I'm starting a PhD in history in September. Any advice on what I should definitely do as soon as I start and what I should definitely avoid?

Many thanks!

sbcc

I'm social sciences, so don't know anything about subjects. But in terms of PhDs -

-don't buy a puppy, unless you do it NOW and its trained for september!
-Try and get a mentor in your department, someone who's not your supervisor like another PhD student (who's a few years ahead) or a postdoc, so they can give you advice that your sup won't want to.
-get used to using endnote or a similar program and use it from the start
- get used to writing, any writing is good and means you have work to go back to and refer to, even if you think it was rubbish at the time, it will be useful later!

Cheers Sneaks! Nah, definitely not buying a puppy. Did you buy one at the start of your PhD by any chance? :-) Getting a mentor is definitely a good idea, thanks!

I got mine in my masters I think, but they're definitely a distraction!

From a very early stage it is important to both read in depth in your topic and boradly within the secondary literature on your chosen period/culture of study. It helps to really ground your research in a context and enriches your work methodlogically. It is important to know who is signficant to your period of study (potential examiners, interesting methods, perspectives, and networking) as well as really getting to grips with the period/culture you are studying. Try and find out what literature people in your period read, key medical and philosophical theories, the material conditions of their lives, and population demographics etc. Few people bother with these, but they can makle good footnotes and really help you to get to grips with things..

Thanks Chrisrolinski! I have read quite a lot around my topic already, my MRes dissertation is on the same topic, just different era.

Could anyone recommend a good PhD how to book? I have a look at some of them, mainly Authoring a PhD by Patrick Dunleavy and How to get a PhD. The 'Authoring' book was really helpful, I quite liked that one, but the other one not so much. My only issue with Dunleavy's book was that to me it felt that it was more for social science students. Does anyone know a book especially for humanities PhDs, or a book that has more on the humanities? Cheers!

======= Date Modified 27 May 2010 22:26:23 =======
I never found any book specifically aimed at the humanities. The best overall book for PhD advice I found was by Phillips and Pugh. Also good is "The Unwritten Rules of PhD Research". Dunleavy's book is probably best for giving you advice on tackling the thesis, and as a humanities student I found it useful. And Tinkler & Jackson's book was the best book I found for the final viva.

Good luck!

Hi Sbcc. Congratulations on being successful in getting on a PhD programme! I too couldn't find a book specifically aimed at the humanities, but used a handful of them to help write my dissertation. Here they are:
- Unwritten Rules of PhD (as BilboBaggins mentioned; this is excellent for making you aware of your role as a PhD student, supervisors roles, insider politics and how to handle them, and how to build an effective network of support via use of tact, diplomacy etc. Also good for informing you about the *sins* a PhD student can commit due to being unacquainted with the nature of academia).
- How to Write a Thesis by R. Murray (all about the actual *writing* process: planning, drafting, different types of writing, their use, tackling mental blocks, etc. It's an in depth analysis of *writing* for the purpose of producing a thesis - doesn't deal with the other aspects of being a PhD student since the book is premised on the fact that there are already many books offering that sort of advise. It focuses solely and systematically on the writing process).
- The Research Student's Guide to Success by Pat Cryer (all comprehensive, and has some good tips on getting you thinking creatively about your thesis).
I second what Chrisrolinski said; I am in a Humanities department which combines Historians, Philosophers, Cultural Studies members of faculty and Sociologists. The somewhat interdisciplinary approach to their research (i.e. an awareness of the historical, cultural, intellectual and sociological or political dimensions to their research) makes their output more rounded, grounded in contect, and informative. As Chris suggested, sometimes a footnote would suffice to show you are aware of context and that your research is guided not only by this context, but by your awareness of what else was going on at that time (the period you are researching on) in the spheres of politics, culture, philosophy, etc. and you are aware of the interconenction of all these fileds and their impact on the subject matter which you are, say, now analysing. You may, for instance, cite Rousseaux or Englightenment thinkers influence' on subsequent political thought in Europe, and its impact on the French Revolution; or the impact of certain scientific theories of biological determinism on the widespread acceptance of Nazism and its claims to be based on science; likewise, the impact of Nazi politics, ideological propaganda on the philosophy of certain German thinkers of that time. Again, this need not guide the direction of you research explicity, but an overall awareness of the various dimensions to the period and subject matter which you intend to study will most definitely show that you have a sound and thorough understanding of the context within which you are working. Best of luck!

Thanks UnderVerse and Bilbo! Will check out those books as well. I'm doing area studies, so our departments are not divided up the traditional way, but by areas, so yeah, one has to be quite interdisciplinary. My first degree was in the social sciences and linguistics, then jumped ships to the humanities, so I have quite a diverse background, which has helped me a lot, and that was one of the things lecturers liked about my proposal. Thanks for the advice again! :-)