Last summer, the History Division launched a membership survey, its first effort in quite some time to learn about what the members think about division activities and the value it delivers. We’re working on the best way to share the results from the survey, but I wanted to use this issue of Clio to share some of the highlights and to discuss how these responses might impact our programming this year. This column is a bit longer than the ideal 400 to 500 words I was taught in undergrad, but our survey covered a lot of territory (and elicited some thoughtful comments and feedback).
For those interested in methods, a brief overview: We developed a membership survey that was distributed online via Clio, links shared on the division’s Facebook page, and a QR code shared with attendees at the annual business meeting during the San Francisco conference. The membership survey covered four subject areas: reasons for membership; the paper competition and review process; conference programming; and other division activities. In addition to Likert-scale questions, we included several opportunities for qualitative comments. We received 28 responses, all current members (a response rate of about 19%).
A few findings stand out. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (65%) rated their membership experience as positive. They largely agreed with the statement that the History Division promotes an inclusive and welcoming environment for all members. They find value in their division membership, whether it was through networking with other scholars; staying informed on new scholarship; and getting feedback on their work.
Programming at AEJMC is another highlight. Most respondents (82%) find division programming to be of high quality, largely representative of current trends in research (67%), and diverse in terms of intellectual viewpoints and scholarship (63%). Quite a few comments noted the collaboration with other AEJMC divisions on panel programming to be of immense value, and a selling point when comparing AEJMC to other conferences.
Our division activities, whether Journalism History, the mentorship program, the Joint Journalism and Communication History Conference (whose submission deadline is January 31), or the opportunity to exchange research and teaching ideas, stood out as particularly valuable for our membership. The Journalism History essay series got several acknowledgements for its ability to highlight new scholarship and research perspective and create more publishing opportunities for scholars. I’m quite excited to see which essays will appear the year, answering the call about
The survey also revealed some challenges for the division. Many of our members do not have the regular financial support from their departments or their colleges to fund conference travel. Concerns about cost drive the decision to attend conferences and, in some cases, whether to submit new scholarship to the paper competition. Fifty-seven percent of respondents do not have guaranteed financial support for conference attendance from their institutions. Finding funds to support research is difficult, too. Only 25% of respondents plan to regularly submit a full conference paper every other year.
These concerns are necessarily unique to the History Division. Conversations with colleagues in other AEJMC divisions reveal many of these same issues, and reduced travel funding was a hot topic at the Council of Divisions breakfast at the end of AEJMC in San Francisco. You’ll also see a modification to the paper formats in this year’s paper call, replacing extended abstract submissions with research-in-progress submissions. The goal is to provide more opportunities for participation beyond full papers and panels, as well as to add greater clarity on format and expectations for both the researcher and the reviewer.
We also saw less-than-ideal scores when it comes to the paper competition, the quality of reviews, and some insularity as it relates to defining the field (and its impact on scholarship). We’re implementing some changes to the review process in 2026 and need a large pool of reviewers to do our best to deliver quality feedback. We’ve also made strides in encouraging broader perspectives on historical study (again, kudos to the Journalism History essay series and the wonderful Journalism History Podcast for providing excellent forums to showcase the diversity of scholarship). However, we’re still at the risk of alienating promising scholars who engage occasionally with historical questions or with historical methods. Often, these scholars bring new perspectives and illuminate under researched areas and blind spots – they make critical contributions to the intellectual environment of the division.
So, what does this mean for 2026? We identified several initiatives that I’d like to advance in the coming months. First, we’d like to increase our offline opportunities to meet. This gives our membership a chance to connect outside the conference (and at zero cost), and we can explore topics of interest to members in a more informal setting. We’re looking at scheduling the first session for February and the second in April. Details are still being worked out, but if there’s a topic that you’d like to see discussed, reach out!
Hopefully, this membership survey is one of several continued efforts to assess what we are doing that works for our members, identify areas of improvement, and provide more opportunities for our members to talk back to leadership about what they’d like to see moving forward. You are all part of what makes this a welcoming, supportive, encouraging community – don’t hesitate to reach out with more feedback on what we can be doing to help you and how we can make the division more attractive to potential members. I’m just an email away (caitlinc@uidaho.edu).