Recently I attended a roundtable discussion that had been organised by the Greenhouse Center for Environmental Humanities, here at the University of Stavanger. Led by Charlotte Wrigley and with Dolly Jørgensen, co-director of the Greenhouse and current editor for Environmental Humanities, and Stephanie Foote, co-founder of Resilience: A Journal of Radical Environmental Humanities and Regeneration: Environment, Art, Culture, the discussion was centred around the nature and direction of publishing in this field. It was illuminating not just to hear the thoughts of two leading editors but also because I was able to hear the questions and concerns my fellow PhD students and academic colleagues had regarding publishing. Getting to hear a variety of views from scholars in different disciplines relating to the environmental humanities and in different stages of their academic careers allowed me to better place myself within academia and gain insight into what the future might hold for me. In this piece I will convey some of my thoughts, fears, and hopes on attempting to navigate the changing landscape of environmental humanities publishing.
Publishing feels incredibly important as an early career researcher. To cement oneself as an academic at an early stage it seems no longer enough to do your dissertation well. Not only is there a pressure to publish in general but I also feel this looming deadline of needing to publish something before I finish my PhD. Having published work next to your dissertation thus feels crucial for when applying for positions or grants, or when simply trying to network with other scholars in your field. When all the applicants for postdoctoral positions also have PhDs, one needs published work as a way to stand out. The phrase ‘publish or perish’ is thrown around and regardless of whether it holds true, it creates this need to just have something to show for yourself when at the start of your academic career.
These fears and worries over publishing are only exacerbated by the fact that the journal model of academic publishing has its flaws. Funding is becoming harder and harder to obtain for PhD students and articles do not pay. To find the time and energy to write a full article is challenging when one is balancing teaching duties or other work outside their research. Not only does it feel challenging to publish, but it is also extremely daunting. When you publish as an early career researcher those are your first tentative steps into the world of academia. It feels ‘more serious or ‘more real’ rather than just an essay that will get marked. The people you hope to be your peers will read it and with it, you leave a mark on your field. Whilst that is an exciting prospect there are fears that come with it. A PhD is an education, a qualification and most importantly just one stage in the process of being an academic. During the PhD and even after its completion we should not expect ourselves to write field-changing articles. This is not to say it is impossible for an ECR to produce work that revolutionises the field but rather that we should not place this much pressure on the outcome of a PhD. A PhD should be a process of learning where we should experience failure and learn from that rather than just worrying about producing publications for the sake of having them to your name. Anonymous peer review is an invaluable way to learn where your writing can be improved but as I have heard from many academics, it can sometimes be incredibly blunt. Whilst peer review does undoubtedly allow you to see how your work can be improved and is an important part of the publishing process, the knock to one’s confidence when hearing that major revisions are needed or that the article has been rejected outright is a distressing prospect that we have to overcome.
Now that the environmental humanities as a field is established, in many ways it is at risk of becoming oversaturated with scholars producing articles that lack novel arguments because of the pressure to publish. I believe academia as a whole is worse off when scholars are forced to publish for the sake of publishing. Perhaps the issues with the academic publishing industry are part of a wider problem in society relating to the general treatment of academia and funding. In any case, I fear that the quality of publications will degrade in favour of quantity.
A further difficulty for those in the environmental humanities is where our work gets published. Operating in this interdisciplinary sphere is dynamic and exciting as it allows us to connect with scholars from different fields and open our minds to new methods and techniques. However, it brings with it a sense of being stretched or pulled in different directions to ‘fit’ into journals’ themes. As a medieval environmental historian, I feel I must weigh up framing my research as ‘more medieval’ or ‘more environmental history’ in order to appear more appealing to different journals. This is not to mention the fact that many scholars in the environmental humanities will use unconventional methods or sources that struggle to find a home in conventional journals. The interdisciplinary nature of environmental humanities allows us to explore problems and view new angles that would not be possible whilst remaining in one discipline, yet the conventional essay-form journal model feels directly opposed to championing this style of research.
But despite all this apprehension about publishing, I do not think it is all ‘doom and gloom’. My key takeaway from the roundtable discussion was not just that publishing is a difficult area of academia but rather that there are editors who are striving to make a difference and platform the environmental humanities. Whilst the industry as a whole is distressing, there are efforts being made to widen diversity, promote truly novel interdisciplinary approaches, and platform work that challenges the conventional essay form of the humanities. The use of audio and video files are just some ways in which the environmental humanities can present research beyond an essay. My own research focuses on authority and sanitation in late medieval English towns and I’m certainly drawn to some of the ‘healthscaping’ techniques proposed by Guy Geltner and Janna Coomans.[1] The use of digital interactive maps to create a multi-layered presentation of a city’s environment, highlighting the various sewers, cesspits, and sites of frequent waste dumping, as well as change over time, feels invaluable when addressing the spatial aspect of waste and when trying to visualise how a community operated. I do not know what the industry will look like in five years but having editorial boards made up of voices from diverse backgrounds and individuals who are enthusiastic about widening access to unconventional approaches is a sign that there is hope.
The roundtable discussion did open my eyes to the issues involved with publishing but in many ways, it was all unsurprising. It reminded me of what various academics had told me in earnest throughout my undergraduate and master’s degrees which was to not do a PhD. Academia is a challenging world and a struggling industry. Funding for the humanities, competition for positions, and job security are all pressing issues with no clear solutions in sight. There is also the ever-growing concern of Artificial Intelligence and its invasion into academia. As AI becomes more advanced the influence it has on reviewing, editing, and judging our work grows and it is troubling to think of what academic publishing will look like in the future as I try to grow beyond being an early career researcher. The threat of AI and the uncertainty of academia as a whole is a key concern for all scholars, but it especially worries myself as someone who has not yet had the chance to properly begin my academic career. I am aware of these problems, yet I am pursuing this path regardless. I am not naively optimistic about what my career prospects will look like when I complete my PhD, but I am optimistic about the researchers and editors I may one day work with. I understand that academia is continually threatened and constrained, but I also understand that scholars are not simply sitting idly by and instead are striving to make improvements. I am worried for the future; nevertheless, I have a wary optimism and believe the attitudes and aspirations of researchers and editors in this field are in a good place.
[1] Guy Geltner and Janna Coomans, ‘The healthscaping approach: Toward a global history of early public health’, Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History (56, 2023), 18-33.
