Speaking of the survey (Part 2): What role for the NCPH journal?

15 October 2012 – Robert Weyeneth

This is the second in a series of posts about the findings of our summer 2012 survey on the current state and possible future directions of The Public Historian journal and other NCPH media.

__________________________________

from Robert Weyeneth, National Council on Public History Board President:

A number of folks are busy analyzing the information gathered by the NCPH Readers Survey conducted this summer on the future of its journal. We got over 600 responses to all or some of the questions. I’ve had a chance to look at the responses to the question: “In the proliferating world of publishing venues today, is there a unique role or niche that the NCPH journal should play?” Among the 178 responses, I found that there is wide agreement that the NCPH journal should:

• be the journal of record for the field
• assess the state of the field
• present new and innovative work
• be a venue for public historians to communicate with each other
• be an umbrella journal (for an umbrella organization)
• serve public historians in the academy
• serve public history practitioners
• be a bridge between the academy and practice

Explicit and implicit in many of these responses is that The Public Historian is already filling a unique role/niche, doing many of these things and doing them well. There is a range of opinion within the responses–about what the precise balance should be between practice and the academy, for example–but from my perspective all of the above can be done by the journal without excluding any of the above.

Somewhat less expected, at least to me, are the multiple suggestions that the journal should directly engage the public. It is an intriguing question whether a peer-reviewed journal of record for a field called public history should engage public audiences directly.

I read all of this as consensus that the journal is a good and solid foundation on which to build as we go forward. Let’s learn what the other responses in the Readers Survey tell us that public historians want in a journal for the 21st century.

Here are a few illustrative comments:

Be the journal of record for the field: “It should be THE journal for public historians” and an “authoritative space for theorists and practitioners of public history.” “It should be the ‘go to’ place for scholarly articles about public history, memory, place history, and interpreting the past for the public.”

Assess the state of the field: The journal “needs to address issues with a longer shelf-life, such as theory or significant trends in practice,” as well as publish “the field-defining articles [like] longer synthetic review essays that help people digest recent trends in the literature, considerations and reconsiderations of important theoretical offerings.”

Present new and innovative work: “Culling cutting edge research from all parts of the field.”  “Public history is a part of a larger field of public humanities which includes digital history and digital humanities. This is a growing field and most current practitioners aren’t able to acquire additional training in these fields but can use the journal as a way to learn and/or stay current with the changes in this expanding field.”

Be a venue for public historians to communicate with each other: “It should bring together all public historians: academics, preservationists, house museum directors, policy workers. It is vital that we have a place to talk to each other, to keep each other up to speed, to keep subdisciplines connected.” It should speak to the “profession of public historians and public history worldwide, transnational theory and practice.” “The NCPH journal could transcend the 20th century boundaries…by becoming a nexus for public history, a place where professionals and non-professional can gather/converse and where great work is collected/ranked/exhibited.”

Be an umbrella journal for an umbrella organization: “NCPH is really the only organization
for public history and as such it is one of few outlets for public history information. The journal should be a hub of ideas and a point of entry to the field and it should be as accessible and available as possible.” “Public history is a varied and diverse field. The NCPH journal is a way to keep track of all the possibilities of the field, a way to foster discussion and communication over distance.”

Serve public historians in the academy: “NCPH should hold to the notion of a scholarly,
peer-reviewed journal.” “Its reach might now be expanded within academe because of the growing interest in ‘engaged scholarship’. Public history can actually lead the way in creating change in academe.” “Blogs are everywhere. Well-edited scholarly journals are few. Stay a leading journal committed to peer review and scholarly inquiry.”

Serve public history practitioners: “I would like to see it focus on the fieldwork that is public history – whether it be the development of ‘gray literature’ or the multi-career routes of public historians.” “Real world experience, practices, and methodology applicable to the diverse uses and users in the field of public history and the NCPH.” “Short articles and essays for the practicing public historian; thoughtful review and theory pieces on the field.” “We professional practitioners need a flagship scholarly venue for exchanging ideas.” “The intersection of history, specifically, with public practice.”

Bridge the academy and practice: “NCPH provides a crucial middle ground between
scholarship and practice, and its journal should be a reflection of that.” “It is uniquely positioned to offer work on both theory and practice in public history.” It should do “a better job targeting practitioners in the sub-fields of public history (museums, historic sites, preservation agencies, etc.) as well as those who ‘do’ public history but don’t know the term or see themselves as public historians…. The NCPH journal could be a place to do something relevant for this group by recognizing and reviewing gray literature and identifying the important case studies that have implications and consequences beyond the local.”

Engage the public: “It should be place where public history practitioners not only write for but interact with the interested public.” “Engaging history as a lens through which to view current social and political issues, and to engage Americans with different perspectives in the field.”