Eagle Days: Life and Death for the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain

[Jukka Juutinen]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Are you suggesting that authors should have solid academic credentials in order to research and write? What is the point you are making with what I have put in bold above? Please enlighten me, and others...

No, I am not suggesting that because my favourite aircraft authors have either aircraft engineering or test pilot background. But I am suggesting that Ms. Taylor's academic credentials have something to do with aviation history in the deepest sense. Which is very different from e.g. what that coalminer-looking man in a recent British Dambusters TV documentary had; that guy's credentials were in cultural history with zero connections to Dambusters. He was obviously chosen for the same reason the doc did not name Gibson's dog.

[Nick Beale]

But I am suggesting that Ms. Taylor's academic credentials have something to do with aviation history in the deepest sense.

I'd be interested to hear your reactions to reading Dr. Taylor's thesis on the dams raid. My own impression, as I posted earlier, was that she was more interested in reviewing others' writings and angles they might not have looked at (historiography). What she seemed less concerned with was herself exploring said neglected areas and presenting her findings.

[Jukka Juutinen]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

I'd be interested to hear your reactions to reading Dr. Taylor's thesis on the dams raid. My own impression, as I posted earlier, was that she was more interested in reviewing others' writings and angles they might not have looked at (historiography). What she seemed less concerned with was herself exploring said neglected areas and presenting her findings.

I have not read it. But, one of the basic diktats of such a thesis is that the writer must sonehow show the reviewing opponents that he has read the previous research on the topic. Illogical or not, but a historian pursuing a degree will not likely get fullest score if previous research is not discussed. I have recently browsed a few such theses prepared by the students of the Finnish Military Academy and everyone of them has substantial chapters explaining previous publications on the topic and methology of the study at hand. The professors require that.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

No, I am not suggesting that because my favourite aircraft authors have either aircraft engineering or test pilot background. But I am suggesting that Ms. Taylor's academic credentials have something to do with aviation history in the deepest sense. Which is very different from e.g. what that coalminer-looking man in a recent British Dambusters TV documentary had; that guy's credentials were in cultural history with zero connections to Dambusters. He was obviously chosen for the same reason the doc did not name Gibson's dog.

What are you suggesting, then? You state 'academic credentials' - what is the point you are making with regard to academic credentials? That academic credentials elevate someone to the point of being a better writer than others who do not have academic credentials? Or that academic credentials are a prerequisite to write history.
Please explain further...

[Jukka Juutinen]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

What are you suggesting, then? You state 'academic credentials' - what is the point you are making with regard to academic credentials? That academic credentials elevate someone to the point of being a better writer than others who do not have academic credentials? Or that academic credentials are a prerequisite to write history.
Please explain further...

1. While academic credentials do not quarantee a good writer or good research, often it gives tools to deal with issues like source criticism and in general in scientific approach. That is especially true in the past when The academia was more merit-driven than politically-driven (=woke) .

2. Do the forumites have such a lousy memory here? Years ago a member by the nick "Rabe Anton" frequented here and he attacked with quite strong expressions any books not written by Ph.Ds while being very derogatory towards one's written by "amateurs". I do not remember anyone subjecting Rabe Anton to 3rd degree interrogation.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

I do not remember anyone subjecting Rabe Anton to 3rd degree interrogation.

Nor do I, and happily no one has done anything more than ask you to clarify what you meant. You’ve done that in your first paragraph and I think your point is reasonable. There are, of course, many professions where information is collected, competing viewpoints compared and potential sources of bias taken into account—all useful techniques for writing history. (One example might be Jonathan Sumption, a British Supreme Court judge who has written a five-volume history of the Hundred Years War).

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

1. While academic credentials do not quarantee a good writer or good research, often it gives tools to deal with issues like source criticism and in general in scientific approach. That is especially true in the past when The academia was more merit-driven than politically-driven (=woke) .

2. Do the forumites have such a lousy memory here? Years ago a member by the nick "Rabe Anton" frequented here and he attacked with quite strong expressions any books not written by Ph.Ds while being very derogatory towards one's written by "amateurs". I do not remember anyone subjecting Rabe Anton to 3rd degree interrogation.

Sorry for continuing to push you on the posts that you put up, but I have to question what I have highlighted in bold.
1) what are these tools that academics have to deal with issues like source criticism? Quite frankly, that's a load of bollocks. And I'll tell you why with one prime example. One does not need to be an academic to know/realise that the Luftwaffe GQM returns are riddled with errors.
2) What is this 'scientific approach of which you talk?

[edwest2]

In the interest of further clarity, a few thoughts. People with and without academic credentials/degrees have produced good history books. Period.

I have seen too much evidence online of quick, sloppy work being posted with the intent of contributing something. It doesn't. It's just some bored or somewhat interested person who has no idea of how much work is involved when doing actual research. There are no shortcuts. There never will be.

The methods of doing research properly and turning that work into a written book can never change.

[FalkeEins]

Exactly. By the same token people get PhDs for doing not nearly half as much as some of the 'old hands' here (sorry John!) have over the years in their spare time.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by FalkeEins

Exactly. By the same token people get PhDs for doing not nearly half as much as some of the 'old hands' here (sorry John!) have over the years in their spare time.

Oh I'm an 'old hand', no doubt about that!