I. Specialization in training and practice: can consultants capitalize on it?
I see potential in the “production” model as a new way of capitalizing on the seeming fragmentation of expertise that characterizes the history/public history profession. American graduate training in “traditional” history is fragmented into subfields, reflecting the ongoing specialization of knowledge. For example, knowledge areas are delineated chronologically (centuries and decades), thematically (gender, business, rural, etc.), and methodologically (cultural, social, quantitative, theoretical approaches, discourse, etc). PhDs, versed in historiography, are often taught to communicate with like academic scholars through whatever language, concepts, and frameworks are currently driving their area of specialization. MAs trained in public history programs understandably often concentrate on learning specific skills, including producing and managing oral history material, archival methods, and historic preservation. Ultimately, professionals may get slotted as specialists in certain activities. This may affect their range of potential consulting opportunities.
Educational programs do not produce many generalists who can engage with a variety of subject matters in terms that will interest clients and audiences with diverse educational and cultural backgrounds. Consultants often benefit from being generalists, even though the marketplace puts pressure on them to act as if they are “specialists”—but, in multiple areas. Public historians can without great difficulty develop multiple applied skill sets. It is much more difficult to acquire rapidly more than superficial expertise in multiple subject matter areas. Additionally, new emphases on technology and “digital humanities” place further stress on consultants.
Still, consultants might capitalize on this division of expertise through production assembly. First, however, it would make sense to ask several questions, perhaps through a survey, to determine if consultants find they are continually working in the same subject areas or performing the same set of skills. We might ask:
1). How diversified is a consultant’s work? (For example, do consultants who have written company/business histories do this repeatedly? )
2) Do consultants acquire projects via their reputation for expertise in knowledge/skill sets in particular areas or through contacts and references from past clients? In my experience, work comes via “who you know,” your sphere of contacts, and how you are able to leverage your reputation for expertise on past projects. Sometimes being slotted as a certain type of specialist was helpful, e.g., I completed a number of contracts on health history and defense history—work related to my previous jobs but not related to my graduate training.
3) In what areas do subject specialization and practical skill matter most? Litigation support? Editing? History book writing? Oral history projects? Preservation-related projects?
4) What kinds of expertise have consultants wished they had had access to in the past? I have wanted individuals proficient in indexing, proofreading, certain subject matter knowledge, and oral history digitization capabilities.
II. Directory
Although the NCPH has a list of consultants on its website, I find it difficult in many cases to determine companies’ and individuals’ capabilities, skills, and areas of expertise, as well as their geographical range of practice. Perhaps a more descriptive directory would help both clients and consultants determine potential collaborators. We also might set up a network (accessible only to willing consultants) that provides more detail about what sorts of expertise/skills/experience/capability and capacity small proprietors can offer—editorial, oral history, book writing, formatting, and indexing services and beyond. I do not think we can assemble unless we know who can efficiently perform needed skills/expertise.
I suggest participants look at the UK-based History and Policy group’s website http://www.historyandpolicy.org/ . The group’s purpose is different, yet its directory, organized by area of expertise, and its chain of networks might serve as models. The organization also attempts to function as a sort of clearinghouse and center that links historians with certain knowledge to the public, academics, journalists, and policymakers. While this is not quite the same as the model under discussion, I would be interested in examining the success of these activities in generating inquiries.
III. Incorporation issues
I would like to hear more about issues related to organizational structure. I have not found the need to create any type of corporation. Attorneys suggest that one can turn oneself into a corporation in about a day, at limited cost. Government contracts do not often require incorporation status; they do require obtaining a Dunn & Bradstreet number: the number is easy to get—not always easy to renew.
Back to introductory post about this Working Group.