, not to mention bagels and muffins; for about $7 you can get a complete lunch. Down Brattle Street, towards Harvard Square, there is Market in the Square, a semi-gourmet 24-hour deli with seating on premises. And just a few feet beyond that are the numerous options of Harvard Square.