Microsoft Word - 120157-1209076408-Final_MEG_Dissertation.doc

Copyright by

Maria Elena Gonzalez

2008

The Dissertation Committee for Maria Elena Gonzalez certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation:

Crises in Scholarly Communications:

Insights from Forty Years of the Journal of Library History,

1966 2005

Committee:

Patricia K. Galloway, Supervisor

Donald G. Davis, Jr.

Barbara Immroth

Loriene Roy

Emilio Zamora

Crises in Scholarly Communications:

Insights from Forty Years of the Journal of Library History,

1966 2005

by

Maria Elena Gonzalez, B.A.; M.L.I.S.

Dissertation

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

The University of Texas at Austin

May 2008

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to past, present, and future contributors to the Journal of Library History, Philosophy, and Comparative Librarianship, and its subsequent incarnations,

Libraries & Culture and Libraries & the Cultural Record

Acknowledgements

Unlike almost any other project I have undertaken to completion, this dissertation is the product of unplanned, unforeseen, and improbable circumstances. The choice of focus is a happy result of the catastrophic derailing of my original academic intentions.

For the happy result, I must thank Bette Oliver and Hermina Anghelescu for creating an uproarious, visually rich, and most intellectually stimulating environment within the 191 square feet that once served as the editorial office for Libraries & Culture (Journal). If it had not been for the lively intensity that radiated from that space, I never would have discovered that the quarters of a scholarly journal could be the nexus for such wide ranging discussions and deep questioning of academic traditions and the life of the mind.

Once I settled in to enjoy the daily rhythm of the office, Don Davis graciously overlooked my trespassing and characteristically inveigled me to assume some responsibility for the Journal. Over the course of four years, he engaged me in a series of challenging tasks, most of which I did for fun. The most disconcerting task that he offered me was the taking apart of the editorial office, when it came time to pass the editorial leadership of the Journal to a new team.

As I dismantled the editorial office, and later his own which Davis had occupied for 23 years, I discovered the materiality as well as the personal connections that had sustained the Journal for so long. When they came to grieve the passing of an era and

make their claims for this or that book, a jar of molasses, a lost umbrella, many friends of the Journal became my own.

A cast of characters from the most near library world came by. Mark and Barbara Tucker, Michael Winship, Bob Dawson, Jon Aho, Rich Oram, Irene Owens, David Gracy and many others told stories and reminisced as they watched the parts of the once whole disappear into bankers boxes and moving vans.

For seeing the possibilities of turning this unfolding socio-cultural phenomenon into a believable dissertation, I am grateful to my Committee Chair, Pat Galloway. She literally leaped at the chance to work on this foolhardy project at that risky time in an academic life when she had not yet reached tenure. My cap is off to her and to the rest of my committeeDon Davis, Barbara Immroth, Loriene Roy, and Emilio Zamora who went along with the madness. They remained steadfast in their belief that I would complete this dissertation that required two years to complete.

During those years, which included the death of my mother, I shared the grief and enjoyed the understanding of many of my family members, especially from my cousin Hector Rodriguez, his wife Flor, and their children, Hector, Flor Jeanette, Chuck, and Suzanne. When the going got rough Flors brother, Jorge Alvarez, and my brother- in-law, Rick Gottlieb, provided unerring medical and legal advice, respectively.

As I went through different research stages and the interviewing processes, I received wholehearted support and incomparable insights from Ronald Blazek, Fran Miksa, Wayne Wiegand, Bob Williams, and Martha Jane Zachert. All of them had already made tremendous contributions to the Journal from the very early days at Florida State University but did not fail to respond to my intrusive questions.

Various scholarships from the School of Information and a prestigious Editorial Fellowship awarded by the UT Office of Graduate Studies at the University of Texas at Austin buoyed me through all the years of doubt that plague doctoral students.

I thank the Gates Foundation for the unstinting financial support of my graduate studies without which I would have been in debt for many years. The financial support made it possible for me to work for ridiculous student wages and to serve the university and the community of Austin in many ways as a volunteer.

Mary M. Case, now University Librarian at University of Illinois at Chicago, merits a special commendation for brilliantly defining the position and outlining the strategies of U.S. research librarians in challenging the practices of international commercial publishers that often are found at the center of the crises in scholarly communications. When I met Mary, she was Director of the Office of Scholarly Communications for the Association of Research Libraries and courageous founder and defender of SPARC. Her scholarship challenged me to reach further back in time to understand the historical trajectory of ARL and of Reed Elsevier, the nominal nemesis.

Likewise, I owe many thanks to Joanna Hitchcock, Director of the University of Texas Press, for pointing out that the issues of concern to a university press and to the humanities in particular differed from those of commercial publishers serving the sciences. Joanna indulged my many questions and directed my reading in the eloquent literature about university presses by their directors.

I am in great debt to the librarians and archivists at the University of Texas at Austin, Florida State University, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who assisted my research by procuring and not discarding the tons of obscure materials necessary to produce a dissertation of this sort.

Kudos to the Emerald Group administration for the courteous and prompt response and unequivocal permission for me to use all and any materials authored by me and published in Emerald journals.

Much due appreciation goes to my cohorts who took time to compare notes on obscure points on method and expression, and especially to Sherre Paris, who spent her precious time telling me about the early training of photojournalists instead of writing her dissertation about it. I would like to mark high regards for my faithful colleagues Jeanne Drewes, Julie Arnott, and Tina Mason, who never chided me for temporarily putting aside my work in preservation to pursue this dissertation.

During the writing of a dissertation inevitably very special peoplethe angels of doctoral studentsarrive to provide support and sustenance. Two of my angels, Michael Hodges and Jeff Newberry, kept me alert with cakes concocted of nothing but love, butter, and sugar and protected my archival shrine at UTs Collection Deposit Library. Marc Frazier, Kirby Sams, and the indefatigable crew at Hyde Park Gym not only kept my body and soul together but the hipbone connected to the ham bone, too.

I will be forever grateful to the entire Metzger family, who faced lifes most harrowing turns with forbearance and aplomb, fiddling, singing and tap-dancing, especially Chela, who humored me through the darkest days of writing these pages.

Addie the cat, at her most petulant, reminded me that doctoral students everywhere face obstacles and demands from friends and family much greater than I ever had to faceeven when she wanted food at 4 oclock in the morning.

Crises in Scholarly Communications: Insights from Forty Years of the Journal of Library History,

1966 2005

Publication No.

Maria Elena Gonzalez, Ph.D.

The University of Texas at Austin, 2008

Supervisor: Patricia K. Galloway

The study examines the first forty years of a humanities journal, Libraries & Culture (hereafter Journal). Founded in 1966 as The Journal of Library History, its contributors shaped and reshaped the Journal according to the values, habits, and competencies that they brought to changing circumstances. Over a period of forty years marked by administrative, managerial, financial, editorial, and technical challenges, the editors transformed the Journal into an interdisciplinary and erudite publication distant from its earliest beginnings as a compendium of entertaining vignettes and didactic notes on the writing and uses of library history.

This study considers salient points of transformation during the life of the Journal, highlighting issues associated with various crises in scholarly communications. Key issues confronted by the Journal include the now familiar dilemmas over journal pricing structures, subscription cancellations, bibliographic control, prestige surveys and

citation rankings, pressures on authors to publish, peer-review, and modes of dissemination. Historical and sociological contexts frame the resolutions of these dilemmas that are treated chronologically as they erupted in the trajectory of the Journal.

The historical investigation draws on archival sources, secondary sources, interviews, participant observation, and close reading of the publication to construct a narrative about the Journal in the context of 1) changing priorities in higher education;

2) challenges faced by university presses and scholarly publication in general; and 3)

professional and disciplinary developments in librarianship.

The characters, actions, and settings of the history are interpreted through a sociological lens, crafted from a beginners understanding of the work of Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieus concepts of social field, multiple forms of capital, capital conversion, and habitus form the interpretive frame for the narrative.

The choice of Bourdieus heuristic approach implies a broader interest in framing scholarly communications as value negotiations among sets of players in interdependent social fields. The players struggle not just to preserve their positions in the production and dissemination of scholarship, but also contend with others in powerful social fieldsstate governments, university hierarchies, and marketsabout the creation of cultural capital and the power to define what is legitimate knowledge.

Table of Contents

List of Tables........................................................................................................ xvi List of Figures ..................................................................................................... xvii List of Illustrations ............................................................................................. xviii

Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................... 1

Situation ......................................................................................................... 1

Literature ........................................................................................................ 2

Approach to Situation .................................................................................... 5

Research Questions ........................................................................................ 5

Investigation ................................................................................................. 12

The Idea for the Investigation ...................................................................... 15

Approach and Methods ................................................................................ 19

Forms of Capital and Capital Conversions .................................................. 31

Borrowings ................................................................................................... 33

Adaptation of Bourdieusian Concepts and Frameworks.............................. 35

Arriving at The Logic of Social Fields ........................................................ 39

Exploring the Logic of the Field .................................................................. 40

Limitations ................................................................................................... 42

Role of Researcher ....................................................................................... 44

Confidentiality and Privacy of the Contributors .......................................... 46

Organization of the Chapters ....................................................................... 47

Value of the Study........................................................................................ 48

Chapter 2: Founding of the Journal of Library History (Journal)....................... 49

Social Structure of Library History in the United States ............................. 49

The Library History Round Table ................................................................ 49

The Library History Seminars...................................................................... 52

The Journal .................................................................................................. 54

Parent to the Journal .................................................................................... 55

Antecedents to the Founding of the Journal ................................................ 58

A Peculiar Scholarly-Social Nexus .............................................................. 60

In the Interim: FSU 1953 -1965 ................................................................... 64

Launching the Journal ................................................................................. 68

Response to the Founding of the Journal .................................................... 71

A Sociological View of the Origins of the Journal ..................................... 72

Chapter 3: The Shores Years, 1965 - 1967 .......................................................... 79

Scope and Aims of the Journal .................................................................... 79

Who Conceived the Journal and Why ......................................................... 83

Finding a Publisher ...................................................................................... 89

Falling Back on the Good Ol Boys ............................................................. 91

Faculty Publications Board .......................................................................... 93

Editorial Board Structure ............................................................................. 95

Responsibility, Titles, and Authority ........................................................... 98

Format, Aesthetics, and the Ordering of Features...................................... 101

Discipline, Devotion, and Rewards............................................................ 112

Awards and Grants ..................................................................................... 113

Scholarships for Attendance at Library History Seminars......................... 116

Relations with Advertisers ......................................................................... 117

Who Were the Subscribers? ....................................................................... 120

Star Talent .................................................................................................. 121

Early Results .............................................................................................. 122

Two Perspectives ....................................................................................... 124

Contributor Positions and Structure of the Field, 1966.............................. 131

Another Bourdieusian Structuring Device ................................................. 139

Chapter 4: The Goldstein Years, 1968 - 1976..................................................... 142

Editor by Default ........................................................................................ 142

Editorial Duties and Policies ...................................................................... 145

The Editorial Office ................................................................................... 147

Manuscript Selection Criteria .................................................................... 150

xii

Bibliographic Endeavors ............................................................................ 153

Historiographic Base .................................................................................. 158

The Historiographic Base is Fine but the Finances are Fracturing ............ 171

Finding a Suitable Suitor............................................................................ 176

Position Leavings and Takings .................................................................. 177

Contributor Positions and Structure of the Field, 1973.............................. 181

Symbolic Violence ..................................................................................... 185

Chapter 5: Transition to the University of Texas at Austin ................................ 190

A Different Periodical Management Model............................................... 194

UT Press, 1976 ........................................................................................... 196

Institutional Context of Negotiations at UT ............................................... 200

Key Changes .............................................................................................. 204

The Role of the Editor, Staffing, and New Allies ...................................... 212

A New Set of Positions and Relations in Social Space.............................. 213

CHAPTER 6: THE DAVIS YEARS, 1977 - 2005216

Part I: JLH at the University of Texas at Austin, 1977 - 1988............................ 216

Improvement of the Journal....................................................................... 216

Counsel from Other Journal Editors .......................................................... 219

Strengthening the Support Network ........................................................... 220

Portents of Stability Against a Background of Relative Turmoil .............. 223

Confronting the Black Dog ....................................................................... 227

Another Stabilizing Influence .................................................................... 231

Under the Review of Peers......................................................................... 233

Indexing the Journals Contents ............................................................... 238

Indexing and Abstracting Services............................................................. 240

Reviews ...................................................................................................... 242

1985 Kohl and Davis Report ...................................................................... 245

Broadening the Base .................................................................................. 246

Contributor Positions and Structure of the Field, 1980.............................. 247

Logic of the Field, 1980 ............................................................................. 250

Unexplained Scattering of Positions, 1980 ................................................ 252

Contributor Positions and Structure of the Field, 1987.............................. 254

Logic of the Field, 1987 ............................................................................. 257

Part II: Libraries & Culture, 1988 - 2005 ........................................................... 259

Name Change, 1988 ................................................................................... 259

Beyond Revisionism: Pluralism and Multiculturalism .............................. 261

Summer 1990 ............................................................................................. 265

The Journals Silver Anniversary, 1991 .................................................... 267

Self-Appraisals ........................................................................................... 269

Double Blind Peer Review ......................................................................... 272

The Journal Goes Online, 1997 ................................................................. 279

The Journal Becomes Part of Project Muse, 2001 .................................... 281

The 2005 Nisonger-Davis Perception Study .............................................. 283

The Changing Habitus of the Journal ........................................................ 285

Contributor Positions and Structure of the Field, 1994.............................. 286

Contributor Positions and Structure of the Field, 2001.............................. 292

Changes over Time .................................................................................... 296

Chapter 7: Conclusion: Perennial Crises............................................................. 303

The Panorama of Scholarly Communications............................................ 303

The Crises in Scholarly Communications .............................................. 308

The Language of Crisis........................................................................... 310

Continuance and Stability .......................................................................... 312

What Next or The Space of Possibles .................................................... 315

Appendices .......................................................................................................... 319

Appendix A Abbreviations ..................................................................... 320

Appendix B Glossary ............................................................................. 323

Appendix C Variable and Conversion Tables......................................... 327

Appendix D Fields, Proximity Means, and Clusters by Sample Years .. 339

Bibliography........................................................................................................ 361

Archival Sources ........................................................................................ 361

Professional and Organizational Publications............................................ 361

Bio-Bibliographical Sources ...................................................................... 362

Interviews ................................................................................................... 362

Electronic Correspondence ........................................................................ 362

Books and Articles ..................................................................................... 363

Vita. ................................................................................................................. 394

List of Tables

Table 6.1 - Concentration of Institutional Affiliation ......................................... 298

Table C.1: Attributes of Contributors ................................................................. 332

Table C.2: Conversion Table - Highest Degree Attained .................................. 333

Table C.3: Conversion Table Subject of Highest Degree ............................... 334

Table C.4: Conversion Table Carnegie Class Equivalent ............................... 335

Table C.5: Conversion Table Role Played in Journal .................................... 336

Table C.6: Conversion Table - Position at Work Institution ............................. 337

Table C.7: Conversion Table Award Equivalent ............................................ 338

Table D.1.1: Proximity Means, 1966 ................................................................. 341

Table D.1.2: Contributor clusters with exemplars, 1966 ................................... 342

Table D.2.1: Proximity Means, 1973 and 1974 ................................................. 344

Table D.2.2: Contributor Clusters with Exemplars, 1973 and 1974 .................. 345

Table D.3.1: Proximity Means350

Table D.3.2: Contributor clusters with exemplars, 1980 ................................... 351

Table D.4.1: Proximity Means, 1987 ................................................................. 353

Table D.4.2: Contributor clusters with exemplars, 1987 ................................... 354

Table D.5.1: Proximity Means, 1994 ................................................................. 356

Table D.5.2: Contributor Clusters with Exemplars, 1994.................................. 357

Table D.6.1: Proximity Means, 2001 ................................................................. 359

Table D.6.2: Contributor Clusters with Exemplars, 2001.................................. 360

List of Figures

Figure 3.1: Masthead of Volume 2, Issue 3, July 1967....................................... 100

Figure 3.2: Original Journal cover...................................................................... 101

Figure 3.3: Growth of History Journals in the United States, 1865 - 1975......... 125

Figure 3.4: Growth of LIS Journals in the United States, 1895 - 1985............... 126

Figure 3.1: Distribution of sixty-three contributors, 1966 .................................. 133

Figure 4.1: Distribution of thirty-five contributors, 1973 ................................... 181

Figure 4.2: Distribution of thirty-six contributors, 1974..................................... 184

Figure 6.1: Distribution of one hundred-three contributors, 1980 ...................... 248

Figure 6.2: Distribution of seventy-three contributors, 1987.............................. 255

Figure 6.3: Distribution of eighty-three contributors, 1994 ................................ 287

Figure 6.4: Distribution of sixty-six contributors, 2001 ..................................... 293

List of Illustrations

Illustration 1.1: Location of typewriter and table.................................................. 25

Illustration 3.1: The real triumvirate .................................................................. 136

Chapter 1: Introduction

SITUATION

The scale and rate of transformation in the interrelated fields of scholarly communications seem to reach distressing proportions periodically.1 Since World War II, many aspects of scholarly research, production, and disseminationsuch as quantity, quality, authenticity, relevance, accessibility, control, cost, medium, and formathave become central subjects of dispute among publishers, institutions, academics, and their respective constituents. However, the affected parties, the effects of changes, and the causes of disturbances when identified are never the same. To emphasize the scope and negative aspects of complex and evolving circumstances, during the 1960s various observers began to frame their particular situations as a crisis in scholarly communications.2 This move signaled the recognition of systemic tensions in interrelated social fields of cultural production and reproduction. As their values, goals and disposition shifted during the Cold War and after, interdependent social fields of cultural production and reproduction seemed to be working at cross-purposes. The construction of crisis in scholarly communication surfaced as a rhetorical device used to amplify the unease about perceived and actual disruptions and dislocations. But what are the nature and causes of this unease?

1 According to Pierre Bourdieu, whose work this study heavily draws upon, a field is a structured system of social positions, which by their nature defines priorities, stakes, and values for their occupants. In this study, the major fields investigated include higher education, history, library and information science as disciplines, academic librarians, and university presses.

2 Disturbances and altercations dating back to the 1930s between librarians and vendors, presses and printers, university presses and their home institutions have been documented. Not until the 1960s were these clashes perceived as, or declared to be, systemic failures.

LITERATURE

A handful of studies have sought the larger causes and solutions to these scholarly communications crises, indirectly shifting discourses away from academic and disciplinary to economic and moral concerns. Accordingly, researchers have proposed a range of organizational, financial, legal, and technological solutions, or more radically, decreed that aspects of scholarly communications are irredeemably dysfunctional. Problematic aspects that have been investigated include the pressure on faculty to publish; the proliferation and rising costs of books and journals; shrinking library resources for adequate collection development; the failures of peer review to guard against fraudulent or inferior work; inadequate subsidies for university presses coupled with shrinking sales of scholarly monographs; the accelerating control of scholarship by commercial publishers; and the consolidations and mergers of presses at the global level. Most critics, however, have focused on scientific, technical, and medical publications seldom addressing scholarly communication concerns from the perspective of humanities publications.

When they reflect on scholarly communications in the humanities, scholars reveal new perspectives not addressed by generalized or science-focused treatments, but still allude to some need to realign or to make things right, that is to take control, seek coherence and adherence to some set of undefined or emergent values. For instance, Jerome McGann emphasizes the urgent need for humanities scholars to adopt digital technologies and to remaster traditional theories and practices from philology, editing, and bibliography in order to salvage scholarship from the grasp of floundering academic

publishers.3 In McGanns view, these core disciplines, dropped from U.S. English

3 Jerome McGann, Information Technology and the Troubled Humanities, TEXT Technology: The

Journal of Computer Text Processing 14, no. 2 (2005):113, http://www.texttechnology.mcmaster.ca/pdf/

studies curricula after 1965, will be essential in wresting the cultural spadework of editing and archiving from the librarians and systems engineers now doing it. To McGann, the critical concern for humanists is that cultural work has been relinquished to others who cannot perform it right.

Highlighting a different concern, Henk F. Moed devoted a short section of his book, Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation, to differences between science, social sciences, and humanities that affected how the performance of researchers in these different fields is bibliometrically assessed by the scholarly community. Moed noted that not only did qualitative research require different communications structures than did the sciences but that the social sciences and the humanities tend to be dispersed among a variety of cited sources, many of which have a national orientation or flourish within specific language domains. Since critical evaluation of scholarship, according to Moed, must take place at the international level, tools and criteria other than those harnessed by citation indices might be required to assess humanist scholarshipincluding lawthat is rooted in national or local viewpoints.4 Humanistic disciplinary fields rooted in localized language, culture and state structures requires evaluation at the international level but not with the metrics used to gauge scholarship in science and technology fieldssomething else is needed.

Researchers concerned with the problems of scholarly communications in the humanities not only discover different points of friction, but also communicate them in different styles so it is not simple to determine which of the multiple complaints present severe problems with the potential of long-term adverse consequences to one or more of the parts. McGann borrows urgency from the usual crisis talk in order to alert

colleagues in literature and language departments about the loss of control over cultural

4 Henk F. Moed, Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2005), 148.

practices of naming (philology), representing (editing), and consecrating (bibliography) that once had been under their purview. On the other hand, Moed quietly notes that the assessment tools needed for the empathic appraisal of the scholarship that is to be compared, preserved, and transmitted across time and place may be lacking altogether. Moed thus presents a positive face about conditions that other writers believe are harsh and unjust practices of judging, ignoring, and censoring scholarship. Moed recognizes the discrepancies but does not seem concerned about what others see as the twisting and bending of scholarship to the questionable aims of institutions, industry or states.5 In other words, there are points of friction and unease throughout the system of scholarly communications but very different assessments of what the core problem might be or how serious the conditions are.

Recently, Blaise Cronin, Dean of the School of Information at Indiana University, examined his own changing views on the practices associated with scholarly writing and publishing. He provides no way out of the dilemmas, but encourages, further analysis of the dynamics of the scholarly communications marketplace, focusing upon the array of stakeholder relations, technological drivers, competitive forces that are reconfiguring the ecosystem.6 In Books in the Digital Age published in

2005, Cambridge University Sociology Professor John B. Thompson concludes that to understand the logic of two key fields involved in cultural dominance and

transmissionhigher education and academic publishingand the changes that are

5 John Connelly and Michael Grttner, eds. Universities under Dictatorships (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005).

6 Blaise Cronin, The Hand of Science: Academic Writing and its Rewards (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow

Press, 2005), 33.

transforming their interactions, we have to go back and reconstruct the structure and evolution of these fields.7

APPROACH TO SITUATION

In response to Cronins and Thompsons recent calls for analysis, this dissertation examines the forty-year trajectory of a humanities journal, the Journal of Library History 8 (Journal), and considers key transition points in the Journals history in the context of 1) changing priorities in higher education, 2) technological and economic aspects challenging academic presses and scholarly communications and 3) disciplinary interests of the Journals stakeholders in the field of library and information science (LIS). The purpose of this case study is to yield insights about the dynamic but seemingly stressed social relations, practices, and reward systems associated with academic production, scholarship and scholarly publishing. As an investigation of the activities of an academic humanities journal published by a university press over the period of crisis in question, the case study has instrumental value as well as intrinsic interest. The case study also provides the means to trace in a focused and detailed manner how people closely involved with one journal interpreted and reacted to conditions that, in sum, seem to represent crises to outside observers.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The three questions that guide this investigation are:

What circumstances surrounded the establishment and development of the

Journal during its first forty years?

7 John B. Thompson, Books in the Digital Age: The Transformation of Academic and Higher Education

Publishing in Britain and the United States (Cambridge, England: Polity, 2005), 438.

8 The original title of the Journal was Journal of Library History, Philosophy, and Comparative Librarianship; in 1988, the title changed to Libraries & Culture (L&C) and in 2005, to Libraries & the Cultural Record (L&CR).

How is the Journal as a system of values and cultural production organized, that is, who is involved with the Journal, what are their objectives, how have they created value, how does this value accrue, and who benefits? Or, how did the Journal evolve as a system of values and cultural production?

To what extent are the ongoing crises in scholarly communications cultural artifacts of the struggles for primacy, preeminence, and currency among the players involved in the interdependent fields that intersect in scholarly communications? What can we learn about these crises from the Journal by studying it as a case?

Consideration of the major events of the second half of the twentieth century gives some credence to the claim of a crisis in scholarly communications starting after World War II and intensifying through the 1990s. How have seemingly unrelated circumstances, like inflation, mass access to education, and demographics, that have affected research funding, professional priorities, and higher education governance, also affected the nature of scholarly communications in the humanities? One possible way of finding out is to see how a humanities journal evolved and how its development has been affected by internal and external pressures.

For instance, Florida State University Library School (FSU LS) Dean Louis Shores claimed that the idea to start The Journal of Library History emerged from discussion at a conference of professional librarians.9 When the Journal was founded, however, it was established as an academic, not a professional journal. What circumstances made it possible to establish such a journal? Before the agreement for the transfer of the Journal between the FSU LS and the University of Texas at Austin (UT)

Press could be executed, the UT Press Faculty Advisory Committee had to approve it.10

9 Louis Shores, Library History Comes of Age, Florida Libraries 18, no. 2 (1967): 10-11.

10 Letter, Ann Reinke to Donald G. Davis, Jr., 24 June 1976, Folder-Historical: Relocation at Texas, Records of The Journal of Library History/Libraries &Culture, School of Information, University of Texas at Austin.

To what new mechanisms and oversights was the Journal subjected that it had not had

before?

In 1979, UT Press set up two price levels, one for individuals and another for institutions, $5.00 higher, for the same annual subscription to the Journal;11 the total number of subscribers and the number of institutional subscribers both went up.12 What was going on? The change of the name from The Journal of Library History to Libraries

& Culture was under consideration for at least four years.13 What was at stake that the name change took so long? When Project Muse first offered the online version of the Journal to its institutional subscribers in 2001, electronic correspondence arrived at the editorial office from readers in Australia, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, and Singapore. How were these new far-flung relationships to be sustained?

Being alert to these questions during the selection and assembly of sources and the construction of the history of the Journal provided important insights about the contexts of contemporaneous developments in scholarly communications. Primary sources yielded the traces of the Journals history. Secondary sources greatly enhanced my understanding of the unfiltered records.

Since its founding, the Journal has been the topic of various scholarly inquiries and critiques. Several prosopographic and bibliometric studies have explored commonalities as well as relationships among contributors to the Journal. Jean-Pierre

V.M. Hrubel has investigated the authorship, gender, and institutional affiliation of

11 The subscription rates appear on the verso of the first page of each issue of the Journal.

12 Libraries & Culture Circulation History (by calendar year). Folder-Journal Statistics, Records of The

Journal of Library History/Libraries &Culture, School of Information, University of Texas at Austin.

13 The name change became official upon publication of the first issue of volume 23 in January 1988. In his introduction to the annual conference program of the 1984 ALA Library History Round Table, UT GSLIS Dean Ronald E. Wyllys suggested that the name of the Journal be changed. In 1980, Libraries & Culture had been the name of the Library History Seminar VI, hosted at the University of Texas by the Journal.

Libraries & Culture authors between 1966 and 1988.14 Edward A. Goedeken combined a survey of historiographical changes from 1966 to 2000 with an analysis of gender, authorship characteristics, institutional and professional affiliation and position of authors, and citation patterns over the same period.15 Lois Buttlar, on the other hand, studied gender, occupation, affiliation, and geographical location of the Journals contributors.16

Two surveys ranked the regard of directors of academic libraries and deans of library schools for the Journal relative to other peer-reviewed publications in the field of library and information science (LIS).17 The intent of these surveys was to determine the level of prestige attributed to the publications in matters of faculty tenure and promotion and in salary decisions. Other types of evaluations of the Journal have appeared in Choice, Drexel Library Quarterly, the 1987 Library and Information Science Annual, Library Journal, and Wilson Library Bulletin. These other reviews resulted in summative rather than comparative critiques.

In an article published in a special issue of the Journal, Andrew Wertheimer investigated the goodness of the Journal by comparing the contents of four volumes.18

He summarized his findings, which given the small sample of issues studied, can only

14 Jean-Pierre V. M. Hrubel, Authorship, Gender, and Institutional Affiliation in Library History: The

Case of Libraries & Culture, Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian 1, no. 1 (1991): 49-54.

15 Edward A. Goedeken, What We Wrote About and Who We Were: Historical Writings in JLH/L&C,

1966-2000, Libraries & Culture 38, no. 3 (2003): 250-265.

16 Lois Buttlar, Analyzing the Library Periodical Literature, College & Research Libraries 52, no. 1, (1991): 38-53.

17 David F. Kohl and Charles H. Davis, ARL Library Directors and Deans of Library Information Science Schools, College & Research Libraries 46, no. 1 (1985): 40-47. Thomas E. Nisonger and Charles H. Davis, The Perception of Library and Information Science Journals by LIS Education Deans and ARL Library Directors: A Replication of the Kohl-Davis Study, College & Research Libraries 66, no. 4 (2005): 341-377.

18 Andrew Wertheimer, Quantifying the Goodness of Library History Research: A Bibliometric Study of the Journal of Library History/Libraries & Culture, Libraries & Culture 40, no. 3 (2005):267-284.

hint at the rising status of the Journal, its increasing international scope, and the growth of the Journal related to the nurturing of new authors.

In the introduction to his article, Wertheimer went to the heart of a deeper issue by addressing the extent to which changes in higher education affect scholarship. In the case of library and information science, he cites data showing substantial and continuing reductions in the number of dissertations in LIS using historical methodologies after the

1970s. This period coincides with the transformation of library schools curricula to programs emphasizing information science in response to major technological and socio-economic transformations that brought market-driven values to higher education.19 To accommodate the new curricula, courses related to the history and the social contexts of libraries and librarianship were eliminated. Wertheimer suggests that these changes will have negative effects on the future development of the Journal and that library historiography will falter if library historians are not replaced as they retire from the professoriate. If in the future potential authors are not rewarded institutionally for their contributions to the Journals objectives, why would they continue to contribute? Who would contribute to it and why?

So the second question is, what is the good of a journal? Who sustains a journal? What motivates them? In what ways does a journal provide an arena for editors, publishers, librarians, authors, readers, subscribers, deans, university administrators, bibliographers, indexers and abstractors to create value? How is this value created, how does this value accrue, and who benefits? How are these systems of production organized, who is involved in them, what are their objectives? How is the goodness or

social capital of a journal determined?

19 Ibid., 271.

Because the Journal developed precisely during the period that scholarly communications in the Unites States moved toward crisis, the Journal encountered challenges and sought solutions related to aspects of scholarly communications governance, authorship, peer review, financing, etc.that were becoming the subjects of scrutiny outside the narrow field of interest of the Journals editors.

For example, during its first eleven years, editing and publishing of The Journal were sustained by an academic department and controlled by the dean of the department. Then, through a combination of circumstances and intentional moves by interested others, the Journal became the property of a large university press at another institution. Before the transfer took place, various combinations of finance, editorial control, and governance were considered for the Journal by its editors, who could no longer sustain the publication as originally administered. Close analysis of the actual decision-making process leading to the final destination of the Journal illuminates the subtle differences in cultural and symbolic interests held by those involved in the transfer of the Journal from one institution to another.

The options that were considered for the Journal included sponsorship by a professional society, sale to a commercial publisher, or management by a non-profit aggregating agency. These represent choices then available to editors of publications deemed to be no longer viable. Many academic journal editors faced this situation as the political and economic circumstances of higher education changed.

The selection of the university press over the other forms of journal management models suggests that there were alternative values and objectives considered but rejected by those with a stake in the Journal. Those involved in the choice and transfer of the Journal included library educators, historians, and university administrators as well as editors at a university press. Some of these players were aware of the differences among

publication models. Projecting different futures for the Journal under each model, the players chose the form that was most advantageous to them.

The non-profit aggregator model was new, born of administrative and management difficulties faced by the plethora of scholarly journals that had sprouted during the 1960s and 1970s. The professional society seldom had adequate resources and the commercial publisher presented its own problems. There is evidence that commercial publishers of scientific materials in the United States began to compete successfully with scientific societies by the mid-1970s. The specter of strong publishers on whom they depended began to alarm research librarians, whose budgets and subsidies disappeared about the same time due to inflation and cuts in funding for higher education. For research librarians, the concern shifted from collection development to collection management, as illusions about comprehensive collections vanished.

At the same time, the number of tenure-track academic positions available to an increasing pool of doctorates was decreasing, making the positions more difficult to obtain. Publishing demands increased, with first tenure, then even hiring requiring a certain number of monographs and articles. At the same time, several universities withdrew support for their presses, which then folded. Economic and political circumstances in motion in the 1970s widened the chasm that separated the interests of competing players.

Other scenarios from the history of the Journal highlight parallel actions elsewhere in the social fields of scholarly communications. Instances relevant to this investigation include the implementation of double-blind peer review, the negotiations for inclusion by a bibliographic service, and the choice of the university press to market the Journal through electronic aggregators. With all of these discrete actions, over time

the Journal contributors produced a substantial artifact, a collective capital asset of appreciable value.

To what extent do these scenarios afford glimpses of the multiple challenges and dislocations felt throughout the interdependent fields of scholarly communications? To what extent does the Journal provide a window into the changing values, objectives, and means of production of scholarly communications? How did the Journal persist?

The final question then is, to what extent is the crisis in scholarly communications a cultural artifact of the struggles for primacy, preeminence, and currency among the players involved in the interdependent fields within the system of scholarly communications? Given the investments that go into the production of a journal it makes sense that different players want to control, however remotely, the nature and production of publications. Who wants what?

INVESTIGATION

The study seeks to draw insights from the particular events in the Journals history to illuminate the declared problems contemporaneously assailing scholarly communications in the humanities.

The history of the Journal is constructed from a remarkably rich archive of office records and supplementary materials that illuminate the Journals conception, genesis, and milestone events in the context of developments in LIS, higher education, and academic publishing. The nature and scope of the social networks, work practices, and productions generated in support of the Journal are described in detail by drawing on correspondence, interviews, and observation, as well as from the published results of conferences, seminars and workshops sponsored by the Journal.

Events, such as the Journals founding as a department-based academic journal, its early foundering and transfer to another university, and the process of changing the

Journals title, are examined from the perspective of relations, strategies, goals, and constraints. The sociological lens especially focuses on changes in the Journal due to perceived shifts in the practices and rewards of academic production and in the dynamics of journal editing and publishing. Throughout, the study searches for links between the changes in the Journal and phases of the debates about peer review, journal pricing, modes of dissemination, and other aspects of the crisis in scholarly communications.

These events, relations, and processes are interpreted through a sociological framework based on the concepts of social fields, field of power, position, habitus, disposition, practice, capital, symbolic violence, and social reproduction (See Appendix B Glossary). The key assumption of the framework is that there is an underlying structure to all social life. The main argument that links the concepts together avers that social fields are performing stages or arenas where people make judgments, negotiate, and struggle for valuable resources and outcomes in which they take interest. Individuals, institutions, and other agents try to distinguish themselves from others in order to deploy or acquire the types of capital that are deemed useful or valuable, and confer strength and power to the holders within that social field.

The conceptual framework provides a degree of objectification by abstracting individuals into strategic players on a defined but imaginary space, or social field. Thus, the social field of the academic journal is conceptually structured and embodied by people according to principles of differentiation that are based on the distribution of characteristics that are relevant to it. In this case, key characteristics or properties include educational level, disciplinary background, affiliations and alliances, productivity, research quality, social and cultural competencies, and all other advantages that would carry weight in the field at a specific point in time.

At the same time, the framework recognizes the interdependencies of even the most autonomous social fields by acknowledging the actual participation, or intrusion, of players from the fields of power of the parent society or via the semiconscious structuring of positions in a pattern homologous to those dominant or in ascendancy in any given culture. In the case of an academic journal, the fields of power assumed to be dominant and potentially intrusive are those of the department, the university administration, and of the discipline, on up through societal demands of higher education to which the journal must answer. External intrusions rack a fields internal arrangements and disturb relations, values and reward systems, requiring defense, resistance, and adjustments whether feigned or real.

The aim of the framework is to understand, by analogy, social fields and the positions in them as well as the internal arrangements set up by the players as they establish goals and make judgments about what is desirable and valuable to them. The framework serves the researcher in conceptualizing positions, tracing the struggles and compromises about value, and understanding conversions of the different kinds of capital circulating in related social fields at specific times. These tracings assist systematic observation and enhance the ability of the researcher to assess more objectively and completely the relations and activities of all the players involved, not just the dominant ones. Patterns of exchange traced over time reveal objectives, values, and preferences shared by the field that may otherwise not be observable by the researcher. Relations and patterns suggested by this type of sociological analysis can then be more easily checked against the interactions and dynamics suggested by primary and secondary sources.

THE IDEA FOR THE INVESTIGATION

The idea for the subject and treatment of this dissertation sprang from a conversation with Mary M. Case during a conference held at UT in July 2003. At the time, Case was the Director of the Office of Scholarly Communication of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). ARL was one of the conference sponsors. The conference focused on the preservation of audio collections, so I asked Case what other preservation projects ARL was planning. Case said that her office would do more for preservation but she said it without much enthusiasm, like one who felt much put upon on matters not close to her heart.

I was curious about what Case was doing, so I began reading about ARLs aggressive lobbying effort among scholars, scholarly societies, higher education associations, and federal government agencies to influence both intellectual property rights policies and the structure of scholarly publishing in the digital environment.20 In the spring of 2002, ARL had shaped a coalition of library organizations to form the Information Access Alliance (IAA). The objectives of the IAA were to challenge anti- trust decisions made by the U.S. Department of Justice, to reduce the pace and scope of mergers between commercial publishers of science, technical, medical (STM) and legal publications, and thus stave off price hikes in journal subscriptions, while gaining time and money for research libraries to develop their own publishing models.21

This ambitious ARL campaign reminded me of the five-year long scrimmage between ARL and H.W. Wilson during the 1930s and 1940s over the legitimacy of the

publishers index and service pricing formulas. Then and now, ARL had engaged

20 Joseph J. Branin and Mary M. Case, Reforming Scholarly Publishing in the Sciences: A Librarian

Perspective, Notices of the American Mathematical Society (AMS) 45, no. 4 (April 1998): 485.

21 A detailed account of the IAAs objectives and activities are well documented in Mary M. Case, Information Access Alliance: Challenging Anticompetitive Behavior in Academic Publishing, ACRL News 65, no. 6 (June 2004), http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/crlnews/backissues2004/june04/iaa.htm

scholars, business, and legal advisors for assistance in the challenge to the publishers practices. The 1930s campaign against Wilson had been ineffective, but it had distinguished ARL as an independent coalition of institutions to be reckoned with and differentiated from the Association of College and Research Libraries, which remained subsumed under the ALA.22 Were there historical and structural parallels between these two campaigns? Was ARL obligated by their mission to challenge the mergers among science publishers? The production and costs of STM journals had been at the center of the crisis of scholarly communications for at least fifteen years. What had changed to trigger ARL institutional members to move beyond accommodating publishers and their demands and start complaining about them?

Besides noting the continually increasing volume and spiraling costs of scientific publications, in earlier work Case identified other issues just as troubling to research librarians. The issues included the emerging international policies about intellectual property rights and the effects of widespread and rapid adoption of new information technologies. Changes in rights policies and technological innovations also were identified as threats to the role of the research librarian as disseminator and mediator between vendors and users. As the three issues were melded into agenda items and position papers, the question of the role of the research librarian dropped from view. When taken before the various courts and tribunals, the issues became matters of legal judgments about commercial practices. The equally intractable and competing need to preserve existing and newly created materials of cultural and scholarly significance passed to other venues. Leadership for the various preservation campaigns and

collection management issues passed to the Library of Congress, the Council for Library

22 Frank M. McGowan, The Association of Research Libraries, 1932-1962 (Pittsburgh: University of

Pittsburgh, 1972).

and Information Resources, the Institute for Museum and Library Services and a handful of specific institutions.

The division of labor passed unremarked, assumed by those involved to be the most natural resolution to long-standing concerns. At the UT, the echoes of the crises in scholarly communications ricocheted through the Office of Graduate Studies (OGS), at the time under the direction of Teresa Sullivan, and through the offices of interrelated administrative divisions. Before moving to the University of Texas System (UTS), Sullivan led an in-depth study on the future of the dissertation and its correlate, the scholarly monograph. In a related but uncoordinated move, the UT General Libraries (UT GL), Information Technical Services (UT ITS), and UT Press presented a public symposium on the current problems of scholarly communications. UT ITS and UT GL were tripping over each other to develop and manage the universitys oddly concocted institutional repository, the utopian knowledge gateway. How were all these things related and whydespite the fact that they were all long-standing concernswere all these issues surfacing at the same time? Without access to or in-depth communication with the people most closely involved, how could these matters be studied?23 No one policy research or qualitative research tool that I had studied sufficed to tackle the underlying social relationships that tied together the shifting roles and concerns with changing circumstances.

At the time of the ARL campaigns, the resurrection of preservation of cultural collections as a national concern, and the local review of the crises in scholarly communications, the Journal was facing its own dilemmas. The retirement of the Editor

and Assistant Editor after working together for twenty years required that a new

23 By luck, I was able to participate and in a small part contribute to all activities listed above. As a student, however, I was not privy to the internal discussions or formal documentation connected with these processes or events. Until the official documentation passes to the university archives, only the public relations materials and scant published reports can be consulted.

replacement team had to be found but within the narrow hiring parameters established by the dean of the UT Graduate School of Library and Information Science (UT GSLIS).24 The electronic version distributed by Project Muse was entering the last year of its three-year trial period without guarantee of renewal. The ISI Citation Index had temporarily dropped the Journal from its database due to the low number of citations recorded. The number of manuscript submissions and print-version subscriptions to the Journal were going down while electronic correspondence from new readers was multiplying beyond staff ability to sustain it. The office space the Journal occupied became more desirable to administrators faced with the growth of the schools faculty and that of its neighboring academic departments in the School of Education. Some faculty members considered offering the Journal to potential editors at other universities. Paradoxically, when the 2003 Nisonger and Davis study on the prestige ranking of 71 LIS publications was released, the Journal scored high: 11 among LIS deans and 15 among library directors. This result cast a different light on the Journal as an asset for a school ambitious to raise its ranking among peers. In this unfolding drama, I was observer and participant. Finally, when the Journal office had to move and its office records processed for dispersal I became by default the Journals records manager.

I do not recall when I realized that the Journal provided the keyhole through which to observe scholarly communications and its crises, but it was clear that a history of the Journal could be written from its records. I discovered carefully preserved records of all its practices, some dating back to 1965, that included procedures manuals, forms

and standards, photographs, newspaper clippings, art work, audio tapes, pre-publication

24 The original name of the UT library school was the Graduate School of Library Science (UT GS LS). The name was changed to UT GSLIS in 1980 and to UT School of Information (UTSI) in 2003.

proofs, a complete run of the publication, its indexes, and specialized reference libraries that had supported its editors, as well as many other items too numerous to list.

APPROACH AND METHODS

This study makes use of various methods, historical, quantitative and qualitative, including archival research, sociological interpretation, correspondence analysis, observation, participant observation, and interviews to verify and enrich the results of the archival research. Primary sources used in the construction of the Journals history include the personal papers of editors, semi-current records, and archives of the Journal dating back to 1965 as well as administrative records of various units of FSU and UT. Relevant literature, including memoirs, biographies, speeches, conference proceedings, and reports published contemporaneously, was sifted for accounts suitable for comparison and contrast to the events of note in the trajectory of the Journal. Each strand of investigationthe historical narrative of the Journals history, the sociological interpretation of the Journals interactions, and the comparison of the historical analysis of the Journals trajectory against the literature of scholarly communicationsrelies on a different approach.

Historical Methods

The myriad records of the Journal and the personal papers of the editors served as the primary sources for the construction of the Journals history. These records served to construct the preliminary timelines of major events and to flesh out the registers of minor but relevant external and internal events that affected the Journal. In keeping with the exigencies demanded of its authors by the Journals reviewers and editors, I systematically subjected the records to basic critiques about their date, form, contents, authorship, intended audience, and connection to other documents. Even

though the records are copious, there is evidence of intentional selection and organization of the records as archival material and therefore historical fodder: the archives are relatively free of the detritus that accumulates in office drawers and in- baskets to arrive later at the archivists doorstep for appraisal and organization.

My own selection of specific documents for citation and reference here depended on their relevance in answering the specific research questions and on their value as evidence to support or dash my claims about the contours and characteristics of the Journals development. These claims, in turn, were guided by close reading of the pages of the Journal.

The description of the structure and governance of the organizations that engendered and guided the Journal, the formation of the advisory boards, and the set-up of the editorial office are based on available formal documents attesting to their existence and nature and then verified by supporting documentary records generated by their actions. A similar treatment of the available records generated the details of staff organization, work practices, workflows, referee selection, manuscript review processes, and relations with vendors, printers, and others.

Editorials, literature reviews, and reflexive articles and notes published in the Journal were especially useful in tracing the slowly but perceptibly changing historiography of library history as well as the work of specific authors. The critiques of the accumulating library history scholarship and the inevitable exhortationsto contextualize narrative and to explore extra-disciplinary methodologiesthat appeared in the pages of the Journal shaped my reading of the texts and my understanding of the means and methods of history. I helped myself to the criticism and advice buried in the peer reviews intended for others and applied them to my work. I took the exhortations seriously as I wrote my version of the Journals history and attempted to interpret it

accordingly. At the same time, I tried to evaluate the reasonableness and efficacy of this second-hand advice to improve my work and to get a sense of its possible effect on the authors who received it more directly.

Whenever possible, contextual details about personalities, events and issues were drawn from institutional archives of the various divisions, departments, offices and schools at FSU and UT most closely associated with the Journal. Details about state and national politics and events were culled from almanacs, newspapers, professional newsletters, bulletins and journals as well as from contemporary popular media. Innumerable reference works, memoirs, biographies, bibliographies, census and statistical reports, agency annuals, scholarly articles, and monographs served as secondary sources for grounding my conclusions somewhere between the plausible and the probable and for placing the Journals history in the broader context of LIS, higher education, and academic publishing.

I turned to several history textbooks to teach myself more about the craft of writing history as well as to reduce the inevitable anachronisms that arise when assessing what is past and what was written in the past. Important among these were several titles repeatedly found in the bibliographies attached to the dissertations of library historians completed in the last three decades. These included A Primer for Historical Method by Louis Gottschalk; The Historians Craft by Marc Bloch; and The Modern Researcher by Jacques Barzun and Henry Graff. Two booksOn Teaching History in Colleges and Universities and Historical and Bibliographical Methods in Library Researchwhich resulted from conferences held at FSU in 1966 and at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign (UIUC) in 1970, respectively, were useful as they illuminated received wisdom, if not the state-of-the-art, shared among two key groups of library historians who figure prominently in this investigation.

The review of the literature about the various crises in scholarly communications is vast but mercifully, if unexpectedly, reduced when sifted for items related to the humanities. The milestone initiatives, surveys, and reports that have dealt with the peculiar concerns of research and publications in the humanities erupt cyclically. Since in previous decades the published records of these milestone crises took the form of monographs, the records themselves are often linked by bibliographic references or through brief historical accounts to earlier reports of comparable tribulations. Thus, the

1979 Report of the National Enquiry on Scholarly Communications harks back to Chester Kerrs 1949 Report on American University Presses, the 1959 report published by the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) on Problems of Scholarly Publication in the Humanities and Social Sciences, and to the 1961 University of Toronto Presss The University as Publisher. This custom provides a chronological guide to past developments in the humanities and suggested links for the comparisons drawn between the trajectory of the Journal and the various crises in scholarly communications in the humanities recorded in these books.

Qualitative Methods

My affiliation with the Journal in various capacities between June 2001 and May

2005 provided me the opportunity to observe and participate in the life of the Journal. During that time, I spent between ten and twenty hours a week in the office, thus becoming privy to the daily courtesies, jokes, and stories shared by the editors and student staff. I became aware of phrases by which the editors humorously but tellingly referred to their work or themselves, like tending to the vine and monarchist. I discovered the intricate exchanges by which the editor provided for the editorial boards refreshments from his honoraria and distributed to various campus libraries esoteric books sent by publishers for review but determined not suitable for the Journal. I

learned the stories behind the posters, maps, books and bookshelves, the spare umbrella, and the jar of molasses that so distinctively furnished the office. All around me were the signs of the thousand and one acts of consecration that characterized and cemented the relationships formed over two decades. I was learning the codes that made each of those items meaningful. I watched the hallway traffic and learned about who came into the office as well as who avoided it.

I had started working as a volunteer for the Journal in June 2001 when the electronic version of the Journal was preparing to debut in Project Muse. My two major responsibilities as a volunteer had been to maintain and stimulate use of the Journals student-created website, manage electronic correspondence generated by the website, coordinate the book review assignments, and monitor the traffic generated by the expansion of Project Muse membership.

Because of my junior position in the Journal, I also delivered documents to the offices of the UT Press and thus became acquainted with the organization of the journals division and some of the staff. I got to tag along to meetings and sit in on various discussions with UT Press staff. At the Journal office, I made the acquaintance of many of the members of the editorial board and referees, mostly professors from various departments of the universityArt History, Classics, English, French, History, and Italian, whom I would not have otherwise met.

When I was awarded the Office of Graduate Studies (UT OGS) Editorial Fellowship for the academic year 2004-2005, my role changed substantially. During that year, I took over the role of book review editor and began conversion of files to electronic form. The conversion represented the first step in the automation of the office management systems in preparation for the retirement of the Assistant Editor, who had

maintained most of the editorial office systems on paper. This work progressed under the interim Managing Editor until her unexpected departure at the end of April 2005.

By the time my term as Editorial Fellow ended, I had attended eight editorial meetings and two events hosted by the Journal. The personal relationships have provided insights about connections that I would not have discovered by examination of the records alone. My observations were not intentionally recorded or systematically gathered. By chance, I did keep all my files and electronic correspondence that had accumulated in the hand-me-down computer that I used for my office work. I unintentionally accumulated a bit of material, which I then augmented with notes and reflections about my work once I decided to study the Journal formally.

Participant observationcomplete with elaborate note and picture taking during the closing act of the Journal at its office in the Sanchez Building at UT, where it had been for the previous twenty-three years, proved a good exercise. The note taking and the precision needed to inventory the items to be moved to the new office opened my eyes to details and juxtapositions that I had missed for years. Even the idiosyncratic layout of the furnishings made more senseI understood why the electric typewriter

faced the front door.25

25 The arrangement was a practical approach to lack of space. There was just enough space to fit a chair between the side table that held the typewriter and the cart wedged in by the coat rack. The side table held the typewriter at the just right height, the only piece of furniture in the room that could do the job.

Illustration 1.1: From left to right, Interim Managing Editor Colleen Daly, Advisory Editor Bette Oliver, and Editor Emeritus Donald G. Davis, Jr. in the editorial office in Sanchez Building just before the move in May 2005.

Fortunately, several early contributors to the Journal are still alive and were willing to be interviewed formally about their participation in the Journal. Interviewees were selected purposefully. Besides proximity and willingness to participate, interview participants were selected in order to clarify situations suggested by the records and to flesh out specific events that influenced the intellectual life of the Journallike the

1974 get-together of library historians at the ALA conference in New York City.

I prepared semi-structured interviews to probe four aspects of their participation in the Journal and related events in the context of their own careers, scholarly and intellectual development, and experience in academic publishing. The four aspects of Journal participation included reflections of the interviewee: 1) as an author; 2) as a reviewer or as a referee; 3) as a member of the editorial board; or 4) as subscriber to the

Journal. Specific questions, tailored to the interviewee, related to events in the Journals history, editorial practices, and changes in those practices. I was interested in discovering what role if any the Journal played in the intellectual and professional development of the individual Journal contributors.

The interviews proved time consuming and expensive relative to the new information extracted. I completed fewer than I had planned. Nevertheless, the interviews led to introductions and references to other individuals I was able to contact by phone and electronic correspondence. Through these means, I was able to add detail and make important corrections of fact.

Assertions and recollections by the interviewees about their experiences related to the Journal during their term of service were assumed true; when the interviewees speculated about other contributors or issues outside their expertise, comments were treated as opinion. The interviewees drew on additional materials to enhance their recollections or to demonstrate a point, disclosing new sources of evidence. The interview-derived data served both as a corrective to the researchers interpretation of primary sources and as a springboard to new avenues of investigation. On a couple of occasions, my perspective of individuals and circumstances changed significantly because of the weight or emphasis given them by the interviewee.

The participation, observation, and interviews served to ground my experience and correct assumptions drawn from the archival research. Other qualitative techniques such as peer debriefing and member checking served to maintain trustworthiness and to enrich my views with the perspectives of my readersBette Oliver, Hermina Anghelescu, and the late Bob Dawson.

Sociological Analysis: The Bourdieusian Lens

The interpretation of the relationships and of the negotiated values, judgments, and practices within and between social fields under review here is based on my understanding of the work of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (19302002). Bourdieu was formally trained at the cole Normale Suprieure in Paris as a philosopher but on his own studied the canonical works by social theorists like Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber.

Although many of Bourdieus works are interpreted against the background of various epistemological traditions or isms, Bourdieu insisted that his aim was primarily to get distance from them. In the 1960s, Bourdieu began to intellectually and empirically counter schemes of thought that he felt did not work but that remained dominant in the social sciences in France and elsewhere. He was particularly provoked by the inadequacy of the works of Claude Lvi-Strauss and his disciples in explaining the actual kinship and marriage arrangements of peasant communities in Algeria and in his own village in the southwestern region of France.26

Bourdieu studied the disruption of traditional patterns of family, food production and trade in Algeria by French colonization and later by armed suppression of independence movements there, which he observed as a soldier and later as a government administrator and professor in Algiers, the capital city.27 Most of all, Bourdieu studied himself and the arc of his life from peasant boy to prestigious position in the Collge de France.28 Bourdieu embodied and later documented the blows received

from slicker, modernized boys from the city at a boarding school where he renounced

26 Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).

27 Pierre Bourdieu, Images dAlgerie: Une Affinit lective (Paris: Institut du Monde Arabe, 2003.)

28 Michael Grenfell, Bourdieu in the Field: From the Barn to Algeria-A Timely Response, French

Cultural Studies 17, no. 2 (2006): 223-239, http://frc.sagepub.com (200606) 10.1177/0957155806064537

his accent and country ways as the price of entrance into the Parisian system of secondary and tertiary education.

One of the reasons that Bourdieu persisted with his extensive empirical investigations of social fields was to find a way through the various disciplinary dichotomies and arbitrary classificatory models set up by social scientists, which he considered false as well as barren. At the same time, he sought to break with what we perceive to be common sense. He referred to common sense as near-sighted empiricism. He was interested in stripping away ineptly established classifications and categories that obstructed the view of the social world and of interactions between people. He was interested in attaining a clearer understanding of the deep structures and logics of social interactions. He arrived at a view of the social world as analogous to the structures and conventions by which the various types of capitalaccumulated human effortwere produced and distributed.

Bourdieu focused social scientists attention on the production and reproduction of behaviors within public arenas and on the processes by which influential people establish, reward, and reinforce the behavior of others who are under their influence in order to maintain privileged positions of power. He analyzed taken-for-granted mechanisms inherently structured to result in differential social distinction for individuals and groups in the same fields of education and cultural production. He investigated the interrelated processes for legitimating aesthetic preferences; the social origin and career trajectory of academics as a source of conflict among faculties; and the utilization of elite educational institutions for the manufacture of symbolic power. His empirical investigations in these respective areas resulted in the publication of Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste (1979), The Rules of Art:

Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field (1992); Homo Academicus (1984); and The

State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power (1989).

He turned his attention equally to the methods and practices of social scientists. As far as Bourdieu was concerned, theory should provide a robust but flexible working model with which to think, probe, and reflect on what the researcher perceives. All methods and tools of analysis have to be analyzed. Bourdieus approach to sociological analysis as a reflexive practice as well as a working framework, adjustable to field conditions and available data, fits very well with the intent and limitations of this research. The method also corresponds with my personal values about research as process and with the need to be clear about my position relative to the Journal and the Journal contributors. As reflexive sociology, the method demands continual attention to the research contexts, means, methods, and ends as well as to the position of the researcher among the positions in the social field studied.

Bourdieu elaborated a series of concepts, principles, and assumptions to forge what he considered an analytical tool or heuristic procedure with which to consider observable, measurable social dynamics. He likened these dynamics to games played on an imaginary board, or social field. In applying this perceptual construction, Bourdieu had the dual intent of making the familiar appear strange or problematic and of making complex social topologies visible as two-dimensional and three-dimensional diagrams.

His conceptual framework does not establish, a priori, how people must or will behave but serves to make understandable by analogy and abstraction the internal arrangement of social positions and the process of establishing goals, competencies, and rewards particular to a field. The analytical framework does not aim to predict but to help discern patterns of preferences. The application of Bourdieus conceptual apparatus makes sense both for the investigation of the Journal as a product of the academic

environment so well studied by Bourdieu and because the Journal was the result of a multitude of individuals, actions, values, and circumstances too numerous and complex to abstract meaningfully otherwise.

The Bourdieusian lens allows a systematic assessment of Journal practices as a transactional mesh of capital acquisition, transformation, and value production. While examining the Journals capital transformations, the various players intertwined in the multiple fields of scholarly communications are thus kept in sight. Bourdieus conceptual framework provides the means by which to assess the Journal as a nexus of cultural production and reproduction, as well as a site of resistance to the values and preferred practices ascendant or immanent in various related fields, such as those of publishers, librarians, and university administrators.

The technique of abstracting individuals as players in an abstract space, a hallmark of Bourdieus approach, is essential to the objectification of relations among the individuals studied. These social topologies are analogous to official organizational charts without names assigned to them. The approach checks subjective interpretation of the actions of the players by the researcher, and frames the actions in a context of positional hierarchies, strategies, value judgments, and exchanges of capital among positions.

According to Bourdieu, key power positions in the imaginary social fields represent perfect correlations of idealized attributes, epitomes in the context of the culture for the specific role of interest, like tall, dark, and handsome leading men. All actors are placed in the field depending on the relative weight of their combined capital assets (economic, social, cultural, and symbolic) measured according to a broad range of personal attributes of consequence in academic social fields, such as alma mater, discipline, scholarly production, positions and titles, prizes, number of doctoral

supervisees, and grant funds received. Like the most valued characteristics for leading men, the hierarchy of values ascribed to attributes in social fields, however persistent, does change over time. Changes depend on circumstances internal and external to the fields.

FORMS OF CAPITAL AND CAPITAL CONVERSIONS

Bourdieu recognized capital in general as human effort exerted and accumulated over time. His observations led him to propose at least four types of capital in order to account for human activities considered by economists to be disinterested or irrational but to Bourdieu plainly visible in immaterial form. In addition to economic capital, Bourdieu identified social capital, cultural capital, and symbolic capital. The four types of capital are negotiable, valuable, legitimate resources, differentially accessible to people and inhering in institutions and things. According to Bourdieu, people continually struggle to obtain these resources for themselves as well as to continually assess and reestablish their relative worth and social position.

Bourdieu spelled out his understanding of capital and capital conversion in a much cited handbook chapter, The Forms of Capital.29 In this expository chapter, Bourdieu presents clearer summaries of his concepts of cultural and social capital as well as their genesis as