Why I'm Running a Half-Marathon: Cancer Sucks!

On Sunday, October 9, 2016, I'm running my first half marathon. Why?

Cancer sucks and we need to support those who are working hard to find a cure.

How I Became a Runner

If we've met, it may surprise you that I run. Frankly, it surprises me.

I've never liked running. Yet, I started to run in March 2016 as between travel and schedule changes at my yoga studio, I needed an activity that would focus and quiet my ever chatty brain.

At first, running was tough. I wasn't out of shape, but I wasn't in running shape. I'd tire after a mile or mile and a half, but I kept at it and my endurance increased. By May, my short run had lengthened to 5 or 6 miles. Today it is 7-7.5 miles.

I'm not fast, but I don't need to set a world record to enjoy the quieting effect running has on my brain.

In April, I told a good friend that I was running and how I had come to enjoy it. She responded that it would be only a matter of time before I signed up for a marathon. I told her she was crazy. Then in July, I saw the sign-up for the Boston Athletic Association Half Marathon and felt a strong urge to do it.

Dana Farber Cancer Institute

The desire to run this particular half marathon has to do with the fact that it's a fundraiser for the Dana Farber Cancer Institute.

The Dana Farber Cancer Institute is one of the oldest research centers for cancer. It began in 1947 as the Children's Research Foundation Center. In 1969, it began seeing patients of all ages. Today, Dana Farber supports more than 300,00 patient visits per year and is involved with approximately 700 clinical trials.

Cancer has made some of my good friends and their family members sick. It has also taken a few of their lives. More immediately, cancer came for my partner Tim in 2013.

My Grudge Against Cancer

2013 was a tough year. In January we lived through a winter move into our new home; in April we lived through the Marathon Bombing; and in August we found we would have to live through cancer too.

Doctors diagnosed Tim with thyroid cancer. They told us he was lucky because thyroid cancer is the "good cancer." It is relatively easy to treat by removing the thyroid and with a pill dose of radiation. It also rarely moves outside of the thyroid. With that said, Tim's tumor complicated things.

When we met with Tim's surgeon, she informed us that he had a large tumor that had grown over his carotid artery (the artery that supplies blood to the brain) and had partially engulfed it. She was confident she could remove the tumor and Tim's thyroid, but the tumor would make the procedure more complicated.

Although Tim had the "good cancer," we had to discuss many uncomfortable and suddenly very real scenarios given the placement and size of his tumor: In the event he went into a coma, how long would he want to be on life support? If he died, did he want his body buried or cremated? Did he want a Catholic service or something non-religious? Where would I find the master list of his passwords so I could access computers, files, and bank accounts? Was our will up-to-date? What information would I need to claim his life insurance policy? Who should I reach out to at Google to claim his corporate life insurance policy and his death benefit (half his salary for 10 years provided I don't re-marry)? What did I need to know to take over our finances?

Needless to say, all of this was a lot to take in, especially as we weren't talking about abstract scenarios.

The day of Tim's surgery was torturous. If you've never experienced the wait of a loved one's surgery, you're lucky. The clock slows and you can't do anything to speed it up. Moreover, you can't really read or absorb information because you're distracted with wonder about how the procedure is going.

Tim's surgery finished 2 hours later than expected, but it was a success. Days later we learned that the biopsy on his tumor revealed that it was actually pre-cancerous so he didn't need the radiation pill.

Our experience with cancer was privileged. We had great health insurance and support from Tim's employer. Our health insurance gave us a choice in who would be his surgeon and since we live in Boston--a city known for its frigid winters and world-class hospitals--our choices ranked among the top thyroid specialists in the world. Plus, if something had gone wrong-- if Tim's tumor had been cancerous or if that cancer had spread-- we would have had access to a top cancer research and treatment center, Dana Farber.

Why I'm Running: It's a Fundraiser

I'm running the Boston Athletic Association Half Marathon to raise money for Dana Farber because it's the least I can do for an organization that helps so many people--patients and their families--get through one of the toughest and most stressful periods of their lives. They can't save all their patients yet, but they give them a fighting chance. And hopefully one day they will find a cure so no one has to figure out what they will do without their parent, child, sibling, spouse, or friend or what their loved ones will do without them.

If you'd like to support Dana Farber's efforts, please support my run with a donation.

Was My Dissertation Just a Dissertation?

Over the last couple of years, I've read many blog posts wherein authors discuss their successes and struggles with turning their dissertations into publishable book manuscripts. I've enjoyed, sympathized with, and benefited from these posts because I too have been trying to turn my dissertation into a book manuscript. However, there's one type of post on this subject that I haven't yet seen: How to know if your dissertation is just a dissertation.

This thought has been churning in my mind for most of this year.

Is My Dissertation A Book?

By all accounts, I should be able to turn my dissertation into a book.

I was fortunate and privileged in my graduate education. I attended a good, funded doctoral program where I worked with one of the best historians and writers in the profession. Ever practical in his outlook, my advisor does not direct his students' dissertations, he directs first drafts of their books.

This means my dissertation never had a literature review. Most of the references I made to other scholars occur in my notes, not the main text. And while not perfectly written, my dissertation conveys its ideas with clear writing and active verbs.

This is not to imply that I wrote a dissertation ready for publication as a book. My dissertation has some serious flaws.

First, it purported to trace how the people of Albany, New York created first Dutch, then British, and finally American identities. That's a false claim. My first chapter provided a very brief overview of Albany and its people during the Dutch and early English periods. Chapter two begins in 1750.

Second, chapter four implies that the fighting of the War for Independence ended right after the Battle of Saratoga in 1777. In reality, fighting carried on in vengeful, civil war-like manner until 1784. Albany and its people played a big role in this fighting. Chapter five begins in the 1780s.

Third, I didn't think broadly enough when I framed my dissertation. My work speaks to an important local and small piece of the historiography. However, the events, politics, and interactions I explored and interpreted could have added valuable insight to the larger story of American and United States history, but they don't because I didn't frame and situate them properly.

Plus, there are instances when I did not consider my sources carefully enough. Further consideration would have changed parts of my argument.

These are all flaws that I can fix, and in some cases, I've already fixed them. If I had to guess, I would say that my book manuscript needs somewhere between 6-12 months worth of work before I could send it to a publisher for consideration.

So why have I been thinking about the question "how do you know if your dissertation is just a dissertation?"

Is My Dissertation Just a Dissertation?

One year ago this week, I shelved my book manuscript. I didn't want to put it aside; I was making great progress. However, good issues and problems due to the quick growth of Ben Franklin's World had piled up and required my attention before they hurt the podcast. I made the decision to set aside my book project and work on the podcast full-time for a month or two.

Here we are one year later. I've made almost no progress on my book since I set it aside. My lack of progress is not for lack of trying. What I thought would be a one or two month leave of absence turned into a six-month hiatus.

I attempted to return to the project in February. I wasn't sure where I wanted to jump back in, so I took chapters one and three with me on a week-long, distraction-free retreat. Chapter one is a new chapter. The binder I took with me consisted of an outline for the chapter and the research I needed to write it. Chapter three is an old chapter that needs some slight reframing and good editing. I thought having two different chapters in two different states of being would allow me to pick and choose how I wanted to wade back into my project.

I didn't make much progress. I tried for hours and days to get back into my project. I tried free writing, editing on my computer, editing with pen and paper, the Pomodoro technique to encourage short bursts of progress, and long walks to generate ideas and think my material through--nothing worked. 18th and early 19th-century Albany, places which had once seemed so familiar to me now seemed like foreign countries.

Because I'm stubborn, I've been trying on and off to get back into my project as time has allowed. It's been six months since February and I haven't made much progress.

Part of my inability to get back into my project could be that my podcast work doesn't allow for more than a few hours of book time a week. (Some weeks it doesn't even allow for that.) Therefore, dedicated focus has been a problem. Subject-matter fatigue could be another factor. I've been working on this project since 2004.

Moving On

Regardless of what is causing my block, it's time to stop being stubborn about it. It's not productive and it's not fun. I've decided to stop trying to force myself to work on the project. I'm moving on.

I'm starting work on my next long-term research project: The Articles of Confederation. Over the last year and a half, I've been mining footnotes and steadily accumulating books about the subject. No one has undertaken a serious study of the Articles since Merrill Jensen in 1950.

In the current historiography, the Articles appear as one of the most maligned aspects of the Revolution. Many scholars treat them as a mere stepping stone to the Constitution of 1787. I intend to look at the creation of this government within the context of the American Revolution. I'm curious about how the Continental Congress drafted them, what regional issues accelerated or hindered their drafting, and whether their creation and ratification fostered a sense of national identity.

I'm really excited about my new project. But saying "hello" to the Articles of Confederation means I need to say "goodbye" to Albany, at least for now.

Will I return to this project and see it into the great book I know it could be? I wonder.

I hope the opportunity to read and think deeply about a different aspect of early American history will somehow reconnect me with Albany.

But it may turn out that my dissertation was just a dissertation.

Talking Politics: Interview Tips for Historians

The 2016 election cycle has been difficult. Not only does it have me worried about the future, it's presenting me with unexpected editorial headaches. Since April, I've had to consider what to do about guest references to Donald Trump in Ben Franklin's World interviews. Mentions of Trump occurred sporadically until the Republican National Convention. Since the RNC, I've been confronted with decisions about whether to leave these references in episodes or edit them out on a near weekly basis.

What To Do About Trump?

I don't make editorial decisions lightly. When I edit each episode, I listen for the flow of the conversation and what I can do to improve it. Most of the time that involves removing verbal ticks, pauses, and breath sounds. Other times editing involves cutting tangents that don't add to the larger point of the episode. Sometimes it means moving answers to follow-up questions into previous answers so listeners have the context they need to follow what's being said and enjoy the episode.

I don't consider it my job to edit ideas. After all, part of the mission of Ben Franklin's World is to present and make available different ideas about early American history.[1] So, I figuratively sweat over each Trump reference and whether I should leave it in or take it out.

Thus far, all mentions of Trump have conveyed frustration and anger with Trump's politics and many Americans' positive reception of them. All references have sounded spontaneous and gratuitous. I sympathize with my guests. I find Donald Trump’s political views terrifying and I do think historians should do more to speak out against him. With that said, I have cut all anti-Trump statements from conversations I’ve posted through Ben Franklin’s World.

Why?

The primary goal of Ben Franklin’s World is to create wide public awareness about early American history and the work of professional historians. I can’t create this awareness if listeners stop listening. Surveys and interactions with BFWorld listeners reveal that its audience spans the spectrum of the political, cultural, and ethnic diversity of the United States. As such, I've chosen to keep Ben Franklin's World as non-partisan as possible.

However, non-partisan doesn't mean that the show couldn't discuss present-day politics and viewpoints. I believe there is a constructive way guests could bring up and discuss present-day politics without alienating listeners. This way involves historians doing what they do best: approaching and commenting upon modern-day politics from a historical viewpoint.

Guests would need to approach their modern-day political positions on Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton, from historical standpoints if they wanted those views to air on Ben Franklin's World.

Approaching the Present from the Past: A Fictional Example

To give a broad and fictional example, say a guest comes on the podcast to discuss a book or exhibit about early American immigration. Over the course of our conversation, the guest discusses how their research on colonial Boston reveals that there was a a mass influx of immigrants from Germany, Ireland, Scotland, and Portugal around 1750. With this wave of immigrants came Jews, free blacks, and a large number of Catholics (I’m making this up).

After discussing why these immigrants came to Boston around 1750, the guest discloses the findings of their detailed study into the settlement patterns of those immigrants: The immigrants didn’t settle in enclaves, they settled in equal proportion around the city. The guest explains the significance of this finding: members of the different religious and ethnic immigrant groups intermixed with native-born Bostonians, and vice versa, every day.

Our fictional guest goes on to relate how this intermixing created cultural, religious, and racial tensions that made both new and old Bostonians uncomfortable. However, the need to keep their community united in the face of French imperial threats, meant that the Bostonians used x, y, and z methods to overcome their discord. These methods demonstrated to native-born Bostonians that the diverse immigrants who had settled within their community were assets, not liabilities.

The guest closes by discussing why the colonial Bostonians’ realization is fascinating. They muse about how Americans are still grappling with similar questions about immigration and immigrants today:

“Hillary Clinton wants to create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who work to support the United States and their local communities. Donald Trump wants to deport all immigrants regardless of whether or not they have become valuable and productive community members. These modern-day positions make me wonder what would happen if we tried some variation of the colonial Bostonians’ methods for overcoming religious, cultural, and racial tension because if Boston had deported all the immigrants who arrived around 1750, there’s evidence to suggest that the French would have besieged and conquered the city."

The above example is fictitious, but it illustrates how historians could comment upon modern-day politics in a productive way. The fake guest provided listeners with a historical case study and raised ideas about how the past speaks to the present. Their answer invites listeners to wonder what would have happened if colonial Bostonians had deported the immigrants in their city: What would a French Boston have meant for the American Revolution? Would the Revolution have still happened? Would some of the colonial solutions this historian found for overcoming difference work in our own society? Are immigrants really bad for society?

Our fictional historian did not state their political viewpoint. They alluded to it. And they never made a partisan political statement such as “Trump is crazy” or “Hillary is nuts,” statements that would have caused many listeners to stop listening. The fake historian also invited listeners to think about ways the past speaks to the present without telling them what to think. Not all listeners will change their minds as a result of the thoughts and questions the historian raised, but some may, and they will change their minds because the historian included them in a productive thought exercise.

If historians want to make a point about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton that I would keep in a Ben Franklin’s World episode, they would need to make it in conjunction with historical and factual points. Their statements must add value to the conversation and to how the larger historical point we’re discussing relates to the present.

Historians in the Media

I offer my thoughts on this contentious issue because I believe they are valuable to historians’ broader interactions with media. If you want to influence the election, you need to consider and know the audience of the media outlet you are addressing.

If you are a guest on a political show with a largely partisan audience, consider taking a partisan tact because it’s likely expected. If the outlet you're speaking on has little or nothing to do with modern-day politics, consider moderating and more subtly presenting your points by leading with history. If you are unsure about the audience you'll be speaking to and with, ask your contact at the outlet.

Knowing your audience will enable you to speak to them, not at them. When you speak to your audience (which means you have considered who they are and what they think), you are more likely to find it receptive to the points you are making for and with them.

[1] In offering different viewpoints about the early American past, I interview, edit, and air the ideas of guests I disagree with. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with a guest's ideas, I try to edit each episode with a sense of detachment and with original context in mind so even historians I disagree with make their points as clearly and as accurately as possible for listeners.

Historian, Podcaster, Business Owner?

Since January 2016, I have been traveling across the United States speaking about history, podcasting, and digital media at conferences, events, and interviews. The experience has revealed that people have 3 key questions for me:

1. What is the role of podcasts and other digital media in the future of historical scholarship?

2. What has the impact of Ben Franklin's World been on furthering historians' ideas about history?

3. How are you making a living/what are you doing with your career?

I answered the first two questions in a previous post, "Digital Media and the Future of the Historical Profession." In this post, I'll answer the third question(s): "How are you making a living/What are you doing with your career?"

Digital vs. Traditional Scholarship

I’m not making a living podcasting.

I'm still living on the "18th-century patron support plan" provided by my partner, Tim.

I am making some money podcasting. The Omohundro Institute pays me to produce the “Doing History” series (we share series editorial and production decisions) and I make about $140/month from crowdfunding pledges. These funds have and do pay for most of my monthly podcast expenses. They do not pay me for my time.

I’m in the process of figuring out how I will make money from podcasting to support my scholarship and work. The delay in figuring this out has been the fact that I’ve needed to undergo a HUGE mental shift in how I view myself as a historian.

Ben Franklin’s World started as an experimental side project. At most, I thought it would be a fun outlet for my public history and scholarly communications interests. I never intended for podcasting to turn into my full-time scholarship.

I’ve always thought of myself as a book and article historian. Books and articles have always been how most historians prove themselves and showcase their ideas and research. As such, making the mental shift to seeing myself as a digital media historian has been a long and hard one. I'm not even sure I've made the full mental shift yet. My decisions about how to spend my work time are still fraught with tension between digital and traditional media. (Old habits and thoughts really do die hard.)

Although I still feel a desire to produce scholarship in text-based, traditional media, I have decided to continue making digital media my primary scholarly output. I've experienced a lot of success with it and I tell myself that working as a digital media historian doesn't mean I can't write books and articles too. Books and articles will just have to become my side projects.

Now that I've made that decision, I need to find a way to support my scholarship.

Going Corporate & Starting a Network

In my dream scenario, a forward-thinking college or university would hire me in an editorial faculty role. I would continue to produce Ben Franklin's World and other podcasts I have in the works, while teaching undergraduate and graduate students how to do all aspects of this new, historical work along the way.

With that said, I’m a pragmatist. I've spoken with department heads and colleagues and I see that most of the historical profession is still 5-10 years away from recognizing what people in quicker-to-change professions see: that digital media is here to stay, that we shouldn’t be afraid of it, and that it’s highly effective at conveying and creating awareness about ideas, products, and services. Therefore, I’ve decided to create my dream job the old fashioned way: I've started a business.

I’m going to experiment with my new company and see if I can build it to the point where it pays for my scholarship and time and hopefully the scholarship and time of others.

The company is called Discover History Media Group, LLC. My first act as a business owner was to hire a media agent to seek sponsors for Ben Franklin’s World. The agent has several potential deals in the works, nothing has been finalized. I'm being mindful of the types of advertisers I want to sponsor my scholarship and I hope that by mid-to-late fall we will have found a good fit for the podcast.

Discover History Media Group LLC is also the legal entity under which I am starting the Explore History Network—a digital media network of reliable, high-quality history content created by historians. The Explore History Network will launch its second podcast by the end of this year and its third podcast by the end of 2017. The network will start with podcasts and will add blogs, video, and other digital media as it matures.

Over time, the network will (hopefully) fund itself from different revenue streams: sponsorships, member dues, custom content creation for groups and organizations, consulting fees, supporter pledges, and show merchandise.

Admittedly, I'm reluctant business owner. I know my strengths. Creating, researching, writing, launching, producing, and communicating historical content are strengths. Managing a business and creating a long-term, implementable plan for its success...I need to develop this skill set or partner with someone who has it.

Parting Thoughts

On a different note, all of the speaking I’ve done this year has combined with the success of Ben Franklin's World to bring forth a new revenue stream: paid speaking. I have three paid speaking engagements this fall with academic organizations and institutions and one that’s almost confirmed for next spring.

So no, I'm not making a living from podcasting, but I have a plan that will hopefully change that. I'm in the process of getting organized and I'm looking forward to seeing if the new scholarship I produce will be as successful and as well received as Ben Franklin's World.

Digital Media and the Future of the Historical Profession

It’s August and I’ve somehow found myself with 7, straight weeks at home. It’s the first time I’ve been home for a full month this year. (Hence why this blog has been a bit of a ghost town.) Since January, I’ve been on a type of “history podcast tour.” Historians & history lovers have become fascinated with Ben Franklin’s World and its success, and they want to know more about the show, how I produce it, and the role podcasts and other digital media will play in the future of historical scholarship. As such, I’ve spoken at a lot of conferences and sat for interviews for podcasts, blogs, and radio.

I’ve participated in a lot of conversations about podcasting, historical scholarship, and the historical profession over the last 7 months. It’s been a lot of fun and these experiences have revealed several key questions people have about these topics:

1. What is the role of podcasts and other digital media in the future of historical scholarship?

2. What has the impact of Ben Franklin’s World been on furthering historians’ ideas about history?

3. How are you making a living podcasting/what are you doing with your career?

I’ve heard these questions enough that a couple of blog posts with answers seem like a good idea. In this post, I’ll answer the first two questions. In a second post, I’ll answer “how are you making a living/what are you doing with your career?”

What is the role of podcasts and other digital media in the future of historical scholarship?

When most historians ask this question, what they really want to know is: do podcasts and digital media compete with traditional books and articles?

My answer: No.

Digital media such as podcasts, blog posts, and digital videos complement traditional history books and articles. They also complement museum exhibits and historic sites.

The 21st-century is a mobile age. We live on our smartphones and time has become our most valuable resource because our ability to connect to the internet and with people anytime, anywhere has drastically multiplied the demands on our time. This doesn’t mean that people dislike reading books or visiting museums. It means they have less time (or feel like they have less time) to devote to those activities. As a result, they want to know that they are going to enjoy something and benefit from an experience before they invest time and money into having an experience.

This is where digital media complements traditional books, articles, and exhibits. High-quality, well-researched, and well-produced scholarship is still very important and the need for it is not diminishing. However, this scholarship suffers from a discoverability problem.

For example, Barnes & Noble doesn’t stock books from most academic publishers. They sell end cap and prime sales space to big, for-profit publishers with deep pockets. What books are those big publishers putting into those visible spaces? Usually those by “Fox News Historians” and journalists with large platforms. This means that many high-quality, fascinating history books by top-notch scholars go unstocked by bookstores and unnoticed by people who would be very interested in them, if they knew they existed.

Digital media such as blog posts, podcasts, and video create awareness. They allow potential readers to know that there are great history books and articles available and where they can find them. Digital media also provides easy and convenient ways for potential readers to get a feel for the author, the history they are conveying, and the quality and depth of the historian's research before they invest time and energy into finding a particular book, or article, and reading it.

I’ve found podcasts to be the best digital media for creating broad awareness because it’s presently the perfect digital media for our mobile age. You can listen to podcasts whenever and wherever you want to, which makes them appealing and fun fillers of commuting/exercise/dog walking/cooking/cleaning/waiting time. Plus the intimacy of the medium allows listeners to feel like they have a bond with their favorite hosts and guests.

This is why listeners repeatedly tell me that I’m costing them a fortune. They buy the history books and visit the historic sites they hear about on Ben Franklin's World because they get a great preview of what they will see, learn, and of the personalities and processes of the historians who authored the books or exhibits.

My prediction for the future: Colleges and universities will create and add digital media programs to both undergraduate and graduate curriculums in academic and public history specialties. Departments will find this profitable in the sense that faculty and student-produced media will create awareness about their programs and the work of their faculty and students and in the sense that these programs will teach students tangible, technical communications skills that companies (and corporatized colleges and universities) desire.

What has the impact of Ben Franklin’s World been on furthering historians’ ideas about history?

Statistical Measurement: Downloads have risen from 288 in October 2014 to an average of almost 69,000 per month in 2016. In a survey I conducted in late 2015, 41 percent of the Ben Franklin's World audience reported that they had purchased a book or visited a historic site as a result of the show.

Objective Measurement: I receive e-mails, tweets, and Facebook messages from listeners on a daily basis that contain questions about history, topics for future shows, and that both thank me for introducing them to a book or exhibit of great interest to them and curse me because they now spend too much money on history books. Similarly, listeners reach out to show guests too. Listeners ask guests further questions about their work and attend guest talks.

Parting Thoughts

Historians should embrace rather than fear digital media. Digital media is, and will, play a big role in keeping traditional historical scholarship alive and well and in reversing the downward trend in major and course enrollment numbers. Plus, digital media offers historians new ways to practice historical scholarship. More options breed creativity and innovation, which every profession needs if it wants to stay healthy and relevant.