
Atlanta.
Originally uploaded by Susan Groppi.
I'm in Atlanta for the 121st Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association. I have maligned this meeting in the past, claiming that it's little more than a stress factory driven by the collective tension of hundreds of job-seeking historians. I say "maligned" because, while that aspect of the conference is certainly present, I am finally willing to concede that there's a lot more to it. (My problem, mainly, is that I've been holding the AHA up against the example of the History of Science Society annual meetings, which have a much stronger sense of community. It's an unfair comparison.)
I'm having a good time, even though I'm spending a little too much time holed up in my hotel room, working. These conferences tend to have an energizing effect when it comes to work, and in the last day and a half I've made some good progress on a few projects.
All this working means that I haven't attended much of the scheduled programming, although I did make it to a great panel yesterday, "Getting to your first publication: Articles and Monographs." The panelists, two journal editors and two university-press acquisitions editors, were friendly and informative. Most of what they said about submissions and publication was just common sense, but that was useful--the process seems so obscure to most early-career academics that there's enormous value in just having one's common-sense instincts affirmed.
One of the book editors cited some interesting (and disturbing) statistics, though, about the state of academic publishing. He said that in the last twenty-five years, the number of individual titles published by university presses had increased dramatically--if I'm reading my notes correctly, he said that in 1980 there were approximately 2300 individual titles released by university presses, and in 2004 it was more like 11,000. That almost looks like good news for academic publishing, except that it's not as simple a statistic as it looks; the increase in number of titles has been accompanied by an equally dramatic decline in the size of print runs. College and university libraries (the major market for academic books) are buying far fewer books than they were twenty or thirty years ago, and where university presses used to not even consider print runs smaller than 1500 or 2000, they're now down to 700 or 800, and in some cases as low as 300 or 400. And, of course, smaller print runs generally means a higher per-book production costs, so the prices of academic books have been rising, which only exacerbates the problem of academic libraries not buying as many of them. (He said that the decline in book purchasing is generally attributed to increases in the subscription costs for scientific journals; he cited some figures saying that in 1980, academic libraries generally spent seventy percent of their acquisitions budgets on books and thirty percent on journals, but the most recent surveys show a complete inversion of those figures.)
The impact on early-career academics, of course, is that it's probably more difficult to sell a first book. First books are usually based on dissertations, and dissertations are usually very narrowly focused, and publishers who can't rely on large-scale library purchasing have to place an even larger priority on finding a broader audience for any given book in their list. Both of the book editors on the panel expressed some dismay about the way that academic publishers have (in their words) become implicated in the tenure process; the take-home lesson for graduate students, I suppose, is to pay attention to the ways in which the dissertation project can be related back to larger contexts. (To paraphrase another example from a panelist, if your dissertation is an examination of the changes in fishing patterns in three small Sicilian villages in the early eighteen hundreds, you'll have an easier time selling it if you can demonstrate that in some fundamental way it's really a study in the impact of the Industrial Revolution on rural economies.)
Recent Comments