By Charles Halton on Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 2:09 pm
The recent article on the SBL forum by Michael Bird and Craig Keener, “Jack of All Trades and Master of None: The Case for “Generalist” Scholars in Biblical Scholarship,” brings up an important point that graduate student really need to contemplate. Many PhD programs seem to encourage students toward sharply focused specialization. Students then try to pick a niche and often it is perceived that the more obscure the area the better. This is certainly not a bad thing. However, we also need generalists who are able to assimilate data and perspectives into a coherent and accurate big picture.
Not only does the field and the general public need good quality big picture presentations, but having the capability to teach a wide variety of courses is very beneficial for employment purposes. Only the very big research institutions are going to want to hire someone with an incredibly focused niche who is not able to also provide general presentations of the wider field(s). For example, my specialty is clearly Old Testament and Mesopotamia (this already is pretty general since one can specialize just in one biblical book or one genre of literature within Cuneiform studies) but I talked with a school about a position that they were looking to fill and they wanted someone who could teach not only Old Testament but New Testament and even Eastern religions. This was way too far outside of my abilities and interests (I am interested in the Jesus Festschrift as Jim Getz calls it but I wouldn’t be able to teach a class on Eastern religions without a lot of prep work and it wouldn’t be very exciting for me) but it showed me that all but about 5 schools in the country really care about Neo-Sumerian (this same school told me, “So what? You know Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Sumerian–we only teach biblical Hebrew one semester every other year IF there is student demand for it. Have you ever taught an Old Testament survey course; now that’s what we’re looking for.”).
So, I’m in praise of the Generalist since I consider myself to be one (with one or two little specialties). What are your thoughts?
Comments (9)
Category: All
- Add this post to
- Del.icio.us -
- Digg
Comment by Alan Lenzi
Made Thursday, 28 of May , 2009 at 4:56 pm
Yeah, I saw this, too, and even considered writing some commentary on it. If I were to change only one thing about: We need generalists that are “Jack of All Trades and Master of One.” Everyone can afford to have one area that is of particular interest and in which one is particularly well-prepared.
The other thing that sort of bothered me about the essay is how a generalist was defined. A “Biblical Studies” generalist isn’t really much of a generalist. What many schools are looking for is a person excited about the Humanities, a person that can fit their area of expertise into broader discussions going on in the Humanities and Society. Biblicists have a lot they can do in this regard. But knowing what and how to do anything in this area requires a broad education–which means getting a solid liberal arts education early on. And let’s face it, few of us really took advantage of our undergrad years to gain the exposure to the vast array of ideas on offer “out there”–and that’s assuming we attended an institution that offered such (I didn’t).
There were some other points that I was going to sound off on, but maybe later. Over all, I was glad to see the essay.
Comment by Charles Halton
Made Thursday, 28 of May , 2009 at 7:19 pm
I agree with you, Alan. Everyone can have at least one area of expertise and I think they should. I also agree with you about fitting biblical studies into the broader discussion–this is really important and does require a very broad understanding.
Comment by John Hobbins
Made Thursday, 28 of May , 2009 at 10:27 pm
I appreciate the emphasis of the article on learning languages and mastering primary sources, the more the better.
There just isn’t much one can do of lasting worth without these foundations.
Comment by Charles Halton
Made Friday, 29 of May , 2009 at 8:21 am
John, I totally agree.
Comment by DFrese
Made Tuesday, 2 of June , 2009 at 3:44 pm
Charles, I’m with you. I would consider myself a generalist by choice and I wouldn’t have it any other way. If I had to spend a 30+ year career focused on one very narrow corner of our field (say, one biblical book), I think I’d lose my mind.
Comment by jack bauer
Made Friday, 5 of June , 2009 at 1:06 pm
Interesting idea. However, when I raised this issue among couple of Oxford scholars I was almost crucified. Not sure how widely accepted this “Generalist” will be. Continental approach to the biblical studies prefers specializations exclusively.
Comment by Charles Halton
Made Friday, 5 of June , 2009 at 9:54 pm
Danny, I’d loose my mind as well if I were narrowed that much.
Jack, European–particularly continental but UK also–approaches to education are much different than North American approaches so this makes sense. Furthermore, it is also coming from Oxford scholars who are a part of a very focused research university (UK schools also receive money from the government based on an assessment of research standards in which high degrees of specialization beneficial). Of the thousands of schools in the US probably only around 100 are schools that would want uber-specialized, primarily research driven scholars.
Comment by Randall
Made Thursday, 18 of June , 2009 at 9:03 am
Professor Halton,
This is challenging to those of us who are considering Ph.D studies in the near future. What schools/programs would you recommend? It seems most schools require you to specialize in your Ph.D work.
Comment by Charles Halton
Made Friday, 19 of June , 2009 at 9:24 am
Hi Randall, North American PhD programs at research institutions are a combination of a general education in the field(s) and more focused specialization. For a recommendation of some schools check out the Semitics & ANE programs list in the sidebar.
