Debates in history

I am writing a piece I have been musing on and toying with for too long, on defining the Pacific World. I see it as a concept that applies earlier and later than seems to be used by other analysts, with a high point with the Pan Pacific Union (and pretty much dying with that organisation too).
I'm now trying to beat this article into shape to justify my ideas!

I recently submitted a piece on Vani Maris Lake, a woman who came forward in 1959 claiming to have information about the disappearance of Camilo Cienfuegos. It's timely for the 50th anniversary, but it remains to be seen if I can find someone willing to publish it this year.

Currently also working on longstanding piece on Gabrielle Vassal. A short comment I wrote on her misidentification is coming out later this year in Notes and Queries.

relevance

I was putting together an application today, and thinking about how to convey the significance and value of my work. A lot of funding agencies have guidelines that are clearly written for scientists.

twitter!

So useful! especially when there are people like Dan Cohen from the Center for History and New Media on it. I've already been sent links to useful sources (journals en español, for instance) that I probably would never find on my own.
History not being a typically collaborative field, the ability to fire off a query into the unknown and quickly receive back useful tweets is amazing.
(if you want to follow me, I have the amazingly creative username: http://www.twitter.com/katrinagulliver)

writing genres

I just sent an adapted version of a research article to a more general publication. Yet to see how they receive it.
I have written before for newspapers and magazines, but I seem to have been infected with 'academic-ese' when it comes to prose now. It's hard for me to get back to the 'go with the flow, you don't need footnotes...' kind of mindset.

procrastination...

Trying the finish a conference paper, and downloaded the program 'Freedom' (which I read about while procrastinating yesterday, I think it was in Salon, or Slate, or one of the four hundred other sites I drift through). It cut me off for a while, and I got some work done!
However, it has the disadvantage of also cutting me off from googlescholar and jstor. I tend to want to get a quick reference while I am writing. Can't think of a solution to that one! (avoiding online temptations while still using online resources). At least I'm not on facebook.

Return to online journaling....

This will be a purely research focused journal. So don't expect amusing anecdotes of what happened to me at Starbucks or at a party. Or my musings on life in general.
I would like to invite historians (and anyone else) to comment and send advice.

Right now, I have been working on a small article which has brought me into the 'land of the living' as a historian, or rather, into the time period in which participants may still be alive. I looked up one person in the phone directory, I don't know if it's the same person, but the age range is right (I paid the 95c to some online people-finder skip tracer directory) and it is the same area, so it's possible.
I looked up the address, from 50 years ago, and the house is still there (thanks, Google Street view!).
I feel creepy and stalkerish: I want to know as a historian, but at the same time, how much can I know? What if it is the same person - am I going to pick up the phone and call? (I don't think so - at what point does my 'right' to scholarly enquiry override my instinct not to harass the elderly?).
I realise that historians who do oral history and deal with contemporary sources deal with this all the time. But I feel discomfort, like it is invasive for me to be writing about the life of someone still living and presenting it as a historical artefact.