It's an interesting and complex question, to which at first I had no  
reply.  But reading these responses makes me think about bigger issues  
relating to what is valued in our discipline.

I think especially about David's mention of history of medicine and  
"bread-and-butter" courses.  (I know he wasn't saying necessarily that  
Hist of M was bread and butter, but it makes me think about the rise  
and fall of "sexy" fields of interest.)

In my (still relatively brief) career, I began doing history of  
alcohol, moved into history of drugs, realized there was a connection  
with history of medicine, mostly all out of my own interests, and then  
found to my surprise and happiness, that the history of medicine was  
an ascending field.  In Canada we had at the time a strong funder for  
history of medicine projects and chairs, so that helped quite a bit.

Now, history of medicine is interesting.  It is not geographically  
distinct, it incorporates economics, politics, social, cultural and  
technological histories (as well, I'm sure, as others).  So it has  
connections.

But, you observe, so does history of alcohol (and drugs).  What is the  
difference?  Well, on the surface, I see no large, wealthy "alcohol  
(or drug) profession" while there is a big and wealthy medical  
profession.  Why does this matter?  As my friend and mentor Jackie  
Duffin notes, "old docs" like to do their own histories.  So while you  
may disparage "non-historians" histories, they do build interest in  
what we do.  There is both an amateur and a professional interest in  
this field.

On the other side, who likes to learn about the history of alcohol?   
Well, the students think it's cool, and it takes some effort to inject  
some scholarly levity into discussions of binge drinking and puking in  
a university class.  So we, as you all know, have an image problem.

Nevertheless, there are some good intersections with health, an  
ascendant field of inquiry, which means we can usually tap into that  
audience for interest.  And in this time of budget cuts and justifying  
everything we do, being able to show broader relevance and a broader  
audience can be helpful.

Of course, for me this is all "in theory."  I carved out my current  
position by offering history of medicine courses to a department of  
Community Health Sciences.  After establishing the position, I  
proposed and had accepted a history of alcohol, drugs and addiction  
course, which had a whopping five students subscribed and not enough  
actually to run the course (it was a spring term evening course, so  
that may have further damned it).

So my suggestion?  Well, I concur with David Courtwright: emphasize  
the interconnections with other fields and your ability to teach in  
them.  But beyond that, building a critical mass of interested  
colleagues and potential students can also be helpful.  Offering  
yourself as a guest lecturer in your colleagues' (or potential  
colleague') courses, to connect the richness of alcohol or drug  
histories to their field can get their attention.  And they get a day  
off from lecturing, which is usually appealing.

Oh, and get published.

Dan

Dan Malleck
Department of Community Health Sciences
Brock University

Quoting "Courtwright, David" <[log in to unmask]>:

> Michael:
>
> I agree with Ernie. The history of illicit drugs and drug addiction   
> is as suspect than the history of alcohol and alcoholism. Probably   
> more so. Yet I can't say that my research in the field has been a   
> career handicap. There's a large difference between research and   
> teaching. Publishers and funding sources are interested in the   
> addiction area because it touches a policy nerve. Academic   
> departments aren't much interested, at least not in the way they're   
> interested in minority studies. But that shouldn't matter if you can  
>  offer their bread-and-butter courses. (I've spent most of my time   
> teaching history of medicine, legal history, and American history   
> period courses.) Perhaps it works differently in English   
> departments, which tend to be highly politicized, but historians and  
>  social scientists seem less concerned with the research specialties  
>  of new hires than their ability to plug conspicuous holes in the   
> curriculum. I say this as someone who has taken part in perhaps   
> twenty assistant professor searches over thirty years.
>
> David T. Courtwright
> University of North Florida
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Alcohol and Drugs History Society on behalf of Ernest Kurtz
> Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 4:36 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: literary drinking
>
>
> Michael,
>
> I admire your courage, but in my professional career, I have   
> consistently found alcohol studies to be as stigmatized as   
> alcoholism itself.  And the same is true of addiction studies.  But   
> some truly great people have made and continue to make real   
> contributions:   Robin Room comes to mind, as does George Vaillant,   
> but quite a few others on this list also qualify.  My main   
> suggestion is to maintain your ambiguity -- some people will listen   
> to you or read you just to figure out whether or not you are one of   
> "them."  And once you've got them listening, if you are a good   
> teacher, you can teach. The main thing in job-hunting, I believe, is  
>  convincing people that you a truly good teacher.
>
> ernie kurtz
> ----
> Ernest Kurtz, Ph.D. (Harvard 1978)
> Adjunct Assistant Research Scientist (than which rank there is no lower)
> The University of Michigan School of Medicine
>
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Michael Carolan wrote:
>
>
>
> 	As a new member of the forum (and, believe it or not, a former   
> student of Professor Wedge's), I appreciate all the recommendations   
> of creative work in here. I wanted to share what a veteran professor  
>  had to say about the field in a professional recommendation he  
> wrote  for me recently after I developed addiction studies courses  
> at UMass:
>
> 	"Addiction is an area of study not unlike African American studies   
> or Native American studies, and possibly all the more relevant not   
> least because it not yet an established area of study."
>
> 	As I enter the severely shrunken academic job market, I am left   
> wondering why all I see are openings for minority, third world, gay   
> and lesbian studies but none for alcohol, mental illness, and/or   
> addiction? Am I missing something?
>
> 	With deep respect,
> 	Michael Carolan
> 	University of Massachusetts-Amherst
>
>