The study examined by Townsend exemplifies the type of self-analysis work historians should be doing. Such investigations are very telling about the state of the field and show a great sense of self-awareness on the part of historians. Admittedly, they tend to reveal what one might expect. For instance, I don’t think Townsend or anyone else was shocked to learn that technically adaptive people utilized new technologies more frequently and with greater ease than those who only changed as much as necessary. It was far more interesting to learn how interested everyone is in publishing online. The study’s observation that almost all people have thought about it is telling about the direction of the field and the willingness of even the technically unsavvy to move forward.
Perhaps the most interesting issue revealed in the study was the one Townsend focused on- what inhibits scholars from publishing online? Townsend points to the institutions and culture that currently prevail in the academic sphere. For instance, he examines the incredible fear historians have about not gaining recognition for their work, which is clearly evident in the study and supports his claim vividly. It is the largest bar on the graph of reasons why not to publish online by an incredibly large margin.
Interestingly, Townsend makes the observation that tenured professors are slightly more likely than their fellows to publish online, but does not explicitly make the argument that this is because they no longer have to build up their credentials in the same way their colleagues do- an argument I think he should have made. On the other hand, he does a fantastic job of pointing out the editorial and publishing issues that online articles bring to the fore of historical practice. For instance, he says that in his conversations with editors they told him that it would be difficult to get online journals reviewed, not because there were “doubts about the works themselves,” but because there was a “lack of procedures at the journals for taking an e-mail link or letter and passing it along to a reviewer” (Townsend, page N/a). Further, “other editors expressed confusion about the kind of reviewer they should ask (to do the reviews), since it was not clear whether they should get someone to review the scholarly content in the book, the electronic form and supplements, or both” (Townsend, page N/a).
In short, Townsend review’s was an interesting glance at how historians are examining themselves. I just hope that the information garnered can be utilized to appropriately mitigate the fears of historians with regards to accreditation. Perhaps if the field at large better accepts that there is an incredible interest in writing online articles, it will be become more generally accepted as a practice and methods will spring up to support this new form that shall obviate the need to have the journals adapt at all.
barnesmatthewc 