Earlier this year the Times HES published a list ranking history journals by impact factor. The list was based on Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports.
Here are the top 10 journals on their list, ranked by 5-year impact factor. The chart I posted a few days ago shows the impact factor in any given year, which can clearly lead to some wild swings. (There are, obviously, advantages to using a five-year moving average).
American Historical Review
2.188
Environmental History
1.085
Journal of American History
1.047
Social Science History
0.796
Journal of Modern History
0.67
Journal of African History
0.644
Journal of British Studies
0.636
Comparative Studies in Society and History
0.515
History Workshop Journal
0.5
Journal of Contemporary History
0.478
Tina Loo shared this link with me in a comment on a post in which I spoke about the recent decline in the number of citations to articles in the journal Environmental History. The chart I posted at the time shows that the impact factor of that journal peaked in 2006, right before it moved behind a paywall.
It is striking that Environmental History is near the very top of the list. I wonder to what extent articles in this journal are being cited by historians as opposed to people in the other disciplines that intersect with environmental history. Most articles in a more traditional history journals are read and cited mainly by other historians, or maybe by the odd political scientist. In contrast, the articles in EH are likely to interest people in a wider range of disciplines. The reason I say this is that at least some librarians operate on the assumption that most of the users of the journal Environmental History will tend to be in geography, ecology, disaster management, and other departments. They obviously know something about who reads this journal.
Although I’m certainly no expert in the sub-discipline of environmental history, although I’ve become familiar with the journal Environmental History in the last few months, as I have planned out the reading list for a history of globalisation course.
My other observation is that the Journal of Global History (founded in 2006) isn’t on this list. In 2010, the JGH had an impact factor of 0.625 and was ranked by Thomson Reuters as the fourth most cited history journal in the world. I strongly suspect that in a few years, the JGH‘s five-year impact factor will also be impressive. Interestingly enough, some of the most cited and most downloaded articles in the JGH archive are papers dealing with environmental-historical topics.e.g., McCook, Stuart. 2006. “Global Rust Belt: Hemileia Vastatrix and the Ecological Integration of World Coffee Production Since 1850”. Journal of Global History. 1, no. 2: 177-195.
UCLA has introduced a digital humanities “minor” that students can take along with a more traditional major (e.g., history or English). The students will graduate with a degree that says they have a major in, say, history and a minor in digital humanities.
I think that this is an excellent idea: many employers are looking for graduates who have both the communications and analytical skills inculcated by the traditional liberal arts education and some knowledge of IT. In fact, I think that joint degrees in IT and the social sciences and humanities are the wave of the future. The two skill sets complement each other: IT is about getting information to the people who need it, when they need it, while the humanities and social sciences are about interpreting information.
Here is UCLA’s description of the minor:
Scope and Objectives
The Digital Humanities minor is an interdisciplinary minor that studies the foundations and futures of the digital world. Digital Humanities interprets the cultural and social impact of the new information age as well as creates and applies new technologies to answer cultural, social, and historical questions, both those traditionally conceived and those enabled by new technologies. The interdisciplinary curriculum draws on faculty from more than twenty departments, five schools, and three research centers at UCLA. It places project-based learning at the heart of the curriculum, with students working in collaborative teams to realize digital research projects with real-world applications. The Digital Humanities minor is intended to provide students with literacy in creating, interpreting, and applying the technologies of the digital world. It examines the cultural and social impact of new technologies and also enables students to harness these technologies to develop their own research projects in a wide range of fields. Students use tools and methodologies such as three-dimensional visualization, data-mining, network analysis, and digital mapping to conceptualize and advance research projects. Students have the opportunity to make significant contributions to scholarship in fields ranging from archaeology and architecture to history and literature. By preparing students to be active participants in the design and production of new knowledge, the minor emphasizes the critical thinking skills, creativity, and collaborative methodologies necessary for success in the digital information age.
# Crs
Course
Title/Description
Units
1
1 Lower Division Elective
Selected from a list of approved departmental course offerings
4-6
1
DGT HUM 101
Core: Foundations of the Digital World (offered Fall 2011)
5
3
3 Upper Division Electives
Selected from a list of approved departmental course offerings*
12-15
1
DGT HUM 194
Seminar in Digital Humanities (can be taken concurrently with the internship/apprenticeship quarter)
2
1
DGT HUM 195 or DGT HUM 196
1 quarter of Internship or Apprenticeship*
4
1
DGT HUM 198 or DGT HUM 199
Honors Research or Directed Research in Digital Humanities
Digital humanities (DH) is one of the most exciting fields of scholarly research right now. DH has many different aspects, but perhaps the most promising (and most discussed) is the machine analysis of text.
Proponents of data mining herald the approach for its alleged potential to close the gap between the “two cultures” of the humanities and the hard sciences by allowing us to subject historical texts to quantitative analysis. Traditionally, humanities research has been largely anecdotal, which has allowed researchers to “cherry pick” a few anecdotes to prove their pet thesis. By allowing us to survey many cases quickly, data mining can help us to determine whether the anecdotes selected by other historians were statistically representative.
Critics of data mining have argued that the massive investments in DH technology have so far produced few surprising results and that DH is all a bunch of techno-hype designed to extract funding from gullible research councils. These critics have a point: some of the recent efforts to use computers to quantitatively analyse primary sources have ended up just stating the obvious.
For instance, researchers at the University of Richmond got a grant that allowed them to analyse the hundreds of speeches delivered in Virginia at the start of the Civil War. (Read more here). Their keyword searches found that there were frequent references to “slavery” in the debates on secession. The researchers then concluded that issues related to slavery were a major motivating factor for Virginia’s decision to leave the Union. Of course, this isn’t telling us anything new. We’ve known for a long time that the American Civil War was about slavery. File this research under: “No kidding, Sherlock!”
However, one occasionally comes across a data mining project that fundamentally undermines the scholarly consensus about a particular historical topic. The New York Times recently reported on a project by William Turkel, a historian at the University of Western Ontario. He teaches Canadian history, “environmental and public history, the histories of science and technology, ‘big history’, STS, computation, and studies of place and social memory.” Turkel is something of a polymath and a few years ago he constructed a 3-D printer in his Lab for Humanistic Fabrication.
For a historian with such advanced technical skills, doing machine analysis of primary sources would be relatively easy, I would imagine.
Turkel is a member of the Criminal Intent project, which landed a grant from the prestigious Digging into Data programme. Digging into Data is jointly funded by research councils in a number of countries, including the JISC, the Arts and Humanities Research Council, the Economic and Social Research Council in the UK; the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Science Foundation in the US; the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research; and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council in Canada.
Working with Tim Hitchcock of the University of Hertfordshire, Turkel recently did an analysis of the transcribed court records that had been put online by the Old Bailey Project. The Old Bailey project, which has involved digitizing and transcribing records of 198,000 trials between 1674 and 1913, is one of the best known DH initiatives. (The Old Bailey is the central criminal court in London).
After scouring the 127 million words in the database for patterns in a project called Data Mining With Criminal Intent, he and William J. Turkel, a historian at the University of Western Ontario, came up with a novel discovery. Beginning in 1825 they noticed an unusual jump in the number of guilty pleas and the number of very short trials. Before then most of the accused proclaimed their innocence and received full trials. By 1850, however, one-third of all cases involved guilty pleas. Trials, with their uncertain outcomes, were gradually crowded out by a system in which defendants pleaded guilty outside of the courtroom, they said.
Conventional histories cite the mid-1700s as the turning point in the development of the modern adversarial system of justice in England and Colonial America, with defense lawyers and prosecutors facing off in court, Mr. Hitchcock and Mr. Turkel said. Their analysis tells a different story, however.
Dan Cohen, a historian of science at George Mason University and the lead United States researcher on the Criminal Intent project, found other revelations in the data. He noticed that in the 1700s there were nearly equal numbers of male and female defendants, but that a century later men outnumbered women nearly 10 to 1.
The Criminal Intent project shows that data mining can indeed advance our understanding of the past beyond what we already know from conventional historical research.
Historian David Starkey, who is an expert on the Tudor period, recently went on TV and made some comments about the recent riots in English cities that were condemned by others as racist. His comments prompted calls for historians to stick to what they know and not get involved in current affairs.
Pat Thane, who is a social historian and one of the directors of the History & Policy group at King’s College London recently published a robust defence of the engagement of historians with questions of present-day public policy.
As Thane notes, the History & Policy website
was established to mobilise historians with appropriate expertise to engage with and comment on current policy issues.
With a network of over 300 historians, we specifically try to put journalists and policymakers in touch with the right historian, to address the right issue, with the right knowledge at the right time. Hopefully, some of the policy areas under review following the riots will benefit from historical input and maybe even avoid falling prey to inaccurate historical assumptions and reinventing the policy wheel.
This list was prepared by a Canadian who recently finished an MA degree. He obviously knows how to do well academically, so newbie students would do well to take his advice into consideration.
Most of his points are internationally applicable and I plan to share the list with my students here at Coventry.
In my opinion, these are the two most important items on the list.
1. Meet your professors in person.
Guess how many e-mails a professor who teaches your 600-student course receives each week? It’s a lot of e-mails. That’s why it’s important to make personal connections by visiting them during office hours or by asking them questions after a lecture that particularly grabbed your interest.
Knowing professors personally is important. They can provide career advice, write reference letters for graduate school and will be more willing to supervise your honours thesis or special project. Plus, if they know you, they may go easier on you should you ask to hand in an essay late.
Ok, the last little bit in red wouldn’t be applicable in a UK university, since lecturers in this country have no discretion to accept late essays. Deadlines here are rigid unless you can produce a doctor’s note. But the main thrust of this point is correct.
4. Learn to use the library in semester one.
There’s nothing more boring than journal search strategies and citation rules, so I’ll get to the point. Learning how research is painful, but taking the initiative early on will pay off. Every library offers an orientation to research. For some reason, these sessions are often during Frosh Week when students are least motivated to attend. Still, drag yourself out of bed one morning, shower, and go.
YES! YES! YES! Note: “Frosh Week” is what Canadians call Freshers’ Week.
3. Test drive your professors.
It’s tempting to pick the professors who have the highest ratings on RateMyProfessors.com. But often, the best ratings are awarded to professors who give everyone As. That’s fine if all you’re looking for is easy marks. But if you’re there to be inspired, you need to find professors who sound like they’re speaking to you personally in lectures. You can only find that out by attending a class.
That said, you can avoid getting stuck with a bad lecturer by going to the first class and then asking yourself whether you learned anything. If you were bored by lecture one, drop the course and find a new one. You can switch courses in the first few weeks of any semester without any penalty. If there aren’t other courses available, you can always enroll in a distance education class.
Point 3 is relevant to students in large universities where they have lots of choice about courses, but it is still good advice.
Kate Bradley is a lecturer in Social History and Social Policy at the University of Kent. Her latest book is Poverty, Philanthropy and the State: Charities and the Working Classes in London, 1918-1979, published by Manchester University Press.
Today, the History & Policy website posted her opinion piece on the recent riots. It shows that these riots were far from unprecedented.
The 1958 Notting Hill riots erupted out of tension from white youths towards the black community, whilst similar disturbances occurred in Nottingham around the same time. Likewise, the riots of the 1980s exploded out of deep tension on the streets between police and young people from ethnic minorities. All emerged from similar strains and distrusts experienced daily, but were triggered by a local ‘spark’ event. In Notting Hill, a group of white teens set about avenging themselves after losing an argument; in Brixton in 1981, people believed the police were failing to help a young man who had been stabbed; in Tottenham in 1986, because Cynthia Jarrett collapsed and died during a police raid on her home. A locality is geographically unique, but its social shape can be replicated many times over.
P.S. History & Policy is a unique collaboration between the History Faculty of the University of Cambridge, the Centre for History in Public Health (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) and the Centre for Contemporary British History. Its offices are at King’s College London.
Since 2006, the H&P website has sought to connect historians doing policy-relevant research to the media and decision-makers in government. Basically, posts on their website boil down the key research findings of historians into short pieces suitable for busy journalists, civil servants, and politicians.
When I was based at a Canadian university I tried to organize a similar website for Canada. Alas, the idea never really got off the ground. Of course, the problem with ahistorical policymaking isn’t confined to Canada. The mission statement of H&P reads:
We believe that:
Too often policy reflects unexamined historical assumptions and clichés
History is incorrectly assumed to be less relevant to current policy than the social and natural sciences
At best, policy without history fails to learn past lessons and, at worst, repeats past mistakes
Given the opportunity, historians can shed light on the causes of current problems and even suggest innovative solutions
Historians often have important contributions to make, but need to acquire new information and skills to engage with policymakers
There is a reluctance among many policymakers to ‘let historians in’, which needs to be addressed
The American Historical Review was the most cited journal in history in 2010, garnering one in every eight citations to a history journal in 2010, according to a Journal Citation Reports analysis of references to 1,000 articles from 43 history journals. Read more here.
Does anybody know why the impact factor for the journal Environmental History peaked in 2006? Environmental history is one the hottest fields in history, so I would be curious to know why citations of articles in that journal have fallen so dramatically since 2006. Have other journals in the field of environmental history appeared? Or is there less interest in environmental history? I’m not an expert on this field, although I am a sympathetic observer, so I would be interested to know what the heck is going on.
Background: Copublished by the American Society for Environmental History and the Forest History Society in association with Oxford University Press, Environmental History is the successor publication to the journals of the two organizations, Environmental History Review and Forest & Conservation History. Environmental History Review was published from 1976 to 1989 as Environmental Review. Forest & Conservation History was published from 1957 to 1958 as the Forest History Newsletter, from 1959 to 1974 as Forest History, and from 1975 to 1989 as the Journal of Forest History.
I was asked to post this press release on my blog. It sounds like an interesting documentary. AS
WASHINGTON, D.C., BUFFALO, NY and TORONTO, ON— Nearly two centuries after it was fought, the two-and-a-half year conflict that forged the destiny of a continent comes to public television in a comprehensive film history. “The War of 1812” airs on PBS stations on Monday, October 10, 2011 at 9 p.m. From 1812 to 1815, Americans battled against the British, Canadian colonists, and Native warriors; the outcomes shaped the geography and the identity of North America. This two-hour HD documentary uses stunning re-enactments, evocative animation, and the incisive commentary of key experts to reveal little-known sides of an important war — one that some only recognize for the “Star-Spangled Banner.” The broadcast is accompanied by a companion book and website, as well as comprehensive bi-national educational resources.
Across the United States and Canada, communities are planning events to commemorate the 200th Anniversary of the War of 1812. “We have proudly created ‘The War of 1812’ for both nations,” said Donald K. Boswell, president and CEO of WNED, the producing station of the program. Broadcasting from Buffalo, New York, WNED has significant viewership in Southern Ontario. “This timely examination of a shared history allows us to celebrate our past together, and renew the bond of our present and future as national neighbors. With this production, WNED also continues a tradition of showcasing cultural and historical treasures of our bi-national region to the PBS audience.” WNED is one of fourteen public broadcasting stations that share a border with Canada, extending the national broadcast of “The War of 1812” throughout the United States into many Canadian communities.
Noted Canadian military historian Peter Twist played a major role in shaping “The War of 1812.” Twist, who has worked as historical and military adviser on projects as diverse as the blockbuster Pirates of the Caribbean movies and CBC Television’s lauded ‘Canada: A People’s History’ series, says that dealing with national biases was a prime consideration in making the documentary.
“The War of 1812’ features a terrific combination of British, American, and Canadian historians,” Twist said. “I think I’ve been involved with every film ever made about this war and this is the first one with such a balance of viewpoints and it contains sensitive material that’s never been dealt with in any of the previous films.” Twist points out that much of “The War of 1812” was actually filmed in Canada too. “There is so much folklore about this war,” he adds. “That’s all many people really know about it. In this new film a great effort was made to dispel those myths and return to the historical truth. Both Canadian and American audiences will discover a great deal they didn’t know.”
“The War of 1812” will be broadcast on all PBS stations serving Canadian markets at 9p.m. on Thanksgiving Monday, October 10.
“WETA is pleased to join WNED in bringing this important project to all viewers,” noted Sharon Percy Rockefeller, president and CEO of WETA, the flagship public broadcasting stations in the nation’s capital and a partner in the project. “It is an excellent example of the intellectual integrity and cultural merit for which public broadcasting stands.”
The War of 1812 is a celebrated event by Canadians, forgotten by many Americans and British, and dealt a resounding blow to most of the Native nations involved. The film is in many ways an examination of how the mythical versions of history are formed — how the glories of war become enshrined in memory, how failures are quickly forgotten, and how inconvenient truths are ignored forever, while we often change history to justify and celebrate our national cultures and heritage.
“The War of 1812” explores the events leading up to the conflict, the multifold causes of the war, and the questions that emerged about the way a new democracy should conduct war. It was a surprisingly wide war. Dozens of battles were fought on land in Canada and in the northern, western, southern and eastern parts of the United States — in the present-day states of Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, New York, Maryland, Louisiana, and Alabama. There were crucial naval battles on Lakes Erie and Champlain, and a wide-ranging maritime struggle with many episodes off Virginia, Massachusetts, Nova Scotia, Cuba, Ireland, the Azores, the Canaries, British Guyana, and Brazil. The U.S. proved surprisingly successful against the great British navy, but the War of 1812 also saw American armies surrender en masse and the American capital burned.
Great characters emerge in the film, including Tecumseh of the Shawnee nation, who attempted to form a confederation of Native nations, and died in battle; his adversary, William Henry Harrison, Governor of the Indiana Territory, whose debatable success at Tippecanoe, Indiana eventually helped him become President of the United States; James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution, a brilliant thinker and writer who was not a great President; and such storied Canadian figures as Canadian Governor-GeneralGeorge Prévost, who led the largest army ever to invade the Continental United States; Laura Secord, a Canadian woman who walked many miles to warn the British of an impending American attack; and Major General Isaac Brock, a brave and audacious British general who captured a large American army at Detroit without a fight. The film also recounts dramatic human stories of ordinary citizens, the political alliances of the various Native Americans nations, and the African-American slaves who reached for their freedom by fighting for the British.
“The War of 1812” recollects defining moments that are more familiar: the burning of Washington, D.C., and First Lady Dolley Madison’s rescue of a portrait of George Washington from the White House; Andrew Jackson’s total victory at the Battle of New Orleans; and the birth of the American national anthem, penned by Francis Scott Key during the Battle of Baltimore at Fort McHenry. Yet “The War of 1812” pierces the heroic mythology that has grown up around the war to reveal a brutal, spiteful conflict dominated by fiascos and blunders.
The war shaped North America in the most literal way possible: had one or two battles or decisions gone a different way, a map of the continent today might look entirely different. The U.S. could well have included parts of Canada — but was also on the verge of losing much of the Midwest. The New England states, meanwhile, were poised on the brink of secession just months before a peace treaty was signed. However, the U.S. and Canada ultimately each gained a sense of nationalism from the conflict, while the result tolled the end of Native American dreams of a separate nation.
Interviews with twenty-six leading authorities on the War of 1812 — American, British, Canadian and Native historians — present important accounts and research, including from the following individuals:
· Donald R. Hickey, professor of history at Wayne State College, Wayne, Nebraska. He is the author of Don’t Give Up the Ship!: Myths of the War of 1812 and The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict.
Peter Twist,the Canadian director of Military Heritage, a historical military uniform and arms supply company. He has served as consultant on numerous film and theater projects, and is an expert on the military history of the War of 1812.
Donald Fixico,a Shawnee Native American, is the Distinguished Foundation Professor of History at Arizona State University, and author of Treaties with American Indians: An Encyclopedia of Rights, Conflicts and Sovereignty and Rethinking American Indian History.
Sir Christopher Gerald Prevost, great-great-great-grandson to George Prevost, Governor-in-Chief of British North America during the War of 1812. He is co-author of The Incredible War of 1812: A Military History.
A complete list of those interviewed is available in the project’s electronic press kit.
Actor Joe Mantegna narrates “The War of 1812.”
The film’s companion book, The War of 1812: A Guide to Battlefields and Historic Sites, by John Grant and Ray Jones, is illustrated with more than 120 color photographs and archival paintings. Each chapter focuses on one of several distinct theaters of the war, allowing the reader to follow the course of events and their importance to the war as a whole. Jones is the author of more than 40 books, including several highly successful companion books for PBS, among them Legendary Lighthouses. Grant is the executive producer of “The War of 1812” and chief content officer for WNED Buffalo/Toronto; he has also produced for PBS “Window to the Sea”, “The Marines” and “Chautauqua: An American Narrative.”
The project is also accompanied by a rich bi-national education and outreach component. It includes Educator’s Guides with lesson plans, activities, and a host of educational-based resources designed for the United States and Canada, classroom posters, and several instructional events. Expansive educational resources will also be found on the full companion website to the television documentary at pbs.org. The full site will launch in early September with features such as a battlefield map and guide, web-only video features, scholar essays, and links to key 1812 sites on both sides of the border.
For more information about “The War of 1812,” including details on how to purchase the DVD and companion book, visit http://www.pbs.org/war-of-1812. An electronic press kit, including downloadable photos for promotional use, is available at pressroom.pbs.org.
“The War of 1812” is a production of WNED-TV, Buffalo/Toronto and Florentine Films/Hott Productions Inc., in association with WETA Washington, D.C. The executive producers are John Grant and David Rotterman for WNED, and Dalton Delan and Karen Kenton for WETA. Produced by Lawrence Hott and Diane Garey of Florentine Films/Hott Productions Inc. Directed by Lawrence Hott. Written by Ken Chowder. Narrated by Joe Mantegna. Principal Cinematography by Stephen McCarthy. Production Design by Peter Twist. “The War of 1812” has been made possible by a major grant from The National Endowment for the Humanities: Because democracy demands wisdom. With funding provided by The Wilson Foundation, Warren and Barbara Goldring, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting: a private corporation funded by the American people, The Arthur Vining Davis Foundations: Dedicated to strengthening America’s future through education, Phil Lind and The Annenberg Foundation. With additional support from The Baird Foundation, the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission and Jackman Foundation.
WNED-TV is a leading producer of single-topic documentary programming for national broadcast on PBS including “Chautauqua: An American Narrative,” “Elbert Hubbard: An American Original,” “The Adirondacks,” “Niagara Falls,” “The Marines,” “Window to the Sea,” “Frank Lloyd Wright’s Buffalo” and “America’s Houses of Worship.” Also in development are films on the Underground Railroad and the history of golf course architecture in America. More information on WNED and its programs and services is available at http://www.wned.org.
WETA Washington, D.C., is the third-largest producing station for public television. WETA’s other productions and co-productions include “Washington Week with Gwen Ifill and National Journal,” the arts series “In Performance at the White House” and “The Kennedy Center Mark Twain Prize,” and documentaries by filmmaker Ken Burns, including the premiere this fall of “Prohibition.” More information on WETA and its programs and services is available at http://www.weta.org.
Florentine Films/Hott Productions Inc. is the production company of Lawrence Hott and Diane Garey, who have worked together since 1978. They are part of the Florentine Films group. Hott and Garey have received an Emmy Award, two Academy Award nominations, five American Film Festival Blue Ribbons, fourteen CINE Golden Eagles, a George Foster Peabody Award, the Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Award, the Erik Barnouw Award. Their work has been shown on PBS and screened at dozens of major film festivals, including the New York Film Festival, Telluride, Mountainfilm, and Women in the Director’s Chair. More information is available at http://www.florentinefilms.org.
In the wake of this week’s riots in English cities, some commentators and politicians have linked the youth unrest to the recent budget cuts.
Rioters in Chalk Farm
Two economic historians, Jacopo Ponticelli and Hans-Joachim Voth, have done a detailed study of riots in Europe in the last century.
Voth and Ponticelli found that for most of this period there was a strong link between government austerity and urban unrest in Europe. However, since the late 1980s, this statistical relationship has vanished: in post-industrial societies, there is no longer any measurable link between spending cuts and rioting. The implication is that it was false for people to blame these particular riots on spending cuts.
I’m inclined to think that the recent riots were caused primarily by non-economic factors.
First, the London riots were sparked by the police shooting of a Black man rather than the announcement of a price rise, wage cut, or other economic news.
Second, I can think of other recent riots in developed countries that were clearly non-economic in motivation: Vancouver, which is one of the most prosperous cities in the Western world right now, recently saw a riot after its hockey team lost a game.
An Idiot Attacks a Car, Vancouver Riots, June 2011
Smoke Rises Over Vancouver After Riots, 15 June 2011. Vancouver judged by The Economist to be the most desirable city on earth in which to live.
Third, riots caused by rises in the price of food, which were common in developed a few centuries ago, are now a thing of the past in such countries. There are no longer “bread riots” in Boston or “rice riots” in Japan.
Aftermath of 1918 Riot in Japan Caused by Rising Rice Prices
Recent Food Riot in Uganda. Ok, the guys in this photo have legitimate grievances.
It appears that as society has become more affluent, the causes of riots have shifted from economic grievances to post-materialist ones. Needless to say, some post-materialist grievances (e.g., police racism) are far more legitimate than others (your hockey team loses)! But what the Vancouver and London riots have in common is that they appear to be driven primarily by discontent that isn’t strictly speaking economic.
Read more here, here, and here. Professor Voth has blogged about this paper here.
Hat tip to Olaf Storbeck, who is the London correspondent with Handelsblatt, Germany’s business daily, and a fellow WordPress blogger.
Hans-Joachim Voth is ICREA Research Professor at Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. “He is an economic historian with interests in financial markets, long-run economic growth, as well as political risk and macroeconomic instability.” I don’t know much about Jacopo Ponticelli, but his Twitter account suggests that he is a grad student.
There are plenty of historical documentaries on TV. Many deal with war and diplomacy, while others examine social historical topics, such as If Walls Could Talk, the history of different rooms of the house. To what extent are the audiences of these different types of historical documentary are segregated by gender? In a blog post, prominent British social historian Amanda Vickery takes a hard look at the ratings data.
She writes:
Unsurprisingly, military history delights significantly more men than women, though it is not a male preserve. Among last year’s broadcasts, The Battle of Britain – the Real Story drew an audience of 63 per cent men and 37 per cent women, while 59 per cent of the viewers of The First World War from Above were male. But once you move off tactics to the lived experience of war then women reclaim the territory. More women than men (55 per cent) watched the Kindertransport Story. At the other end of the spectrum, Revealing Anne Lister, Sue Perkins’ exploration of the 19th-century world of a Halifax lesbian, drew a majority female audience (60 per cent). But again it’s worth noting that the remaining 40 per cent didn’t switch off in a huff.
There may be some lessons here for history lecturers. Even though teaching history in a university is fundamentally different than producing a documentary for entertainment, educators do need to keep in mind what sort of subjects are likely to attract the attention of different groups of students, for we are not immune to market forces and the need to appeal to large audiences. A good educator knows that even serious education must include at least some entertainment value if you are to keep a diverse group of young adults interested.
Amanda Vickery is the prize-winning author of The Gentleman’s Daughter (Yale University Press, 1998) and Behind Closed Doors: At Home in Georgian England(Yale University Press, 2009). She is Professor of Early Modern History at Queen Mary, University of London, where she teaches British social, political and cultural history. Readers may be interested in her radio series Voices from the Old Bailey, in which she presents dramatised extracts from gripping Old Bailey court cases from the 18th century and discusses with fellow historians what they reveal about the period.
The Past Speaks 