The State of Graduate Training in World History and Placement in the Academic World
HEATHER STREETS-SALTER
Evaluating the state of graduate education in World History is not a straightforward affair. It is complicated enough to put accurate data together about the number of programs offering graduate training in world history, about program structure, and about student placement. Interpreting this often incomplete data is more complicated still. For example, what do we make of the surge in the number of graduate programs claiming to offer training in World History since the turn of the twenty-first century? What impact, if any, are these rapidly proliferating programs having on the academic world? Moreover, are most institutions that offer programs in World History producing students with a genuine research interest in world-historical questions, or should that even be their goal? Finally, should we be pleased by the percentage of graduate students trained in world history that find permanent employment, or should we be concerned that they have (thus far) not generally found employment at top-tier universities?
While I do not attempt to offer definitive answers to all of these questions in what follows, I do hope to provide enough data to spark an informed discussion about them. When I agreed to write this chapter, I thought – as director of one of the few programs to offer World History as a primary PhD field in the United States – that I knew a good deal about the state of graduate training in the field. I soon discovered, however, that this was an overstatement. I knew about the existence and structure of some programs, but not all; I had a general sense of placement rates, but it was not backed by hard data. I was only somewhat comforted to find that I was not alone in my fragmentary knowledge. In fact, there is no central clearing house (yet!) for data and information about graduate training in this rapidly growing field. Thus, even after much discussion with colleagues, research into programs, and correspondence, this chapter must still represent only a starting point in exploring the state of graduate training in World History. It seems to me vital to the future of the field that we continue the discussion and improve the data on which the discussion is based.
This first section of this chapter begins with an evaluation of the existing data for programs that offer training in World History in the United States, Canada and, to a lesser extent, Europe.1 I then offer a reassessment of the number and kinds of programs offering training in the field, based on my own research. Once I have presented these revised data, I offer some observations about how we might assess the impact of these programs. The second section of the chapter discusses the structure of World History programs in order to evaluate whether or not these programs generally have the same goals for producing scholars in the field. The third and final section will discuss the admittedly incomplete data on placement for students completing advanced degrees with training in world history, and what these preliminary impressions might mean for the field in the future.
Graduate Programs in World History
Of course it would be difficult to evaluate the state of graduate training in World History without first knowing exactly how many programs offer such training, and at what level. Yet compiling this information is not as simple as it might at first seem. First, there are problems and disagreements about the label “World History,” which means that some programs that call themselves “World” do not offer what I would call a recognizable program, whereas some programs that self-consciously resist calling themselves “World” do in fact offer training that most world historians would immediately recognize as world-historical in nature.2 Second, existing resources that maintain lists of World History graduate programs have not been able to keep up with the number of new programs that have developed in the last five years, and thus are out of date. Third, even the programs that are listed by these resources are about 50 percent inaccurate.
Let’s begin with labels. What exactly is a World History program? Although there are no simple answers to this question, I realized I would have to create some criteria by which to assess both the many programs that claim to offer training in World History, and even some that do not. Thus, for the purposes of this chapter I determined that it is not enough to claim to offer training in World History without any specific coursework, designated faculty mentors, or a formally designated field. At the same time, I determined that some – but not all – programs that call their fields “Global” or “Global and Comparative” do indeed offer training that operates from a similar historiographical base to World History, and encourages students to engage with recognizably world-historical research questions. In order to “qualify” here as an institution that offers graduate training in World History, then, programs must meet the following criteria: (1) they must offer core courses in World (sometimes called Global) History, at least one of which familiarizes students with a broadly similar historiography of the field and the various methodological approaches that have characterized it; (2) they must have faculty that are specifically designated as mentors for the field; (3) they must offer the field as a structured, formal option. I did not split hairs about how many faculty needed to be available as mentors in the field, mainly because very few existing programs to date have more than one or two faculty members who are active in the field. In the future, however, it may be necessary to determine the viability of World History programs based on the strength of the faculty cohort with training in the field.
Guided by the above criteria, I did not count the many and growing numbers of programs that offer fields in transnational history, comparative empires, Atlantic World, or international history, as the historiographical base and/or theoretical concerns of these fields tend to be distinct from – though not unrelated to – world history. To be sure, this means that many programs currently offering exciting opportunities for graduate students to stretch the boundaries of traditional fields and to explore transnational, cross-cultural, or thematic projects have been left out. Yet if we are to realistically assess the state of graduate education in World History, it seems important not to inflate the numbers by creating criteria so all-encompassing that the category “World History” loses specific meaning.
Once I decided on criteria, I was better able to evaluate the existing resources that list programs offering graduate training in World or Global History. The most important (and accessible) resources for these purposes are maintained by the American Historical Association (AHA), which lists graduate programs by specialization, and the World History Association (WHA), which lists institutions that offer graduate programs in World History.3 As of August 2010, the AHA listed 52 programs offering training in world history, while the WHA listed 26. Yet on closer inspection – including an examination of departmental websites and, when such websites were unclear, direct correspondence – it turned out that over half of the departments listed by the AHA do not in fact offer graduate training in world or global history (and many do not even claim to). Likewise, of the 26 programs listed by the WHA, 12 do not (or do not yet) offer such training, nor do some of them make that claim. In fact, some department chairs and graduate coordinators were quite surprised to learn that their programs were listed in this way. Moreover, several programs that do offer graduate training in world history were not on either list, mostly because they were created after the lists were originally compiled.
Once I realized the problems of taking the AHA and WHA lists at face value, I decided to start from scratch. My goal was to locate all programs that offer graduate training in world history at the PhD level (major or minor fields), the MA level (major or minor fields), and the DA (Doctor of Arts) level in the United States, Canada and, as far as possible, Europe.4 My method began with a close investigation of all institutions listed on the AHA and WHA website as specializing in world or, in the case of the AHA, world and global history. This included going to each departmental website and looking at field offerings, coursework, and supporting faculty. In cases where the existence of a field in world history was unclear, I corresponded directly with graduate studies directors or department chairs.5 I also relied upon the help and suggestions of colleagues in the field, as well as my own experience.6 Finally, I sent a request via H-World, the world history discussion forum on H-Net, for information from those who either finished their degrees with world history training, or who currently run programs in the field. The request yielded 31 responses, many from representatives of programs I did not previously know about.7
The results were as follows: 6 institutions currently offer World History, by name, as a primary or major PhD field in the United States and Canada.8 A further 7 institutions offer primary PhD fields in Global, Comparative Global, or Global and International Programs that appear to offer core coursework and structures that are closely related to World History.9 In addition to major fields in World or Global history, 22 institutions offer a minor, secondary, or complementary field in World History, while a further 5 offer minor fields in Global or Comparative World History.10 At the MA level, 20 institutions offer programs with concentrations or majors in World History, and 11 offer World History as a minor or secondary concentration.11 Three further institutions offer MAs in Global History.12 Finally, two institutions offer a Doctor of Arts (geared primarily to teaching) in World History, and three offer certificates in teaching World History.13 (See Bain, this volume.) In addition to these existing programs, during the summer of 2010 Pat Manning organized, for the first time, an intensive two-week workshop for graduate students interested in pursuing world-historical research questions at the University of Pittsburgh.14 Moreover, several institutions are in the process of developing graduate programs in World History, including Queen’s University (Canada), the University of Maryland, the University of Michigan, and the University of Pittsburgh.
What are we to make of this data, and what can it tell us about the state of graduate training in World History? At its most basic, it tells us that 58 discrete institutions offer graduate training in World (or similar Global) History at the MA or PhD levels in the United States, Canada, and Europe.15 Yet the meaning of these numbers is not entirely clear. On the one hand, 58 seems an astonishingly high number given that just over a decade ago only a handful of institutions in the world offered such programs.16 Indeed, this means that nearly 50 World History programs have been created just since the turn of the twenty-first century, and we know that more are in the pipeline. This rapid growth in itself suggests that World History is increasingly regarded as a useful and valuable addition to graduate programs in a period when all historical fields seem to be moving toward transnational, globalized, and comparative perspectives.17
On the other hand, perhaps it is too early to celebrate World History’s momentous breakthrough into the mainstream. While 58 programs represents a huge growth over the number of programs that existed prior to the twenty-first century, we must keep the numbers in perspective: after all, there are 341 postsecondary institutions in the United States that offer MA or PhD degrees, and another 30 in Canada.18 More importantly, we need to look beyond institutional numbers and ask how many students, PhD or MA, have graduated from – or are currently enrolled in – such programs. When we do this, the picture is more sobering. For example, of the six institutions that offer World History as a major field, four have produced fewer than two graduates.19 Northeastern University leads the way in the production of World History PhDs, with 20 awarded since the creation of the program in 1994.20 Washington State University, whose program was created in 2003, has produced 5 PhDs so far, while Columbia University’s International and Global History program has produced 1 graduate with a world historical dissertation. In total, and allowing for a small margin of error, this means that fewer than 30 students have completed programs with World History as a major field in the last 16 years. Even taking into account that there are at least 30 more PhD candidates poised to obtain their degrees in the next five years,21 the numbers of PhDs trained with World History as a major field will remain relatively small for some time to come. This number seems especially small if we note that between 750 and 1,000 new History PhDs are awarded each year in all fields.
While certainly the number of PhDs who have graduated – and who will graduate – with a minor, complementary, or second field in World History is considerably higher than those who completed a primary field, the data here are much more fragmentary and incomplete. What data there are suggest that, since 1985 (when the field was first created at the University of Hawai’i-Manoa), at least 200 students have completed a second field in World History.22 Moreover, at least 100 students now appear to be in the process of completing a field.23 Again, while these numbers are truly significant for the field of World History, they make up only a tiny fraction of the more than 18,000 PhDs that have been awarded in all fields since 1985. Numbers for MA programs are even more fragmentary, especially for those who have already completed their degrees. What slim data I do have suggests that there are at least 100 students currently enrolled with major or minor concentrations in World History at the MA level.24
None of this is to say that proponents of graduate training in World History do not have much to be pleased about. Clearly, the data presented here suggest that more programs are offering such training to more students than ever before, and that both programs and numbers of students are likely to rise in the future. And as more students complete their training in World History, it is likely that at least some will establish World History programs in their own institutions, thus creating the opportunity for training new generations of world historians. Indeed, this phenomenon has already begun.25 Finally, it may well be a sign of the increasing value placed on World History in the historical discipline that a number of Tier I universities have recently established programs of their own. While the majority of World History graduate programs have been developed at Tier II or Tier III universities, fully one-quarter of the institutions that offer graduate training in World History are now housed in top-tier universities.26 Taken together, these developments indicate that world historians have carved out a clear and growing space in graduate training, and that World History programs will continue to proliferate in the immediate future.
The Structure of Graduate Programs in World History
Now that we have a better (though admittedly still incomplete) sense of the number and types of World History graduate programs that currently exist, it makes sense to explore what kind of “products” these programs intend to produce. In other words, do these programs primarily focus on World History as a teaching field, or are they expressly geared toward encouraging students to design research projects with world-historical questions in mind? This is an important distinction, because the first type of program broadens students’ knowledge base for the purpose of teaching, but does not necessarily impact the shape and direction of their research. The second type of program focuses explicitly on producing scholars who engage with the concerns of the field at the level of research. Both types of programs are important, and of course they are not mutually exclusive, but the existence of these two emphases means that not all students who complete graduate training in World History identify with the field in the same way, or employ its methodologies and approaches in their own historical research.
At the PhD level, it is this focus on research that most sharply distinguishes those programs that offer World History as a primary field from those that offer it as a secondary field. In the former, the structure of the program tends to be geared toward generating world-historical research questions – and a world-historical dissertation – from the very start. For example, students who complete a major field in World History at Washington State University (my former institution) begin the program by taking a World History Theory and Methods course in their first semester.27 In the same semester, the new cohort of students would work closely with me and the other three key faculty involved in the program not only to develop their areas of research interest, but to develop them in the context of world-historical approaches and methodologies. By the end of the first year, students – with the active guidance of a faculty member in World History – have mapped out a plan of coursework, directed readings, and qualifying exam fields that are expressly focused around their research interests. Before moving on to the dissertation stage, students must pass three qualifying exams. First, students complete a general, overarching exam field in World History, which is largely oriented to historiography and method and is linked to an extensive, uniform reading list that covers both formative works in the field (e.g., Oswald Spengler, William McNeill, Immanuel Wallerstein) and the wide corpus of monographs and articles that have been written in the field since the 1980s.28 Second, students complete an equally extensive field in a regional (not national) area of expertise under the direction of a specialist – three of whom also have training in World History. Third, students complete a complementary field in either an additional region or a thematic area of study such as imperialism, war and peace, or gender history. Finally, students must also complete a minor, nonexamination field (which likewise may be defined geographically or thematically) as well as the language training necessary for their research. The graduate guidelines at Washington State stipulate that students pass these qualifying exams before defending a dissertation prospectus which explains the historical question a doctoral thesis will address, along with its theoretical framework, methodology, and historiographical contribution. Students in the World History program, however, are strongly encouraged both to make a preliminary research trip and to begin constructing the prospectus prior to taking the qualifying exams.29 Ultimately, then, the program is geared toward producing scholars whose “first language” is associated with the questions, approaches, and methodologies of World History, but who are also deeply trained in at least one regional area of expertise.30
In contrast, many of the programs that offer minor, secondary, or complementary PhD fields in World History are geared toward producing scholars with a more narrowly defined teaching competency in World History.31 World History is often – rightly, as it turns out – viewed as a strategic field for the job market, since so many colleges and universities (at least in the United States) now require new hires to teach the undergraduate survey as a basic service course. These programs, although their emphasis differs from those that offer World History as a major field, nevertheless are usually structured around a similar set of core courses, a selection of regionally focused classes, and some form of qualifying examination – many of which are however focused on teaching rather than research. At Louisiana State University, for example, students preparing a minor field in World History take a seminar in Comparative History, three courses from regions offered in East Asian, Latin American, South Asian, Middle Eastern, or African history, and a general examination based on the student’s creation of a syllabus in either early or modern World History. Some institutions offer a modified version of the secondary field in the form of a “certificate” in teaching World History. At the University of Pennsylvania, for example, graduate students must take a course in the historiography of World History, two courses in comparative history, and two courses in regions outside the student’s own regional area of concentration, but they do not complete a culminating examination.32
Whether as a minor field or as a teaching certificate, graduate programs that offer World History expressly for the purpose of teaching tend, de facto, to teach World History as an “additional” language rather than as a “first” language. What this means is that there need be no necessaryconnection between students’ own research interests and the questions and concerns of World History as a research field. Partly this is because students completing a minor or second field in World History do not always have to complete coursework in the field as they are beginning their graduate study. As a result, the ability of world-historical questions to shape the direction of student research can be diminished if research projects are already well underway by the time students encounter the field.
That said, not all programs that offer second fields in World History appear geared primarily toward teaching. Some, indeed, are clearly intended to shape research interests, at least in addition to assisting with teaching competence. At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, for example, students completing a field in Comparative World History take a seminar in Comparative World History, and then two further courses on a culture area or thematic topic outside their own area of specialization. Once the coursework is completed, students write a research paper “that demonstrates the student’s competence to handle historical materials comparatively and to work in more than one cultural or geographical area of specialization.”33 Finally, students must take an oral exam based on the research paper.
MA programs in World History are generally geared toward one of two tracks: either they aim to produce students who wish to proceed to graduate study at the PhD level, or they aim to produce highly qualified teachers of World History at the secondary or community college level. In the first type of program, which includes the program at Washington State, MA students take the same core courses as PhD students in the field, and produce a Master’s thesis designed around a manageable but nevertheless world-historical research question. In programs designed for future secondary or community college teachers, some emphasize the MA thesis, while others offer a choice between a thesis and exams. In the MA program at New York University, the thesis is required even though the program is geared toward educators. In this program, students take three core courses in World History, three courses in a major field, and two courses in a minor field.34 Students then go on to write a MA thesis on thematic or comparative questions.35 In other World History MA programs, such as one offered at Sacramento State University, students are given the choice of passing their major and minor fields either with written and oral exams or by writing a formal MA thesis.36
When we look at all the various types of graduate programs in World History, it seems clear that these programs intend to produce a variety of different “products,” from researchers in the field to university teachers at the PhD level, and from future PhD students to secondary teachers at the MA level. How important are these different emphases? On the one hand, I believe that the division between training World History researchers and World History teachers is significant for the development of the research field, since there is no guarantee that students who complete a teaching field will incorporate world-historical questions into their research. On the other hand, the broad commitment of all of these programs to core coursework in the historiography of the field, as well as to coursework in comparative or transregional training, gives them recognizable identities as World History programs notwithstanding their different emphases. Furthermore, even when programs are designed primarily for teaching purposes, exposure to world-historical questions and methodologies has the potential to influence student research and future scholarship, while programs focused primarily on research also assist students in becoming better teachers of the undergraduate survey. Finally, as will become clear in the next section, placement data suggests that there is a need for both types of programs in order to meet the demands of the current job market.
Placement: Where Do Graduate Students Trained in World History Find Jobs?
It would be impossible to evaluate the state of graduate training in World History without attention to placement. Are students trained as world historians finding jobs, and are they finding jobs – at least in part – as world historians? Once again, the available data to answer this question are fragmentary, especially from institutions that offer second PhD fields or MAs in World History. Fortunately, there are specific data on most of the students who finished their PhDs with a primary field in World History since the mid-1990s. In addition, I have collected anecdotal evidence from a variety of recent PhDs and MAs with training in World History via a poll on H-World. From this data, three things seem reasonably clear: First, the relatively small number of students who have finished degrees with a primary field in World History have, for the most part, successfully found tenure-track employment in academia. Second, these same students have generally not found employment at top-tier research universities. Third, anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that hiring institutions have thus far found world history training most attractive for its usefulness in teaching rather than because of its research potential.
Of the 28 students who have completed PhDs with World History as a primary field in the United States, 20 have found permanent employment in higher education. Of these 20, 18 are at four-year colleges or universities in tenure-track positions, one is in a secure position at a community college, and one is in a secure position at an institution that does not grant tenure.37 All but two of the 18 found employment in the United States.38 Of the remaining eight, two chose to remain in secondary education, one is an instructor in a community college, one is in a visiting professor position at a Tier I university, one has postponed searching for a job because of military service, one entered the law profession, and two are unemployed. Overall, then, students who completed PhDs with a major field in World History (at universities in the United States) between 1997 and 2009 enjoyed a 71.4 percent placement rate.
At first glance, such a high placement rate seems truly stellar. We know that placement rates for History PhDs in all fields between 1990 and 2004 were dismal, hovering at around 42 percent for graduates from top-tier programs, and at about 30 percent for graduates from second-tier programs (Townsend 2005: fig. 5). And while the outlook for job placement improved between 2005 and 2007 (when placement rates jumped to near 50 percent), it turned sour again in 2008 as the US economy contracted. In 2008–2009, indeed, the number of jobs in all fields of History declined by 23.8 percent (Townsend 2010). In contrast to such numbers, then, the placement rate of World History PhDs seems exceptional.
Yet it would be premature to read too much into these numbers. Indeed, the number of PhDs who have completed primary fields in World History is so small that it is difficult to gauge whether such extraordinary placement rates will continue. According toPerspectives, the year 1999–2000 saw a spike in job advertisements for specialists in World/Non-West, up from an average of 27 or 28 per year from 1995 to 1999 to over 40 per year from 1999 to 2004 (Townsend 2005: table 1).39 By 2006–2007, about 7 percent of jobs advertised in Perspectives were categorized as World/Transnational. However, along with the downturn in the US economy, jobs in this category fell by 20 percent in 2009 (Townsend 2010). So while the excellent placement rate of PhD graduates from programs offering primary fields in World History is encouraging, it is likely still too early to tell if this trend will continue, or how much the current economic decline will negatively impact the employment prospects of World History PhDs.
In any case, placement rates do not tell the whole story. It is also important to realistically assess the types of institutions where World History PhDs find employment. Thus far, all but two World History PhDs have found employment at second- or third-tier institutions rather than at top-tier research universities.40 Moreover, with the exception of a few who were hired at small, private colleges, most World History PhDs were hired at public state colleges and universities. The reasons for this are not completely clear, although anecdotal evidence suggests that, for one, top-tier institutions remain less likely to offer jobs explicitly advertised as World History than lower-tier institutions. Second, since most of the World History PhDs produced so far have completed their degrees at second-tier universities, it is likely that they are less competitive for jobs at top-tier universities than their peers from elite institutions. In fact, anecdotal evidence from World History PhDs who have been on the job market indicates that in some cases, search committees advertising for world historians have opted to hire candidates from elite universities with no training in the field rather than candidates from second-tier universities with formal training. Third, and perhaps most importantly, state colleges and universities have been at the forefront of the move toward teaching World History at the undergraduate level. Thus, it is likely that PhDs with significant training in World History are particularly attractive to search committees at such institutions.
Indeed, the demand for experienced and qualified teachers to teach undergraduate World History courses seems to have been a significant factor in the hiring process for many of the PhDs who completed training in World History as either a major or minor field. For example, of the 55 PhDs who completed a second field in World History from the University of California, Irvine, roughly half reported that they were hired for jobs at least partially to teach World History.41 Moreover, anecdotal evidence from stories by both Washington State University graduates and by those I polled on H-World suggests that the ability to teach World History in addition to a regional specialization was a critical factor in successful job placement.42
Although I am tempted to bemoan the fact that World History teaching seems to be valued so much more than world-historical research on the current job market, in the end I believe there is significant cause for optimism about the future of the field. First, provisional evidence indicates that those graduate programs offering World History as a secondary or teaching field are serving an important function, and that demand for such programs is likely to increase in the future. Second, given the successful placement of PhDs who completed a primary field in World History thus far, it seems hopeful that the attractiveness of these students to search committees at public, state institutions will continue to allow new scholars in the field to secure places in academia from which to conduct their scholarship. Third, as more top-tier institutions develop World History programs of their own in the future, it seems likely that the range of institutions willing to hire PhDs trained with a primary field in World History will increase as well.
Conclusions
In 2010, there were more programs offering graduate training in World History than had ever existed before, and this trend looks as though it will continue in the future. Although these programs exist to serve a variety of purposes, all seem to share a commitment to introducing students to the historiography of the field, and to encouraging them to think broadly about connections, comparative analysis, and transregional themes. Provisional data on placement rates seem to bear out the need for these programs at all levels, and many graduates insist that their ability to find work in a tight job market was enhanced, not diminished, by their formal training in the field. While the numbers of students who have completed graduate training in World History is still proportionately small, and while most graduates from these programs have so far not found employment in top-tier universities, nevertheless recent trends in both the numbers and types of institutions that have developed programs in the field indicate the increasing viability of World History training at the graduate level.
Notes
1 My focus on the United States and Canada is based on the amount of data available for North American programs, which at present greatly outweighs the amount in Europe and the rest of the world. The European programs described here include only those programs for which I was able to obtain data – others may exist. (See Naumann, this volume.) Several universities in China and Japan have begun to train students in world-historical programs, but as yet I do not have enough data to evaluate the nature of these programs. (See the chapters by Lim and by Zhang, this volume.) Australia is not included here because the one program that offered training to MA students in World History – at Macquarie University – is no longer active.
2 Part of the reason some programs have been reluctant to take on the label “World History” is that some scholars – particularly at Tier I universities – have mistakenly conflated the study of World History with teaching the World History survey. Take, for example, the primary field in Global History at the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill. The creators of the program explicitly state what they see as the differences between “global” and “world” history by quoting from John Headley, who wrote in 1998: “While maintaining a planetary reference, global history studies how diverse peoples and cultures contend with a specific issue such as disease, labor – free and unfree – population growth, interoceanic trade, the family, the missions of world religions, technology’s advance and the environment’s degradation. Problem or issue-oriented, global history in the elegance of its selectivity and of its analysis differs from world history, which is essentially narrative and descriptive in its aggregative effort to deal as a compendium with the totality of the past. Thus global history intrinsically has the capacity to examine common issues which heretofore have been treated in the parochial context of a region or nation or at best comparatively and are now examined in a more interconnected and comprehensive perspective.” The program rationale, however, goes on to cite affinities with the World History Association, and with particular practitioners like Jerry Bentley, whom they call a global rather than a world historian. Yet as anyone familiar with the field of World History must realize, the conception of World History as narrative and descriptive described above flies in the face of most world-historical scholarship written in the last quarter-century. Indeed, world historians make the same claims about their field as Headley claims for Global History, and the UNC program looks very similar to several other World History programs in all but name. It was for these and similar reasons that I included some Global History programs along with other World History programs. Quote and comments from “The Global History PhD: Introduction,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, formerly at http://history.unc.edu/fields/globalhistory/globalhistoryphd.
3 For the AHA, see http://www.historians.org/projects/cge/PhD/Specializations.cfm; for the WHA, which includes Canadian programs, see http://www.thewha.org/graduate_programs.php (both accessed Mar. 2012). H-World also maintains a link to such programs, but it is completely out of date.
4 My focus on North America stems from both the current dominance of North American programs in this field and the lack of data from European programs compared to those in North America. Moreover, my research indicates that existing European programs tend to focus more narrowly on the phenomenon of globalization or on “Europe in the world,” in contrast to North American programs that are more broadly defined. That said, a number of graduate students in these European programs – listed below in notes 11 and 12 – are working on exciting world-historical projects.
5 Most replied, but some did not, a fact that detracts from the accuracy of the data.
6 Pat Manning, formerly director of the World History program at Northeastern and now at the University of Pittsburgh, and Laura Mitchell at the University of California at Irvine were particularly helpful.
7 For H-World, see http://www.h-net.org/~world/ (accessed Mar. 2012). While I have tried to be as comprehensive as possible, there are bound to be a few inadvertent exclusions and a few mistaken inclusions. Directors of programs in either category should feel free to contact me via email ath.streetssalter@neu.edu.
8 These include, alphabetically, George Mason University; Northeastern University; University of California (UC), Irvine; University of Cincinnati; University of Manitoba; and Washington State University.
9 These include Columbia University’s program in International and Global History (although not all students in this program elect to do world-historical topics); State University of New York (SUNY) at Albany’s program in International, Comparative, and Global History; SUNY Binghamton’s program in Global History; the University of North Carolina’s program in Global History; the University of Rochester’s program in Global History; and the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee’s concentration in Global History.
10 These include Emory University; George Mason University; Georgia State University; Indiana University; Louisiana State University; Ohio State University; Rice University; Southern Methodist University; Temple University; University of Arizona; UC Irvine; University of California, Riverside; UC Santa Barbara; UC Santa Cruz; University of Hawai’i at Manoa; University of Houston; University of Iowa; University of Manitoba; University of North Dakota; University of Texas, El Paso; Washington State University; and Wayne State University. The institutions offering minor or secondary fields in Global or Comparative World History include Rutgers University (Global and Comparative); SUNY Albany (International Comparative, and Global); University of Massachusetts (Global and Comparative); University of Wisconsin-Madison (Comparative World); and York University (Comparative, Global, and Transnational History).
11 The institutions that offer a concentration or major in the World History MA include Birkbeck College (University of London); Bowling Green State University (MAT only); Brunel University (London); the joint program between Columbia University and London School of Economics in International and World History; Florida Gulf Coast University; Fordham University; Monmouth University; New York University; North Georgia State College and University; Northeastern University; Northern Illinois University; Portland State University; Rochester University; Sacramento State University; San Francisco State University; SUNY Brockport; University of Cincinnati; University of Manitoba; University of Wisconsin-Madison (terminal MA in Comparative World); and Washington State University. The institutions that offer a minor concentration or field at the MA level include Arkansas Tech University; Bowling Green State University; Emory University; Florida Gulf Coast University; Georgia State University; Northern Illinois University; Portland State University; Sacramento State University; University of Houston; University of Utah; and Washington State University.
12 These are Erasmus University, Rotterdam (MA in Global History and International Relations); Jacobs University, Bremen (MA in Global History); and University of Heidelberg (MA in Global History).
13 The Doctor of Arts programs are at St Johns University and the University of North Dakota (Ancient World only). SUNY Binghamton, the University of Pennsylvania, and Wayne State University offer teaching certificates in World History.
14 Of the ten participants, seven were from US institutions, two were from European institutions (in the Netherlands and Italy), and one was from a Japanese institution. Faculty participants, in addition to Pat Manning, were Adam McKeown and Heather Streets-Salter.
15 Although some institutions offer both major and minor fields, they were only counted once. It should be clear that these numbers, although carefully researched, are not definitive, and some institutions may have been inadvertently excluded or mistakenly included.
16 The Comparative World History program at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, established by Philip Curtin, was the first graduate program to be developed in World History in 1959. Ohio State University, the University of Hawai’i, the University of Minnesota, the University of Manitoba, and UC Santa Cruz all developed World History Fields in the 1980s, while Northeastern, Georgia State University, UC Riverside, and UC Irvine developed fields in the 1990s. For a longer evaluation of programs developed prior to 2000, see Manning (2003: 327–330).
17 This trend was noted by AHA Committee on Graduate Education (2003).
18 Numbers are from American Historical Association (2010).
19 These four are UC Irvine (2), George Mason University (0), University of Manitoba (0), and University of Cincinnati (numbers are unknown, but the program only accepts one or two students each year in any field).
20 The first PhD from this program was awarded in 1997.
21 This estimate is based only on data from Northeastern University, Washington State University, Columbia University, and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and therefore may need to be revised upward slightly.
22 These numbers are conservative, as they include data from only University of Hawai’i at Manoa, UC Irvine, Washington State University, and Rice University. They do not include the people who took part in the Comparative World History program under Philip Curtin.
23 Again, these data are conservative, since they include data from only Georgia State University, UC Riverside, and Washington State University.
24 This number must be taken as a stab in the dark, as it relies only on data from Georgia State University, Portland State University, North Georgia College and State University, Arkansas Tech University, Florida Gulf Coast University, and Birkbeck College.
25 Examples include Maryanne Rhett and Amitava Chowdhury, both PhDs in World History from Washington State University. Rhett has established an MA program at Monmouth University, and Chowdhury is in the process of setting up a program at the PhD level at Queen’s University, Canada.
26 Top-tier criterion is based on membership in the Association of American Universities. Universities in this tier with programs in World or Global/Comparative History include Columbia University; Emory University; Indiana University; New York University; Ohio State University; Rice University; Stanford University; University of Arizona; UC Irvine; UC Santa Barbara; University of Iowa; University of Michigan; University of North Carolina; University of Pennsylvania; University of Rochester; University of Wisconsin-Madison.
27 The program at Washington State relied heavily on the model of Northeastern’s program while it was under the direction of Pat Manning.
28 See Appendix below. Note this is not a definitive list, but merely one example of an effort to define current readings.
29 This part of the program structure is based on Pat Manning’s experience at Northeastern, where students completed the prospectus prior to taking the qualifying exams (2003: 335). At Washington State, World History students have access to a scholarship fund for research, language training, and conference travel designated for their use only. This allows most of them to make preliminary research trips, usually overseas.
30 At Washington State University, “regions” are defined by existing faculty areas of expertise.
31 Programs that emphasize World History as a teaching field include, among others, those at University of Indiana, UC Riverside, University of Arizona, Louisiana State University, and Rutgers University. UC Riverside also offers its students the option to take either Early or Modern World History as a complementary (research) exam field. Currently, however, no students are exploring this option, while approximately 60 are taking it as a teaching field.
32 See the guidelines for the University of Pennsylvania’s Certificate in World History at http://www.history.upenn.edu/grad/world-certificate.shtml (accessed Mar. 2012).
33 From “Graduate handbook, 2010–2011,” p. 24.
34 Either the major or the minor field must be outside Europe or North America.
35 New York University Department of History, Masters Program, World History, see http://history.fas.nyu.edu/object/history.gradprog.worldhistory (accessed Mar. 2012).
36 Standard History MA Program Requirements, Sacramento State University, see http://www.csus.edu/hist/graduate/standardguidelines.html (accessed Mar. 2012).
37 Data come from Columbia University, Northeastern University, UC Irvine, and Washington State University, provided by Adam McKeown, Laura Mitchell, Pat Manning, and Heather Streets-Salter, respectively.
38 Of those employed outside the US, one is in Canada, and one is in Singapore.
39 The report does not specify what is meant by World/Non-West, so it is unknown how many of these positions would be recognized as World History jobs by those in the field.
40 Two exceptions include one World History PhD who is a visiting professor at Brandeis University, and one who is an assistant professor at Queen’s University in Canada.
41 Data provided by Laura Mitchell, UC Irvine.
42 There were 20 responses to the poll I conducted on H-World. Of course, it is possible that those most likely to respond were also those most likely to believe that their World History credentials made them more marketable.
References
AHA Committee on Graduate Education. 2003. The education of historians for the 21st century. Perspectives on History: The News Magazine of the American Historical Association (Oct.). At http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2003/0310/0310not1.cfm(accessed Mar. 2012).
American Historical Association. 2010. Directory of History Departments, Historical Organizations, and Historians, 36th edition, 2010–2011. Washington DC: American Historical Association.
Manning, Patrick. 2003. Navigating World History: Historians Create a Global Past. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Townsend, Robert B. 2005. Job market report 2004. Perspectives on History: The News Magazine of the American Historical Association (Jan.). At http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2005/0501/0501new1.cfm (accessed Mar. 2012).
Townsend, Robert B. 2010. A grim year on the academic job market for historians. Perspectives on History: The News Magazine of the American Historical Association (Jan.). At http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/2010/1001/1001new1.cfm (accessed Mar. 2012).
Appendix: World History Comprehensive Exam Reading List (Washington State University, 2010)
Abu-Lughod, Janet. Before European Hegemony: The World System AD 1250–1350. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Adas, Michael. Machines as the Measure of Men: Science, Technology, and Ideologies of Western Dominance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990.
Adas, Michael, and American Historical Association. Islamic and European Expansion : The Forging of a Global Order. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1993.
Adas, Michael, and American Historical Association. Agricultural and Pastoral Societies in Ancient and Classical History. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001.
Adelman, Jeremy. Latin American and world histories: Old and new approaches to the pluribus and the unum. Hispanic American Historical Review 84 (3) (July 30, 2004): 399–409.
Archer, Christon. World History of Warfare. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002.
Armitage, David. The British Atlantic World, 1500–1800. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
Aydin, Cemil. The Politics of Anti-Westernism in Asia: Visions of World Order in Pan-Islamic and Pan-Asian Thought. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.
Banner, Stuart. Possessing the Pacific: Land, Settlers, and Indigenous People from Australia to Alaska. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.
Bayly, C.A. The Birth of the Modern World: 1780–1914. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003.
Beckwith, Christopher. Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.
Benjamin, Thomas. The Atlantic World: Europeans, Africans, Indians and Their Shared History, 1400–1900. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Benjamin, Thomas, Timothy Hall, and David Rutherford. The Atlantic World in the Age of Empire. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2000.
Bentley, Jerry H. Old World Encounters: Cross-Cultural Contacts and Exchanges in Pre-Modern Times. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Bentley, Jerry. Cross-cultural interaction and periodization in world history. American Historical Review 101 (3) (June 1996): 749–770.
Benton, Lauren. Law and Colonial Cultures: Legal Regimes in World History, 1400–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Benton, Lauren. No longer odd region out: Repositioning Latin America in world history. Hispanic American Historical Review 84 (3) (July 30, 2004): 423–430.
Besse, Susan. Placing Latin America in modern world history textbooks. Hispanic American Historical Review 84 (3) (July 30, 2004): 411–422.
Bessis, Sophie. Western Supremacy: Triumph of an Idea? London: Zed Books, 2003.
Black, Antony. The West and Islam: Religion and Political Thought in World History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Blaut, James. The Colonizer’s Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History. New York: Guilford Press, 1993.
Brooks, Pamela. Boycotts, Buses, and Passes: Black Women’s Resistance in the US and South Africa. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2008.
Buck, David. Was it pluck or luck that made the West grow rich? Review of ReORIENT: Global Economy in the Asian Age (Frank); The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor (Landes); China Transformed (R. Bin Wong).Journal of World History 10 (2) (1999): 413.
Bulliet, Richard. The Camel and the Wheel. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990.
Bulliet, Richard. Hunters, Herders and Hamburgers: The Past and Future of Human–Animal Relationships. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.
Burbank, Jane, and Frederick Cooper. Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.
Chanda, Nayan. Bound Together: How Traders, Preachers, Adventurers, and Warriors Shaped Globalization. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007.
Chaudhuri, K. Trade and Civilisation in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from the Rise of Islam to 1750. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Chaudhuri, K. Asia before Europe: Economy and Civilisation of the Indian Ocean from the Rise of Islam to 1750. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Cheng, Yinghong. Creating the “New Man”: From Enlightenment Ideals to Socialist Realities. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2008.
Christian, David. Maps of Time: An Introduction to Big History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004.
Clarence-Smith, W. The Global Coffee Economy in Africa, Asia and Latin America, 1500–1989. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Clark, Gregory. A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.
Clark, Robert. The Global Imperative: An Interpretive History of the Spread of Humankind. Boulder: Westview, 1997.
Connelly, Matthew. Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2008.
Conrad, Sebastian, and Dominic Sachsenmaier. Competing Visions of World Order: Global Moments and Movements, 1880s–1930s. Annotated edn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Crosby, Alfred. Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1972.
Crosby, Alfred. Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900–1900. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Crosby, Alfred. Children of the Sun: A History of Humanity’s Unappeasable Appetite for Energy. New York: W.W. Norton, 2006.
Crossley, Pamela. What Is Global History? Cambridge: Polity, 2008.
Curtin, Philip. Cross-Cultural Trade in World History. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Curtin, Philip. The World and the West: The European Challenge and the Overseas Response in the Age of Empire. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: W.W. Norton, 1998.
Diamond, Jared. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Viking, 2005.
Dikötter, Frank. Cultures of Confinement: A History of the Prison in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2007.
Dunn, Ross. The Adventures of Ibn Battuta, a Muslim Traveler of the Fourteenth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986.
Dunn, Ross, ed. The New World History: A Teacher’s Companion. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s, 2000.
Falola, Toyin. The Atlantic world, 1450–2000. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008.
Fernández-Armesto, Felipe. Civilizations: Culture, Ambition, and the Transformation of Nature. New York: Free Press, 2001.
Findley, Carter. The Turks in World History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Frank, Andre G. ReORIENT: Global Economy in the Asian Age. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004.
Fritze, Ronald. New Worlds: The Great Voyages of Discovery, 1400–1600. Stroud, UK: Sutton, 2002.
Getz, Trevor, and Heather Streets-Salter. Modern Imperialism and Colonialism: A Global Perspective. Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2010.
Geyer, Michael. World history in a global age. American Historical Review 100 (4) (1995): 1034.
Gilbert, Erik, and Jonathan T. Reynolds. Africa in World History: From Prehistory to the Present. 2nd edn. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall, 2008.
Goody, Jack. The Theft of History. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Gran, Peter. The Rise of the Rich: A New View of Modern World History. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2009.
Gunn, Geoffrey. First Globalization: The Eurasian Exchange, 1500 to 1800. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.
Headley, John. The Europeanization of the World: On the Origins of Human Rights and Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.
Headrick, Daniel. The Tentacles of Progress : Technology Transfer in the Age of Imperialism, 1850–1940. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Headrick, Daniel. Power over Peoples: Technology, Environments, and Western Imperialism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.
Hobson, John. The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Hodgson, Marshall. The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.
Hodgson, Marshall. Rethinking World History: Essays on Europe, Islam, and World History. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Hopkins, A. Globalization in World History. New York: W.W. Norton, 2002.
Hopkins, A. Global History: Interactions between the Universal and the Local. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
Hornborg, Alf. Rethinking Environmental History: World-System History and Global Environmental Change. Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2007.
Hughes, J. The Face of the Earth: Environment and World History. Armonk NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2000.
Hughes, Sarah. Women in World History. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1995.
Hughes-Warrington, Marnie, ed. Palgrave Advances in World Histories. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
Hugill, Peter. World Trade since 1431: Geography, Technology, and Capitalism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.
Jones, E. The European Miracle: Environments, Economies, and Geopolitics in the History of Europe and Asia. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Jones, E. Coming Full Circle : An Economic History of the Pacific Rim. Boulder: Westview, 1993.
Kicza, John. Resilient Cultures: America’s Native Peoples Confront European Colonizaton, 1500–1800. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003.
Kiernan, Ben. Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007.
Landes, David. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor. New York: W.W. Norton, 1998.
Langer, Erick. Introduction: Placing Latin America in world history. Hispanic American Historical Review 84 (3) (July 30, 2004): 393–398.
Lewis, Bernard. The Muslim Discovery of Europe. New York: W.W. Norton, 1982.
Liu, Xinru. Connections across Eurasia: Transportation, Communication, and Cultural Exchange on the Silk Roads. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2007.
Lucassen, Jan, Leo Lucassen, and Patrick Manning, eds. Migration History in World History. Multidisciplinary Approaches. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Manela, Erez. The Wilsonian Moment: Self-Determination and the International Origins of Anti-colonial Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Manning, Patrick. The problem of interactions in world history. American Historical Review 101 (3) (June 1996): 771–782.
Manning, Patrick. Navigating World History: Historians Create a Global Past. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
Manning, Patrick. Migration in World History. London: Routledge, 2004.
Manning, Patrick. The African Diaspora: A History through Culture. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009.
Marks, Robert. The Origins of the Modern World: A Global and Ecological Narrative from the Fifteenth to the Twenty-First Century. 2nd edn. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.
Martin, Eric Lane. World history as a way of thinking, World History Connected (May 2005), at http://worldhistoryconnected.press.uiuc.edu/2.2/martin.html (accessed Apr. 9, 2008).
Matossian, Mary. Shaping World History: Breakthroughs in Ecology, Technology, Science, and Politics. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1997.
Mazlish, Bruce. Comparing global history to world history. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 28 (3) (1998): 385.
McClellan, James. Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.
McKeown, Adam. Melancholy Order: Asian Migration and the Globalization of Borders. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.
McNeill, John. Something New under the Sun: An Environmental History of the Twentieth-Century World. New York: W.W. Norton, 2000.
McNeill, John. The Human Web: A Bird’s-Eye View of World History. New York: W.W. Norton, 2003.
McNeill, William. The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963.
McNeill, William. Plagues and Peoples. Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1976.
Meade, Theresa, and Merry Wiesner. A Companion to Gender History. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2006.
Moses, A. Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History. New York: Berghahn, 2008.
Nehru, Jawaharlal. Glimpses of World History: Being Further Letters to His Daughter, Written in Prison, and Containing a Rambling Account of History for Young People. New Delhi: Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund and Oxford University Press, 1999.
Northrup, David. Africa’s Discovery of Europe: 1450–1850. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Ó Gráda, Cormac. Famine: A Short History. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.
Osterhammel, Jürgen, and Niels P. Petersson. Globalization: A Short History. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.
Poe, Marshall. The Russian Moment in World History. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003.
Pomeranz, Kenneth. The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.
Pomeranz, Kenneth. The World That Trade Created: Society, Culture, and the World Economy, 1400 to the Present. 2nd edn. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2006.
Ralston, David. Importing the European Army: The Introduction of European Military Techniques and Institutions into the Extra-European world, 1600–1914. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.
Reynolds, David. One World Divisible: A Global History since 1945. New York: W.W. Norton, 2000.
Reynolds, Jonathan, and Erik Gilbert, Trading Tastes: Commodity and Cultural Exchange to 1750. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2005.
Richards, John. The Unending Frontier: An Environmental History of the Early Modern World. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.
Rodney, Walter. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Rev. edn. Washington, DC: Howard University Press, 1981.
Schaeffer, Robert. Understanding Globalization: The Social Consequences of Political, Economic, and Environmental Change. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997.
Seigel, Micol. World history’s narrative problem. Hispanic American Historical Review 84 (3) (July 30, 2004): 431–446.
So, Alvin. Social Change and Development: Modernization, Dependency, and World-Systems Theories. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990.
Spengler, Oswald. The Decline of the West. London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1934.
Stavrianos, Leften. Global Rift: The Third World Comes of Age. New York: Morrow, 1981.
Stavrianos, Leften. Lifelines from Our Past: A New World History. Rev. edn. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1997.
Stearns, Peter. The Industrial Revolution in World History. Boulder: Westview, 1993.
Stearns, Peter. Gender in World History. London: Routledge, 2000.
Stiglitz, Joseph. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W. W. Norton, 2002.
Thornton, John. Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World, 1400–1800. 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Tilly, Charles. Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1989.
Toynbee, Arnold, and Royal Institute of International Affairs. A Study of History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1947.
Vries, P. Should we really ReORIENT? Itinerario (Leiden) 22 (3) (1998): 19–38.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. The Modern World-System. New York: Academic Press, 1974.
Williams, Eric. Capitalism and Slavery. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994.
Wolmar, Christian. Blood, Iron and Gold: How the Railways Transformed the World. London: Atlantic, 2009.
Wong, R. Bin. China Transformed: Historical Change and the Limits of European Experience. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997.
Woodside, Alexander. Lost Modernities: China, Vietnam, Korea, and the Hazards of World History. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2006.
Wright, Donald. The World and a Very Small Place in Africa: A History of Globalization in Niumi, the Gambia. 2nd edn. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2004.