Tag Archive | library

Où est le Michigan?

Faithful skulker John Grenier points us towards a recent exhibition at the University of Michigan Library’s Special Collections on 18C British fortifications in the Americas.

A Salon story on it is here, while the online exhibit is here.

And no, your memory isn’t failing you. Oxford University’s Museum of the History of Science also held its own exhibit entitled “The Geometry of War” back in 1996. You can check out its online catalog here, which deals more with instruments of war (hey, there’s a book title in there somewhere I think).

Speaking of memories, I have fond ones of Michigan’s library, which offered innumerable printed riches to an interloping grad student from “that state down south.” I spent many a dime on photocopies there – this was in the days when libraries still kept 18C books in the stacks, rather than hide them away in rare book rooms. But maybe it’s for the best that Ohio State’s library recalled the copies of Deidier’s 1757 Le parfait ingénieur français and Lamberty’s 1724 Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire du XVIII siècle that I had on a floor bookcase for several years – I’m lucky my cat didn’t pee on them.

The staff at EYM (the library’s OCLC code – another tidbit you needed to know pre-Google Books) were also incredibly helpful. On one of my research jaunts to the land of maize and blue, they were kind enough to digitize several dozen maps from Pelet’s atlas companion to Vault’s Mémoires militaries, and even place them online. And, of course, Michigan has been at the forefront of Hathi Trust, which means that I can finally throw away all those paper copies I made 15 years ago of the Europische Mercurius and Santa Cruz de Marcenado’s Reflexions militaires. So thanks to the Spauldings, who made much of it possible:

Stephen Spaulding Collection

And, if  you plan a trip there, don’t forget to take a peak at the 18C Spanish mortar nearby.


Citations as window to the discipline’s soul

A recent blog post on Poor citation practices continues the long-standing pissing-contest between the Two Cultures (or is it Three now? maybe Four?). As its title suggests, the author thinks that the relatively small number of citations in social science and humanities publications translates into ‘self-harm’ for these flaccid disciplines that lack voluminous citations.

In previous posts I’ve expressed my own dissatisfaction with how historians discuss (or don’t discuss) historiography, and I’m enough off a splitter to cry out for more citation, even if publishers (and some readers) prefer otherwise. So in general I’m sympathetic to blog post’s overall appeal for greater citation.

There’s also a very interesting table of how citations facilitate some of the fundamental ‘features’ of scholarship, halfway down the post.

So I don’t have any particular insight into the question of comparative citation counting, other than a warning (and question) about automating the process. (And to point out that the focus on journal’s h5 scores are pretty pointless for historians, since we’re much more likely to cite books and book chapters than journal articles – maybe the fact that there are so few thematic History journals plays a role?) The author, writing from a social science perspective, praises Google Scholar Metrics for providing a “very inclusive” counting of citations. Not so much for History, if my book is any indication. Because I’m generally a vain individual, I keep track of which publications cite my work. So when I search Google Scholar Metrics for my Vauban under Siege book, I find 14 works that cite it. Which is great, except for the fact that there are at least 25 works that I know of which explicitly cite my book – almost 80% more works than what Google says. If I cared, I’d track down which ones are missing, though I’m guessing some of them are probably book chapters and non-English works.

Admittedly, the citation count of my 2000 Journal of Military History article on Ramillies is much more accurate: 14 citations compared to the 16 that I’m aware of. But since History is all about the books, Google Scholar is hardly acceptable for History, at least as it stands. But perhaps this is only to be expected, given how historians are constantly forced to deal with the kind of messy information that Google tries to engineer a solution to.

Anyone else have better luck with Google Scholar? For that matter, do any historians actually use Google Scholar with any frequency? I’m constantly underwhelmed every time I try to find additional secondary sources using it. Searching Google Books and the web is usually a much better bet.

To embargo or not to embargo, that is the question

Interesting discussion going on about a recent American Historical Association policy calling on History departments and libraries to allow PhD holders to keep their online dissertations closed to public access for up to six years, instead of the now-standard 1-3 years.

Two overviews: Chronicle of Higher Ed and Inside Higher Ed. Be sure to check out the comments as well. There’s also a Q&A on the AHA website defending the policy, with a few comments.

On the one hand we have the AHA, combined with increasingly-nervous PhD graduates facing a horrible academic job market. Their argument essentially boils down to protecting the potential future job prospects of said grads. Without a book (i.e. a revised dissertation), it’s said PhD grads won’t be able to get academic jobs and acquire tenure. And, according to some university press editors, an openly-available online dissertation discourages them from offering a publishing contract. They only want to publish fresh original arguments that will blow your mind. The argument is pretty simple: No book, no tenure. So make it easier to get a book contract.

On the other hand, just about every point and assumption above is contested by critics: that university presses won’t publish work derived from online theses; that scholars won’t buy works derived from online theses; that most dissertations will even get published as a monograph; that History should remain focused on the published monograph. In contrast with the AHA’s professional (read: job) concerns, critics of the new policy tend to gravitate around several related philosophical beliefs: in timely open access to publicly-funded research; that historical knowledge is about disseminating information rather than hiding it; that the profession needs to squarely face up to the reality that an increasing number of History PhDs won’t ever get an academic teaching position (even if they want one) regardless of whether they publish or not – hence the rise of (short-term?) jobs in the Digital Humanities; and a general desire to drag History into the digital age, which means lessening the totemic status of the monograph. As the joke goes: “monograph (noun): a book written by one person and read by one person.”

I’m a bit conflict on the question, so I thought I’d look back at my own experience (“write what you know,” they always say).

My Experience

Untangling all these arguments would require a lot of empirical evidence that we probably don’t have. I have no idea whether anyone will be denied a job or tenure if they don’t embargo their dissertations. But I can speak to how my online dissertation spread, who used it, and where I am now as a result. My main conclusion is primarily descriptive: if anybody cares (and you want people to care), your dissertation will get released into the wild regardless of what you do.

I successfully defended my dissertation in October 2002, on the anniversary of Lepanto in fact. Fortunately I played the role of Don Juan of Austria, and made only a few minor changes to the manuscript before it was “presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University.” I chose to forego an embargo although I had the option of up to three years. Don’t really know why I refused – maybe I was lazy, or freaking out over the impending job search, or maybe there was already a glimmer of the open-access proponent bubbling up inside me. I wasn’t particularly embarrassed with the product, although I’m very glad I was able to delete a chapter or two for the book and add a few new chapters. The dissertation was thus immediately placed online (full PDF) on Ohiolink for the world to download – still there in fact.

I don’t know how often the dissertation has been downloaded over the past 11 years – there’s a Download count on the webpage, but since that only says ‘2’, which includes my download just now, I’m thinking it’s either a new site design, or it doesn’t include views, or something. It certainly doesn’t include other people sharing the PDF file, and it probably doesn’t include the various database services subscribed to by many Research I university libraries (e.g. Electronic Theses and Dissertations).

Why do I think more than two people looked at my dissertation? First, my ego won’t allow me to consider the alternative. But second, because I know others have referenced the dissertation. The one thing I can say for certain is that your dissertation will get out there, assuming anyone is interested in the subject.

A simple Google search of “Vauban’s Siege Legacy” (a silly title I realize) results in 411 hits. Don’t worry, I won’t cite them all, but here’s a flavoring of the venues in which your dissertation will likely appear if it’s online. Whether this publicity is enough to risk the chance of having your manuscript refused by a publisher is up to you.

At the beginning, the basics of your dissertation will appear in the various online catalogs. That meant, in my case, OhioLink and the Ohio State Library catalog, which include the abstract. So when crafting your abstract you need to balance your paranoia about getting scooped with your desire to entice those reading the abstract into checking out the whole thing. Or maybe you want a really boring diss abstract to keep the vultures away? Hopefully a milquetoast abstract won’t reflect poorly on you.

In the pre-digital days, dissertations still managed to find their way to scholars who cared – you could order a copy from UMI or the degree-granting university; some foreign dissertations were passed around like so many trading cards. Such dissemination was largely invisible to the author, unless you happened to get a royalty statement listing the number of copies sold.

Online dissertations have brought all this out into the open. Your dissertation will get much more attention if it’s easily available: online = on the mind. If my example is any indication, your dissertation will make its way into Google Books – perhaps surprisingly as No Preview, without the ability to search the full text (with an uncertain “20??” year to boot). It will also appear in WorldCat, where I discovered that my diss apparently floated over the ocean currents to the University of Wollongong (Australia). In this flat-earth age, your dissertation download link might be brought to the attention of Chinese web surfers, or your abstract even translated into Vietnamese (2011). The flotsam and jetsam of academic history I guess.

If you wrote on a subject that has a broader historiography (and if you didn’t, why bother?), your dissertation will likely come to the attention of bibliographers. In my case, the diss and an annotation were included in Bill Young’s International Politics and Warfare bibliography,  published a mere two years after the dissertation was finished. The timing was rather fortuitous (or not, if you’re paranoid) in this case, since such bibliographies see very sporadic publication.

A relevant dissertation is a cited dissertation, which means that your dissertation will likely get cited before you are able to see the book in print. This depends in part on how long it takes to convert the diss into a monograph – mine took four years (October 2002 to November 2006), and the conventional wisdom suggests a shelf life of six years, depending on the overall activity of your subfield’s historiography. But whether your dissertation gets cited before it becomes a book also depends on your dissertation committee. I was fortunate to have two prolific authors on mine who are kind enough to highlight the work of their students, but this also guaranteed that my diss would be cited by them before I could finish my revisions (John Lynn in 2004 and Geoffrey Parker in 2004 and 2005). In that case, you hope they don’t divulge all of your trade secrets, but you’re not normally in a position to tell them what to publish, nor do you want to refuse their imprimatur on your scholarship. Networking with productive scholars in your field is a requirement for academic advancement, yet the only thing most newly-minted PhDs have to network with is the dissertation.

If you’re trying to get an academic job, you’ll have to decide for yourself how much to lift the secret veil surrounding your conclusions. Here’s where job hunting dovetails with concerns about plagiarism: beyond the intellectual theft, will your ideas be publication-worthy if somebody already published them? How far will you go to prevent such premature release? Will you present your results at a conference, to your peers, to those most likely to steal your ideas? In this situation the paranoid person is damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t: don’t present and nobody will know when someone else steals your ideas; present and you’re letting the would-be thief know the combination to your safe. Or perhaps you’ll reason that getting some articles or book chapters into print quickly will provide a broader audience for your ideas, whet their whistle for the full book, and maybe even forestall any potential plagiarists. After all, it takes a long time to convert the average dissertation into a book. So maybe you publish a few small pieces before the book, or even a summary of the main findings (pink rectangle):

Pre-monograph publications

Publications relating to my dissertation in pink

Of course a lot of this is beyond your control: if you chose a crowded subfield back in grad school, you’ll have more competition, you’ll need to publish more quickly in order to keep up with the historiography, the pressure to plagiarize will likely be greater, as will the likelihood that “your” ideas will be published under someone else’s name.

Now that social media are all the rage, you can also expect all sorts of other sites to mention your dissertation. My own ad on my website (without mentioning the full version online) let the cat peek out of the bag. Posts on your blog might also steal the future book’s thunder. You can also expect word-of-mouth to spread your online dissertation to the winds. Sites like GoodReads mention my dissertation. More and more websites simply automate the inclusion of materials that mention a term, for example here. The more accessible your dissertation is online, the wider it will spread. Does that lead to greater (eventual) book sales? To more opportunities to present your work? To an inability to get it published at all? Who knows.

If your topic is something which non-academics are interested in reading, you can expect your dissertation to appear in all sorts of other places, especially if the dissertation is free while your book costs just south of $200. (That would be an interesting argument for open-access dissertations – nobody will read your astronomically-expensive book, so you might as well offer the dissertation draft for free.) Amateur military historians (i.e. non-academics) are quite capable of using the Internets to find items of interest. This website on Military Architecture includes a paragraph from my diss as well as a link to the full PDF (April, year unclear). This wargamer message board includes a link to a wargaming review of the book (2009). Here’s a Napoleonic website forum reference (May 2013), and another in a wargamer online journal (Winter 2013). Heck, your dissertation might even get mentioned in the comments of a Russian military history blog (2011).

But, it being the Internet, vultures abound as well. For example, this site offers to sell you an iBook copy of my diss for less than 3 euros (“published” May 2013). What a bargain! I won’t mention that you can also download a pirated copy of the published book for that matter.

More seriously, you may very well find your online dissertation work plagiarized, or perhaps ‘copied without proper attribution’ is a more generous phrase. That happened with my dissertation, in a French book on Vauban that shall go unnamed. At least with my dissertation online (and cited in the bibliography in question), it’s easy for any curious reader to pull up the dissertation and see how closely the French text follows my own formulation, even quoting exactly the same examples that I did. But it doesn’t help that the very concept of plagiarism is itself nebulous: not only is its definition unclear here in the US (witness the AHA’s hesitancy to engage the issue), but it is even less clear once we look at graduate student research assistants, not to mention standard practices in other disciplines and the academic cultures of other countries. If you consider overseas markets critical to your work, probably better to err on the side of paranoia if you can.

In short (if you can call 2000 words ‘short’), the availability of my dissertation online hasn’t killed my career, such that it is. But there are plenty of possible rebuttals, beyond the impossibility of (dis)proving counterfactuals. I had a book contract soon after graduation. I was also somewhat protected against plagiarism in that my book was published around the same time as the French plagiarism came out, and a summary of my work was soon thereafter published in French. And to be honest, my career path may be less than ideal for those young, aspiring PhDs still hoping to get a job with a 1-0 teaching load: I’ve yet to be interviewed as an up-and-coming young historian after all.

My impressionistic takeaway on this whole debate: whether a dissertation is embargoed or not probably has little impact on whether most History PhDs get a tenure-track job, and whether most receive tenure. But I’m left with many larger questions about the state of the profession and publishing, and how they relate to jobs. To what extent does the current mandatory online publishing of dissertations explain the tough job market for History PhDs over the past five years? Have recent graduates published their works at lower rates than in the pre-digital age? How many tenure-track History jobs are there overall, compared to the number of applicants, compared to the number of History PhD graduates each year (this policy’s intended target)?  How many of those jobs are at research universities that require a prestigious university press monograph? How many History faculty are denied tenure for failing to publish a book? How much difficulty did those denied tenure have because their dissertation was already online? Is publishing a book enough for tenure at a research school, or do you need glowing reviews as well, which means you really don’t have six years anyway? If you need six years to complete your book, does that mean you’re not competitive for a position that requires a book for tenure in the first place? What is the relative harm when every new PhD has the same 1-3 year embargo – are publishers simply not publishing young PhDs without a longer embargo, and are schools refusing to hire new PhDs as a result? How many dissertations – as a percentage and in absolute numbers – will actually get published by academic presses these days compared to previous decades? To what extent should the AHA base its policies on what the History publishing industry says it wants? Who is this policy really for: the AHA, History departments, History publishers, or all those History PhDs madly scrambling for jobs and adjuncting in the meantime? Too many big questions for me to answer.

The AHA’s policy may assuage the field’s collective conscience, might protect the publishing prospects of a few PhDs, and could serve as a sop to History PhD students livid at their field for preparing them to graduate into un- or under-employment. But it doesn’t address the real crises in academic History: 1) helping the average History PhD land a tenure-track position, and 2) making History more relevant to the broader public. To me, the debate is about a First World problem in a world increasingly made up of Third Worlders.

Google Books crackdown?

Is it just me, or has Google Books been taking down a lot of its pre-1923 works over the past year or so? Works that I’ve easily accessed before in ‘Full view’ (and fortunately downloaded) are now ‘No preview’, and many (particularly 18C English works) now only seem to link to those parasitical companies that republish and sell Google Book scans on Amazon (or maybe they even have a contract with Google).

Admittedly, Google Books’ metadata is still crap and its search results can be eclectic, but it seems there are far fewer useful hits than in the past. Anyone else notice this? Maybe I’m just losing my google-fu…

If this is a real trend, is this monetization in action? The impact of Google’s agreements with publishers? Have people been talking about this already?

In either case, I once again offer this public service announcement: always save online resources to your own drive – you never know when they’ll be disappeared.

Early European Books free trial

Courtesy of Early Modern Online Bibliography, there’s a free trial of EEB, through 22 April. This collection consists of pre-1700 books from Firenze (Florence for us anglos), Frahnce (France for us anglos), Denmark (always gotta remind students that the Dutch are from the Netherlands, not Denmark, and that the Pennsylvania Dutch are German), the KB in the Netherlands (not the Danes), and the Wellcome Library in London (a medical library).

Not sure how much military history there is in them thar’ collections, but check it out while you can.

Never a good sign

For those who need a reminder of the fragility of our knowledge of the past, I present the following from the Bodleian, Oxford:

Update on sprinkler incident at Book Storage Facility [by this point, your heart should already have leapt into your throat]

On Saturday 12 January at the Bodleian’s Book Storage Facility (BSF), a sprinkler was activated causing water damage to a number of books. This incident is highly unusual and is the first time this has occurred since the BSF opened in September 2010. Bodleian Libraries staff responded to the matter immediately and are working with the University’s Estates Services to investigate the problem. At the moment it is not yet known what caused the sprinkler to go off, but there is no evidence of a fire.
In total 5,724 books from a wide variety of collection areas were affected. The wet materials have been dispatched for freezing and drying, the recommended treatment for such incidents. We anticipate that all books will return to their collections but are not able to make a final assessment until the restoration process has been completed. SOLO has been updated to note those items that are temporarily unavailable. Library staff and the Just in Time Team are on alert to locate an alternative copy if possible from other sources should a reader have an urgent need to consult a title which is temporarily inaccessible during conservation treatment.
The BSF reopened on Monday 14 January and had returned to normal operations by the afternoon of Tuesday 15 January. We thank you for their patience as we respond to this incident.”

My wife and I toured the 15C Duke Humfrey’s Library last year, where the docent proudly informed us of the spanking new facilities that would protect the Bodleian’s books – instead of relying solely on the heavy iron chains attached to the spines of the books. Ah, technology. Hopefully none of the books suffered significant damage. Plus, you gotta love any library that defines “a number of books” as 5,724!

Let this serve as a reminder to libraries and archives everywhere to spend more money scanning all those old works and making them freely available online – isn’t there some billionaire somewhere who has a few hundred million dollars to spend on such a laudable goal? Oxford, it should be noted, has been doing its part, witness their Broadside Ballads Online Database, and their partnership with Google Books. Now if we could just get the British Library to allow photography…

Interesting meta-library stats

Dan Cohen has a real interesting post on some data crunching from the HathiTrust project. It includes a number of graphs by John Wilkins that illustrate the ‘uniqueness’ of various research libraries’ holdings. Cool stuff, although some caveats are to be found in the comments (aren’t they always?).

Dan also mentions LibraryThing, a site where you can enter in your own libraries and share/compare with others. The site is mostly used for modern book aficionados, but it does include a LegacyLibraries section, where people have entered in historical figures’ libraries. Here’s an example of James Boswell. Might be something to play around with at some point. We could really use one dedicated to the early modern period, building off of Ira Gruber’s recent Books and the British Army in the Age of the American Revolution, preferably with all of Lynn’s Guide titles already entered in (or easily importable). Group libraries in Zotero might be another option. Zotero has a few plugins that allow some library visualizations: a timeline feature, as well as a plugin called Paper Machines (which I’ve never been able to get to work properly FWIW). So much to do, so little time…

Paleography and Mystery Words

If you’ve ever had the pleasure of skulking in archival holes and corners, you’ve no doubt encountered the joy and despair associated with paleography. When I was a kid I wanted to be a paleontologist; little did I know that my future would take me in the slightly-different direction of paleography. Perhaps not as exciting as chasing after a T. Rex (but almost as dusty), being a paleographer means excavating knowledge from handwritten documents slightly younger than fossils. An American history grad student’s first introduction to paleography can be fear-inducing: about to set off on his great European archival adventure, a new professor suddenly introduces him to the concept of difficult handwriting in a class he was auditing. The level of panic only increased when a fellow grad student already across the Pond confirmed the challenge, warning that he had spent several *weeks* in the archives deciphering the handwriting, literally l-e-t-t-e-r by l-e-t-t-e-r, for day after day.

Over the years I’ve researched in numerous archives and therefore gotten pretty good at deciphering the paleography written by French and English hands c. 1700 – enough to impress most HIS 200 undergraduates at least. But paleography varies greatly not only by person, but by place and time as well, so I’ll post what little I’ve learned over the years – undoubtedly serious guides to paleography will discuss these more authoritatively than I can. What follows is a combination of observations and tips: Read More…

Sometimes you just gotta go back to the original

Another minor example reminding us of the need to go back to the full source at least occasionally.

Most of you are probably familiar with the quote by the earl of Orrery: “Battells do not now decide national quarrels, and expose countries to the pillage of conquerors, as formerly.  For we make war more like foxes, than like lyons; and you will have twenty sieges for one battell.”

This quote comes from his A Treatise on the Art of War (published 1677 but written in the early 1640s I believe) and is often used to indicate how early modern warfare was dominated by siegecraft. While historians love those pithy quotes (search “make war more like foxes” in Google Books if you don’t believe me), and historians far too often just rely on someone else’s quotation without tracking down the original, I was curious as to the context of foxy war-making. So I downloaded the EEBO version of Orrery’s Treatise, found out from a footnote the page that the quote is on (p15), and looked it up. And this is what I found (from the text version, but it’s the same for the image pdf):

“[13] with truth be said of many other Nations, if of any; This last  particular, was observed by that great Captain Sir Francis Vere, at the  Battel of Newport; where the English, under his Conduct, by the  Appointment of the Prince of Orange, did endure the heat of that dayes  Action, and, under God, chiefly obtained the Victory for the States of the  United Provinces; but to purchase it, were often disorder’d, and routed:  yet Sir Francis Vere would still ask, Had they lost, or flung away their  Arms? And being answer’d, No: He said, Then I’ll warrant you, I’ll make  them fight again; and did so, so often, till the Spanish Army was intirely  defeated. I beg the Readers pardon, if the Affection I have for the Truth,  and for the Honour of my Countreymen, has led me into this short  digression; out of which I will hasten, to consider, since the Romans, and  Greeks, were no more Warlike than we, and yet Prest not their People to  the War, why we Press ours; some of the Reasons seem to me to be these.  First, The Romans needed not to Press, because by their Laws, all from  Seventeen, to Forty five years of Age, were to be Inlisted; so that in  effect, War was, as it were, their Vocation. Secondly, None was capable of Civil Employment in their Commonwealth, that  had not served Ten years in their Armies; nor any capable to be of the  first Fourteen Military Tribunes, that had not Five years served in the  Field; nor of the last Ten Military Tribunes, that had not served Eleven  years in the Foot-service, or Fifteen years in the Horse-service; which  were Incentives that more Prest their Peoples Minds, than our  Press-masters do the Bodies. Thirdly, Since War was the onely Ladder by which their People could climb  to Civil Authority, or Military Power, they needed not Pressing. Fourthly, The Art of exactly Fortifying places, was little known, and less  practised in those times, whereby National Quarrels were decided by  Battel, and one gain’d, did usually, as the consequence thereof, carry an  intire Province or Kingdom; in the over-running of which, their Soldiery  got ten times more than their Pay, by the Pillage; which has not only  often enriched the Conquerors, but their Posterities also; besides, being  brought up from their Childhood to Arms, and […] [16] but alas, how few of  them are for Soldiers. But were all of them for that use, yet the Plaister  would be much too narrow for the Sore; and would be rather a sign of the  thing, than the thing itself.”

You probably figured it out – the most famous quote from this work (p15) and its immediate context (p14) is on the two pages that are missing from EEBO’s copy of the work! That’s useful.

Dreams of a Dutch digital playground fulfilled

In a previous post on digital sources I noted that the Dutch were sadly trailing their neighbors when it came to digitizing and disseminating their old publications. At the ‘Louis XIV Outside In’ conference last month, I learned from Donald Haks that the Koninklijke Bibliotheek (i.e. the Dutch Royal/National Library) has now digitized its Knuttel pamphlets (some 47,000 thus far) and put them online via Brill’s TEMPO – The Early Modern Pamphlets Online. The catalog is freely searchable without any kind of subscription. And unlike most of the English databases (EEBO, ECCO, Burney…), the KB has made scans of the pamphlets themselves accessible to those with a KB yearpass, which costs a paltry 15 euros. In other words, you can download any of the pamphlets in PDF format from anywhere in the world with your internet connection and a yearpass account.

Most of the pamphlets are in Dutch, but some are in English, French, and German. Lots on the Dutch Revolt, the Dutch War, and William III’s wars.

So what are you waiting for? Details at http://www.kb.nl/hpd/kbpas/registratie-en.html