Notes on Studying Appalachia: Critical Reflections (Obermiller & Scott)

Reflecting on Appalachian Studies

  • Purpose of the chapter: identify strengths and weaknesses in the field, spotlight insights and contributions, and reveal blind spots and omissions. It functions as a signpost to guide researchers, artists, practitioners, and activists toward areas, projects, and questions needing attention. Appalachian studies is not monolithic; it includes diverse participants with their own viewpoints.
  • Methodology: based on interviews with "+"thirty-two"+" people involved with the region (scholars, artists, practitioners, activists) and a review of published collections and essays on Appalachian studies. The volume also draws on special issues of the Appalachian Journal (e.g., "A Guide to Appalachian Studies" and "Assessing Appalachian Studies"), the Rethinking Appalachian Studies Series, and other writings.
  • Core claim: Appalachian studies is an interdisciplinary educational, research, artistic, and practical enterprise that extends beyond formal associations and journals. Its roots trace to missionary, literary, and activist projects over a century, becoming an academic field in the late 1970s (Caudill 1963; Ford 1962; Shapiro 1978; Weller 1965), but the chapter emphasizes ongoing evolution rather than repackaging old ground.
  • Framing note: the field embodies diversity, contradictions, and tensions across regions, actors, and discourses, mirroring the region itself.

Background and Trajectory of Appalachian Studies

  • Early assessments (1977): Appalachian Studies Conference formed; a special issue of the Appalachian Journal highlighted tensions between teaching traditional heritage topics versus broad social, political, and economic analyses. Fisher warned against "safe" courses focused on tradition and heritage, urging more rigorous research on social realities.
  • Disciplinary gaps identified (Fisher 1977): strengths in literature, folklore, ethnomusicology, history, sociology, political science, and anthropology; gaps in psychology, economics, education, and natural sciences.
  • A 1982 assessment (Stephenson): tension between ‘pure academics’ and social action scholars; risk that literary/historical perspectives may reinforce regional inequalities by avoiding critique of social conditions. Emphasized practical implications and community collaboration but noted limited attention to race, gender, and sexuality at the time.
  • 2000–2003 shifts: Marshall University conference on ethnicity and gender; Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Gender in Appalachia (2003); Ohio University Press book series on Race, Ethnicity, and Gender; ASA collaboration with Black Belt Studies Association. Wilma Dykeman postdoctoral fellowship (established 2007) further supported research on gender, sexuality, race, and ethnicity (though awarded only twice by then).
  • Theoretical orientation: field engages postmodernist and poststructuralist ideas cautiously. There is debate about universalism vs. essentialism, with advocates for a moderate postmodern approach to avoid both homogenization and fixed essentialist portrayals (Banks, Billings, and Tice; 1993).
  • Critiques of postmodernism: concerns about internal contradictions within some streams of women’s studies and African American studies; cautions about overemphasizing representation at the expense of political action (Reid 2005; Cunningham 2003).
  • Relationship to neoliberal globalization: some scholars warn against insider/outsider dichotomies, “reactionary nostalgia,” and reification of regional Otherness; call for a more plural, place-based analysis in the context of global economies (Reid 2005; Reid & Taylor 2002, 2010).
  • Toward global regional studies: scholars proposed moving from “Appalachia studies” to “global regional studies” and building a democratic civic space to confront global justice issues (Reid 2005; Reid & Taylor 2010).

Key Debates and Theoretical Tensions

  • Postmodern/poststructuralism in Appalachian studies: mixed adoption; some see value in dialogic, heterogenous analyses; others worry about relativism eclipsing political action. The field stresses locality, difference, and historically contingent identities rather than universal North American or regional essences.
  • Insider/outsider discourse: risk of reifying Otherness and sustaining identity politics without historical grounding. Wendell Berry’s distinction between natives and citizens highlights tensions between subjective belonging and responsibility to the region.
  • Representation versus politics of change: concerns that focusing on representation can distract from material inequalities and policy action. The field emphasizes the political economy of place and the need to address neoliberal governance and market-driven processes that erode place-based democratic space.
  • Engagement versus academia: participatory action research is valued, but critics argue that university-centric structures can neutralize activist aims; calls for real partnerships with communities and sustained outreach (Lewis 2007; Fisher & Smith 2012).
  • Dialogue with other area studies: debates about whether Appalachian studies should be more integrated with broader Southern, comparative, or global region studies to avoid insularity and to enrich analysis with cross-regional comparisons.

The Role of Dialogue, Engagement, and Civic Action

  • Participatory action research (PAR): widely valued as a way to connect scholarship with lived experience and social change; concerns persist about the pace and incentives for faculty to engage in PAR within the university reward system.
  • Community-university partnerships: emphasized as essential for legitimacy, relevance, and social impact; barriers include tenure timelines, resource constraints, and misalignment of academic schedules with community activity cycles.
  • Call for democratic commons: scholars advocate reclaiming democratic public spaces for deliberation on social and environmental justice, connecting Appalachia to broader struggles against commodified globalization (Reid 2005; Reid & Taylor 2010).
  • Critique of institutional reform: concerns about universities becoming more corporate, with emphasis on market metrics, hierarchy, and bottom-line pressures (Slaughter & Rhoades 2000; Washburn 2008).

The Future of Appalachian Studies: Opportunities and Threats

  • Institutional vulnerability: field’s standing within campus hierarchies is fragile; need for alliances with other disciplines and area studies, both on campuses and beyond.
  • Technology and digital pedagogy: rising importance of MOOCs, digital texts, online courses, and digitization of archives (e.g., Encyclopedia of Appalachia, EB- SCo, JSTOR, Project Muse). Online certificates and digital exhibitions (e.g., Kentucky Appalachian Center project) could broaden reach.
  • The digital divide: two divides loom—(1) unequal access to hardware/internet within the region, and (2) the potential exclusion of learners who can only access MOOCs from the intimate, place-based learning that characterizes Appalachian studies today.
  • Funding challenges: government funding (ARC) has been episodic and often infrastructure-focused; there is a need to diversify funding sources and attract private foundations. Persistent marginality within the academy complicates fundraising efforts.
  • Curriculum and pedagogy: need to expand beyond traditional curricula; cultivate learning that prepares students for nonacademic careers in community development, environmental remediation, public service, arts, health, and sustainable resource management.
  • Subregional and sectoral gaps: better coverage of northern and southern Appalachian subregions, other industries (tourism, steel, chemicals, gas, timber, prisons), and diverse occupational groups; move beyond coal-focused narratives to include broader regional economies and work-life stories.
  • Health and environment: stronger integration of health, nutrition, and medical sciences with Appalachian studies; address stereotypes in health discourse and connect cultural understanding with structural determinants of health outcomes (Ludke & Obermiller 2012).
  • Cultural production and arts integration: expanding recognition of artists, musicians, filmmakers, and writers; rethinking canon formation to include contemporary voices and regional issues.
  • The politics of global context: insistence on local place while recognizing global market pressures; seek to connect regional struggles to global justice movements and cross-regional learning.

Seven Key Themes Emerged from Interviews (Methodology and Findings)

  • Method: between July and September 2012, the first author conducted telephone and email interviews with "+"32"+" respondents from diverse backgrounds (literature, history, folklore, social sciences, education, planning, health, library sciences) across northern, central, and southern Appalachia, nine Appalachian states, and even Texas, California, and Canada. Participants had a wide range of roles (students, teachers, activists, researchers, ASA members). The average involvement in Appalachian studies was long (mean ~2828 years; median ~3030). The sample was intended to represent a cross-section of the field rather than a random sample. Five major tensions and opportunities emerged:
    • Community: strong sense of collegiality and passion, but concerns about conflict avoidance and a tendency to celebrate inclusivity at the expense of critical debate; need for ongoing mentorship and cross-disciplinary collaboration.
    • Diversity: field remains predominantly white; African American representation and inclusion of Cherokees, LGBTQ Appalachians, and other minority communities require more intentional inclusion; women are relatively well-represented in arts and organizational leadership.
    • Global connections: Appalachia has global reach in certain exchanges and collaborations, but the field itself remains under-communicated outside regional contexts; need for more comparative/global analyses.
    • Quality of scholarship: excellent archival and field resources, but a risk of tunnel vision; some scholars cross into Appalachian studies from Southern or other regional studies; need to balance interdisciplinarity with depth.
    • Social change: field originally rooted in activism; concern that academia’s emphasis on rigor may dilute activist roots and grassroots engagement; value of place-based activism remains central to the field’s identity.
    • Omissions: rural bias; neglect of urban/small-town and middle-class experiences; limited attention to intimate life (family, sexuality, aging); geographic and sectoral gaps in the regional economy; historical events like military history and civil rights deserve more regional framing; political science and natural/environmental sciences are underrepresented; health and nutrition are under-integrated.
    • The future: need for institutional and pedagogical reform, greater engagement with non-academic communities, digitization of resources, and innovative funding models; possibility of a more global and democratic form of regional studies if these shifts are pursued.

Community in Appalachian Studies

  • Core finding: community and collegiality are the strongest features; participants value working with like-minded people who are passionate about the region. Descriptions include phrases like:
    • "These are people you can eat lunch with."
    • A shared sense of purpose fuels mentorship, collaboration, and mutual support.
  • Tensions within community: conflicts may be downplayed in favor of harmony; concerns about insufficient cross-disciplinary collaboration; older scholars may resist new ideas; between conference cohesion and critical debate.
  • Mentorship and succession: senior scholars are generally welcoming and generous but may be less open to new approaches; calls for more cross-disciplinary collaboration and active inclusion of younger scholars.
  • Community-based action: strong link between scholarship and community life; emphasis on participatory research and regional activism; service-learning is common but not always transformative.

Diversity and Representation

  • Observed lack of African American representation; under-recognition of Affrilachian poets and Black artists; calls for broader inclusion of Cherokees and other ethnic groups, as well as LGBT Appalachians.
  • Women are well represented in Appalachian studies art, film, scholarship, and leadership, even as the field has historical gender imbalances.
  • ASA membership remains predominantly white; inclusivity is a central concern for building a more representative field.
  • Implication: greater diversity is linked to richer scholarship, broader community relevance, and more robust political engagement.

Global Connections and Comparative Work

  • Appalachia’s size, resources, and regional character give it global significance; however, the field often lacks explicit comparative analyses with other regions.
  • Notable global/linking initiatives:
    • 1974 tape exchange between Welsh and Appalachian miners (Gaventa 1988 references the broader exchange network).
    • Scholar exchanges between the University of Kentucky Appalachian Center and University of Roma La Sapienza; Portelli’s work on Harlan County contributed to global linkages.
    • Appalshop and the Highlander Center facilitated exchanges with international partners (Mexico, Wales, etc.).
    • 1994 collection Appalachia in an International Context edited by Obermiller and Philliber; Rockefeller Fellowship Program (2001–2005) brought global activists to Kentucky; Berea College linked Ukrainian Carpathians scholars; 2012 Global Mountain Regions conference at the University of Kentucky.
  • Core insight: Appalachian studies benefits from grounding in place while building links to global regions; the field is strongest when linked to broader global justice concerns rather than isolated within a regional silo.

Quality of Scholarship and Intellectual Rigor

  • Some scholars feel Appalachian studies receives limited recognition within the broader academy, contributing to a perception that it is less rigorous or less prestigious.
  • Observed that the field has a robust archival base and has produced important early scholarship, but some critiques note that the field sometimes maintains old models and does not always adapt to new theoretical developments.
  • Exceptions and cross-pertilization: Southern studies scholars (Griffin & Thompson, 2002) engaging with Appalachian studies illustrate potential for cross-regional collaboration and new questions; Ozark studies have pursued analogous comparative inquiries.
  • Tension: multidisciplinary strength can hinder clear communication and perceived depth; balancing breadth with depth remains an ongoing concern.

Social Change, Activism, and Public Engagement

  • Activist origins persist as a core identity, though concerns exist that activism has become less central in some academic contexts.
  • Some worry that moving toward stronger methodological rigor and institutional alignment could dilute grassroots activism; others argue this shift is necessary to secure resources and influence policy.
  • The Appalachian Studies Association conferences are celebrated for blending cultural, activist, and scholarly voices, though some see the need for broader participation, including non-academic community voices on panels.
  • The field’s public-facing mission includes communicating relevance to local residents, policymakers, and broader audiences through media, arts, and public events.

Omissions and Gaps in Focus

  • Rural bias: overemphasis on rural/production-era issues (coal mining, mountaintop removal) leading to neglect of urban/small-town life and middle-class civic life.
  • Geographic bias: central Appalachian coalfields receive most attention; northern and southern subregions, and industries beyond energy (tourism, steel, chemicals, gas, timber, prisons, etc.) are underexplored.
  • Economic analysis: heavy reliance on ARC-driven economic development narratives; limited independent economic development scholarship within Appalachian studies itself.
  • Historical scope: underexplored topics include military history, civil rights and desegregation, and the broader American historical frame; call to situate Appalachian history more fully within national and global contexts.
  • Health and environment: health research often comes from public health and nursing perspectives rather than integrated regional scholarship; risk of perpetuating stereotypes about the region’s residents when not contextualized in structural analyses; notable counterexample: Ludke & Obermiller, Appalachian Health and Well-Being (2012).
  • Political science and natural sciences: relatively weak representation; calls for greater engagement with policy analysis, governance, and environmental science to support community decision-making.
  • Canon formation and contemporary literature: concerns about an over-reliance on classic Appalachian literature at the expense of contemporary voices; need for a more dynamic canon reflecting present-day realities.

History, Identity, and Critical Regionalism

  • Intellectual history: calls to recapture Appalachian intellectual history and to place it within broader American and world histories; a move away from static cultural essentialism toward understanding how meaning is produced in historical, geographical, and material contexts (class, economy).
  • Postcolonial and world-systems perspectives: the field has engaged neo-Marxian and world-systems approaches, linking regional identity to larger political economy processes while resisting homogenizing universalist claims.
  • Identity politics: caution against insider/outsider dichotomies that freeze regional identity into simplistic binaries; advocate for nuanced understandings of place-based differences.

Pedagogy, Service, and the Politics of Education

  • Service-learning and community engagement: recognized as core to Appalachian studies but not always transformative; risk of emphasizing service to victims rather than challenging systemic structures.
  • The university’s role: critical view that Appalachian studies has been overly “academized,” potentially neutralizing political intent; need to preserve activist roots while leveraging academic resources for social change.
  • Institutional reform pressures: many universities are reorganizing along corporate lines, prioritizing specialized, market-driven metrics; this threatens field’s democratic and community-oriented aims.
  • Reward structures: tenure and promotion systems may undervalue community-based research and long-term engagement with nonacademic communities.
  • Digital pedagogy and access: emphasis on digitization to reach broader audiences; online distribution of journals and datasets is increasing, but there is a risk of widening the digital divide if regional access lags.

Technology, Digitization, and the Digital Divide

  • Digitization momentum: Encyclopedia of Appalachia digitization; Appalachian journals available via EB-SCO, JSTOR, Project Muse; online projects like Kentucky Appalachian Center’s Background to the 1931-32 Strike.
  • Digital divide within Appalachia: disparities in technology access could reproduce inequities; MOOC-based models may not capture the place-based, community-centered pedagogy valued in Appalachia.
  • Opportunities of digital resources: potential to reach global audiences, attract new learners, and preserve regional archives; need for robust digital infrastructure and digital literacy across the region.
  • Practical steps: develop online Appalachian studies certificates, expand digital archives (Appalshop, regional archives), and build global online communities for place-based scholarship.

Conclusions and Outlook

  • The volume argues that Appalachian studies is a work in progress: interdisciplinary, participatory, and place-centered, yet imperfect and uneven in scope, depth, and impact.
  • Strengths: broad inclusivity, active community engagement, rich archival resources, and a strong tradition of scholarship aimed at social betterment.
  • Challenges: sustaining funding, institutional support, and legitimacy within the broader academy; maintaining activist roots while embracing scholarly rigor; expanding representation for diverse voices; expanding coverage beyond coal and rural economies; integrating health, policy, and natural sciences.
  • The future: potential to become a truly global regional field if it embraces digital pedagogy, global linkages, and democratic public engagement; requires partnerships across disciplines, regions, and communities, and a willingness to rethink traditional academic reward structures.
  • Final call: Appalachian studies should continue to evolve toward a global regional framework that foregrounds place-based justice, democratic participation, and sustained community impact, while preserving its distinctive commitments to community voices and social change.

Numerical and Referencing Notes (Selected)

  • Interview sample size: "+32"+ interviewees.
  • Timeframes referenced: formation of Appalachian Studies Conference in 1977; second collection of essays about five years after 1977; 1982 reflection; 2000–2003 institutional developments; 2007 Wilma Dykeman fellowship; 2008 postdoctoral fellowship; 2012 Transforming Places and related works.
  • Key publications and series cited include: Fisher 1977; Stephenson 1982; Brown et al. 2003; Reid 2005; Reid & Taylor 2002, 2010; Fisher & Smith 2012; Taylor, Faltraco, Isla 2012; Ludke & Obermiller 2012; Appalshop collaborations; Portelli 2010; Obermiller & Philliber 1994.
  • Thematic emphasis across sources includes: postmodernism vs. materialist analysis; global regionalism; community-based research; healthcare and health disparities; economic development and ARC influence; education reform; and digital dissemination.

Key Takeaways for Exam Preparation

  • Appalachian studies is an interdisciplinary, place-based field with activist roots, now negotiating tensions between rigorous scholarship and social change.
  • The field has evolved to address race, gender, sexuality, and minority representation, but ongoing work is needed to diversify voices and materials.
  • There is a persistent critique of insularity and a push toward global/regional comparative perspectives to connect local concerns to global processes.
  • A central challenge is balancing breadth (community engagement, cultural production, multiple disciplines) with depth (rigor, theory, and empirical analysis).
  • The future of the field lies in: stronger institutional alliances, greater diversification of funding and participants, expanded digital infrastructure, and a renewed emphasis on democratic publics and participatory governance.