We caught up with Modern American History’s new editors, Sarah and Darren, about what makes a good article & feature and what they’re most looking forward to.

What do you think defines a good research article?

Darren: I’ll echo Sarah’s praise for Sarah Phillips and Brooke Blower. In just a few years MAH has really become a fixture in the field of American history, and we’re going to do our best to continue that legacy, to continue building on the solid foundation that Sarah and Brooke ensured for the journal. And part of that is going to be promoting good research—to making available the opportunity for scholars who have dug into the archives and primary sources, and thought creatively and methodically about how the particularities of their subject open up new understandings of 20^th century U.S. history writ large, to make their findings known.

So, what makes a good research article in Modern American History?

The bottom line? A good MAH article will demonstrate rigor and boldness—evidence of close examination of a rich primary source base, sharp analysis, and conclusions that challenge big-picture understandings of modern U.S. history.

Other than that? Here repeating the point above, I would say that “altitude” matters. We will look for articles in which historians seek to tackle big questions of significance that draw on findings from deep research—the nitty gritty work at 10,000 feet to help us recast larger, bigger narratives about the modern U.S.—American society at 30,000 feet, if you will. How does one’s findings about urban politics in a particular place shed fresh light on law-and-order politics, or the fortunes of liberalism on a national scale? Why should scholars take seriously the labor of a particular religious or human rights organization when trying to make better sense of U.S. diplomacy on a global stage? Moving from the specific to the general, from specialized expertise to bold assertions for a general reader are dynamics we will expect in any article we publish in MAH. On a practical level, that means we will encourage our authors to harness their expertise in their particular subfields to speak to fellow specialists, but also to stretch themselves to think about what their findings mean for all historians of the modern U.S. Finally, I would say “approachability” is yet another essential characteristic of a good MAH research article. When all is said and done, what we really want to see is good writing—prose that sparkles with sophisticated analysis, smart theorization, and rigorous research, but also with a liveliness that will engage general readers of all levels, including (perhaps especially) undergraduate and graduate students, an important constituency of the journal.

What makes and engaging feature?

Sarah: I think that one of the things we’re really hoping that a features piece in Modern American History will accomplish, is that it will force readers to reframe the way we think about a particular topic. Whether it’s a comparison of the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan and U.S intervention in Vietnam; the place of immigration history in our writings about different wars; or the ways in which we can and should reimagine how “infrastructure” shapes modern U.S history: we want to publish pieces that are written from a strong point of view, offer compelling cases for why and how neglected issues or facets of history need to be revisited, and that test the ways (and encourage new ones) of how we research, write, and teach. On the latter point—we think that the “below-the-fold” part of the journal, and all of its various think pieces and interviews, hold great pedagogical potential as materials that can be applied and discussed in the classroom. And we really want the journal to be something that’s taught, not just read by professionals focused on the research dynamics of the field. I think that our most effective features pieces do exactly that: blend scholarship with pedagogy in a digestible dose. Here I would echo what Darren said when he used the term “approachability.” I would say “accessibility” is our goal as well: we want Modern American History to be read widely, read urgently, so that it sticks in people’s minds and inspires them to keep pondering U.S. history, in all its many dimensions, in a new light. For those considering submitting to the journal, I’ll say, engaging prose is the key to generating that kind of impact.

What are you most looking forward to about working on Modern American History?

Sarah: I’m most excited about the opportunity to work with young authors—PhD students, postdoctoral fellows, and early career researchers who have important things to say about the field of Modern American History, and whose work is going to change the way we think about the modern U.S. I’m looking forward to helping them refine their ideas and strengthen their prose, so that they can communicate as effectively as possible with our readership. The other thing I’m enthusiastic about is the chance to shape important conversations within the field of modern U.S. history. For example, in a forthcoming issue, Darren and I are putting together a special forum on “rights,” which asks a handful of scholars, drawn from a range of specializations (from legal to religious history, for instance), to show how particular rights have evolved over the course of modern U.S. history, leaving us to ponder their different standing in the contemporary moment, and perhaps the degree to which they are being challenged, reconstituted, or brought under threat.

Darren: I would agree with Sarah wholeheartedly; this is why I think we’re going to make a good team as co-editors of Modern American History. Working with early-career scholars is one of the facets of the editorship that excites me most; I look forward to helping them shape their prose and analysis, and in exchange, to learning so much from their innovative approaches to American history. Something else that I’m looking forward to helping along is the journal’s outreach to those reading and teaching American history outside the U.S. So much of the energy witnessed recently in the study of modern U.S. history has been generated by the field that Sarah works in: the history of American diplomacy and the U.S. in the wold. Looking with fresh eyes at American global engagement in the modern era has forced all historians to revisit their understandings of U.S. political history, civil rights history, human rights history, even religious history (to name just a few areas), all because of the global purview demanded of those writing in Sarah’s field. At MAH we want to continue to encourage that same kind of global purview, in no small part by investing in scholars who work abroad, who are bringing their “outsider” perspectives on the U.S. to bear on the way we all research write and teach modern American history.

Any final thoughts?

To close, we are just so excited about this opportunity, and we really want all of you to be a part of it—so we encourage you to submit your ideas for features and research articles. We look forward to working with you, and to continuing the enormous success that the journal has already enjoyed these past six years.

Check out the full interview now on YouTube or read part 1 on the Cambridge Core Blog.