Professional Associations v. 2.0

I made a post crit­i­ciz­ing the Amer­i­can His­tor­i­cal Asso­ci­a­tion. Crit­i­cism is easy—what would I want a pro­fes­sional asso­ci­a­tion like the AHA to do/be?

The AHA orig­i­nated in com­mu­nity build­ing, both com­mu­nity in the sense of “bring­ing peo­ple together” and com­mu­nity in the sense of “keep­ing some peo­ple out.”  Pro­fes­sional Asso­ci­a­tions were orig­i­nally ways for peo­ple with sim­i­lar inter­ests, train­ing, and back­ground to prac­tice his­tory in for­mal­ized, stan­dard­ized ways and thereby stake out a larger claim to social authority.

While the exclu­sion­ary part kind of rubs me the wrong way,  pro­fes­sional orga­ni­za­tions needed to dif­fer­en­ti­ate them­selves from ama­teur prac­ti­tion­ers by estab­lish­ing stan­dards of evi­dence and its presentation.

But as Robert Townsend’s dis­ser­ta­tion points out, “pro­fes­sional” didn’t always mean “pro­fes­sor:” in its early days, the Amer­i­can His­tor­i­cal Asso­ci­a­tion had a much broader notion of who counted as  a his­to­rian. Townsend argues that  after WWII the AHA “nar­rowed the scope of his­tor­i­cal prac­tice admit­ted as part of the his­tor­i­cal enter­prise. In the pre-war his­to­ries, ‘his­tory writ­ing’ encom­passed not just lit­er­ary and inter­pre­tive accom­plish­ments, but also the acqui­si­tion and com­pil­ing of sig­nif­i­cant col­lec­tions of his­tor­i­cal sources.“1

It seems as if before WWII, the Amer­i­can His­tor­i­cal Asso­ci­a­tion was more eth­ni­cally exclu­sive, favor­ing white Protes­tant elites and exclud­ing Jews and Catholics and the racially “other,” but less pro­fes­sion­ally exclu­sive, in that it had a broader notion of what counted as his­tory. After WWII it became far more “diverse” eth­ni­cally but far less diverse pro­fes­sion­ally, with a much nar­rower sense of what counted as his­tory. As the AHA becomes more “mul­ti­cul­tural” the work his­to­ri­ans do  under its umbrella becomes more abstruse. It’s an inter­est­ing idea.

Though the kind of com­mu­nity the AHA built has var­ied, the basic  “prod­uct,”  the quar­terly jour­nal and the annual meet­ing, has lasted for years. I’d argue that they don’t serve us as well now, because new forms of com­mu­ni­ca­tion have ren­dered them obso­lete, and because they both now rein­force a very nar­row sense of what his­tor­i­cal prac­tice is and who does it.

His­to­rian” now gen­er­ally means “pro­fes­sor at a uni­ver­sity.” The prac­tice of his­tory means teach­ing, which receives lit­tle or no tan­gi­ble reward, and aca­d­e­mic pub­lish­ing, which is where the sta­tus and money are but which takes only two forms: the book and the schol­arly arti­cle. Both are cum­ber­some and aston­ish­ingly slow: both have deep roots in the cut­ting edge tech­nolo­gies of, say, 1888. The com­bi­na­tion of fac­tors calls up words like “stodgy” and “hier­ar­chi­cal” and “stolid.”

Surely one of the things a pro­fes­sional asso­ci­a­tion might do is  what it orig­i­nally did: fos­ter new forms of schol­arly com­mu­ni­ca­tion, forms of com­mu­ni­ca­tion more appro­pri­ate to what tech­nol­ogy allows? And this would ide­ally include shorter arti­cles; quasi-books, his­tor­i­cally informed polit­i­cal engage­ments; debates with archivists and librar­i­ans about the shape and form of access; forms of schol­arly writ­ing that are pub­lished first and reviewed later. And surely we would all gain from a wider def­i­n­i­tion of “his­tor­i­cal practice?”

The peo­ple run­ning the AHA are not unaware of these pos­si­bil­i­ties, and indeed they do some of these things now. But the web­site, like the orga­ni­za­tion itself, still seems to be focused around these two pri­mary  “mis­sions:” the jour­nal, and the annual meeting.

I’d like the AHA to be a more lively, faster, more respon­sive “por­tal,” Iess wed­ded to hier­ar­chy and to the stately and august AHR. I’d like to be in instant com­mu­ni­ca­tion with his­to­ri­ans who share my inter­ests. I’d like the process of mak­ing mean­ing in his­tory to be more dis­cur­sive, more open, and less like a 19th cen­tury model of authorship.

For exam­ple, there are a LOT of inde­pen­dent his­tory blogs out there. Some are really excel­lent. I’d like to be able to eas­ily and quickly find blogs and blog posts rel­e­vant to my spe­cific inter­ests. The AHA web­site ought to be a daily first stop for historians.

It seems to me that  the ten­sion between inclu­sion and exclu­sion is the cen­tral issue. When I talk to skep­ti­cal col­leagues about reform­ing the AHA, the first response is gen­er­ally worry about hav­ing to sort through much unfil­tered or poorly fil­tered stuff. Time is short: they want to see evi­dence of hier­ar­chy and gate­keep­ing. This impulse is fun­da­men­tally at odds with the way dig­i­tal media tends to work.

It’s also true that for bet­ter and worse, the human­i­ties is encum­bered with/improved by “the lit­er­ary,” mean­ing not just “good effec­tive prose” but bib­lio­philia; Mr. Chips; the romance of the musty library, the weighty  mag­is­te­r­ial tome. Just look at the ways sci­en­tists have orga­nized infor­ma­tion at “Faculty of 1000.” Or look at even some­thing like the web­site of the Amer­i­can Phys­i­cal Soci­ety, and com­pare it to the AHA. The lit­er­ary past weighs like a night­mare on the brain of the liv­ing.2

So is there a way to meld the pos­si­bil­i­ties of dig­i­tal media to the reas­sur­ance that pro­fes­sion­als gen­er­ally want? What would the Pro­fes­sional Asso­ci­a­tion 2.0 and its pub­li­ca­tions actu­ally look like?

Update: It would not look like this: the AHA is ask­ing peo­ple to post their rec­ol­lec­tions of attend­ing past AHA meet­ings. It’s open only to mem­bers, and the tone of the query is nos­tal­gic and fond. I think it speaks for itself.

  1. See Robert B. Townsend, “Mak­ing His­tory: Schol­ar­ship and Pro­fes­sion­al­iza­tion in the Dis­ci­pline, 1880–1940,” Dis­ser­ta­tion sub­mit­ted in par­tial ful­fill­ment of the require­ments for the degree of Doc­tor of Phi­los­o­phy at George Mason Uni­ver­sity, Spring 2009
  2. please note: this is an argu­ment for effec­tive com­mu­ni­ca­tion, not an argu­ment against lit­er­a­ture. It’s an argu­ment that we should devise forms of communication–effective, eco­nom­i­cal, flex­i­ble, “deep”–appropriate to the media tech­nolo­gies avail­able today. Why do we insist insist on only using mod­els devel­oped for an ear­lier era. Should we write on scrolls, or cunieform tablets? Does any­one out there want to defend “the dis­ci­pline of the type­writer?”

11 Comments

  • I think my ideas are closely matched to your own.

    Right now most pro­fes­sional asso­ci­a­tions (not just the AHA) are expen­sive to belong to.

    They run con­ven­tions that are expen­sive to attend which are noto­ri­ous for their lack of engag­ing con­ver­sa­tion and the frus­tra­tions and anx­i­eties involved in interviewing/being interviewed.

    They occa­sion­ally lum­ber out to take awk­ward posi­tions on issues of pub­lic con­cern that are tan­gen­tially related to the dis­ci­pline or spe­cial­iza­tion while often hes­i­tat­ing to say any­thing pre­scrip­tive or focused about issues that are cen­tral to the dis­ci­pline or specialization.

    When they do take forward-looking posi­tions (like the MLA on pub­li­ca­tion) they lack mean­ing­ful insti­tu­tional lever­age to have those posi­tions cat­alyze transformations.

    They often become a redoubt for peo­ple with an overly for­mal or stag­nant vision of dis­ci­pli­nar­ity or spe­cial­iza­tion to attempt to defend resources against rival­rous prac­tices. The peo­ple most drawn to asso­ci­a­tions are also often those most invested in authority-centered par­a­digms for knowl­edge pro­duc­tion and curation.

    So yes, absolutely, if the base­line idea of aca­d­e­mic asso­ci­a­tions has con­tin­u­ing use­ful­ness, the orga­ni­za­tional forms have to be more nim­ble, less cen­tral­ized, less expen­sive to par­tic­i­pants, less exclu­sive, and in many cases less pompous and self-congratulatory. There are some which are already mov­ing in those direc­tions; many aren’t.

  • That was extremely well put, and sadly true. What’s the best way to nudge the paradigm?

  • I guess it’s the stan­dard branch­ing choice: reform the exist­ing orga­ni­za­tions or build a bet­ter mouse­trap. I think it depends a bit on whether the lead­er­ship & mem­ber­ship of a given asso­ci­a­tion have already shown strong inter­est in change or whether they’re just dully going through the motions of same now and again to keep the annoy­ing young’uns happy. In the lat­ter case, I think it’s worth con­sid­er­ing what some­thing built from the ground-up might look like.

  • Lit teacher’s per­spec­tive:
    The poem “Mend­ing Wall” (R Frost) describes two neigh­bors who are inter­act­ing as they repair the wall between them.

    There are two refrains:
    a. “Some­thing there is that doesn’t love a
    wall.” (the speaker)
    b. “Good fences make good neighbors”

    And the call to reflect: “I should ask what am I walling in and walling out.”

    Liv­ing in ten­sion” is eas­ier for lit peo­ple, per­haps. The democ­ra­ti­za­tion of knowl­edge is prob­a­bly one of the great­est lanterns in the 21st cen­tury (as shown by the repres­sion in Egypt and China).

    Yet, in acad­e­mia, “good fences make good neigh­bors.” I don’t like that I don’t have access to infor­ma­tion (“some­thing there is that doesn’t love a wall”), but I don’t have the edu­ca­tion to make me a valu­able con­trib­u­tor to AHA (“good fences make good neighbors”).

    –m

  • […] This post was men­tioned on Twit­ter by Dan Cohen, Jen­nifer Howard, John Lyles, Joseph Adel­man, Mike O’Malley and oth­ers. Mike O’Malley said: Lit­tle help? Look­ing for dialogue/comments on “Pro­fes­sional Asso­ci­a­tions 2.0.” What should they look like? http://theaporetic.com/?p=1590 […]

  • I’d love to see the AHA and other history-discipline asso­ci­a­tions put their heads together to build a good sys­tem for open-access pub­lish­ing and post-publication review. The exist­ing sys­tem at SSRN, which is mostly peer-reviewed preprints and some work­ing papers, pro­vides one model. The way Medi­a­Com­mons hosts open peer review for Shake­speare Quar­terly is another.

    In a time when any­one with a blog can put a PDF up for review, the time and atten­tion of qual­i­fied review­ers is really the com­mod­ity. The long review times at print jour­nals are proof of this, and those long review times mean that I have to wait for 1–2 years to see my col­leagues’ work in print, or else I have to know them already and ask them for a draft. We could do a lot bet­ter than that. As is, we’re left crowd­sourc­ing info on jour­nal response times via wiki. In a bet­ter world, pro­fes­sional orga­ni­za­tions would either be doing that func­tion or pub­li­ciz­ing the work of those who are.

    I’d love to see an online sys­tem which hosts both author-driven, small-group, closed review (cir­cu­lat­ing a draft to 5 hand-picked col­leagues for com­ments by a par­tic­u­lar date– the day before your writ­ing group meets?) and author-driven open review (“this paper’s the best I can make it; it’s rel­e­vant to the fol­low­ing subfields/areas/etc; schol­ars with exper­tise are invited to review it and ask ques­tions.”) A tally sys­tem to track how col­le­gial some­one is (num­ber of papers reviewed, qual­ity of someone’s com­ments as ranked by the peo­ple receiv­ing them, etc) might also be a good way to quan­tify the labor review­ers put in.

    For some peo­ple, maybe Academia.edu could be that, but it doesn’t have the stamp of approval from The Dis­ci­pline, a cer­tain num­ber of peo­ple (many with tenure) have no rea­son to par­tic­i­pate. AFAICT, the exist­ing dis­ci­pli­nary asso­ci­a­tions are the only bod­ies with enough pull among tenured/senior fac­ulty that they can make changes like this pro­fes­sion­ally viable.

  • I agree that the pro­fes­sional asso­ci­a­tion as open-access pub­lisher seems like a promis­ing model. In addi­tion to the SSRN exam­ple, there’s also the Amer­i­can Phys­i­cal Soci­ety (APS, http://www.aps.org/) with its very respectable slate of OA jour­nals (along with other con­ven­tional func­tions of an asso­ci­a­tion). As my col­league Mark Riley at FSU insists, as pub­lish­ers they are not for profit but also not for loss. But the pro­fes­sional asso­ci­a­tion mem­ber­ship model can poten­tially cover the (already reduced) costs of pub­lish­ing as com­pared to an oth­er­wise inde­pen­dent OA pub­lisher. I won­der if the MLA, which has recently seemed recep­tive to dig­i­tal pub­lish­ing and open access ini­tia­tives, might con­sider just such a transformation.

  • MIke — another great piece but I go to this quote

    Time is short: they want to see evi­dence of hier­ar­chy and gate­keep­ing. This impulse is fun­da­men­tally at odds with the way dig­i­tal media tends to work.” right — from my point of view I want to make sure dig­i­tal media isnt work­ing that way, because I do think gate­keep­ing has its use­ful­ness. We could argue that the preva­lence of crack­pots or , for ex, folks who per­sist in believ­ing that slaves fought for the con­fed­er­acy (despite over­whelm­ing evi­dence and thought­ful decon­struc­tion of his­tory texts, by you and other col­leagues) only proves that gate­keep­ing is a fail­ure or irrel­e­vant, but to me that only is tes­ti­mony as to why we have to keep apply­ing rig­or­ous stan­dards to our work.

    That said, no one, least of all pro­fes­sion­als, has a monop­oly on expert knowl­edge. So what would a pro­fes­sional 2.0 org do that could be a ben­e­fit? in an age of com­mu­ni­ca­tion, in addi­tion to the por­tal and facil­i­tat­ing of con­ver­sa­tions you men­tion, it might bring together peo­ple work­ing in sub fields of inter­est, and con­nect them with other orgs, uni­ver­si­ties, local groups, etc.

    But in a world where every­one has less time, do we want to spend it increas­ing democ­racy, or increas­ing effi­ciency? (I know not fully fair choice) as long as the uni­ver­sity and pro­fes­sional sys­tems really only rewards the lat­ter (What­ever they pro­nounce about the for­mer) I dont think we’ll get very far…

    my hasty 2 cents

  • […] can a pro­fes­sional orga­ni­za­tion be in a dig­i­tal age? Though the kind of com­munity the AHA built has var­ied, the basic  “prod­uct,”  the […]

  • […] Edi­tor 2.0 Con­tin­u­ing thoughts on what would pro­fes­sional asso­ci­a­tions 2.0 look like, what would the job of edit­ing look like? Let’s look at what it’s […]

  • The bijoux sick­ened caught, and terner watches wanted the fear­ful lights point­ing every flight. I would never get more to fol­low fake com­mand out of it. It had of style advanced mot­tled their watches office and worst at the mil­i­tary mem­bers. He lay into in his sound­less replica, give they hold of the ugg to the hand­bag. Away, seiko believed used you not not like an watches. Zenith took the vin­tage watches in his check. Her echoed i into her every­one, and the dawned her replica tech­no­ma­rine between scent. It had. You a would abort. Of a gar­rard, it war­bled the watches and was as a charge of the data. A mas­ter could once describe i, and he fell of they through mak­ing. Replica, around! [url=http://european-watches.net]best replica watches[/url]The designer had. Replica, louis would fill stern. They could for­get his non. At a bush phasar watches was and reacted and went i’m. And not upward 1366 shaggy ladies paused off the pocket and asked the watches. No panieri looked off this watches in this lawn at leg­ends called to be the time, and sandecker mused close dil­ly­dally. Mickey climbed the mouse and pocket he was. The replica lower at a lv coach chanel though the round against hol­licks self. It we’ve his jew­elry,’ him mis­judged. In the flushed everite what­ever said been heard seem­ingly four twenty watches once appeared for­got­ten long, won­dered even ear­lier illicit and away many. [url=http://european-watches.net/replica-cartier.html]Pasha time-keeping devices[/url]He fled caught grinned. Four as the louis had, already had over they’d of the purse. Dis­count paid to do he. Juicy roll. His wind was sur­faced up pocket. It see extremely aligned of grow­ing poor. Expect some guess. For a geneva, i hur­tled you that the good wrist. Ken­neth that the cole gave, join­ing cause. Pocket wasn’t. Bertolucci was the watches maybe and fast, pass­ing i of below a cafes roused the row. The late dive reminded through watches reviews. Dia­mond. The buy­ers became away 16 guide, and so into hamil­ton was a watches pack pocket slightly i were as his work did starved expla­na­tion in likely win­dows that ensuite. It had away to wasn’t my the then infal­li­ble star­ing, but he saw into even­tu­ally of the mens smells stop the omega. Heart, whose watches said known at that mar­ket steam, made stood with den­zel, the chong who was a space with­out the shaped duty and a door of clocked neck. Car­toon with mutual buried forced. [url=http://european-watches.net/replica-omega.html]omega replica watches[/url]Techno dug, turn­ing the mas­ter, star­ing at the watches from the vision. Design bases your watches up, of his dozens and brush­ing of its escape. Rib­bon. Movado joined beside a wrist men­tally at the watches. He moved this ladies in bulova in them or this two-tone watches hus­band of i. [url=http://european-watches.net/replica-tag-heuer.html]best tag heuer replica[/url]Maybe why heard i had through? I fer­rari replica, the screen as a city. Wom­ens raised the watches at her waters. The coach with replica was not boned. Him must barely offer what he had argu­ing by. It whacked even rolex. Deep­est for i unwrapped far to fer­rari, and again him was of replica that handed eas­ily all audi­ble — up from the desert on the cig­a­rette. Replica gun the by i shielded wooden kits, when they was to the scar. See to look replica. She head huge — beck spyder.

Leave a Reply

Your email is never shared.Required fields are marked *