Category: Publishing

Guest Post: Developing a Research Agenda

thank you Eira Tansey for your contribution!

When I was on the academic archivist job market a few years ago, I interviewed at one institution where I was warned during lunch to have a very narrowly focused answer to the dean’s inevitable question about my research agenda. I was strongly advised to make it clear that I had a tightly-defined research agenda, that my research interests weren’t all over the place, and that I was aiming for high-profile titles in which to publish my work. The only problem was that at the time I was searching for my first professional position, and as a paraprofessional I had only just started dipping my toe into publishing — all I had in print with a chapter in Kate Theimer’s book on description. Furthermore, my graduate program did not heavily emphasize or acculturate students into pursuing publishing opportunities. I don’t recall how I answered the question during my meeting with the dean (however I do remember his bone-crushing handshake!), but the broader question of “What is my research agenda?” is a question where my answers are rapidly evolving.

I lucked out and ended up at an institution that is a far better fit than the previously-mentioned one for a multitude of reasons. At my institution, librarians have faculty status and we have multiple paths to tenure (see our criteria: http://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/libraryfaculty/docs/criteria2005.pdf). Some library faculty choose to build their tenure case (and preceding reappointment and promotion applications) around publications, others choose different routes. Since I started two years ago, I have prioritized building up my record around “publishing or creative works.” Unlike some institutions that clearly articulate how many articles are required for a successful tenure bid, or specifications on journal rankings, our criteria is very open-ended. There are pros and cons to this. On the one hand, it allows generous flexibility in choosing experimental publishing outlets (new interdisciplinary open-access title with funky journal design layouts? sure, why not!). On the other hand, because we don’t have clear guidelines, there are fewer objective benchmarks to be evaluated against.

I should pause here to describe what I mean when I say a “research agenda.” I don’t believe you have to have faculty status, professional status, or even a full-time job working in archives to have a research agenda. You don’t have to know statistical methods or have grant funding (although obviously the more you have of both, the more you can do!). But you do have to have an idea worth exploring, more than some superficial things to say about it, and the ability to eventually sit down, tune out distractions, and write. As far as I can discern, a “research agenda” is a broad scope of work in various stages across one’s career that has interconnecting intellectual tissue underneath what might look like many unrelated interests. When I think of well-known archivists and imagine their research agendas, I think of how certain archivists are associated with certain areas of archival theory and practice (e.g., Rand Jimerson on archives and social justice, Terry Cook and Helen Samuels with appraisal, Mark Greene with processing and collection development, etc).

When I first started getting serious about committing to professional writing, I chafed against the idea of a research agenda. It seemed so restrictive, and I have so many boundless interests, why not move from topic to topic, even if they’re completely unrelated? But as I’ve accrued some publications on my CV, I’m beginning to see the wisdom of targeting my focus towards a certain direction for the foreseeable future. To contribute something worth publishing, one should be familiar with the literature written on that subject. Depending on the topic, this could mean a lot of writing — and then you have to figure out where your contribution fits into that landscape. It is a lot of work to review literature on an existing subject (https://archivespublishing.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/how-do-i-learn-everything/), and I’m beginning to see one of the greatest arguments for having a focused research agenda: you don’t have to reacquaint yourself with a whole new body of knowledge every time you begin a new project.

I should note here that I think this process of writing about a bunch of different topics, and then finding one’s calling towards a specific area is fairly common. Certainly, it echoes the many college students who have undeclared majors for a long time, or how many young professionals switch career fields. For fun, I looked at the CVs of some well-known archivists, and you can certainly see how over time, their output begins to coalesce around a few main topics (for example, Mark Greene http://www.uwyo.edu/ahc/_files/vitas/m-greene-vita.pdf).

Right now I’m feeling the call to explore the intersection of archives, the environment, and climate change. I feel compelled to build a research agenda around this in a way I haven’t felt about other topics. This is occurring while my other “scattered focus” writing projects are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. I have a whole range of issues I still care about (privacy! erasure and marginalization of archival labor! everything ever to do with appraisal! public records laws!), and every day I think things like “What we really need is a comparative study of unionization among archivists! WHY ISN’T ANYONE WRITING ABOUT THIS? I WANT TO READ ABOUT IT! Should I work on this?!?!?!” so I’m at a juncture where I feel a little twinge of sadness at the idea of not trying to write about everything unexplored. It doesn’t help that I have a “future ideas to pursue” list of dozens of half-baked ideas I add to on a semi-regular basis. Mostly I just try to be vocal about the topics I think are unexplored within archives-land and trust that someone, at some point, will feel inspired to write all the articles I know I could never manage on my own, but that I so desperately want to read.

How have you decided what to write about? Do you “write what you want to read”? Do you enter the conversation like a game of double dutch (credit for this to Jarrett Drake: https://snaproundtable.wordpress.com/2015/12/17/on-the-job-training-publishing/)? Has your research focus shifted as you grow as a writer?

Finalizing a Journal Issue

Putting together a journal issue requires a lot of steps and details. As I finish my last issue of Provenance, I thought people might be interested in steps required to finalize an issue.

The editor facilitates the peer-review process, assigning submissions to reviewers. Once those reviews are complete, the editor takes that feedback to register a decision. For Provenance, it is accept with minor revisions, accept with major revisions, and declined. Submitters receive that notification along with the reviewers’ feedback. Generally, this happens throughout spring and summer, with the most submissions received around the end of July due date. Once it is known which articles are selected for publication, then the bulk of an editor’s job begins.

All articles need some editing. There is always a mix of minor, some, and major editing needed. There’s generally 1-2 articles that only need a few minor edits, mostly technical with an occasional clarification. Next are articles that require a thorough editing, primarily technical with perhaps a few questions/clarifications. Last, there are articles that go through several drafts before being publication ready. These authors have solid and strong ideas, but need to rewrite/rework paragraphs or sections, reorganize, the article, incorporate additional research (generally only one or two articles or books to support their statements), or heavier copyediting. The latter, of course, is often hard and stressful for the author, but my ultimate goal is to bring out the best in their writing.

This back and forth with authors for edit can go on for several weeks. What I do as editor is check grammar, punctuation, footnotes for proper citations and formatting, credit/citation for photographs, charts in black and white (only our cover is in color), proper use of quotes, section headings, clear articulation of arguments and evidence, and so forth. I want to retain the authors’ voices and do my best not to rewrite, though I will sometimes offer suggestions. For example: if there is a confusing section I will note that and ask for clarification; I’ll ask for citations if they were not included; or ask for reduction/expansion of thoughts or arguments.

Generally, I make a first pass for all these possibilities and return to the author with tracked changes and comments. The author will then return it with further edits and respond to comments. I try to communicate that most are just suggestions. I have had authors clarify why they don’t want to make a suggested change and I honor those requests. Then, I ask the authors to sign publishing agreements and provide short biographies. I also make sure I have addresses for non-SGA member authors.

After the content is more or less final, then I will start formatting to adhere to Provenance standards, meaning The Chicago Manual of Style 16th edition. Across all articles, I make formatting changes for consistency such as title/author headings, section headings, use of numbers, citation format, font size, paragraph spacing, etc. This goes for the articles, reviews, and any other content (like editor’s notes). It’s very gratifying to see all of that come together.

When this is complete, I decide on the table of contents. It’s subjective, but my goal is to make the reading flow well. As Provenance publishes any topic related to archives, it’s seldom that two articles are on the same topic (at least in my tenure). Sometimes it’s easy, but with the current issue which will have 7 articles, it was hard to decide.

I also do both the front and back matter. The front matter includes picking a cover photo, updating the editorial board list, and the table of contents. The cover image is sometimes easy and sometimes hard. If an article includes photos, I try to use one of those. Last year there were no photos, so I worked with an author to create an image. The 2011 issue included original artwork. As a teaser, what will be on the upcoming issue is my favorite yet. It was provided by a professional photographer who graciously allowed us to use it at no charge. Regardless of where the image comes from, it directly ties into one of the articles. The back matter is the easiest: updating the SGA board list and information for contributors.

Editors of some journals write an editor’s note for each issue. I’ve written a few, but not for every issue. I did choose to write one this year, as it is my last issue. I previously wrote ones for the special issues completed. That is entirely up to the editor.

At last, finalizing the issue is getting closer. Once I have all of this complete, I send it to the managing editor for markup. She will fix any technical issues I may have missed, format it in Publisher, and assign page numbers. After that is complete, individual PDFs are sent to the authors for one final review. At this stage, only minor corrections are completed. I review the entire issue one more time and also give any corrections.

Once all the authors approve their articles, the managing editor will fix anything necessary then work with the printer. She coordinates the printing and mailing. She works with SGA to compile a mailing list that includes members and non-member authors. We decide on a number to print, as two copies go to the SGA archives and we want to have a few extra for individual purchase or replacement. We go into the printers’ queue, so we never quite know how long it will take. But generally 4-6 weeks later, it arrives in the mail. It’s always a happy day when I see the result of the work of so many people.

SNAP Twitter Chat about Publishing

Last week I participated in a SNAP Twitter chat (#snaprt, @SNAP_Roundtable). I’ve participated before, but it’s been a while. SNAP does a great job of hosting the chats and having prepared questions. There aren’t many opportunities for such interaction to discuss publishing and I appreciate that this topic comes up every so often for discussion. Most of the conversations I have are one-on-one and occasionally speaking to groups. I’m always happy to participate in these discussions, as are others involved in publishing. From my perspective, I don’t always know who wants these conversations (beyond SNAP) so I encourage others to just ask! I’ve worked hard to make myself accessible, but I know that other editors, authors, or others involved in publishing will also participate. So don’t be afraid to ask.

There’s always so much that comes up during these chats. I won’t be able to recap everything, but I want to touch on a few of the topics. I suspect many people outside of SNAP have the same questions so I hope you find this helpful.

How do I know what’s interesting to others?; it’s already been done. Understandably, when one is new to the profession it is hard to know what to write about and whether others will want to read it. It takes time to catch up on where scholarship is. I’ve encouraged people to write about their interests or where they see gaps. No one knows every article or book written, and that’s where a good editor comes in. Many submissions to Provenance cited scholarship I didn’t know about. However, often I and the peer-reviewers recommend additional articles if we believe it necessary. No matter if you are new or seasoned, there is the question whether others will find it interesting. So, talk to your peers, coworkers, friends, colleagues, and ask. Or email an editor and ask. Pick a topic, read a few articles, and think about it. Then write and submit. The only way you will know for sure is if you submit and accept the feedback. There’s been a bunch of new journal issues (just browse the most recent posts) so start there. Read more in a previous post.Others know so much more and I don’t want to BS. That sentiment is appreciated. The longer I was an editor, the easier it was to spot a graduate course paper submission. I don’t say that as a bad thing, because grad school is about generating and discussing ideas, learning about the profession, and engaging with scholarship. When I was writing my dissertation, I frequently felt what most grad students do – that I’ll look dumb if I forget that one book, that one article, where my committee would think “How could she not know about that?” But you know what, that seldom happens. If you do appropriate research, you become the expert and you’ll find the resources. Don’t try to read every word of everything; start by reading book reviews and abstracts. Chances are, you’ll miss something and a good editor will provide it for you. And absolutely don’t BS. As long as you can provide evidence for your argument, are clear and articulate, don’t use a lot of colloquialisms, and are logical, you’re more than halfway there. The best way to learn as much as others know is through writing and research. How do you think they became experts?

Turning a conference presentation into an article. Do it! As you prepare for a presentation, keep track of your sources, write an article alongside your presentation. But please, don’t submit only the text of your presentation. Remember, writing for publication is different from reading your ideas in front of an audience. Several times, I followed up with conference presenters and suggest they submit to Provenance. So think about it before you present and you can have a solid draft or full article for submission.

Revise and resubmit is hard. Yes, and honestly, it seldom gets easier. I did write a post about this a while ago. And this question reminded me that I meant to write more (hence the part 1 of many), so I will get back to that at some point. But if any of you want to share your experiences, whether good or bad, I welcome all perspectives and guest posts. And, as noted also below, a blog post is a great way to start writing.

Write to non-archivists. This part was particularly interesting to me. We are not limited to writing to each other. Yes, that strengthens our profession and engages each other. But what about librarians, users, historians, and others? Bringing non-archivists into our writing sphere will help us understand our users more as well as raise awareness of the archival profession. Do you collaborate with donors, faculty, users, or anyone else you can co-author with? What about asking researchers to write about their experience? When I taught classes, I always try to find non-archivist perspectives. One article I used multiple times was Joan Zenzen’s “Administrative Histories: Writing about Fort Stanwix National Monument” (sorry, I wish it was open access but is available through JSTOR or request through interlibrary loan). And a excellent book is Kate Eichhorn’s Archival Turn in Feminism. Can’t help but enjoy a book written by someone who reveres archivists. In other words, think outside the box. Also, you are not limited to archives publications. Write for disciplinary journals, library journals, digital humanities journals, government resources, or whatever falls within the scope of your interests.

Some general tips:

  • don’t let your profession define what you write
  • book reviews and blogs are a great place to start
  • write with a publication in mind instead of squeezing it into requirements
  • find a writing group

It was a great conversation and lots of great ideas came up, both about writing and topics of interest. I also keep thinking about what else we need to do to continue these conversations. Don’t forget, I welcome suggestions for topics. I thank all of you for reading this blog but I see it as only one way to share experiences. So let’s keep the conversations going in whatever ways we can!

New Book: Librarians of Color

Thank you to Rebecca Hankins for the following post about the new book, Librarians of Color.

[note: per Rebecca’s request, some content was removed as they work through issues with the publisher]

We mentioned in the introduction the why we wrote the book, but for us, we felt there needs to be a corpus of research and writings on diversity and the experiences of people of color in librarianship and archives, similar to information literacy, collection development, and any other relevant subject in these two informational fields. When we first sent out the requests for abstracts we received a number of folks saying they had just read or written on this subject as if that should be the end of it. We challenged the responses to think of this as an ongoing dialogue with many different perspectives that should be explored, commented on, and argued. We need to be a part of the information studies canon like any other important issue in libraries and archives.

The how of writing the book consisted of us sending out a call for proposal abstracts. We received an overwhelming response with enough abstracts for all 3 books (first on academia, second was going to be on law librarians, and the 3rd was on the experiences of young and diverse librarians). Miguel and I individually and then together scored the abstracts in a spreadsheet, then we came together. If there were any disputed contributors we talked about them; I had one and he had one that we kept in the book. We provided deadlines for when they were to have their contributions to us. We did the first editing and review, gave them feedback, then set another deadline for the final chapters. We pulled the entire manuscript together with an introduction and contacted the noted scholar and former ALA president to write a preface, then sent it to the publisher for feedback. Received feedback (this is when we found out we were removed from being editors of the series) that we shared with the contributors and sent back to the publisher. We were told that the index was being created, the cover was being made (no input from us), the proof would be shared for any final errors (didn’t receive until after we noted some glaring errors), then published.

Book is done and I’m pleased with the book for the most part and that I’m done with the publisher and the book is out. The contributors wrote from the heart without censors so I’m pleased about that too.

Publishing Events at SAA in Cleveland

Next week I hope to see you in Cleveland! I am always happy to chat with anyone who has article ideas or questions about publishing. You’ll find me wandering around, hanging out at the Bookstore, the Write Away! Breakfast, and the Let’s Do Lunch “Archives for Libraries.” I’ll resume regular posts after SAA.

It was my attendance at a Write Away! Breakfast in 2011 where I started to get to know SAA staff and others involved with publishing. I had a taste of publishing having just co-authored my first article for Archival Outlook about taking the ACA exam (also published in the ACA newsletter). I had recently become a peer-reviewer for Provenance. Most importantly, I started to realize my passion for publishing.

Conversations at and after that first breakfast led to connecting with others to submit a program proposal about publishing (unaccepted, unfortunately). Continuing that conversation led to an appointment to the SAA Publications Board. That led me to gain invaluable knowledge of how publishing works, meet amazing people, and receive wonderful opportunities. Since then, I compiled and wrote an introduction for the SAA Sampler: Archival Advocacy and am now writing the third edition of the Archival Fundamental Series book on Reference and Access.

Networking doesn’t guarantee publication, of course, but it definitely helps you find other people who are interested, who can advise, and who can support you as you enter the world of publishing. You just never know when an opportunity will arise!

Here are events that you can attend:

Bookstore: 8-5:30 Wed, 7-5:30 Thur-Fri, 7:30-10am Sat. Meeting Room 19.

New members, students, and First-Timers are encouraged to meet in the Networking Cafe/Bookstore from 8-8:45 Thur.

Let’s Do Lunch (brown bag; registration required, email Anne Hartman at ahartman [at] archivists.org, in the subject line, indicate: “American Archivist Discussion Group” OR “Archives in Libraries Discussion Group”): 12:15-1:30 Thur. (Note: I don’t know if there are seats left)

Bookstore, Toast to Authors: 2:45-3 Thur. Join in hoisting a glass of lemonade to those who have contributed to SAA publications — journal, magazine, books, modules, and case studies—in the past year.

Write Away! Breakfast: 7:30-8:15 Fri. An informal discussion with Publications Editor Chris Prom, The American Archivist Editor Greg Hunter and Reviews Editor Amy Cooper Cary, and SAA staff Teresa Brinati and Anne Hartman on how you can contribute to the professional literature.

“Office Hours” in the Exhibit Hall: 12:30-1:45 Fri. An opportunity to chat with The American Archivist Editor Greg Hunter, Publications Editor Chris Prom, and Dictionary Working Group Chair Rosemary Pleva Flynn.

Who is Qualified to Publish?

As I have conversations with archivists, I’ve repeatedly heard variations of this question and comments: am I qualified? who will be interested in what I write? others know more than I do so who will read my writing? I’m not sure I have anything to say. Many people, including me, have these thoughts. In graduate school, we read numerous articles and books and see those authors as authorities. In return, it’s hard to see ourselves as an authority, therefore develop an insecurity that we are not qualified.

Restricting authors to an idea of “qualifications” discourages writers. Instead, I prefer the question: do I want to publish? There are variables, such as tenure-track positions having a writing requirement. But if one truly has the ambition to write, I say go for it.

When I was in library school and even into my PhD program, I did not expect to become a published author, much less an editor. However, once I started, I found myself enjoying it. As a tenure-track archivist, I am required to publish to achieve tenure. I, too, questioned whether or not I was “qualified.” Because peer-reviewers read articles without knowing the author(s), they evaluate based not on the author’s qualifications or prior writing experience, but instead based on how well one constructs an argument and supports it. (more about peer-review in a future post)

I encourage anyone to submit for publication. While I of course solicit for Provenance, I suggest authors review the various journals (see list) to find one that best suits their topic. Especially, review previously published articles to see if theirs fits within the scope of the journal. There are an increasing amount of journals, therefore an increasing amount of opportunities to write.

The qualified question most often comes from students or newer professionals. My response is that without new voices, the literature can get stale or repetitive. Publishing should be ongoing conversations about a variety of topics, as well as a platform for new ideas. Our profession continually evolves and as such, so should the literature. So try to not think of whether or not you are qualified, but why you want to publish and how your ideas/experiences can benefit other archivists.