To make matters worse, because this is meant to be an "academic" book (rather than an activist one), she also has an image in her mind of a kind of gremlin editor. She sees a dowdy English professor (I can envision the gentleman: leather elbow pads, pipe, high culture). Besides the fact that most English professors actually do not look or behave like her image, that character represents an intimidating authority, and that authority says, "You don't have enough research to say anything valuable about these things. You're not a scholar—Go!"

In a similar fashion, a student came to me who is writing a thesis on the history of the anti-colonial movement in Guyana. This student—we'll call her Lisa—was writing this based on oral history. Quite a few of the fighters for independence from Britain are still alive, and she managed to garner a good array of interviews. But, she felt, who am I to write this? How can I use oral history when there are few other resources? (Of course, many women and people of color and workingclass people, no matter how qualified, will feel constant pressure to validate themselves or will feel like imposters. This is yet another dynamic of people who have been marginalized that creates blocks, but let's go into that in more detail at another time.)

The fact of the matter is that many topics have not had adequate research about them. It is not Prof. Murray's fault that the research is lacking — and much of that lack is due to the inattention paid to women's health issues over many years. In Lisa's case, not much has been written about Guyana's history, particularly its anti-colonial fight. I suggested to Prof. Murray to make the lack of formal research a major part of her discussions. It's not as if combatting human trafficking is going to wait for a 20 year longitudinal study to be completed. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence and newspaper accounts of that particular horror. Is she supposed to NOT write about it because a biased research community has previously avoided it? Should Lisa avoid her oral history because no one else has written the formal, document-based history that you would think an independence struggle would have already inspired? What if those documents do not exist in the first place?

So, it's necessary to drive out little gremlins who sit as editors stopping your flow. It's possible to draw upon existing evidence to say something important, just as it's possible to rely upon oral history. "Who am I? " Lisa asks. "I'm just an undergraduate. " In fact, she has become one of the few experts in Guyana's history, and oral testimony is a valuable vehicle for recovering that history. More could be done, but, like Prof. Murray, should she NOT do her research because others have ignored her topic?

In both cases, if a writer places the lack of research as a central component of her own project — if she addresses the shortcomings in the field and how she is providing an essential piece of research to help that field — then the "It's not academic" block could be blown to Hoboken.

Hilton Obenzinger