This is the sixth and final 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 Anne Mitchell Whisnant, NCPH Journal Task Force:

As a member of the NCPH task force considering the future of The Public Historian, I, like several of my colleagues, have been mining the data from last summer’s survey about the journal.  I focused on questions that asked about the “most or least compelling, interesting, or useful” aspects of other publications respondents identified as “exciting models” for NCPH.

“Hmm,” one respondent mused, “I usually don’t put ‘journal’ and ‘exciting’ in the same sentence.”  Nevertheless, 229 survey respondents identified over 100 different publications that might be worth a look.  Only eight publications, however, (discussed below) garnered four or more mentions.  Meanwhile, nearly 100 respondents either named no models or seemed satisfied with the status quo. Continue reading →

This is the fifth 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 Cathy Stanton, NCPH Digital Media Group:

I looked at the question “In what ways would you like to see the possibilities of digital history and digital publishing transform the NCPH journal?” Predictably, the 187 responses to this question covered a wide range from strongly positive to strongly negative. I didn’t do a detailed analysis of the demographic breakdown between the strongly-pro-digital-only people (“Everything online would be great. No paper.”) to the strongly-pro-status-quo people (“I think digital history/digital publishing is overblown and trendy. Stick with print–it works!”) because they were about equally balanced and I think we already have a sense that broadly speaking, this reflects a generational difference in perceptions of digital materials and media. Continue reading →

This is the fourth 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 Linda Shopes, member, NCPH journal advisory group:

As a member of NCPH’s task force considering the future of The Public Historian and its relationship to other NCPH media, I reviewed responses to question #4 of the Council’s recent Public History Readers Survey: What do you think are the weaknesses of The Public Historian? 211 people answered the question; their responses fall into several broad categories, summarized here.

Many respondents said the design and format of the journal were “old fashioned,” “stodgy,” ‘boring,” and otherwise “dull, dull, dull.” Especially noted was the lack of visual interest, reflecting, I suspect, the greater visual capacity and appeal of digital materials.

Similarly, many respondents expressed concerns loosely grouped around what might be termed digital matters: a lack of open access; the long production time of a paper journal and hence lack of timeliness, especially for exhibit and book reviews (“slow pace of journal production somewhat out of synch with dynamic qualities of the field”); the infrequency of publication; the “lack of dynamic content.” Continue reading →

This is the third 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 Rob Townsend, Deputy Director, American Historical Association:

The Public History Readers Survey demonstrates the wide array of information sources that now dot the landscape of our professional lives, and the challenges that the National Council on Public History faces as it considers the future of its publishing program. Of the 626 respondents to the survey, 88% indicated they value at least one of NCPH’s print and electronic publishing venues, but they differed widely in their preferences. Continue reading →