History as a discipline is particularly bad in this way, I think. We suffer not only from the fetishism of “the monograph”, but even of the exact stage of the publishing process at which it currently stands. Even worse, the de facto delivery of our own judgment (not only by departments, n.b., but also by higher-ups) to ‘two readers’, an editor, and a board as interested in circulation estimates as intellectual quality (and who can blame them, even at university presses: they have to survive economically, but why, then rely on them almost exclusively for an intellectual judgement) is simply an abdication of turf, morally as well as practically. And the presses themselves vary wildly: I have dealt with colleagues who waited two years or more for a review from a “prestigious” press — not a yes, not a no, usually some encouragement but no promises — as well (in fairness) with others whose presses and editors were really were willing to go out of their way to responsibly carry out the duties that had been imposed on them by our weird system.

Under this more-than-slightly perverse regime of intellectual authority, the AHA’s policy statement may not be more than a small worsening — but it doesn’t appear, really, to contribute much positively either to moving us forward. But then, who would expect historians to be forward-looking, after all?

Ok, I’ll defer to this inasmuch as my experience w/ the database has been occasional use at one institution. (The company may well have a tiered system of institutional subscriptions, w/ the most expensive one giving full-text access (or more full-text access) than less expensive options. I’m just speculating.)

It’s possible, though I note the Gutenberg e-book program, which is a long standing attempt to figure out digital publishing. But I’m also struck by how much of the situation comes out of the reaction. The AHA posts policies about digital scholarship in tenure decisions and there’s nary a peep on Twitter (at least that I recall); the AHA posts on embargoing a dissertation and Twitter reacted like it was the zombie apocalypse.

In my experience, the ProQuest database has changed over time. When I was an undergrad in the late 90s, it was pretty much just abstracts. In grad school in the early 2000s, it was abstracts and previews plus full text of recent dissertations at my institution. When I went back to grad school again a few years ago, the subscription gave full text for many dissertations, but also previews and abstracts. I think it depends on the institution and even on the dissertation author’s choice. But you certainly can get full text of many dissertations if your library subscribes.

ArtsLib,

I hope you’re right, but I’ve seen conflicting information on this. I don’t doubt what you say about libraries buying books written by faculty at their own institutions, but I’ve seen multiple librarians say that some libraries exclude the category of “revised dissertations” from their approval plans. Approval plans are not the only way libraries buy books, of course, but if that is indeed happening, I can see how people could interpret it as a sign that libraries are less inclined to purchase books that are revised dissertations. I would really like to see someone who is familiar with acquisitions weigh in on this because I also see people asserting that it is not happening.

Yeah, you’re probably right. I do think, however, that as long as it’s framed as putting more control by the dissertation writer over how and when their work becomes public, embargoing can be a good thing. Within limits, of course: after a certain point, any dissertation ought to be as public as possible, and I’d be willing to say that 6 years might be too long.

I recently finished my dissertation (in history), and I had the opportunity to embargo it. I didn’t do it for a variety of reasons (I don’t plan on publishing a monograph, the process was too confusing for me, I think there is an additional fee, and frankly, my only hope for anyone reading it is for it to be online as soon as possible), but I appreciated the opportunity.

By the way, I’ve been reading your archived posts at this blog for several months and I”m a big fan. I look forward to reading more.

Pierre: you’re right on the wording of the policy but I don’t think it’s wrong to think that the AHA is essentially offering soft advocacy of the practice of embargoing.