[Editor's note: Karl Jacoby's Shadows at Dawn: A Borderlands Massacre and the Violence of History is a must read. And the website he created to support the book is a model for the future. Below, he shares some thoughts on what that future might look like. Thanks, Karl.]
As the American newspaper industry collapses around us, its economics imploding under pressure from the worldwide web, we can begin to see hints that the book publishing industry is on the cusp of the same downward spiral. History book sales are down. Penguin and other presses have announced layoffs. The once venerable Houghton Mifflin may soon cease to publish trade books altogether.
Such changes ought to be sobering to historians. Ever since history first emerged as an academic profession in the mid-nineteenth century, the basic unit of production has been the book. One needs to publish a book to get tenure and, at most institutions, publish another book to get promoted to full professor. What will happen to this century-old tradition if books become harder to publish and more historical scholarship heads off for the new, untamed frontier of the web?
Like everyone else in publishing and academia, I don’t have a complete answer to this question. But based on my recent experience — publishing a book in the Penguin History of American Life series (Shadows at Dawn: A Borderlands Massacre and the Violence of History) and creating a companion website — I have gathered a few random insights, which I offer below in the hope of beginning a long overdue conversation among historians about the perils and possibilities before us.
The Good
In an ideal world, the web allows historians to expand the reach of their books, while improving the transparency of the historical process. In my case, for example, I placed more than fifty of the primary documents I used in writing my book on the web. Rather than checking footnotes and going to obscure, out-of-the-way archives, scholars can now directly consult the documents themselves. Teachers now have the ability to create classroom exercises using the very same primary sources I relied upon to construct my narrative. Although it is too early to tell, I like to imagine that having a companion website may not undercut my book but may even give it prolonged life in the classroom—the so-called “long tail” described by Chris Anderson.
The web also seems to be a convenient place to locate some of the more cumbersome and expensive features of a conventional book. Long appendixes, data sets, bibliographic essays, extra maps? These can all migrate to the web. Indeed, one can even contemplate a future in which the balance between evidence and argument in historical narrative shifts, with books being shorter and more argument-driven, and most of the evidence being displayed not on the printed page but rather in cyberspace.
Finally, books may be expensive and may not travel easily, but the web is international and free (albeit if one has access to a computer). Although my book has only been published in the U.S., my website has gotten visits from Germany, Norway, England, Mexico, Switzerland, and India, among other countries. Moreover, the feedback function on my site helps erode the barrier between author and reader. I have gotten wonderful responses from people who have read the book or visited the site — including notes from the descendants of some of the figures in my study, who have volunteered additional family materials for the website. And thankfully, because a website, unlike a book, is never final, this new material can be added to my project as it arrives.
The Bad
Creating a website is, alas, a lot of work. As so often seems to be the case, the computer has not diminished our workload as the futurists all promised at the dawn of the computer age but rather expanded it. It took almost six months of hard work to get my site up and running, and I expect to spend much of my upcoming summer fixing its many rough edges.
Creating a website is also expensive. The only way I was able to launch my site was by cobbling together some help from my home institution’s computer support team and our summer research program. Otherwise, I would have been completely out of luck. Like most historians, I have no computer programming skills, and I quickly discovered that the cost of having a professional design even the most rudimentary website for me would have been prohibitive. (Most web programmers I consulted charged between $3,000 and $5,000 to build a site for a book.) My home institution was generous enough to host my site, but otherwise simply finding a server for a site can be costly.
These costs extend to permissions. The only documents and photos I was able to put on line were those in the public domain from places like the National Archives. Most other archives charge fees—and they charge more for the web (often twice as much to put a photo on a website than to use it in a book).
The Ugly
If we cannot figure out in the next few years how to present meaningful historical research on the web, I fear for my current grad students. Newcomers to the profession will likely find themselves trying to land jobs and earn tenure at a time when publishing opportunities may be radically reduced. Yet senior colleagues and administrators may well continue to expect them to produce books to move up the academic ladder.
At the same time, I also fear the creeping workload in academia: that in the not-so-distant future, historians will be expected not only to research and write books, but also to create companion websites for their projects as well.
Final Thoughts
I don’t think I would ever do another book project without also creating a companion website — in fact, I even think it might make sense to create the website first, as a place to collect documents, try out ideas, and solicit early feedback. But as much as I think such an approach has to recommend itself intellectually, I do not know how it will be perceived within the academy. Our profession will need to figure out a way to evaluate websites and the considerable amount of academic labor that they represent—and soon.


15 comments
April 29, 2009 at 9:44 am
silbey
Excellent post. A very thoughtful look at dealing with new publication realities on an individual basis. Thanks.
One of my motivations for doing the “Boxer Uprising day to day” posts was to try to put together a series of online posts that would flesh out the eventual book.
April 29, 2009 at 10:04 am
Caleb
Thanks for these thoughts and for the link to your fantastic companion site. You may know Vernon Burton is doing something similar with his The Age of Lincoln.
I generally think a movement to the Web will be good for academic publishing (though this may be a case of making a virtue out of an increasing necessity), though I also have to admit that there is something a bit daunting about the idea of The Book that Never Ends–a book perpetually in beta and forever open to revision, comment, expansion, etc. I think the idea of a pre-book website that does some preliminary peer review and offers an outlet for trying out ideas is a good thing. But I also think there will still be some value to having a recognizable, stable “finished product” that scholars can cite, refer to, and talk about without having to always append a version number.
There’s a lot to think about here, not least the major issue you raise about professional rewards for and evaluation of such work.
April 29, 2009 at 10:25 am
aaron
I wonder whether putting together an academic website will always this onerous, and that isn’t one of the things that will change the most as this kind of practice becomes more and more common. You seem to be at the cutting edge of this kind of thing, so there’s a lot of wheels that have to be re-invented personally by you, but I have a friend who wrote his own blog software in the relatively recent past, when stuff like wordpress didn’t exist. And it seems like setting up templates for book web sites would be something that academic presses could do quite easily (and would have a vested interest in doing, too). The idea of writing one’s own blog software now seems really strange, but the kinds of hoops you had to jump through might seem equally strange in only a few years.
April 29, 2009 at 11:11 am
karl
Thanks, everyone, for your thoughts.
Like most technological changes, the web, it strikes me, is fundamentally neutral. It will become good or bad depending on what we make of it. Although I agree with Caleb that there is a danger of projects becoming never-ending on the web, I also think that since scholarship is a cumulative process, having some arena where one can revisit subjects may not necessarily be a liability and may allow academics a way to move beyond being overly committed to an intellectual position they staked out in some publication a decade ago. More dangerous perhaps is the fact that websites can vanish. They are not yet archived at, say, the Library of Congress as books are.
I agree with Aaron that as we develop templates and tools for websites, they may be easier to create. Yet there still may be some bottlenecks that will be hard to automate. In my case, the most time-consuming part of creating my website was scanning, transcribing, and annotating primary sources.
Thanks, too, for the link to “Age of Lincoln.” I am always curious as to models of successful web pages.
April 29, 2009 at 12:12 pm
bitchphd
There’s also, of course, the longevity and access issues. If the supplementary stuff is hosted somewhere where it’s accessible by the general public, that’s awesome; but part of the expense problem is, how long will it stay up?
April 29, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Thomas
Despite their differences, Sociology and history aren’t far apart in their publishing requirements. Shouldn’t the human sciences follow their more human subjects to the not-so-new frontier before them?
April 29, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Caleb
Thanks for the reply, Karl.
since scholarship is a cumulative process, having some arena where one can revisit subjects may not necessarily be a liability and may allow academics a way to move beyond being overly committed to an intellectual position they staked out in some publication a decade ago
Certainly agree with you here, though I think part of the cumulative process of scholarship is the ability to pinpoint what Scholar X argued in a particular work or at a particular moment in time–even if said scholar later backtracked or changed his/her mind. So I think something like a stable “edition” will still be important to preserve.
April 29, 2009 at 3:32 pm
karl
You’re absolutely right, Caleb. Nothing would be worse than scholarship becoming a bunch of free-floating blog posts.
Ultimately, I don’t want books to disappear, for precisely the reasons that you and others have expressed. My hope, however, is that if we are pro-active, we can start to determine what the proper web/book balance should be now. Otherwise, I fear that economics will drive the changes, leaving a lot of casualties in its wake.
April 29, 2009 at 5:53 pm
PorJ
A dynamic you don’t mention – but I think is inherent in the problem – is that its likely that publishers (even academic ones) will more powerfully influence historical scholarship via their gatekeeping function. Like the disappearance of the 500-copy-monograph-published-at-a-loss-but in-the-interest-of-advancing-scholarship – that’s sort of step one that’s already occurred. So the good thing is that an historian now has to be aware of the techniques required to speak to larger audiences (i.e.: more stylistic prose? More liberal use of analogy?) but the bad thing is that such techniques *might* impact scholarship (both qualitatively and quantitatively). That’s the book the problem.
The web problem is precisely the opposite. Instead of funneling scholarship down, it has the potential of making it impossible to study for your comprehensives. You think its bad now! Imagine if 1,000 journals bloom in your subfield.
So there might end up being a real bifurcation in the field. The popular historians like McCullough, Douglas Brinkley, et. al. moving in one direction and the academic historians moving in another, with fewer crossovers of the David Hackett Fisher kind…
April 29, 2009 at 7:08 pm
saintneko
Meh, the future will be wiki-fied
April 29, 2009 at 8:46 pm
teofilo
Interesting topic. Along the lines of what aaron said, I suspect a lot of the more onerous setup tasks for these sites will become significantly easier as making them becomes more standard. I think the comparison to blogs goes even further than analogy, though. I wonder how much longer we’ll have what still seems like a pretty solid barrier between companion websites for books on the one hand and blogs on the other. Why can’t a companion website just be a blog? I know at least some of them (maybe not so much in history) are starting to include blogs as part of the site, but I think it would be easy to go beyond that and fold the functions of the companion website into the blog format.
Among other things, this would effectively solve the problem of onerous setup work, because blog software is at a point where there are numerous options that are both widely available and dead easy to set up. It would also provide an easy way for the author to both receive feedback and clarify ideas from the book, and perhaps even to chart changing interpretations over time. This could work on the other end of the research process, too, and silbey’s Boxer series is one example of how to use a blog to flesh out ideas in the very beginning stages of a research project that eventually results in a book.
Thinking longer-term, I can envision a substantial amount of scholarship that is now published in book form being transferred to online contexts, although professional gatekeeping structures will likely hold this back as much as possible. This would require a substantial reworking of the current scholarly process, but I think ultimately that’s probably both inevitable and not necessarily problematic. I mean, it’s not like the current scholarly process is without its problems.
Finally, on a personal note, when I first started my 1692 blog I entertained vague thoughts of eventually turning it into a book, but as I continued to work on it I realized that publishing it was unlikely to either add any value to the work or make me any money. Plus the economy fell apart and publishing began to seem even more implausible than it had before. The nice thing about having it in blog form is that it’s just there, in completed form, free, and available to anyone who’s interested. Distribution costs in this medium are minimal, so niche content can reach its interested audience much more easily than in the context of print.
My current blog project is proceeding along similar lines, but I never had any thought of turning it into a book of any sort. It’s hard to classify it, exactly, but in part it’s a running log of my thoughts and interpretations on a variety of subjects as they develop and change. It’s also, however, an easily accessible and relatively permanent archive of information that is fairly difficult to find and of interest to a somewhat limited audience. Again, in this format it’s a lot easier to make something like this feasible than it would be if I were trying to do it as a magazine or something.
Anyway, definitely an important subject, and it’s good to see people talking about it.
April 29, 2009 at 10:46 pm
parezcoydigo
There is a certain encouragement for this type of dissemination coming from funding agencies as well. The NEH, due in a few days, has language stating the agency wants broad access to the products it funds. I wrote a post about this just yesterday– and what I find attractive about the concept of the website that accompanies the book is that it increases access to academic knowledge by decreasing barriers to access.
The current tenure model in History doesn’t recognize scholarship outside to book and journal article, for both good and bad reasons. The supplemental website seems, to me, to be a way of playing by current tenure rules while still committing to open access.
April 30, 2009 at 7:10 am
Jonathan Jarrett
I would say two things to this thread, which seem to tend in opposite directions. Firstly, setting up a website does not have to be expensive or onerous. Mine is hosted on a friend’s server and I did the bulk of it in evenings over a fortnight or so. How? I stole code from other people on the server and spent a lot of time looking things up on the World-Wide Web Consortium’s school pages. I’d done some very limited web-coding in 1998 but really. the learning curve for a basic, text on page with layout, background and pictures, site, is not steep and hosting it is probably the main expense. The urge to provide the kind of site that paying lots of money would give you should be resisted IMO.
Secondly, however, in praise of the book: bitchphd has it quite right, digital resources are evanescent. If you place most of your book’s extra material on the web people will somewhere some day have to read it without that material, because the hosting company goes bust, or the format of the pages doesn’t work under new browsers or whatever. Say what you like about paper publication, it’s a stand-alone technology that requires only one of the skills that the web requires to use it…
April 30, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Hal
“As the American newspaper industry collapses around us, its economics imploding under pressure from the worldwide web, we can begin to see hints that the book publishing industry is on the cusp of the same downward spiral.”
Hrm. This may be a case of correlation not equaling causation. Because I’d say (as would Bob Garfield) that newspapers are collapsing because advertising-based media as a whole are collapsing. Newspapers may be the first to go, but broadcast TV and radio may well follow quickly.
Book publishing, not being advertising-based, has its own pathology. They’ve come up with their own creative, innovative ways of failure not used by the newspapers.
May 10, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Susie Lorand
(Delurking belatedly. . .) The Public Knowledge Project is developing an “open source publishing project,” Open Monograph Press, that could address some of the difficulties with developing and maintaining companion websites.