New review essay on regional history and the “Archival Turn” in the history of Imperial Russia

I’m delighted to be able to finally tell everyone about the review essay I wrote for the journal Kritika. I reviewed three new works of regional history, but more importantly, the review serves as an announcement of regional history as an important subfield and emerging central focus, I hope, of research on Imperial Russia. It also makes the argument that the opening of Soviet archives in the 80s and 90s has enriched Imperial Russian history as much as Soviet, though this has not been acknowledged in the same way. I introduce the term “archival turn” and describe how it has transformed the field. If I do say so myself, I think every specialist on the imperial period should read it.

Here’s the link to the article on ProjectMuse

The issue Table of Contents on Kritika’s website.

Posted in Research, Russia | Leave a comment

STEM versus the humanities (aka Information Analysis)

Chart of a "Complex Adaptive System"

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. Because we all love a good chart.

Yes – I’m going to go there. Buckle up, and God help me.

As happens on Twitter, a one-off grumpy tweet I didn’t think anything of — saying things I and many others have said many times — went mini-viral and elicited all the usual replies. Yawn. Twitter is just not the venue for this. So here I am breaking out the long-moribund blog space to say something that takes more than 240 characters. These are the words I’m thinking when I tweet a grumpy one-off about STEM and can’t be arsed to be polite about the predictable replies. Now I can just link to this every damn time it comes up again (as it does, with the literally almost weekly op-eds by science profs who think they not only understand everything about history from reading one or two books but who also grace us with their magic solutions in the form of best-selling, money-making books, while actually qualified historians don’t make any money and therefore must be Doing It Wrong, because as “we” “know” making money is incontrovertible evidence of being right.


Wait, no we’re not ready to start yet. We need another introductory caveat. My tone. Yes, my tone here is a bit on the hostile side. For good reason. But like all hostility, it’s rooted in fear: specifically, the fear that we’re all gonna die because people are so fucking afraid of new information. This is indeed intense and personal for me, because my whole life is defined by actually liking new information and trying to help others appreciate it too, even if they can’t quite like it. Maybe STEM types can find common ground with me there? I would think it’s something we have very much in common. But to get there you’re going to have to get over my tone. And if you’re a white, cis man and you comment about my tone, there’s going to be further words, and they’re going to be very hostile words. And I’m good with words. So just go in with your eyes open and maybe think harder before speaking, as a good guide to behavior generally.

So. Now we can start.

Wait, no. I’m female. And I’m saying things that may threaten your sense of being the smartest person in the room, which for some readers may be closely entwined with masculinity and your sense of self. This may trigger feelings. Please process these privately. I exist as a female, and I communicate freely on my own blog as I am currently legally allowed to do, independently of you. My existence or the things I choose to say are not aimed AT YOU, even when I seem to be literally addressing you. Naturally what follows does not apply to all STEM professionals. Literally no statement ever actually applies to all things unless….oooh…we’re getting to it…unless the statement is a purely empirical one about the physical world. That’s an area, a small part of the rich universe of human consciousness, where it is possible to be that precise. It may be the area where you (some of you) feel most comfortable. This is not that area. This blog post is an area of rhetoric, which abides by rules of logic and evidence, but is still not, cannot ever be, held to the same absolutism of, say, simple numbers. This is nonetheless a part of human existence that is real and has meaning. If that makes you uncomfortable, again, that’s not something I’m doing to you, it’s an aspect of how you relate to the world. Whatever discomfort, including existential threats, my words may in some cases arouse, those are things the person feeling them needs to process internally and do not in fact have anything to do with me.

Now we can begin.

Yeah, yeah, nobody knows stuff outside their field, everybody misunderstands everybody, blah blah. Those are obvious truisms, and logical givens, and sure, it goes all ways. The problem with this conversation is one side of it isn’t getting past that obvious bit, while the other side inhabits, by definition, a region well beyond, and well all exist in a society treats the former as geniuses and the latter as useless idiots.

Yeah, yeah, we know there’s science denialism. Some people hate you, too. It’s really bad. It threatens us all. We (information analysts) could even maybe help you (STEM professionals) with that if you knew we existed or had the faintest inkling what we do, let alone respect for the fact that we may have thought of things beyond your ken. That anything actually exists beyond your ken, science-man. (Go ahead and pause to look up “ken” if you need to. Some do, some don’t. Not all men, not all STEM, yadda yadda.  Whatever. Please note that dictionary definitions are NOT what we do. That’s what kids do in school. You’re supposed to learn words and word usages mainly by reading, though. None of that constitutes any of the humanities as a discipline, that’s just being a person.)

So, there are lots of smart and well-educated people in the world whose jobs are to solve problems. We roughly lump these people into two very broad categories, those with evidence/applications in the physical world and those with evidence/applications that are entirely, definitionally abstract information rather than at least theoretically involving physical matter. The world respects STEM vastly more than the information sciences, and has a clearer basic sense of what STEM is–while mostly able to comfortably admit to a total ignorance of the details–because they see the results of that kind of problem-solving improving their lives every day, EVEN WHILE many people deny the parts of STEM that they don’t like or are scared of, because people are nutty like that.

Meanwhile, the half of problem-solvers working in the information realm work entirely in the abstract. There’s no bridges or medications or machines coming out of our work. What we produce is insight and new knowledge. This is not to say STEM doesn’t produce insight and new knowledge, but that STEM insights and new knowledge often, not exclusively, but often enough to impact society, have physical manifestations as information analysis disciplines do not, ever.

The insight and new knowledge that information analysis fields produce don’t have physical manifestations that are easy for literally anyone to grasp even without needing to know any of the substance behind those manifestations. The insights and knowledge we produce are always, every bit of it, inherently an affront and a deep existential challenge to everything everyone believes. That’s the entire point of what we do: to challenge what everyone believes and find out where we’re wrong. People don’t like that. You don’t like that. That discomfort shapes everything about how our society–including you, including us, including everybody. People don’t just fail to grok the substance of our fields. They actively, belligerently, choose to not recognize that we ARE a discipline, have meaning in any way, or could ever be right about anything unless they already got to that insight first.

Yes, again, I know, science denial is a thing. A very horrifically serious thing. I wonder who could help with that giant, intractable problem? Maybe the people whose entire discipline is about understanding understanding itself? How and why people willfully misunderstand new information that challenges their beliefs? Think this could be useful?

First you’d have to recognize that it exists. That the conventional wisdom you’ve lived with, that gets reinforced by our whole society, is wrong. That the conventional wisdom that may have become very personal and visceral for you when you, a very smart person who did well in school and for whom knowledge and problem solving is a core part of your identity, when you first encountered things you didn’t understand and maybe even couldn’t understand, to which you may have reacted the same way all humans react to that deeply uncomfortable situation, by rejecting and rationalizing the thing you didn’t understand, is all wrong.

To move past that, you’d have to really take on board some intellectual humility. You’d have to question some of the most pervasive, yet idiotically wrong, conventional wisdom of our culture. That’s not something you can look up, or grasp in a moment of clarity. It takes some work, and not a kind of work you’re accustomed to doing, even though you’re an incredibly hard and effective intellectual worker.

As a humanist I don’t have to understand beyond the most basic definitional principles of any STEM field to get that climate change is real (thank God – I don’t want to and I fear that I’m not capable of it – I probably am not in fact capable). I can trust the basic understanding of the principles of science I do have, that are not personally threatening to me, to know that when all scientists agree, it’s in my best interests to follow along. I can also use my very basic understanding of calculation, proportion, probability, and the scientific method to eyeball a science news report or the abstract of a review article and sniff out a rat enough to ask more questions when I need to. God knows most people can’t even do that much – that’s the problem we all need to be working on – but as a very highly trained humanist, I can and do do that much. I think that that’s enough for any non-scientist; I only wish we could get all the non-scientists up to that point. (I wish that so much that I wrote a book trying to help – I’ll even give you a free copy solely for the purpose of hunting through it to try to catch me out on anything – go ahead, DM me for it.)

Here’s the question I’m posing to you: do you have a comparable, MINIMAL, understanding of the information analysis fields? Do you know their most basic assumptions and methods? Can you accurately sniff out a rat when you’re reading results of general interest to the public? Do you have sufficient respect for these disciplines as knowledge disciplines to trust when literally all of us who are professionals all say the same thing? (For example, when we all say the mutual misunderstandings between STEM and info analysis are not, in fact, balanced or equal and yes, you’re missing something?) I’m here to tell you that you don’t. You really don’t. (Here “I” is basically everyone in these fields, just as basically everyone in your fields agrees climate change is real.) You keep protesting that you do, but every word of your protest is evidence – hard, empirical evidence (of the information kind, not the physical kind, but empirical nonetheless, and equally requiring trained methodology to accurately read and make meaning from) – that you don’t actually understand. (Here’s my book defining history, for those interested. Can’t offer this one for free, sorry.)

That’s neither surprising nor something to feel ashamed of. I mean, literally no one really gets it who isn’t actually working in or especially personally interested in information analysis on some level. And most of us come to it because our brains happen to be wired that way (yeah, I know “wiring” is not actually how brains work – it’s called a metaphor, metaphors have meaning and purpose, rhetoric is a thing and humans need it to communicate whether that’s something you’re comfortable with or not)…anyway our brains happen to be wired to grok the fundamental assumptions of information analysis intuitively, so we break through all those cultural barriers sort of by accident, though it still takes a lot of training to get from there to doing anything in this field well, and of course, as in any field, not everyone is doing everything well all the time.

If information analysis disciplines are so widely misunderstood, you might well say, haven’t all of us in these disciplines badly failed to teach what it is we do? Good point! We absolutely have. Much as science has made some communications errors along the way (leading to frankly horrifying public misunderstandings). But, in the exact same way that that’s not entirely your fault, the total misunderstanding of information analysis on any level is also not entirely our fault: both kinds of understanding are difficult to disseminate for a reason. The terrifying findings of climate science meet resistance because humans are driven by fear. Similarly, everything – actually everything – information analysis fields do triggers fears in humans. We can’t build bridges and make life-saving medicines to earn that respect and gratitude you (rightfully!) get that makes people treat you like a genius. Unless you happen to tell them about climate change and then they suddenly turn on you, some of them, don’t they? You know what I’m talking about? So, we in the information analysis fields get that all the time. That’s ALL WE GET. None of the genius love here. That’s because everything we do, even when it actually is just as important and life-on-this-planet-saving as climate science, is scary to basically everyone.

What could we possibly do that’s as important and life-on-this-planet-saving as climate science, you ask? How about teaching people how to get beyond their fear to grasp just enough about science to save the planet before it’s too late? Yeah, that’s in our wheelhouse. Also, this global fascism thing going on around us, burning down what just a decade ago still looked like pretty functional and well-developed societies? Yeah, that’s our area too. We (collectively) understand it, predicted it, saw the evidence a mile away, are still tracking the evidence, and see how absolutely dire the current trajectory looks, just as you do, looking at the physical condition of our planet right now.

Okay, so why are we failing so badly, if our job is to get people past their fears to understand how to process information and make meaning from it in the most basic ways? I’m going to ask you to try to grasp something really big here, really foreign, really contradictory to everything our culture reinforces. Something that may be very personally scary to you. I’m going to ask you to believe that this most fundamental task of the information analysis realm of knowledge-building is MORE DIFFICULT than anything in STEM. Not only is everything about it abstract, without any physical evidence to go on or any possibility of direct experiment or observation in “laboratory” conditions, but everything about it is as terrifying to everyone (us included!) as climate science is to everyone.

I have to stop here because this needs to sink in. It’s so incredibly long overdue and difficult to even get this far. But this isn’t even step one to getting where we need society to be, as we are literally destroying ourselves in a process we call information revolution.  It’s that hard to even begin to recognize the existence of information analysis as a legitimate area of knowledge-building IN AN INFORMATION REVOLUTION. This is all just the introduction to step one. But I can only hope these words can help even one person to start processing some of what, collectively, the information analysis knowledge workers know is as vital to survival as halting the rise in global temperatures.

If I can personally beg you to please just stop commenting on “the humanities” at all for, say, a year, and instead try sincerely to begin learning just a little of the fundamentals–just as much as I know about STEM, which as clearly stipulated above is VERY basic stuff any human should know–before you comment again. Just take it in. You’re not going to be graded and no one is watching you and thinking you’re dumb (avoiding commenting on disciplines outside your discipline on Twitter is a great way to avoid looking dumb). Just give it a chance.  For all of us.

Posted in History, Profession | Tagged , , | Leave a comment


I had the great fun of being interviewed for a podcast – twice! – recently: You can catch the episode of Flash Forward I’m on, follow the podcast on Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook, and subscribe via all the usual podcast apps. Flash Forward is a really fun podcast that explores future scenarios, some serious, some silly, all based on real expertise about the possibilities grounding fun imaginative exploration. My episode is about celebrity cities – wealthy celebrities building ideal cities in their own image. I talked about St. Petersburg as a past example of just such a phenomenon.

I was also delighted to talk about my first book, An Ordinary Marriage, on the new podcast Past Loves, which explores romantic relationships in the past – a bit like the classic book Parallel Lives but able to explore so many more diverse people and marriages! I talked of course about the Chikhachev marriage, the relationship at the center of my book. You can listen to that episode, read the transcript of my interview, and follow the podcast on Instagram as well as subscribing via your favorite podcast app!

Posted in History, Russia | Tagged | Leave a comment

A Guest Post on The Professor Is In

Work Will Not Save You – COVID19 Guest Post

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

First reviews of The Essential Guide to Writing History are out!

Thanks to Contingent Magazine, an excellent general-interest history magazine written largely by contingent scholars, for the first reviews of my book about writing history essays for students:

Review by a recent history grad

Review by a history professor

Posted in EGWHE, History, Teaching, Writing | Leave a comment

The Essential Guide

Here’s a lovely writeup about my new Essential Guide to Writing History Essays from the CUNY SUM project:

Posted in Writing | Leave a comment

8 Reasons to Choose The Essential Guide to Writing History Essays

1. There’s a chapter for every common genre of history essay, including response papers, exam essays (short answer IDs and long analytical essays), primary source essays, historiography and imaginative essays + research and thesis-type long research papers.

2. It’s not the usual list of do’s & don’ts, as if the only reason students aren’t writing clearly is that no one told them to “be clear.” I use my training in composition studies to teach what clarity is & how to revise toward it, as well as all the other writing choices.

3. It covers research tools and methods and of course plagiarism, but instead of rules & links that go quickly out of date, it explains WHY citation practices are they way they are, how finding aids work, and how to navigate the constant changes.

4. It’s about reading as much as it’s about writing.


5. It contains all the quick-reference basics you need alongside theory and vocabulary of how history works, how historians think–and how all of that integrates into communicating clearly and convincingly in writing.

6. The book teaches writing as a practice of thinking and communicating critically. This goal, made more specific for each essay, drives all writing choices. I provide students with a rich toolbox to make their own choices to meet their goals & find their own voice.

7. There is also a companion website for instructors w/ FAQ, skeleton syllabi, exercises & rubrics. Instructors should not be reinventing the wheel w/ every course, especially not TAs & adjuncts who currently shoulder the bulk of this burden.

8. History is as much a writing field as literature, yet we too often can’t fit writing into already packed courses &/or lack the training to do so well, while we bemoan student writing skills. I wrote this book because I needed it & nothing like it existed yet. Now it does.

More info here.

Posted in EGWHE, History, Teaching, Writing | Leave a comment

Essential Guide to Writing History Essays – Availability Questions

UPDATE!! The books are now going out smoothly again. Apologies for any hassle you may have encountered!

I understand that copies of The Essential Guide are being held up right now by the press and people calling about their course adoptions are being told alarming things about “a major printing error” and books being held up “indefinitely.” Don’t panic! My editor tells me books will go out again in a day or two.

The “error” is confusion over the URL for the companion website for instructors (containing sample syllabi, exercises, rubrics, etc). The correct URL is printed in the book in the “Note to Instructors.” OUP also requires it on a separate page, however, which was omitted by a printer’s oversight. If you already have the book, there’s nothing serious wrong with it. If you need your copy soon, I am assured they will soon be on their way.

The companion website is here:

Posted in EGWHE, Writing | Leave a comment

The Essential Guide to Writing History Essays is PUBLISHED!

I can’t tell you how delighted I am to finally be able to say that this book I have been working on in various ways since 2000 is finally a reality! The Essential Guide to Writing History Essays is now available from all the usual book distributors that go in for this kind of book (Amazon, Barnes and Noble – feel free to order it from your local indie book store or ask your library to purchase it!) and from the publisher, in expensive hardcover (for libraries) as well as reasonably-priced-as-possible in paperback and ebook versions.

Instructors can request a free review copy from Oxford University Press.

There is also an accompanying website for instructors with skeleton syllabi, exercises, rubrics, a FAQ and more at The link to this site in the ebook is broken but in the process of being fixed soon!

Errata: there’s also a significant formatting error in the examples in section 9.15 – I will soon post a corrected version for printing and inserting into the book if you already have a copy, and it will be corrected in re-prints.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Essential Guide is available for pre-order on Amazon!

This might actually finally be real: get in line now for your copy of The Essential Guide to Writing History Essays on Amazon!

Posted in Writing | Leave a comment

The Writing Book is Finally in Production!

And there’s a cover! The book is in production and we’re hoping it will be out in time to be browsed at AHA 2020 in NYC (where you should also come find me at my roundtable on teaching writing in the history classroom, with Jennifer Foray, Catherine Denial, Kevin Gannon, and Carolyn Levy!). That means it should also hopefully be out in time for course adoption in 2020. If you want to check it out before the official review copies are ready, drop me a line!

More details here

Like the book on Facebook for updates!

Or follow #EGWHE on Twitter (or me: @kpanyc)

Posted in Profession, Research, Teaching, Writing | Leave a comment

Off to Russia again!

I’m delighted to say I’ve been awarded funding to complete the research for my second monograph, so I’ll soon be off to St. Petersburg for six months of intensive archive work. So happy to finally be moving forward on this project I’m very excited about!

Posted in Research, Russia | Leave a comment

What I’m Reading

Hey look – that’s me:

History News Network: What I’m Reading, An Interview with Russianist Historian Katherine Antonova

Posted in GradSchool, History, Profession, Random, Research, Russia, Teaching, Writing | Leave a comment

List to this podcast

Listen to my husband talk about his book, Bankrupts and Usurers of Imperial Russia: Debt, Property, and the Law in the Age of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy on the podcast from Sean’s Russia Blog. 

Posted in History, Russia | Leave a comment

My dad is running for the New Hampshire House!

I’m very proud and excited to announce that my dad is running for the New Hampshire House! This is not only his first time running for any office, but I’m pretty sure it’s the first time he ever imagined doing such a thing. But we all need to do our part to make a difference! If you or someone you know lives in the Hillsborough 3 district in New Hampshire, please consider voting for him!

Update: Readers, he won!

Posted in Random, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Writing Book Is Done!

Public domain image from Wikimedia Commons. Carl von Bergen. Illustrierter Katalog der Münchener Jahresausstellung von Kunstwerken Aller Nationen im kgl. Glaspalaste 1891, 3. Auflage, ausgegeben am 24. Juli, München 1891 (Digitalisat der BSB)[/caption]


After 18 years and 136,771 words, I’m delighted to say I finally finished the book on writing for the history classroom that I’ve been gradually putting together since my days as a grad student TA doing emergency writing workshops.

However, due to various publishing delays it doesn’t look like it’ll be out in time for course adoption next academic year, at least not fall semester. Faculty who would like an advanced look before review copies are available can email me, or check out the twitter hashtag #SGWH (based on the old title, which is still subject to change!) for excerpts. In addition, please read (and pass around!) this 1-page PDF summary of the book: Antonova-EGWH-summary. And here’s the full table of contents (PDF): Antonova-EGWH-TOC

Posted in History, Teaching, Writing | Tagged | Leave a comment

Chikhachev family photos

Check out this blog post about the Chikhachevs and their village, Dorozhaevo! It’s full of amazing photos of the house and property today and also some historical family photos. As far as I can tell, the family photos all date from after 1900, and are probably mostly from the 1910s. The elegant gentleman with the small chin and pointy beard is Kostya, Konstantin Alekseevich Chikhachev, the grandson of the Natalia and Andrei who are the main subjects of my book. Kostya’s daughter Elena (who reportedly helped turn the house into a school after the Revolution and taught there until her marriage) is also easy to spot – she’s the one in the portrait with a dog on her lap, and she’s tall with blond hair. She was in her 20s in the 1910s. The interior photo of four people on a sofa with flowered wallpaper behind them is a bit of a mystery – the older man is probably Kostya, born in 1854 (d. 1918) and the older lady next to him may be his wife, Olga. Of the younger men in these photos, one may be Kostia’s son Aleksandr, who would have been in his 30s and likely married, such that one of the women pictured may be his wife, and Anatolii, just two years older than Elena.

Chikhachev family photo, probably 1910s.

What I am most struck by, though, are the daguerrotype portraits of a man and woman on the wall in the background of the interior photo. Andrei and Natalia had daguerrotype portraits of themselves done in 1842. Though it’s difficult to discern any details, the man in the daguerrotype seems to have sideburns but no moustache and no spectacles, which Andrei described himself as having at that time. There’s no way to be certain – unless of course the originals turn up somewhere someday! Andrei and Natalia also had a family portrait painted by a local artist, Ivan Ilich Orekhov, in 1831, that I also hope might surface someday, especially once the book appears in Russian, and I’m happy to say the translation is well underway now!
Posted in History | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Op-Ed in the Washington Post on the humanities and the history of higher education

Please read and share!

Posted in History, Profession, Teaching | Leave a comment

About Those Who “Abhor Violence” in People Protesting Fascism

Here’s a tweetstorm and the more easily read and shared version on Storify for those who don’t do Twitter. Warning! Strong language in this one.

Posted in History | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Fighting Misinformation Online

Here’s the original Tweetstorm and for those who don’t Twitter, you can read it easily on Storify.


Here’s a handy meme to use on your social media:

Misinformation Alert

Posted in History, Profession | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Monuments are Not History (Read a Book!)

This was posted as a tweetstorm – if you don’t Twitter, you can read it easily on Storify.

Posted in History, Profession | Tagged | Leave a comment

Thoughts on Charlottesville

Bill Anstruther-Gray's letter to the editor of the Times of London on July 7, 1934, about the Olympia rally.

Bill Anstruther-Gray’s letter to the editor of the Times of London on June 7, 1934, about the Olympia rally.

On Twitter and Storify.

UPDATE! Now on the Washington Post! Their new “Made By History” column is fantastic, by the way, and I recommend becoming a regular reader of it. If you have a .edu email address, you can get an online subscription for free (google it for instructions on how to do that).

Interesting historical tidbits I couldn’t fit into the column: Unity and Diana Mitford were both fascists – Diana married Oswald Mosley 2 years after the letter I quoted, and though they were both in prison in Britain during the war, they lived long after and remained unrepentant. Unity ended up becoming a close confidant of Hitler, but shot herself in the head when war broke out between Britain and Germany. She lived for a few years, but lost her faculties. Their other sister, Jessica, was a Communist. In 1936 she eloped with Esmond Romilly and they ran away to Spain, then later to the US. Romilly was one of the Communists who went to the Olympia rally to protest it.

Posted in History, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Op-Ed on the Huffington Post

I’m really delighted to announce that my Twitter threadzilla on conservatism from a couple weeks ago has been transformed into an op-ed on the Huffington Post. It’s now polished up, beautifully edited by HuffPo, and ready to share easily! Please do so!

Posted in History | Tagged | 5 Comments

Your reading for today

Every once in a while you come across one of those things that makes you see the world more clearly, and it becomes part of you from that moment on. I had that experience recently when I read this beautiful essay by Frances Flanagan. Make yourself a nice beverage, sit down, and savor it.

I was privileged to be introduced to this amazing piece by Kate Fullagar, another historian and fantastic writer, who connected Flanagan’s piece with a tweetstorm of mine about higher education. She makes the case for the connection between the two here.

I’m working now to re-write the tweetstorm into something more polished, and will let you know where to find that when the time comes. UPDATE: a portion of the original tweetstorm is now on the Washington Post!

Posted in History, Profession | Tagged , | 1 Comment

What is a Russianist?

I tweeted a long thread today on what Russianist training looks like and the various levels of Russia “specialists.” It’s storified here.

Posted in Profession, Russia | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Paperback edition of _An Ordinary Marriage_ is out!


I’m very excited to announce that my first book, An Ordinary Marriage: The World of a Gentry Family in Provincial Russia (Oxford University Press, 2013) is now available in paperback!

OUP has regular seasonal sales you might look out for. It’s also available from all the usual sellers, including Amazon.

Posted in History, Russia | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Previews of a Student’s Guide to Writing History

I’ve only recently submitted the full manuscript of my upcoming book on writing for students taking history courses. It won’t appear until 2018, but in the meantime I’ll be occasionally tweeting short excerpts. Find them with the hashtag #SGWH and follow me on Twitter: @kpanyc.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Past and Future of Higher Education

I indulged in a Sunday afternoon tweet storm of massive proportions today. You can read it all here.

Posted in History, Profession, Research, Teaching | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Humans of the Academy

I’m very pleased to announce that I’ve been involved with some friends in launching a new website called Humans of the Academy. This site offers regular profiles of ordinary humans who work throughout the academy. Its purpose is to show who we really are, what we do, and why we do it. Too often the public hears only media stereotypes or assumes that the person behind the lectern (or the grade) is all there is to us. Please take a little time to get to know some real academics.

You can follow posts through all the major social media platforms:

Twitter: @AcademicHumans

If you’re an academic yourself, please contribute your own profile! It’s easy and quick! Anyone who self-identifies as an academic – current, former, or aspiring – is invited to contribute. Just click here to fill out the form!

The site is still in beta now – we hope to gather more submissions over the summer and do a bigger, more formal launch in the fall.

Pass it on!

Any questions can be directed to academichumans at gmail dot com

Posted in GradSchool, Profession, Research, Teaching | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Chikhachev estate could be yours

The provincial estate, Dorozhaevo, at the center of my first monograph, An Ordinary Marriage: The World of a Gentry Family in Provincial Russia, is now up for sale. Amazing photographs of it available here, too. Compare this with the images and maps here on my site.

Posted in Research, Russia | Tagged , | Leave a comment