I think there is a lot in what Peter Morris says, and there is certainly a
change away from the times when historians of science were retired
scientists - you only have to look at the increasing numbers of us who are
taking Masters or Doctors degrees in HPS at the *beginning* of our
careers.
> Nonetheless, it is my impression (am I wrong?) that most
> historians of science have science degrees, so there must be more at work
> here.
It may be true among mature historians (whatever they are!), but it's
becoming less true of younger researchers. A growing number of postgrads
have backgrounds in history and/or work in history departments. And in
addition there is the peculiar breed, especially at Cambridge, who have
undergrad degrees in HPS, thus combining science and history at an even
earlier stage in their careers. Hopefully all this means that we're soon
going to have historians of science who are even more historigraphically
aware than ever before, which should be interesting.
However, as I'm sure everyone can confirm from their own experience, there
are researchers with science backgrounds who work on early modern periods,
and those with history backgrounds who work on modern, technical science.
Can I suggest again, funding is potentially easier for modern periods and
interest (among students and funding bodies) is higher - because of
contemporary interest in the role of science and scientists in society.
***********
Aileen Fyfe
Dept. of History and Philosophy of Science
University of Cambridge
Free School Lane (+44 1223) 740 537
Cambridge CB2 3RH [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|