Author Archives: Keith Greenwood

History Division Members Are In A League of Our Own

Check out these mini-profiles of our division members. The stats of our veterans and rookies are destined to dazzle you.

Name: Ed Alwood
Where you work: Adjunct Faculty, University of Maryland
Where you received/are receiving your Ph.D.: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Current favorite class: Journalism History
Current research project: Free Press in the McCarthy Era
Fun fact about yourself: As an undergraduate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, my writing professor, Don Shaw, and my academic advisor, Maxwell McCombs, set me out to gather data for what became their “Agenda-Setting” study. Who knew in the early 1970s how it would be regarded today?

 

Name: Maurine H. Beasley
Where you work: Professor Emerita, University of Maryland
Where you received/are receiving your Ph.D.: In American Civilization from George Washington University
Current favorite class: I cherish the media history seminars that propelled me to become the Ph.D. thesis advisor for 27 students, many of whom wrote about women and minorities. Currently, I’m preparing to teach a class on changes in the news media since 1945 for the Osher program (aimed at retired persons) at Johns Hopkins University.
Current research project: I am researching periodicals aimed at newly-minted women voters in the 1920s.

Name: Kevin Lerner
Where you work: I’m an Assistant Professor of Journalism at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, New York.
Where you received/are receiving your Ph.D.: The School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University
Current favorite class: ‘The Press in America’ is my perennial favorite—a class that combines the history of American journalism with a critical examination of contemporary issues. But I’m excited to be teaching an undergraduate honors seminar on fake news and “fake news” in the fall of 2018. We’ll be looking at the history of hoaxes, fabrications, propaganda, and attempts to delegitimize the press.
Current research project: In 2019, The University of Missouri Press will be publishing my first book, Provoking the Press, which is a history of the 1970s journalism review called (MORE), and a study of how press criticism influences the practices of the mainstream press.
Fun fact about yourself: I’m crazy for trivia. I play bar trivia once or twice a week, including once with one of my dissertation committee members at a conference. Sometimes I host. And I’m a member of an online head-to-head trivia league.

Name: Andie Tucher
Where you work: Columbia Journalism School
Where you received/are receiving your Ph.D.: New York University in American Civilization
Current favorite class: I love teaching the journalism history survey required of all our Journalism M.S. students. At the end of the course I always get students coming up to tell me “I’ve never been interested in history before, but I really loved this class!”
Current research project: Book on the history of fake news in America
Fun fact about yourself: My very first piece of published writing appeared in the children’s magazine Jack and Jill when I was eight. As I recall, it had something to do with a talking dog that solved a mystery, and soon afterwards I made the wise decision that I wasn’t cut out for writing fiction.

 

 

 

So You Want to Write a Book (But Weren’t At AEJMC)?: A Survival Guide to Writing a Proposal, Finding a Publisher, Negotiating a Contract, Finishing the Book, and Living Happily Ever After

This panel discussion addressed the joys and headaches of writing a book and finding a publisher while preserving your sanity, happiness, and marriage. The idea of writing a book has broad appeal among journalism and communication scholars. Far more people think about writing books than actually write them because writing a book can be a daunting task. You must know where to start – and when to finish. You must be willing to spend long hours working in solitary confinement while your family and friends are watching Game of Thrones, sipping wine on the Seine, sobbing about the Trump presidency, or posting pictures of their iguana on Facebook. This panel will address your questions about book writing and move you toward writing a book and perhaps even total consciousness or at least inner peace.

PANELISTS:

Andrew C. Billings (AB), Reagan Chair of Broadcasting, University of Alabama, is the author or editor of 18 books, including Olympic Media: Inside the Biggest Show on Television (Routledge, 2008). He has two co-authored books, Mascot Nation: The Controversy Over Native American Representations in Sports (with Jason Edward Black; University of Illinois Press) and Media and the Coming Out of Gay Male Athletes in American Team Sports (with Leigh M. Moscowitz; Peter Lang Publishing) that will both be published in 2018. He also oversees a book series entitled “Studies in Communication and Sport” (with Lawrence Wenner and Marie Hardin) for Peter Lang Publishing. ​

Joseph Campbell (WJC), a professor of communication at American University in Washington, D.C., is the author of six books, including the media-mythbusting work, Getting It Wrong(University of California Press, 2010; second ed., 2017). He also has written 1995: The Year the Future Began (University of California Press, 2015); 1897: The Year That Defined American Journalism(Routledge, 2006); and Yellow Journalism: Puncturing the Myths, Defining the Legacies (Praeger, 2001). Before joining the American University faculty in 1997, Campbell was a professional journalist for 20 years. His first paying job in journalism was as a summer sports-writing intern at the Elyria (Ohio) Chronicle-Telegram.

Kathy Roberts Forde (KRF), associate professor in the Journalism Department at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, received the Frank Luther Mott-KTA book award and the AEJMC History Division book award for Literary Journalism on Trial: Masson v. New Yorker and the First Amendment (University of Massachusetts Press, 2008). She has received the Covert Award twice for best journal article on the history of mass media. Her second book (under contract with University of Massachusetts Press) explores how the ideas of James Baldwin’s social protest essays collected in The Fire Next Time shaped public understanding of and public policy about civil rights and racial justice, reaching into the highest levels of the federal government.

Chris Lamb (CL), professor of journalism, Indiana University-Indianapolis, is the author or editor of nine books, including Conspiracy of Silence: Sportswriters and the Long Campaign to End Segregated Baseball (University of Nebraska Press, 2012), which won the AEJMC History Division book award. His tenth book, co-authored with Patrick Washburn, is a history of sports journalism (Northwestern University Press, 2019). He is currently writing the story of the 1955 Cannon Street YMCA all-stars, a black Little League team in Charleston, South Carolina. When the Cannon Street team registered for a segregated tournament, it found itself in the middle of the national struggle for civil rights, provoking the greatest crisis in Little League Baseball.

Rob Taylor (RT) is senior editor at the University of Nebraska Press, where he acquires and develops sports history books for both general and scholarly audiences. He also acquires spaceflight history and some regional works. He has 20 years of experience as an acquisitions editor with the University of Nebraska Press, Contemporary Books/McGraw-Hill, and Independent Publishers Group in Chicago. The New York Times profiled Taylor in an article on the University of Nebraska Press’s success publishing books about baseball.

Each of the participants on the panel was asked questions on different parts of book writing. Here are their responses:

1) What are the professional benefits and personal rewards to writing a book?

AB: A book allows for the “deep dive.” For me, it allows an opportunity for multiple theoretical lenses and methodological approaches. If writing six articles is a half-dozen cookies, writing a book with six parts is like six slices ultimately forming a pie. There’s a synergy to the process that allows your arguments to breathe.

WJC: Too often we overlook or ignore the rewards and dwell instead on the demands and challenges of book-writing. The rewards and benefits are many and include, in an academic setting, solidifying a case for tenure and promotion. Beyond that is the satisfaction of making an intellectual contribution — a lasting intellectual contribution — to important subjects.

CL:  I like writing – as much as it’s possible to like something as arduous and demoralizing as writing often is. Writing a book provides an opportunity to tell a story in a way you can’t do in a newspaper, a magazine, or an academic journal. There are also professional benefits such as achieving tenure and promotion or creating a reputation that increases your marketability. Because of this, books have a value that far exceeds what relatively little you might make in an advance or in royalties.

RT: On the professional side, a book (or subsequent books) can help with tenure, promotion, and job possibilities. Personal rewards can include contributing to your field of expertise with original research/intellectual contribution, etc., that gets attention and sells successfully.

2) What should every promising author know before they begin working on their book?

AB: Clarity of vision is obviously key, but more than that, an author should ask: what parts of your vision are negotiable? What parts are dealbreakers? More importantly, is this a vision that can be encapsulated in 80-100K words? Map it out. Sometimes people think they have a book when what they have is a dataset they’d love to explore three different ways. They then proceed to discover that each of those three ways can be written in 8K words and that they’re about at a third of what a book would need to be. Do you have enough to say? Figure that out now.

WJC: Would-be authors should be fully aware of the unglamorous side of book-writing, that it is hard work, as almost everyone says — that self-discipline has to be applied in a sustained way; that time can be so easily squandered, and that in the end there are no guarantees the book will be widely reviewed or even well-received.

KRF: There’s no point writing a book unless you have something new and urgent to say. A book is meant to contribute something new and valuable to the conversation of scholarship and even public life. So when you begin your book, have a clear idea of the story and information you want to share. Be able to place your work in conversation with what is already known or poorly misunderstood. And be able to explain persuasively why your book matters.

CL: Writing a book is both easier and harder than it may appear. If you commit enough time to writing a book, you’ll eventually write a book. Therein lies the rub. You have to commit enough time and if you do this over a period of days, weeks, or months, there will be times when your family and friends will consider committing you. Don’t sacrifice the things that are important in your life to write a book; sacrifice the things that aren’t important.

RT: Whether a scholarly book or a trade book, be able to say early on what your controlling idea is.  It sounds simple, but if you can’t describe your book’s main idea in a couple of concise sentences, it might need further development.  The question “what is this book about” never goes away, and the ability to summarize it and do it well helps you not only write the book but helps convey to a publisher what it’s about succinctly and clearly.  That and before writing, map out the book’s structure with an outline that shows where you want the book to go from start to finish.

3) What’s the hardest part about writing a book?

AB: For me, it’s likely keeping the argument timely. Sports are inherently liquid for 98 percent of what is consumed; what is epic today is forgotten two weeks later, if not sooner. A book process is a minimum of 18 months, but often two to three years. If you’re trying to write on a “hot” topic, how do you ensure that the thoughts are still topical when the book is actually released?

WJC: At least three elements qualify as “hardest”: Developing a book-worthy idea (this can be more challenging on some book projects than others); securing a publisher’s interest and commitment, and developing a complete working draft, which in my experience is key to preparing a polished final manuscript.

KRF: Finding the time, creating the schedule, and forging the work habits that are necessary to writing a book. If you have something of the introvert in you, the solitary nature of a sole-authored book is just fine. But if you’re more of an extrovert, I imagine it might feel lonely; at least, I’ve heard friends talk about the loneliness of book writing. If it’s lonely for you, create a writing group to make the experience more social and supportive.

CL: To write a book, you need time, and more specifically, uninterrupted time. Thinking or talking about writing is not the same as writing any more than thinking or talking about exercising is the same as exercising. You must ruthlessly protect the time you commit to writing. Close your door, turn off your phone, and your Wi-Fi, if necessary, and write. Do this two to three hours for two days a week over a period of months and you’ll be surprised at how much you can accomplish. Don’t teach summer school, if you can help it. Write.

RT: For scholars, probably revising/reconsidering much of a manuscript that you thought was ready for publication prior to peer review.  The peer review process may result in recommendations to revise, and could result in a revising period that takes anywhere from 3-12 months and sometimes longer, but most of the time is an invaluable part of making a manuscript as good as it can be for publication.

4) How do I come up with an idea that is broad enough for a book, specific enough so I can sell it to an editor, and compelling enough so there’s a market for it?

AB: If a topic hasn’t been written about before, it’s often because the topic isn’t very compelling (bad) or because it’s so new no one has gotten to it yet (good). Obviously work toward the latter. Then seek topics that have a good lineage of publication (journal articles and the like) and ask: what could a book do on this subject that other singular articles could not?

WJC: The book idea fundamentally should be on a topic that deeply interests the would-be author. Taking on a project that does not fascinate the author is an invitation to a slog.

RT: In terms of selling an idea to an editor and making it “specific enough” probably depends to a large degree on the field you’re writing for and what the market for the published work looks like.  If you’re writing on something that is part of your discipline’s core, then maybe going narrower in scope might be a good thing.  If you’re working more in the margins, so to speak, then something broader might work just fine.

5) How do I find the right publisher for a book?

AB: This depends on where you are in your academic career. If you’re in the early stages, the “right” publisher is likely whatever will move the needle most at your given institution for tenure and promotion. Those parameters often vary widely. Beyond that, one has to balance things: autonomy, reach, royalties, and relationships (with people at a press). I find supposed hierarchies of presses to be bad reasons to select one over the other. Don’t choose a press because it’ll “look good,” choose one because it had the most upside for the characteristics you value.

KRF: Look at books in the field that are most similar to yours in terms of topic and approach. Choose the ones you most admire that also have high production value. Note the publisher and book series, if any, and the acquisitions editor. Shop your book proposal to these presses. If you want your book to have a market beyond academic libraries, be aware that some publishers only print expensive hardcovers that no one will buy except libraries. Also know the various kinds of publishers that exist—university presses, commercial presses, trade presses—and learn about the markets associated with each and the reputational tiers within each.

RT: To find the right publisher, you have to look at their lists and make sure your project fits the disciplines they publish in.  And make sure they are currently doing work in those area(s) because sometimes they’ve published in the past but are not doing it currently. If you’re familiar with other books a publisher has released in your discipline, then you can look more closely at where it has been reviewed, how it has been received, etc., to try to get a picture of how capably a publisher might be with your own book. Your own research may also turn up publisher possibilities.  Look at the books that have helped inform your work and are cited by the journals in your field.

6) What should be included (and not included) in the cover letter and proposal?

AB: Most presses have published parameters of what should be included, so look those up and show a first impression that you can ably follow directions. Common parts include a synopsis of the project, table of contents, estimation of audience, survey of competing related texts and (ideally) a sample chapter. I would encourage people NOT to make the sample chapter the intro. Sometimes it’s better to write the introduction at the end.

WJC: Often the would-be publisher has posted proposal guidelines on its website, which help focus proposal-writing. The cover letter and proposal have to be compelling, and written in a way that non-experts are going to understand and are going to find intriguing. The proposal has to address the question of fit — that the prospective book would mesh with the publisher’s interests and lineup. And the proposal has to make clear that the would-be author has the expertise and experience to complete a book-length treatment on the subject.

KRF: The best advice out there is in the wonderful book Thinking Like Your Editor by Susan Rabiner and Alfred Fortunato. It’s written for writers of serious nonfiction, but with a bit of tweaking, it works very well for academic writers, too. It’s informative and inspiring to read before you write and as you’re writing. It has terrific advice on all aspects of book writing, including the proposal.

CL: You must disabuse yourself of the notion that just because you think your subject is undeniably important a book editor will automatically do so, too. You must convince the editor. This requires knowing what the publisher publishes and knowing what makes your book so important. Come up with a brief (50-to-75-word) summary that captures the essence of your book, describes its contribution, and justifies its publication.

RT: In the cover letter, make sure you include these things: 1) a succinct cover letter that tells about your basic idea, your audience, and how close to completion you are, 2) who you are and what your credentials for writing the book are, and 3) that you are interested in having that house publish your work and why. In a proposal, you can then go more into detail on the book’s structure.  Always include chapter-by-chapter summaries (paragraph or two describing each chapter in detail) so that the editor can see where the proposed book would go from start to finish, a section on the market/audience including competing books and how yours will stand out, and your qualifications including how you can help promote your work.

7) Can I submit to multiple publishers simultaneously?

AB: Absolutely. That said, I think there’s a duplication of effort that is often not necessary. If you have a press that you know is a top choice, pitch them the proposal. Mention that if there’s at least initial interest, you’re willing to give them an exclusive six-week negotiating window. They’ll appreciate it (as they will know you’re serious about them), you’ll appreciate it (because they’re likely to make sure to get reviews back on time) and it’s not that much of an amount of time to let pass if you do need to submit the proposal more widely.

WJC: It may be tempting, but I wouldn’t.

KRF: Yes. It’s expected. But you should still note in your cover letter that you are submitting to multiple publishers. And know that once a publisher decides to send your proposal out for external review (university presses always do this), the acquisitions editor will expect you to withdraw your proposal from consideration at other presses during the review process.

CL: Yes. Publishers created the dictate that you cannot submit manuscripts to different publishers simultaneously because it serves their interests. That said, you should state in your cover letter that you are sending your proposal elsewhere.

RT: Yes, although it’s always best to tell the publisher on initial submission that you have it out with other publishers already or are planning simultaneous submissions.

8) How do I decide whether to approach to a university press or a commercial press?

AB: Again, I’d say the first step is to know what your institutional values are and follow those. However, if I were to generalize I’d say, for instance, that the university presses value theory a bit more while commercial presses might value international markets. University presses often let you go more narrow with a topic; commercial presses love broader landscapes. Those kinds of differences.

KRF: Different types of publishers serve different purposes in the marketplace of academic books and in the careers of scholars. At an R1/research extensive university, it may be expected that a first book published while standing for tenure and promotion appear with a university press, where manuscripts are peer-reviewed and vetted by an editorial board. Certain book series, whether at a university press or commercial publisher, may be the best choice for certain topical areas of scholarship. It’s important to understand the various forces shaping your career trajectory and the potential readership and market for your book when you search for a publisher.

RT: If you’re writing primarily for scholars, then university presses or for-profit scholarly presses are best first options, usually.   The answer here would be somewhat related to answer in #5 above.  Look at their lists and try to pick up what you can about how their books contribute to the discipline.   If you’re writing for a general nonfiction audience with a trade book, then many university presses are going to be an option.   To approach a commercial press as in a trade publisher usually requires literary agent representation.

9) How does a publisher decide whether they want to publish the book or not? What does the review process include? And how long does it take?

AB: I’ll leave this to publishers to discuss, but my experience is that your book is often slated as part of a book series and the relationship between publisher and series editors vary widely as some give those series editors great weight in the decision and others less so.

KRF: In my experience with university presses as an author and reviewer, from first contact until acceptance of a book proposal, the timeline is four to six months. The relevant acquisitions editor, sometimes in consultation with a series editor, decides whether the book’s topic and approach make sense for the publisher given its mission and areas of emphasis and whether the quality is in keeping with the publisher’s standards. If these are affirmative decisions, the proposal may be sent to several scholars with relevant expertise for peer review. This review process generally takes a few months. Once the reviews are in, the acquisitions editor (and perhaps series editor) will decide, based on the reviews, whether the book is strong enough for publication. If yes, this editor will ask the author to write a response to the peer reviews, which will contain suggestions for revisions. This response and the reviews will be shared with the editorial board. If the editorial board approves, the publisher will offer a contract.

RT: A publisher is going to be looking in a most basic sense if the book fits their list(s), and what the scholarly contribution is.   Then they’re also looking at the author’s publication track record or expected future might be. The review process can proceed a couple different ways.  If you’re working from a proposal and one or two chapters, the publisher may want to have it reviewed, especially if it’s something that seemingly departs from a discipline’s core.  It might take two weeks to a month to get a proposal reviewed.  Another route is you’re working from a completed manuscript, which may take 2-6 months to be reviewed.  From there, the reviews might be supportive or supportive with some recommended revisions.  But the editor then might be able to take a project to the faculty advisory board for approval.   On the short end, it can take a couple of months to go through the review process and as long as a year or more if a publisher likes your work but the review process results in recommended revisions that both the publisher and author have agreed to undertake before moving to final approval stage.

10) What part of the contract, if any of it, is negotiable?

AB: Sometimes contracts ask if you have institutional funds to help with production costs. If at all possible, get those eliminated. Royalty percentages are often negotiable; I’ve had luck getting higher percentages for royalty ladders where the royalty goes up if you sell a certain number of copies. Publishers tend to know that once those benchmarks are hit you’re dividing up profits, not minimizing losses. Due dates are negotiable, as are proposed titles (as sometimes your title and the publisher’s proposed title don’t match).

WJC: Almost all of it is subject to negotiation. An author can offer suggestions for contract revisions — but the publisher doesn’t have to embrace them. In negotiating a contract, the author should always ask for an advance and seek a healthier slice of the net than what the publisher may propose.

RT: Most negotiable parts of a contract are the manuscript due date and the delivery specs (word count, other elements like photos, illustrations, etc.).  Less negotiable are the royalty rates, especially on truly scholarly works.  There’s some room for negotiation, depending on the publisher, if you’re writing a trade book.  You might be able to negotiate to keep some of the subsidiary rights, like film, but in most cases a publisher is going to be much better equipped than you are to sell any of the non-print book rights to your work.

11) What expense is the writer responsible for?

AB: The big thing is the index (unless you wish to do that yourself). Most indexers cost $3-4 per indexable page. This likely puts you in the $600-1,000 range. Sometimes you can get the publisher to hire out an indexer and take the fee from your royalties, but sometimes not. Some publishers are now charging for typesetting fees or page layouts, etc. I always recommend not allowing for those, so try to negotiate out.

WJC: The writer should expect to cover all research-related expenses. That’s why it’s worth the effort to seek research grants. Even modest grants can be important in covering costs of traveling to archives or conferences. Authors often are asked to cover the expense of indexing the book. Investing in an index, done by a professional, is a wise investment. A meager index done by the author makes the whole book look shabby.

CL: I’d rather walk naked, covered in butter and mushrooms, through a village of starving cannibals than do an index myself. Ask about funds in your department or school to pay a professional to do your index. Create a GoFundMe page.  A publisher may agree to do the index but they’ll probably delete the expenses from your royalties. You don’t want to do that, if you don’t have to. Try to avoid, if humanly possible, the time and aggravation that goes into doing an index. Don’t do the index yourself – or did I say that already?

RT: With a university press, an author is almost always responsible for any fees involved with securing photo rights and permission to republish work that isn’t their own and would exceed fair use.  Most university presses will require an author pay for their own index to be created by a qualified freelancer if they cannot provide it themselves.

12) What can you expect your publisher to do in the marketing of your book?

AB: You’ll have a marketing questionnaire they’ll ask you to complete. You’ll list everything from listservs to conferences you’ll be attending to awards for which you could potentially have your book nominated. Some do better than others at utilizing the marketing questionnaire, but almost all will have a one-sided flyer, and you can typically ensure that they’ll have your book at the conferences you favor—although sometimes you have to remind them which those are.

WJC: It’s essential that the author figure on shouldering the bulk of the book’s long-term promotion. And these days, an author should plan to be an unabashed self-promoter, and call attention to the book by establishing a presence on social media (Twitter affords frequent opportunities to do so), by accepting almost all requests for media interviews, and by launching a blog and posting frequently. Unabashed self-promotion is obviously a conceit. But an author does well to reject reservations about self-promotion and simply realize that no one else is going to promote the book, at least not in any sustained way.

CL: If you expect your publisher to do all the marketing for your book, you’ll spend a lot of time baying at the moon. This may be the only book you’ve written, but it’s not the only book your publisher is publishing. I devise my own marketing plan, which, includes, among other things, contacting media with a brief but pithy summary of the book, writing columns and articles for newspapers, magazines, and websites, and using social media.

RT: Effective marketing depends on the particular kind of book.  For scholarly books, this could mean direct mail/email to scholars and for course adoption consideration.  Reviews for scholarly books can take a while, often six months to a year after publication with some outlets.  Scholarly conferences are a great outlet for direct marketing to potential buyers. For trade books, marketing often means review copies to book trade publication and print/online media who cover the subject(s) you’re writing about. For both trade and scholarly work, social media has an ever-increasing marketing importance.

13) How important is submitting your book for awards, etc.?

AB: I haven’t done it as much as I should. Some authors value these a lot; others think the ultimate sign of success is sales volume. However, I will say that if you opt to publish in limited formats (for instance, “print on demand” hardbacks with paperback editions coming only if “print on demand” warrants it), you’ll likely need those awards as a quality metric, as institutional evaluators may believe the publisher only invested a bit in you and didn’t necessarily vouch for the quality because of a limited run.

WJC: It’s very important, if done strategically: “Strategically” in the sense the book is not going to be an award candidate in all competitions. It won’t be a fit for all competitions. Select these competitions with discretion. Entering book-award competitions is part of the self-promotion imperative mentioned above. Avoid making a big deal if the book is a finalist or a runner-up in a competition. That just means it didn’t win, which is something you need not emphasize.

KRF: VERY! Book awards can help raise the profile of both the book and its author. They can be important elements of a T&P or job application, proposals for second books and grants, etc. Submitting your book to award contests also expands the reading audience and awareness of your work in your discipline.

RT: Depending on your discipline, awards can be important for recognition and professional advancement.  Most university presses will be able to submit for awards that your book is eligible for and a good fit for, but be realistic about the awards, the likely number of submissions.  An award within the discipline, even if from a smaller and not widely known organization, can help with sales and increase exposure for a book a year or more after publication.

14) What’s the most important lesson you learned from writing your first book?

AB: Of all the elements I’ve listed to consider, I find autonomy to be the aspect I value most. Can I write the book in the manner I intend? Will the acquisitions editor let me truly advance my vision? Will the publisher let one middling review take sway over your vision? Feedback is crucial to advancing a good project, but if you advance a project and a reviewer basically says “this is not the way I would have written about this topic,” you want an acquisitions editor that will take your side, not the anonymous (and often less knowledgeable on your book subject) reviewer.

CL: You now know you can write a book and once you write a book you will want to write another – and this is just one of the chances you take whenever you write your first book.

Books on writing books:

Todd Armstrong, senior specialist acquisitions editor, communication and media studies for Cognella Academic Publishing, recommends the following books for aspiring writers.

William Germano, Getting It Published: A Guide to Scholars and Anyone Else Serious about Serious Book (3rd edition), University of Chicago Press, 2016.

Susan Rabiner and Alfred Fortunato, Thinking Like Your Editor: How to Write Great Serious Nonfiction and Get It Published, W.W. Norton, 2003.

Mary Ellen Lepionka, Sean W. Wakely, and Stephen E. Gillen, Writing and Developing Your College Textbook: A Comprehensive Guide (3rd edition), Textbook and Academic Authors Association, 2016. 

William Germano, From Dissertation to Book (2nd edition), University of Chicago Press, 2013.

 

New (and Re-newed) Initiatives Aim to Engage Young History Scholars

By Erika Pribanic-Smith, History Division Chair
University of Texas at Arlington

Welcome to a new academic year! As I embark on my term as chair of the History Division, I am thinking a lot about what we do in the classroom and as mentors to our graduate students. Cultivating those young scholars as well as early-career faculty ranks high on my list of goals for the coming year.

As an organization, we cannot survive without a thriving cohort of history scholars at every career stage. My mission is to make sure young scholars understand that the division values their scholarship and their perspectives, and that we are interested in their success in all realms of academic life—teaching, research, and service.

Developing a base of young history scholars begins in our classrooms. As faculty, we must light the spark that creates interest in history among our students. It is no secret that journalism and mass communication history faces a tremendous challenge in the curriculum as departments value new technology and techniques more and our past less.

Continue reading

Call for Entries: Best Journalism and Mass Communications History Book

The AEJMC History Division is soliciting entries for its annual award for the best journalism and mass communication history book. The winning author will receive a plaque and a $500 prize at the August 2019 AEJMC conference in Toronto, Canada. The author will also give a brief talk at the History Division’s business meeting about what they learned from researching and writing the book. The competition is open to any author of a media history book regardless of whether they belong to AEJMC or the History Division. Only first editions with a 2018 copyright date will be accepted. Edited volumes, articles, and monographs will be excluded because they qualify for the History Division’s Covert Award. Entries must be received by Friday, February 15, 2019. Submit four copies of each book along with the author’s mailing address, telephone number, and email address to:

Lisa Burns, AEJMC History Book Award Chair

Quinnipiac University

275 Mount Carmel Ave., CE-MCM

Hamden, CT, 06518.

If you have questions, please contact Lisa Burns at Lisa.Burns@quinnipiac.edu.

Publication Committee appointees’ bios

UPDATE (9/10/18): The ratification poll has closed. Members approved the appointments by a vote of 103-0.

The History Division’s officers seek to appoint the following division members to the new Publications Committee, established to assist in overseeing the publication of Journalism History. In order to ratify the five appointments to this committee, members should vote yes or no via this Qualtrics survey. Deadline to vote is 11:59 p.m. Pacific time on Sept. 7.

Because the committee is launching this year, two of the initial appointees will serve a three-year term and three will serve for two years. Thereafter, terms will be staggered.

Continue reading

Call for Entries: Transformative Teaching of Media and Journalism History Competition

Deadline: 11:59 p.m. PST February 1, 2019

Do you have an innovative idea or best practice for transformative teaching? We are seeking entries for the Transformative Teaching of Media and Journalism History, a teaching-idea competition sponsored by the History Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. The competition, founded in 2019, will acknowledge and share best practices publicly that we as journalism educators and media historians use in classrooms.

Winning entries receive a $75 prize.

The contest serves three division goals:

  1. Helps our division grow and diversify by inviting people from other divisions
  2. Encourages pedagogies of diversity, collaboration, community, and justice
  3. Supports an equal balance of History Division attention to teaching standards, research, and professional freedom and responsibility

Winners will frame and share their practices with an audience via a 12- to 15-minute mini, hands-on teaching module at the 2019 AEJMC convention. At least one prize will go to a student scholar or a team entry with a student member.

Teaching ideas should be original, tested, and transformative pedagogies that have been used by the author in teaching media and journalism history and could be used by other instructors or institutions. Teaching ideas should help professors address one or more of these pedagogies: diversity, collaboration, community, or justice. The competition welcomes a variety of teaching ideas, including those taught across a quarter/semester or taught as a module within an individual course.

The applications should be submitted as one document saved in a PDF format to aejmchistory@gmail.com using the subject line “Transformative Teaching of Media and Journalism History” and should include:

  • Required: a three-page CV
  • Required: a single-spaced, two-page discussion of the teaching idea that includes a 250-word overview followed by discussions of these seven criteria used for judging:
    • originality (makes clear how the work has not been published or presented at a conference or an online forum previously; is not in any other 2019 AEJMC competition; and does not represent another person’s teaching without acknowledgement of that work and discussion of significant modification by the author),
    • tested (describes how employed previously in the author’s classroom),
    • transferability (makes a case for how other schools/classes/programs could use),
    • degree of transformative nature (speaks to evidence of how the teaching leads to a marked change on the part of students, such as via assessment or student feedback),
    • degree of focus on diversity, collaboration, community, and/or justice (addresses one or more of these pedagogies, as defined by the author),
    • degree of clarity (presented clearly, completely, and concisely),
    • willingness to present (expresses willingness to present at the 2019 AEJMC conference)
  • Optional: a set of supplementary teaching materials relevant to the teaching idea, such as syllabus, assignment, handouts, links, or slide, saved as PDF and no more than five pages 

Winners will be announced March 15, 2019. In addition to presenting at the 2019 AEJMC Conference, winners may publish their ideas on the History Division’s website. They will also be featured in the History Division’s Clio newsletter. If you have questions about the competition, please contact Kristin Gustafson, the division’s teaching standards chair, at aejmchistory@gmail.com.

History Division News & Notes: 2018 Business Meeting

Changes to research paper acceptance rates, the launch of a new teaching competition, streamlining our co-sponsored conference in New York, and the continued transition of Journalism History were among the news items discussed at the 2018 business meeting.

Research paper acceptance rates: Erika Pribanic-Smith reported on the division’s five-year assessment by AEJMC. The division was told its student paper acceptance rate was lower than it should be.

Historically, the division has mixed together the student papers and faculty papers in the AEJ paper competition and judged them all equally, Pribanic-Smith said. Other divisions have done this as well, resulting in more than 50 percent of faculty papers being accepted and less than 50 percent of student papers.

However, AEJMC wants to see 50-50 acceptance rates, and the Council of Divisions encouraged all divisions to separate faculty and student papers to judge them separately and accept 50 percent of each.

As a result, more student papers and fewer faculty papers will be accepted in future years than have been in recent years.

Teaching: Teaching Chair Kristin Gustafson plans to launch a special competition highlighting best practices in history pedagogy and/or scholarship of teaching and learning. More details to come soon.

Joint Journalism conference: Doug Cumming updated members on a meeting between the officers of the AEJMC History Division and AJHA. The two organizations co-sponsor the Joint Journalism and Communication History Conference in New York every March.

In recent years, each organization provided one representative to organize and host the conference with Elliot King. However, the growth of the conference prompted the most recent representatives to suggest a number of changes to reduce the burden on the junior faculty serving in these roles and to streamline the conference.

The officers agreed to provide two representatives each to provide more support for the research chair, event planning, and social media tasks. Furthermore, AJHA will take over the conference’s finances on behalf of the organizations and a new conference submission site is being explored. The conference will also establish research awards, with the top award honoring King.

The History Division has appointed its two representatives: Brian Creech, Temple University, and Carrie Teresa, Niagara University. Pam Walck will serve as one of AJHA’s representatives. The other AJHA rep is pending.

Journalism History: The leadership team continues to work on final details of securing an academic publisher for Journalism History. The transition to new editor Greg Borchard, with the help of Mike Sweeney, has gone well. A new website, social media pages, and podcast will also launch this year to support the journal.

The full meeting minutes are below:

Minutes of the 2018 AEJMC History Division Business Meeting in Washington, D.C.

Outgoing Chair Doug Cumming (Washington & Lee) called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. on Aug. 7, 2018.

The membership accepted the minutes from last year’s meeting as reported in the Fall 2017 Clio.

Conference Awards

The following authors received awards for their work: John Armstrong, Furman, “The Amateurs’ Hour: South Carolina’s First Radio Stations, 1913-1917” (top faculty paper); Erin Coyle (with Elisabeth Fondren and Joby Richard), LSU, “The War Council: Editors’ Publicity Campaign for Louis D. Brandeis’s 1916 Supreme Court Nomination” (second-place faculty paper); Wendy Melillo, American, “Winning Women’s Votes: Dotty Lynch and the Gender Gap in American Politics, 1972-1984” (third-place faculty paper).

Madeleine Liseblad, Middle Tennessee State, “Driving and Restraining Forces Toward the Marketization of Broadcasting in the UK in the 1990s” (first-place student paper, tie); Perry Parks, Michigan State, “Textbook News Values:  A Century of Stability and Change” (first-place student paper, tie); Kelli Boling, South Carolina, “’We Matter’: The Launching of a Counter-Narrative Black Public Affairs Program in Columbia, S.C.” (third-place student paper).

The division provided six graduate students with travel grants of $200 each.

Covert Award

Andie Tucher, Columbia, received the Covert Award for best mass communication history article for “I Believe in Faking: The Dilemma of Photographic Realism in the Dawn of Photojournalism.” She said she became interested in fake news long before Donald Trump. The article was published in Photography & Culture.

Sweeney Award

New Journalism History Editor Greg Borchard presented the division’s first Michael S. Sweeney Award (https://aejmc.us/history/cressman-wins-first-sweeney-award/) for best article in Journalism History. Dale L. Cressman, associate professor of communication at Brigham Young University, won for his article, “News in Light: The Times Square Zipper and Newspaper Signs in an Age of Technological Enthusiasm.”

The other nominees for this first award were Juanita Darling, for “Jewish Values in the Journalism of Alberto Gerchunoff”; Michael Fuhlhage, for “To Limit the Spread of Slavery: A Boston Journal Correspondent’s Multiple Roles in the Kansas Free State Movement”; and Debra Reddin Van Tuyll, for “Protecting Press Freedom and Access to Government Information in Antebellum South Carolina.”

Book Award

This year’s book award winner was Fred Carroll, Kennesaw State, for Race News: Black Journalists and the Fight for Racial Justice in the 20th Century (University of Illinois Press). Book Award Chair John Ferré (Louisville) said there were 29 entries this year. Selection committee judges were Fred Blevens, Kathy Roberts Forde, and Linda Steiner. Ferré said the competition is tough. He described Race News as a comparison of the black commercial press with the black radical press and called it “an important read, and I would highly encourage you to read it.”

Lisa Burns (Quinnipiac) is taking over duties as book award chair for the 2019 competition after Ferré’s nine years of service.

Carroll advised scholars to respect the historiography of a subject and look from the beginning as to what is available and how a topic can be built upon. He also advised questioning and broadening definitions after realizing he was originally trying to apply a definition of who a journalist was “using the very same standards that white journalists had used to exclude the black journalists I was studying.”

5-Year Assessment

Vice Chair Erika Pribanic-Smith reported on the division’s five-year assessment by AEJMC. The assessment went well, but a few areas were noted for improvement. AEJMC wants to see divisions split activities evenly among research, PF&R, and teaching. The division has been too heavy on research in the past few years, due in part to the adoption of Journalism History, which took a lot of time, she said. Pribanic-Smith said the division will make the adjustment to balance activities and had already started to do so.

AEJMC also advised the division that its student paper acceptance rate was lower than it should be. Historically, the division has mixed together the student papers and faculty papers in the AEJ paper competition and judged them all equally, Pribanic-Smith said. Other divisions have done this as well, resulting in more than 50 percent of faculty papers being accepted and less than 50 percent of student papers.

However, AEJMC wants to see 50-50 acceptance rates, and the Council of Divisions encouraged all divisions to separate faculty and student papers to judge them separately and accept 50 percent of each.

As a result, more student papers and fewer faculty papers will be accepted in future years than have been in recent years.

Joint Conference

Cumming updated members on a meeting earlier in the day between the officers of the AEJMC History Division and AJHA. The two organizations co-sponsor the Joint Journalism and Communication History Conference in New York every March. In recent years, each organization provided one representative to organize and host the conference with Elliot King. However, the growth of the conference prompted the most recent representatives to suggest a number of changes to reduce the burden on the junior faculty serving in these roles and to streamline the conference. The officers agreed to provide two representatives each to provide more support for the research chair, event planning and social media tasks. Furthermore, AJHA will take over the conference’s finances on behalf of the organizations and a new conference submission site is being explored. The conference will establish research awards, with the top award honoring King.

Chair Reports

Research: Pribanic-Smith reported that the division received 50 total submissions, of which one was disqualified and two were not designated as student or faculty and were both rejected. Of the 32 faculty submissions, 20 were accepted for a rate of 62.5%. There were 15 student research paper submissions, with six accepted for a rate of 40%. There were 71 judges this year, with two papers per judge and three reviewers per paper. Overall, the acceptance rate was 53%.

Teaching: Teaching Chair Kristin Gustafson reported on three teaching panels at the conference:  “Contextualizing Media Credibility in 2018,” “Innovating ideas that foster a community and its history,” and “Remembering, Forgetting and Nostalgizing 1968: The Year that Rocked Our World.” Her goals and activities are focused on four pedagogies of diversity, collaboration, community, and justice. She plans to launch a special competition highlighting best practices in history pedagogy and/or scholarship of teaching and learning.

PF&R: PF&R Chair Melita Garza reported that the division supports an AEJMC statement on hate speech spurred by the incident in Charlottesville and endorsed the American Historical Association’s statement condemning the Polish law banning discourse about Polish complicity with the Nazis. The PF&R panel this year was “Connecting Industry and Ivory Tower: Advertising, Journalism and P.R. Executives Tell Professors How to Matter.” Garza said she’s written columns about Hispanic and Native American journalists, saying “the minority journalist brings a perspective that is so important, and I think it’s also important in our research as educators.” Garza also encouraged the division to avoid all men on panels, an issue that came up on social media as a broader critique of AEJMC panels.

Membership: Amber Roessner and Will Mari discussed the mini profiles and collection of member news in Clio this year. Graduate student recruitment and the transition of Clio to the membership chairs are priorities in the coming year. AEJMC data noted the division saw a 15-percent decrease in membership from February 2013 to February 2018, or a decline of 315 members to 268. The division remains the fourth-largest in AEJMC, however.

Journalism History

Roberts Forde noted the task force to transition Journalism History to the division worked for two-plus years to obtain authorization for adoption of the journal, an increase in dues, the hiring of an editor, and the search for an academic publisher. Greg Borchard of University of Nevada, Las Vegas, was hired for the editor job this year and has been working with Mike Sweeney to implement the editor transition. The next steps are to get more help with the journal, create a publications committee, and secure the academic publisher. Taylor & Francis is interested, but the division must secure the copyrights for prior Journalism History articles now held by UNLV, Ohio and UCalNorthridge.

Roberts Forde also read a resolution to honor Frank Fee for all of his work on behalf of the task force. The full resolution, which had unanimous approval, can be found here: https://aejmc.us/history/history-division-resolution-honors-frank-fee/

Borchard also spoke and thanked the division for its support. He reported significant progress and the continued publication of the journal without interruption. He said Mike Sweeney has been unbelievably helpful in keeping in contact. The journal’s online presence now includes a page on the History Division website. Pribanic-Smith and Kate Roberts Edenborg will work on a stand-alone website and social media presence. Teri Finneman and Will Mari have taken on a project to develop podcasts on behalf of the journal and division.

Dave Bulla helped develop a statement of ethics and malpractice for inclusion in our public materials, which will help raise our visibility once we established connections with sites that can list us in their citation databases. Materials are already under review with Scopus for possible listing in their abstract and citation database.

Borchard also appointed assistant editors Bulla with Augusta University and Kevin Stoker at UNLV (the director of the Journalism and Media Studies School) and updated the corresponding editors list. He said most people indicated they’d like to continue, but a few have retired. At last count, there are 68 corresponding editors, which some have suggested is too many, but Borchard said he’d much rather have too many than not enough.

Garza was re-appointed as book review editor. Borchard also established a schedule for forthcoming issues with Sweeney, who plans to mail the remaining issues in Volume 44 from Ohio. Borchard will assume responsibility for publishing and distributing Volume 45 and beyond.

Finneman reported that she, Will Mari, and Nick Hirshon will work on launching a podcast later this fall. The podcast will include original interviews as well as recorded sessions from conference panels. She and Mari are signed up for a Knight Center MOOC on how to grow a hit podcast.

Cumming reported the division bylaws will include reference to the publication committee. The Publications Committee shall recommend an editor to be appointed by the division’s officers. If for any reason the editor’s appointment is not renewed at the end of a term, or the editor resigns during a term, the committee shall issue a call for applicants and then evaluate applicants. The process normally involves interviews with promising candidates. The committee’s other responsibilities include working with the editor during the editor’s term to ensure the highest possible standards for the journal as well as developing plans to encourage quality submissions. The committee will consist of five members. The division officers are working on forming a committee to recommend to the membership, keeping in mind diversity of appointments.

Clio

There were three PDF issues of Clio this year and three e-newsletters of Clio. Finneman reported the transition was made for two main reasons: simplification and engagement. A number of prior Clio editors had no InDesign experience and were having to assign the division role to someone else to complete. She said the e-newsletter is easier and quicker to put together, aligns with current industry standards and what other history organizations are doing, and also allows for more frequent communication with members who can more easily share the content on resumes and social media.

Cumming reported that the duties for Clio are now being transferred to the membership chairs rather than the secretary/newsletter editor.

After discussion for and against the change, the membership agreed to continue the e-Clio experiment for another year. The executive committee will analyze analytics of Clio content in December and discuss proposed changes to try in 2019.

Constitution and Bylaws

Cumming reported some of the leadership role changes made in the bylaws (some of which already referenced above). Going forward, the vice chair will be responsible for panels/program chair and the second vice chair will be research chair. This move aligns the division with other AEJMC divisions to provide a ladder approach and prevent confusion from other divisions of whom to contact in the History Division. The updated version can be found on the division website, https://aejmc.us/history/.

Garza motioned to approve the bylaws with Gustafson seconding. The vote was 32-2.

Elections

The membership confirmed the appointments Mari (Northwest University) as incoming second vice chair, and Julien Gorbach (University of Hawaii at Manoa) as co-membership chair. The membership made no nominations from the floor. [NOTE: The following additional appointments were made after the convention: Colin Kearney, University of Florida, Graduate Student Co-Liaison; Bailey Dick, Ohio University, Graduate Student Co-Liaison; Brian Creech Temple University, Co-Coordinator, Joint Journalism & Communication History Conference; Carrie Teresa, Niagara University, Co-Coordinator, Joint Journalism & Communication History Conference].

Pribanic-Smith’s goals as chair include continuing the transition of Journalism History to the division’s publication, a more active student committee to boost involvement of young scholars as a foundation for the division’s future, streamlining the Joint Journalism conference, and recognizing media history teaching with a competition.

Next Conference

The division voted on the conference city for 2022. The options were Detroit, Chicago, and Indianapolis. The division voted for Detroit.

Announcements

David Mindich reminded members about the Symposium on the 19th Century Press, the Civil War, and Free Expression. The three-day conference in Chattanooga, is Nov. 8–10, 2018.

Tim Vos reminded members about the journalism history series started by the University of Missouri Press. Two books are now out: Before Journalism Schools: How Gilded Age Reporters Learned the Rules by Randall Sumpter and The Struggle for the Soul of Journalism: The Pulpit versus the Press, 1833-1923 by Ronald Rogers.

David Bulla said submissions are being accepted for the former Atlanta Review of Journalism History, now named the Southeastern Review of Journalism History.

The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Teri Finneman, 2017-18 secretary

New History Division leadership team outlines goals

Erika Pribanic-Smith (University of Texas-Arlington) is the new chair of the History Division, assisted by vice chair Teri Finneman (University of Kansas) and second vice chair Will Mari (Northwest University).

Pribanic-Smith will have more details about her goals for the division in her chair column next month, but here’s an early look at some of the new leadership team’s priorities for the coming year.

  • Recruit and engage graduate students and early career scholars.
  • Launch a new website, social media pages and podcast for Journalism History. Pribanic-Smith and Kate Roberts Edenborg are spearheading the website and social media, while Finneman, Mari and Nick Hirshon are focusing on starting the podcast.
  • Finalize our transition with Journalism History by securing a publisher contract and naming a publication committee.
  • Streamline the successful Joint Journalism and Communication History Conference in New York that we co-sponsor with AJHA each year.
  • Enhance our efforts with diversity and inclusion. Melita Garza, Rachel Grant, Elisabeth Fondren and Maddie Liseblad are interested in working on this initiative.
  • Support Kristin Gustafson in the launch of a new division teaching competition.
  • Work with the Commission on the Status of Women to create plans for celebrating the 100th anniversary of suffrage during the 2019 and 2020 AEJ conferences. The committee includes Pribanic-Smith, Finneman, Candi Carter Olson, Carolyn Kitch, Linda Lumsden, Jane Marcellus, Rachel Grant, Kelli Boling and Jane Singer.***See the September Clio for more information on the division’s AEJMC business meeting and a full chair column.

History Division membership remains strong despite decline

The History Division saw a 15-percent decrease in membership from February 2013 to February 2018, according to data from AEJMC headquarters. The division’s membership roll dropped 47 members from 315 to 268 during this time.

“While the downward trend is disturbing, we still have a solid core of dedicated, energetic members,” said Erika Pribanic-Smith, incoming head of the History Division. “Another source of encouragement is our place as fourth-largest division in AEJMC.”

Data provided in August 2018 indicated an uptick to 280 members for the division. History’s five-year membership decline was moderate compared to other groups. Communication Technology (-36%), Participatory Journalism (-31%), Electronic News (-28.5%), and Magazine (-27%) saw the biggest five-year membership percentage drops. The interest groups for Sports Communication (49%) and Graduate Students (41%) had the biggest gains.

The membership data was provided to members of an AEJMC president’s task force aimed at discussing membership trends. About 52 percent of AEJMC members do not belong to any division or interest group, according to AEJMC past president Jennifer Greer.

History Division Vice Chair Teri Finneman is on the president’s task force, which provided the recommendations listed below to the AEJMC board of directors.

“Regarding the History Division, specifically, I think it is very important for the division to be more active as a community throughout the entire year, not just at the conference, in order to be more enticing for members to join,” Finneman said.

Pribanic-Smith and Finneman hope their initiatives in the coming year will help, including an emphasis on young scholar recruitment, the launch of a Journalism History podcast, an increased social media and web presence, and monthly division newsletters.

“My goals include nurturing and maintaining our existing member base while enlarging it with more early-career faculty and student members,” Pribanic-Smith said. “Young history scholars will enable our division to continue thriving for many years to come.”

Preliminary recommendations for AEJMC from the Strengthening Our Community Task Force are:

  • Dedicate a section of the website to resources just for members that is password protected. This provides opportunities to provide exclusive resources to members and to help them find resources that are currently available but not well known. For instance, being able to download papers from All-Academic.  You can do it -but few people know that, it is not intuitive how to do that, and requires that you have an account set up through All Academic.  Using your member login would assist in streamlining access to this information.
  • New member packet – this would be electronic and would be sent to all new members from the president of the organization with the members’ login information. Specifics would be details about divisions/interest groups/commissions, competitions, conferences, teaching resources, organizational map, etc.
  • Have AEJMC membership include membership to one division/interest group/commission. This is done with other organizations. There are multiple ways to pay for this and encourages people to choose a group and this allows them to learn about what the divisions/interest groups/commissions do with little risk.
  • Rethink the DIG (divisions and interest groups) fair. Work closely with COD to organize. Assist COD members to participate, make it interactive, publicize it more, perhaps have It located in the exhibit hall to get more exposure.  Suggest each division/interest group/commission record and post a short video about the specific group and its mission, etc.
  • Review materials that are available from central office that outline expectations/best practices for division/interest group/commission management. Suggested topics might include membership tools (communications, social media), leadership succession plans, the importance of bylaws, organizational memory (history, etc). Work with COD leadership.
  • Work with President-elect Marie Hardin’s graduate student initiatives to further develop information/resources specifically for graduate student members/recruitment.
  • Maintain a list of emeriti faculty, senior scholars, past presidents, past COD chairs, past division/interest group/commissions chairs to promote leadership opportunities, editorial board appointments, committee work, task forces, etc – as a means to keep them engaged.
  • Improve website membership forms to include pop-ups that explain more about each division/interest group.
  • Develop webinars for members – to use throughout the year. AEJ 101 webinar for new members, graduate students, etc BEFORE the conference, preparing for tenure, tips for non-tenure faculty, how to navigate the job search/job hub at the conference, getting your research published, editorial philosophy of journals, etc.
  • Have more personalized communication coming from the organization. Have dedicated email addresses for the president, vice president, heads of standing committees, COD, etc and have the information about the organization coming from these email addresses rather than coming from HQ. Make these more personalized with usable information, not just registration is open, the app is available, etc.
  • Use Facebook group to post JMC news from the industry, topics that can be used immediately in the classroom, new websites, videos, books, etc.
  • Work with PFR standing committee of the organization and from the divisions/interest groups to post relevant news topics and resources on the AEJ website throughout the year.