Focused discussion with younger scholars  (Page 4/4)

The tension between writing for potential book publication (to enhance one’s prospects for tenure) versus writing in a format that allows one’s current scholarship to be disseminated effectively is acutely felt by many art andarchitectural historians. As one scholar put it,“I try not to think about the tenure process because then I don’t write what I want to.”

A number of scholars also noted the value of journal articles for teaching purposes, pointing out that they areoften more useful than monographs for introducing students to key ideas in the field. Said one scholar:“The research is newer, you can get them from J-STOR and put them on the syllabus, and assignthem to graduate students.”Another noted that with respect to peripheral subfields,“articles may be the only way to give students a taste of that field.”Because of their potential utility for teaching purposes, scholars argued that they should be givengreater weight insofar as tenure decisions are concerned.

At the least, younger scholars in the field seek acknowledgement from deans and provosts concerning thedifficulties associated with publishing in art and architectural history. Some see signs that greater understanding of the situationis emerging. In one case, a dean was willing to consider book chapters and articles in anthologies as counting towards tenure.Unfortunately, the dean left the department before the faculty member came up for tenure.

One scholar suggested that copies of rejection letters from publishers should be included as part of one’s tenure review, to show that a manuscript had been written and submittedfor consideration for publication. Another encouraged all faculty members who write dossier letters for other scholars to include atleast a couple of sentences about“the crisis in art history publishing,”in order to educate tenure committees about the situation facing younger scholars in the field.

The danger facing art history scholarship, said one scholar, is that“publishing is so closely linked to tenure that we are losing sight of what makes a good scholarly bookand what are the qualities that make a good faculty member. What happens if we restructure [things]so that what needs to be published for the field is published, but doesn’t translate into everybody getting tenure?”Although it is not likely that the publication process could be completely divorced from tenureconsiderations, the fact that such a sentiment is being expressed is reflective of the tensions felt by scholars at the presenttime.

The younger scholars briefly discussed the possibility of electronic publishing as a way of addressing some ofthe publication issues in the field. At present, a significant drawback to e-publishing is that traditional publications arereviewed and cited far more often than e-publications. Further, the prices of CDs (included in hybrid publications) are out of reachfor most students. Often, in fact, when students buy used copies of hybrid texts, the CDs are missing. In addition, many scholars donot care for e-books, finding them cumbersome to read, and print-on-demand was criticized by some as little better than a“photocopy.”

There was general agreement, however, that the electronic article is a useful format, especially when users areable to browse and search e-articles interactively. But younger scholars were also quick to point out that“the medium must add value to the scholarship,”otherwise it represents little more than a replacement for print, rather than an expansion of scholarly possibilities.

The costs of publication in the field of art and architectural history

Because art history-related texts require illustrations, they are more costly to produce than books in otherscholarly fields and require more time and labor, as well. As one scholar said,“You have to be a good financial manager in addition to being a scholar. The amount of energy is doubled in this field:production costs for images, along with permission rights.”

While images are an issue even for journal articles in the field, the discussion among younger scholarsfocused mostly on the challenges of book publishing. Scholars expressed concerns about both the quality of editing and thequality of reproductions in art history-related publications. More than one person noted that books that are highly specialized (read:scholarly) often wind up being published by outlets that give little attention either to editing or to the quality ofreproductions. In some cases, said scholars, manuscripts may be published virtually“as is,”with little or no editing. And while the publisher may bear the brunt of blame initially for poorquality reproductions, authors are adversely impacted as well. Once, when in competition with others for a project, a scholar hadto show an example of what he had done in the past and needed to have good pictures to show. Although he had a book with images init, it made a poor impression due to the low production values employed by the press.

Younger scholars are under the impression that publishers are more willing to publish if subventions are availableto support the costs of publication. (Interviews with art history editors, however, suggest that this is not necessarily the case,indicating a point of disconnect between the perceptions of scholars and those of publishers.) As a result, many scholarssuggested that both their home institutions and foundations should do more to underwrite the publication costs associated with arthistory publishing. One scholar put the matter bluntly, saying that“either foundations should sponsor academic presses or they should cancel the distinction between [scholarly and trade]presses.”