3.1 Focused discussion with mid-career and senior scholars  (Page 7/7)

The same issue arises with journal publication, as well. The same scholar who earlier argued that“the way we fetishize the book at the expense of articles has to berethought”also said,“What I would like for students is more options in journals, slightly longer articles and ones withillustrations. I would push very outstanding students to books; the next tier toward journals.”But if the system were to work this way, it might undermine the prospects for getting tenure committeesto consider journal articles in their criteria for tenure.

An important element of the situation that calls for closer examination is the relationship between universities and university presses, which some scholars see assuffering from lack of coordination. The dilemma is summarized by one scholar who says,“[The administration] expects one book fortenure and two books for promotion. But, on the other hand, our own press doesn’t publish very much and our library is cutting back. So, how can these things mesh? They can’t; they are mutually exclusive policies. Most books need additional monies. One of thebeneficiaries [of subvention monies] is our institution. We couldargue for a policy that encourages modest subvention money that comes with research funds. And [this should be done]for all universities.”

Another scholar responded, however, that such a strategy“would not be practical. At small colleges teaching our subjects, will they pay to subvent their student’s books? Some are not in a position to do so. It would be a massive undertaking topersuade all universities to do so. I see it going another way–there are so many people and so few jobs, so we will hire those who have so many articles and so many books.”

A third scholar pointed out that scholarly books published by university presses are not just aboutdisseminating scholarship, but“it’s also what we use to teach. We should all insist that universities put money behind [the promotionof academic knowledge]. A professorship is a million-dollarinvestment. What is a few thousand to make that function the way it should?”

Another aspect of the disconnect between universities and university presses has to do with the pricing ofbooks. According to one scholar,“[My institution] is asking us toaddress the prices of books that we are asking students to buy, and while this is happening the prices of the books we are writing areclimbing higher and higher! I have never asked any of my classes to buy a book that [Another (highly endowed)]University publishes because it doesn’t seem fair. We are also restricted by copyright law. [My institution]has a draconian policy about putting articles on the web without permission which makes the prices drasticallydisgusting. There seems to be a terrible collision of different policies that are not talking to each other.”

The issue of endowments being used to support university presses was also specifically raised. One scholar noted,“Harvard has a massively endowed fund. Somewhere, someone made the decision that the university can’t revoke the importance of the academic enterprise, and that includes the importance of publishingacademic writing. I’m not willing to let universities off the hook on that.”

Some scholars argued that if university presses are making money by focusing more on publishing books thatwill reach wider (or larger) audiences, some of the proceeds from the sales of those books should be used to underwrite the costs ofmore traditional scholarly works.“Many of the big university publishers, like Cambridge, make their money doing medical andscience volumes. The problem is that they are being run as businesses, and they want every division to make money and they arenot willing to subsidize the humanities. They want your book to sell 4000 copies.”

Because of the perceived scope of the problem of“art history publishing”–involving not just publishers but museums, university structures, the heterogeneity of the field ofart and architectural history, tenure criteria, and so on–one scholar opined,“I’m struck by the fact that this situation cries out for institutional leadership. We [art history scholars]can’t do what an institution along with other institutions can do‘from on high’to carry these concerns forward. We can’t go on the way we’ve been going, if our institutions want books for tenure but won’t help financially or won’t buy the books.”

A number of mid-career scholars suggested that a foundation such as Mellon (that is, one with a significant amountof influence in the art world) could play a crucial role in facilitating the kind of institutional change needed tomeaningfully address the systemic issues underlying the art history publishing“crisis.”For example, it might be asked to support the convening of meetings among stakeholders in the scholarlypublishing system in an effort to identify and enact appropriate institutional responses to the issues associated with art historypublishing. A number of other supporting activities, such as underwriting the development of alternative electronic publishingvenues, supporting key art history journals, and providing targeted subventions (especially for younger scholars), might also becritical elements of an effective intervention in this area.

One scholar put it this way:“I see the Mellon Foundation playing a leadership role to get all players to do theirshare. Whether it’s e-publishing or articles, outlets short of the book. We need to get senior people to roll back their expectations,and all of us need to continue to hold books to the highest standards without hurting first-time authors and those coming upfor tenure. For example, a foundation like Mellon could be very helpful in supporting very good art history periodicals.”

Another scholar summed up the situation by saying,“We can’t just run to Mellon [to ask for more subvention monies]. But rather, the prestige of the Mellon Foundation could be used to [energize]a larger collective effort that would involve universities and art history departments, to put pressure onuniversities and on museums to make exemptions, provide subventions, coordinate resources out there, and perhaps contributeto subventions. It has to be a collective enterprise.”