- If a disciplinary journal is edited by a scholar whose publications have involved policing the boundaries of his or her discipline, then perhaps that is not the best place to send an in-the-face interdisciplinary paper. Both of my rejections from American Anthropologist this year were interdisciplinary papers, each with an explicit message of "anthropology has something to learn from this other body of research." Well, according to some reviewers and the editor, maybe anthropology doesn't have anything to learn from other fields. Chalk up one more personal beef with the American Anthropological Association and the attitudes of many anthropologists (read why I resigned from the American Anthropological Association). My chair recently suggested I apply for the AA editorship, and I almost fell down laughing.
- Latin American Antiquity is off to a great start under the new editorship of Geoff Braswell and María Gutiérrez. My praise is not based on the fact that they accepted our paper, but on two aspects of the review process. First, the reviews were done in under three months. For a "fast" journal these days, that isn't great, but for an archaeology journal, that is a very good turnaround time. Second, the editors didn't let a single cranky and negative review interfere with their decision. Sometimes journal editors play it "safe" and offer a rejection, or a "revise-and-resubmit" on the basis of a single very negative review. But in this case Geoff and María made the right call and accepted the paper. Around 90% of the criticism of the cranky reviewer was based on one procedure we followed, which supposedly invalidated all of our conclusions. But the critique ignored material presented in another section of the paper that obviated the negative implications of that one procedure. So kudos to the editors for not getting hung up with the one cranky review.
- Commercial publishers are looking for the next Jared Diamond. Most of the replies by editors at the big commercial presses (Norton, Random House, Simon & Schuster, etc.) said that my book manuscript looked interesting, but the projected sales figures from the marketing department were not high enough to justify an offer. Aztec households and communities just aren't sexy enough. They'd love a manuscript that shows how archaeology can solve a major social problem today (as in Jared Diamond), or even some straight archaeology about flashy things like tombs and kings, if written with flair, in first-person terms. But household archaeology? Not ready for prime time. But we haven't given up yet.......
- It is disappointing when you gear up for a big fight, which then doesn't happen. Jason Ur, Gary Feinman and I just published a critique of Jane Jacobs's screwey notion that cities preceded domestication and agriculture in prehistory:
I tell the story of why it was necessary to respond to a crazy model elsewhere (an old blog post, and then a recent post on Wide Urban World). But our paper was written as a critique of an article in the same journal by geographer Peter Taylor, who champions Jacobs's model. Taylor believes in the primacy of theory over evidence. Archaeologists don't REALLY know what happened in the past, and thus, "In such situations of knowledge uncertainty, it is the plausibility of theoretical positions [rather than evidence] that matter’ (p. 425 of Taylor, Peter J. (2012) Extraordinary Cities: Early "City-ness" and the Origins of Agriculture and States. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 36(3):415-447.). So we expected to get a reply to our critique from Taylor. The journal editor was looking forward to this, and planned to use the debate to generate publicity, but evidently Taylor never submitted anything. Oh well.
5 comments:
You raise an interesting point with your comment about the publisher hoping your work solves common problems. I've abandoned plenty of research projects midway because I felt the results were insignificant.
Its my "Indians ate corn" boogeyman. Did I just state the obvious? Should I repent for the sin of RE-search? Is what I'm saying banal?
So what makes archaeological and anthropological research significant? Not every study can be applicable to modern problems. But how can a study that say, documents society X's ideas about organizing sacred space, be made important to anybody outside of the specialist audience who studies such things?
You raise an interesting point with your comment about the publisher hoping your work solves common problems. I've abandoned plenty of research projects midway because I felt the results were insignificant.
Its my "Indians ate corn" boogeyman. Did I just state the obvious? Should I repent for the sin of RE-search? Is what I'm saying banal?
So what makes archaeological and anthropological research significant? Not every study can be applicable to modern problems. But how can a study that say, documents society X's ideas about organizing sacred space, be made important to anybody outside of the specialist audience who studies such things?
@Ralph - The "significance" or "relevance" of research can exist on many levels. At some high level, everything done by archaeologists has some significance for understanding human societies, but the comparisons may be very remote and diffuse. Some research is more directly relevant at a more basic level, whether by design or by chance.
Whether a study of how sacred space is organized in the Upper Slobovian culture is relevant to contemporary concerns depends on how one wants to contextualize the research. By itself, such a study may not seem highly connected to modern life. But if it is part of a comparative study, then connections can be made. For example, many societies organize sacred space along the cardinal directions (North, East, etc.), so perhaps this one study provides part of a body of comparative evidence about this phenomenon.\
Or, from a different angle, perhaps many or most societies that have formal public spaces (plazas and such) imbue them with great symbolic significance. So, again, if you can show something like this for the Upper Sobovians, that could provide part of a comparative set of data that can illuminate why many modern governments give such great symbolic importance to their central public spaces, which then relates to how protests are carried out and their implications (Tianamin Square, or Occupy Wall Street).
But the key in any of this is the comparative analysis. For many or most phenomena, one case study, by itself, can have only very limited significance for illuminating broader patterns. But in conjunction with other cases, just about any study can provide the basis for building knowledge.
While I don't disagree; is part of a researcher's job (duty?) to convince the publisher of Slobovia City Press, that your discussion of sacred space is worth publishing because
A) the organization of sacred space impacts the average Slobovian in some way? Perhaps in an unjust way?
B) The Slobovians aware of the organization can use this info to maximize the effects of their planned protest to bring down the Upper Slobovian hegemony (as per your Tianamin example)?
Yes, I think it should be.
Much as post-modern anthropology gives me stomach pains, I have to applaud those writers for at least swinging (and usually missing) for the fences when it comes to marketing their research.
BUT
While this is easily done with a broad comparative study, there are data sets which are worthy of sharing via publication, but which perhaps do not merit a broader study. Or do they? Always?
Say Professor Q completes a study of a site on Slobovia Island and discovers that the occupants relied heavily upon aquatic resources and used boats. The data he or she collected is worth disseminating, but should professor Q. simply publish a site report in a local or regional journal, or should he FIND a sexy problem to address?
Mind you, the question is rhetorical.
Ralh - Publishing the data is essential. Whether or not one relates those data to outside questions depends on one's interests, one's goals, one's professional context, and a bunch of other things.
Post a Comment