The University of Göttingen is currently inviting applications for a Professorship in the Cultures and Materiality of Knowledge (W2 tenure-track).
The position is initially available for a five year period and may be extended into a permanent professorship following a positive evaluation.
We are looking for a professor with expertise in the research and teaching of knowledge cultures, with particular emphasis on the materiality of knowledge, as exemplified by the Göttingen academic collections. The successful candidate will manage the recently established research centre, which will serve as a focal point for future projects in knowledge research in close cooperation with respective departments, groups and colleagues at the University of Göttingen.
The candidate is further expected to take a leading role in the development and setting up of the doctoral programme ‘Material Cultures of Knowledge’, which includes teaching duties of 4 semester hours a week, predominantly in the above mentioned doctoral programme. In addition, the professor will work in close association with the Göttingen Institute of Advanced Study, the Lichtenberg Kolleg and join collaborative efforts to establish a museum dedicated to the representation of knowledge cultures and the world of scholarship, drawing on the University’s rich academic collections.
Focal points in research and teaching should be demonstrated in the following areas:
- - the history of the sciences and humanities (18th-21th century)
- - the theory and history of material and knowledge cultures
In addition, experience in the following areas is advantageous:
- - theories and cultural practices of academic collections
- - exhibitions and outreach activities.Applicants must have an outstanding Ph.D. in a related discipline and demonstrate other scholarly achievements, such as those acquired within the framework of a junior professorship or habilitation. In addition, applicants should demonstrate teaching experience in related fields, such as the history of science, study of material culture, art history, literature, anthropology, cultural studies, etc.
Further information about the position is available at the following website: www.uni- goettingen.de/de/451110.html
Additional prerequisites in appointing limited term professorships are regulated by Section 25 of the Lower Saxony Higher Education Act (NHG). As a Public Law Foundation, the University of Göttingen holds the right of appointment. Further information is available upon request.
We explicitly welcome applications from abroad. As an equal opportunity employer, the University of Göttingen places particular emphasis on fostering career opportunities for female scholars and therefore strongly encourages qualified women to apply. Under certain circumstances, part-time employment is possible. Candidates with disabilities who are equally qualified for the position will receive special consideration.
Please submit your application including a curriculum vitae, a detailed representation of training, academic history, previous employment, teaching experience, and a list of publications within six weeks after publication of this advertisement. Applications should be addressed to:
Präsidentin der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen Prof. Dr. Ulrike Beisiegel
Via Heloise Finch-Boyer, National Maritime Museum
Following the award of an AHRC collaborative doctoral studentship to Dr. Simon Werrett (UCL) and Dr Heloise Finch‐Boyer (National Maritime Museum) for “Making the Oceans Visible: Science and Technology on the Challenger Expedition (1872- 1876)” a 3-‐year fully funded AHRC studentship at UCL is available.
The successful candidate will be expected to carry out research for a doctorate in the Department of Science and Technology Studies, supervised by Dr Simon Werrett (STS) and Dr Heloise Finch-‐Boyer (NMM). The student will undertake research at the National Maritime Museum and other London museums and archives. Candidates should be able to demonstrate an interest in the study of British maritime history and the history of science. They are normally expected to have a good Master’s degree in History, History of Science, Museum Studies, or a related discipline. A summary of the project is below.
Candidates should apply through the normal application procedure for the PhD degree at UCL, via an online application system:
Candidates should make clear in their personal statement that they are applying for the “Challenger studentship”. Candidates should explain in the statement their experience and/or qualifications for undertaking this project and they should describe how they will approach the topic to be researched. Candidates should also provide a sample of their work (an essay or Masters thesis chapter, for example) no longer than 3000 words.
Applicants are bound by AHRC eligibility criteria: only EU citizens can be given awards and for a full award UK residency is required. EU students will receive a fees only award, and UK resident students will receive fees and a stipend. Please see the AHRC<http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/Funding-Opportunities/Documents/Guide%20to%20Student%20Eligibility.pdf> pages for detailed guidance on this.
The deadline for applications will be 15 March 2014 and candidates should be ready to be called for interview for the studentship in the last week of March in London. It is expected that the successful candidate will take up the position in October 2014. Further enquiries about the position may be directed to email@example.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> or email@example.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
Making the Oceans Visible: Science and Technology on the Challenger Expedition (1872‐1876)
This project is a new partnership between the National Maritime Museum and University College London, offering an innovative research project combining the History of Science, British maritime history and museum studies.
Before the nineteenth century, the ocean depths remained a mystery to Europeans. Even the Navy’s worldwide coastal surveys only emphasized how little people knew. From 1872 to 1876 the H.M.S. Challenger expedition, sponsored by London’s Royal Society and the Admiralty, set out to explore deep oceans. As the first expedition sent out with the primary aim of gathering scientific information, Challenger is now seen as the foundational voyage for the entire discipline of oceanography. Yet despite its importance, historians tend to study only small aspects of Challenger, and popular accounts tend to see the voyage as a “new dawn” of science. This PhD project examines the legacy of earlier exploration voyages for Challenger and considers its significance for histories of science, anthropology and museum studies.
Although scientists on board pioneered new deep‐water collecting techniques, the expedition actually drew on a far longer tradition of maritime science and exploration that began with Captain Cook. The Challenger story is now told in museums and aquariums around the world as story about environmental protection and saving our “blue planet”. In fact, at the end of the 19th century audiences were more interested in Challenger’s results which suggested the potential of commercial fisheries beyond Europe’s seas, and the exotic ethnographic materials brought back from remote Pacific islands.
Scholars have long sought to understand scientific expeditions at sea. Historians of European exploration have described life on board and encounters with other peoples in great detail. Yet the centrality of Cook tends to anchor histories of exploration in the 1770-‐1840 period, whereas this project analyses its legacy in important later Victorian voyages such as Challenger. Many historians have focused attention on ship technology or the precision instruments used in Challenger, isolating its science and engineering aspects. This project links the science to the cultural, political and social dimensions of Challenger’s role in exploration history. Museum studies scholars are researching how exhibitions can change our assumptions about the history of exploration and geography. Studying how Challenger was exhibited from the 1880s and the stories told about oceanography adds to this research. It also contributes to discussions about how exhibitions using historic objects can present scientific debates.
Given Challenger’s significance, the central focus of the project will be an analysis of the influences on the voyage and its legacy. How did Challenger make the ocean knowable through experiments, practical skills and expertise? How were the results of the expedition made visible to different audiences in the past and today? The project will explore three issues:
- Challenger used novel techniques: bottom trawls, depth soundings, temperature measurements and specimen collections. The project will assess the ship, navigation and crew modifications deployed to make this possible. What new instruments, techniques and practices enabled Challenger, its scientists, officers and crew, to make the ocean knowable?
- The project will situate the history of the instruments and techniques used by Challenger in a longer tradition. While the voyage pioneered the use of photography, for example, the traditional method of painting and drawing specimens was also used. How did practices on Challenger differ from those used in previous voyages of exploration?
- Knowing the oceans did not, of course, finish with the end of Challenger’s voyage, but continued after. Objects and materials collected on the expedition were taken on land, distributed, researched, exhibited and discussed in laboratories, lecture halls, and museums across the country. The project will ask: how was knowledge of the oceans made visible after the Challenger expedition concluded?
The student will consider the entire history of Challenger’s voyage. There will also be considerable leeway to focus on one or more of the following research themes:
• History of Science and Technology: For the first time on Challenger the Captain shared his cabin with the chief scientist. This shows how closely sailing and science were linked on the expedition. The student could focus attention on the wide range of old and new instruments, ship modifications and new navigational practices that proved to be the foundation of oceanography.
• History of Anthropology: Challenger pioneered the use of photography, which provided graphic images of communities encountered on the voyage. The crew collected ethnographic objects from them, including human remains. The student could examine how previous exploration influenced the way that Challenger studied non-European cultures, and how the expedition informed later cultural evolution theories.
• History of Museum Studies and Material Culture: The student could focus on what happened to the expedition’s oceanographic materials, instruments, specimens and objects after the voyage. It is possible to demonstrate how artefacts circulated around museums, universities, laboratories and exhibitions in the decades after Challenger. The student could show which objects were used to communicate knowledge long after the expedition had concluded.
The student will begin researching the archival and object collections at the National Maritime Museum that are linked to the Challenger voyage. NMM has an official Challenger photograph album with ethnographic and technical images (some of the first photographs to be made on a voyage of exploration), memoirs, correspondence, logbooks and scientific data from Commission Captain Nares, Commander Maclear, Paymaster Hynes, Navigating Lieutenant and Abraham Smith. NMM holds Challenger oceanographic samples, instruments, medals, lithographs, ships plans, charts and models. As part of the doctoral research, the student will improve catalogue records of these items. The student will also be able to draw on a wealth of manuscripts, artworks and objects related to previous eighteenth-‐ and nineteenth-‐century British voyages of exploration.
After refining the research question, the student will link this material to objects and archives in other institutions. British institutions that have relevant holdings include the UK Hydrographic Office, the Natural History Museum, the British Museum, the Science Museum, the Royal Society, Edinburgh University and the University of Southampton. The Scripps Institute of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego and the Oceanographic Museum of Monaco also have relevant objects
and archives related to Challenger.
To enhance research on how the historical objects derived from the Challenger expedition made the oceans visible, the student will engage with museum curators, restoration experts, learning professionals and design experts at the UCL Institute of Making. The student will study and experiment with ways of recreating historical evidence from Challenger (for example coral or sediment samples, water collecting bottles, dredgers or ethnographic objects) using 3D printing, reproductions, or digital software. These will provide resources for asking new research questions and for communicating the research, and will be trialled in learning programmes at the Rethink space and future Exploration Gallery at RMG.
Reblogged from the blog of the Institute for Money, Technology and Financial Inclusion
Through 2013, the Institute for Money, Technology and Financial Inclusion has funded over 125 researchers in 38 countries. Every year they come together at the University of California, Irvine to share their research questions and conclusions. They also bring with them more tangible lessons: an incredibly diverse assortment of artifacts that also help to tell the still-unfolding story of mobile money.
We did not anticipate becoming a museum. But one of the important side-effects of our large and still-growing research network has been the accumulation of stuff: state and local currencies in multiple denominations, promotional material from mobile money deployments, and artifacts of everyday monetary practice, from cell phone sleeves to piggy banks. We have been fortunate to receive many of these as gifts from our researchers, and early on we realized the treasures that had begun to gather in our offices. We began a partnership with the British Museum to receive many of these artifacts for its own collection of modern money paraphernalia, and as we have documented before, many of these objects can now be seen in the Citi Modern Money Gallery.
In 2013, inspired by this incipient collection, IMTFI research assistants formed a new partnership with the Intel Science and Technology Center for Social Computing (also at UC Irvine), as well as a range of other institutions (from the Fitzwilliam Museum at the University of Cambridge to the Khipu Database Project at Harvard University), to launch a new website and online collaborative collection. Called TRANSACTIONS: A Payments Archive, this collection brings together artifacts from partner collections and written commentaries from independent contributors to spark a conversation about the material cultures and histories of payment and debt.
You can read more about the TRANSACTIONS archive in Anthropology News:
How might attention to such objects, their contexts and uses illuminate the longue durée history of forms of payment and transactional record-keeping and reframe understandings of the materiality of debt and money? And how might we reassemble a material history of money, debt, payments, and transactional records across their often-disconnected institutional contexts? […] Transactions is our attempt to constitute a collaborative framework to address these questions.TRANSACTIONS needs your help!
We invite public participation in this collaborative endeavor in two ways:
1) Submit images of transactions artifacts of your own (or those you have come across in research) to our Collaborative Archive, along with a short explanation detailing their who, what, when, and where. Visit our site and click the “Contribute” button to learn more.
2) We welcome commentaries of 500-1500 words that offer more in-depth reflections on transactions artifacts, either those we have selected from our partner collections or those you have found in your own research. We have already hosting commentaries and other reflections from scholars such as Jane Guyer, Joe Deville, Alexandre Roig and Waldemar Cubilla, Lana Swartz, and Carlyn James.
Feel free to contact us at email@example.com.
June 23 – July 18, 2014 in Washington, DC
Application deadline: March 1, 2014
We are now accepting proposals from prospective graduate student participants in the 2014 Summer Institute in Museum Anthropology (SIMA). SIMA is a graduate student summer training program in museum research methods offered through the Department of Anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History with major funding from the Cultural Anthropology Program of the National Science Foundation.
During four weeks of intensive training in seminars and hands-on workshops at the museum and an off-site collections facility, students are introduced to the scope of collections and their potential as data. Students become acquainted with strategies for navigating museum systems, learn to select methods to examine and analyze museum specimens, and consider a range of theoretical issues that collections-based research may address. In consultation with faculty, each student carries out preliminary data collection on a topic of their own choice and develops a prospectus for research to be implemented upon return to their home university. Visiting faculty members for 2014 will be Dr. Jason Baird Jackson (Indiana Univ.), Dr. Jennifer Kramer (Univ. of British Columbia), and Dr. Marit Munson (Trent Univ.). Local faculty will include Dr. Joshua A. Bell and Dr. Candace Greene of the Smithsonian Anthropology Department. The program covers students’ tuition and shared housing in local furnished apartments. A small stipend will be provided to assist with the cost of food and other local expenses. Participants are individually responsible for the cost of travel to and from Washington, D.C.
Who should apply?
Graduate students preparing for research careers in cultural anthropology who are interested in using museum collections as a data source. The program is not designed to serve students seeking careers in museum management. Students at both the masters and doctoral level will be considered for acceptance. Students in related interdisciplinary programs (Indigenous Studies, Folklore, etc.) are welcome to apply if the proposed project is anthropological in nature. All U.S. students are eligible for acceptance, even if studying abroad. International students can be considered only if they are enrolled in a university in the U.S. Canadian First Nation members are eligible under treaty agreements.
The most recent issue of the open-source journal Museum Anthropology Review is focussed on digital media and the return of cultural knowledge and patrimony from museums to source communities, with an emphasis on current collaborative projects (including some by your friendly neighborhood Material World editors and contributors). Check it out!
Museum Anthropology Review Vol 7, No 1-2 (2013): After the Return: Digital Repatriation and the Circulation of Indigenous Knowledge.
University Lecturer in Social Anthropology
Anthropology of the Visual, Digital, and/or Media
Applications are invited for a University Lectureship in Social Anthropology, to start on 01 September 2014, or as soon as possible thereafter. The appointment made will be permanent, subject to a probationary period of five years.
Candidates will be expected to have a PhD and a proven record of scholarship and research in the area of Social Anthropology, including a strong publication record. Ability to teach in the field of the anthropology of the visual, digital, and/or media is essential. In addition to undergraduate and graduate teaching and supervision, the successful candidate will undertake the management of research projects.
The pensionable scale of stipends for a University Lecturer is currently £37,382 per year, rising by eight annual increments to £47,314 per year (points 49-57 within the Grade 9 salary range). The appointee will be placed at an appropriate point on this scale depending on qualifications and experience.
Read more about the vacancy, including how to apply on the University Job Opportunities website here:www.jobs.cam.ac.uk/job/2637/
A four-day workshop for graduate students and junior professionals
Sponsored by the Otsego Institute for Native American Art History, in cooperation with the Fenimore Art Museum, Cooperstown, New York
May 18-23, 2014
The 2014 Otsego Institute for Native North American Art History will focus on two interrelated issues of fundamental importance to advanced students in this field: the connoisseurship of materials and the theorization of materiality. Through workshops and close hands-on examination of objects in the Thaw Collection of American Indian Art, as well as lectures, readings, and group discussions, we will develop skills in identifying the materials, styles, and techniques of preparation used by Native North American artists in the production of both historic and current art. At the same time, we will explore Indigenous and Western intellectual engagements with material phenomena: the nature and culture of materiality, how it embodies the spiritual, and how different materialities – human, animal, environmental— act on each other in artistic contexts.
The workshops will include presentations, discussions and hands-on examination of original works of art. There will be time for participants to present informally their own current and prospective dissertations and curatorial projects to co-participants and faculty.
Application deadline: February 15, 2014
For more info, download the application here: Call_for_applicants_2014
Haidy Geismar, UCL Anthropology
As the incoming co-editor of the Journal of Material Culture, as well as one of the editors here at Material World Blog, I have been involved in many conversations regarding the politics, economics, and materiality of Open Access.
It is clear that there is great concern about open access in many arena from policy (see for instance, the UK’s Finch Report ”Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications”), within academia (see the discussion on Open Access in the new online only journal, Hau and this interview with Tim Ingold) and in the world of cyber-(h)activism (a good summary of the Aaron Schwartz case is actually presented on JSTOR’s website).
It’s hard to find a place in which all the issues in fact coalesce: some people are concerned about democratizing accessibility to research (particularly across national borders, and to people without the support of privileged universities). Others are concerned about who should pay for, and who should profit, from academic publications. Yet others are interested in the implications of Gold open access (where authors pay or fundraise for their invidivual articles to be made publicly available) or Green (where final versions of peer-reviewed articles are placed within institutional repositories) on the form of journals as the need for issues is replaced by an emphasis on individual articles. Many of us are wondering about the implications current policy requirements have for open access on the fate of academic monographs and are also following with interest the move in the sciences towards “open data” (which naturalizes many assumptions about data versus research, and raises problems for past informed consent and research ethical clearances). Finally, lies the overarching question of value: how is research valuable and for whom, who should profit and how. For instance, I was intrigued to have the value of peer review laid out as “in kind donations” by a representative of Taylor and Francis.
Below, is an editorial upcoming in the Journal of Material Culture, laying out our current concerns and thinking about Open Access. The journal is undertaking a survey of readers. If you are a reader of the JMC please take some time to fill it out. If you aren’t a reader, you can still take the survey, skipping the couple of questions specific to the journal. The link is here.
On Open Access and journal futures
All academics are, by now, aware of the on-going discussions and key policy directives concerning “open access”. Philosophically, open access publishing has the potential to circulate scholarship more broadly and democratically, to more diverse audiences, allowing for potentially greater impact of, and engagement with, research. Logistically, thinking about how to achieve open access also provokes us to rethink how we evaluate the labour that goes into academic publishing, who should be entitled to profit from academic research, and who research is really for. Pragmatically, many important questions are currently being raised about the allocation of resources for the dissemination of academic researchers and the sustainability of academic publishing.
In the United Kingdom, where the editorial board of the journal of Material culture is based, the National Research Councils, the primary organs of British academic funding, have stipulated that in future their audits will only accept Open Access publications, which will make research funded by taxpayer money available to all readers without subscription. The UK Government commissioned a working group, chaired by the sociologist Dame Janet Finch, to evaluate the best methods to achieve Open Access. Their report, “Accessibility, Sustainability, Excellence: how to expand access to research publications” (2012) identifies two principle routes to open access. The Gold route involves direct payments by the author (or their research grant or university) to the publishers to cover the costs of publication and distribution. The Green route, which is supported by most publishers, permits authors to make available the final accepted, but unbranded or copyedited, version of the article through their institutional repository, usually after a specified period of embargo. Details such as fees or periods of embargo vary considerably from press to press.
Members of the Journal of Material Culture’s editorial board have been discussing these issues for some time. One of our founding editors was recently part of a broader debate in the new online journal Hau (www.haujournal.org). In his piece, Daniel Miller (2012) argued that anthropologists in particular have an obligation to ensure that the people they work with should have access to research and that we have a moral responsibility to make our work as accessible as possible. Since then, we have been considering the different models available and discussing with great seriousness the future of the journal, entering into conversation with Sage, our publisher, and with UCL’s Library and Repository services. Our discussions have highlighted that the issues are in fact more complex than those presented in the Finch report. The wider contexts include the ethics of accessibility,; the shift from print to digital publishing (with potential for additional visual and other materials); and the shift from print to online consumption. It also raises hard questions about how “profits” are defined and who should benefit from research outputs.
The problem with Gold
The Finch report is generally concerned with the UK situation, and is responding to concerns by both national publishers and funding bodies. Since 2007, the share of submissions to the JMC from within the UK has fallen nearly year on year, and now stands at roughly 20%. We currently receive about as many submissions from North America and Continental Europe. The Finch report also does not concern itself with unfunded research. In this journal, funded research comprises about one third of published articles in the past 5 years and its share shows a falling trend, accounting for only 10% in 2012 and 5% in 2013: and just 20-30% of submissions between 2011 and 2013. Whilst the Gold route makes open access the decision of individual authors, from the perspective of the journal we cannot think of open access solely in the narrow and exclusive terms of work produced by UK funded researchers.
In turn, publishing houses are notoriously opaque in quantifying the price of journal publication, especially article by article. If the burden of financial support is being passed onto individual authors, do they not have a right to know how the money is spent, what percentage is profit for the shareholders of the company, and what is not included in the business model? Editors and reviewers are perhaps the most essential part of a journal’s “value”, yet their work is considered to be a “time/expertise donated4free” (@Taylor&Francis Open 2013). In fact, commercial publishers are also concerned about the Gold model, which shifts the burden of paying for future articles onto authors but still maintains a subscription model for back issues and articles not paid for by authors to be open access, a phenomenon that has come to be called “double dipping”.
For all of these reasons, as academic editors we do not favor the principles of the Gold model. We do not think that shifting the decision to go open access onto individual authors is good for the integrity of journals as a whole and we challenge the economic rationale behind the pricing of the Gold route.
The problem with Green
Whilst making an important leap towards accessibility, the Green model also raises significant problems from the standpoint of both journals and authors. Like the Gold route, the Green route transforms journals from curated intellectual conversations into a more ad-hoc presentation of individual research. Green open access requires the additional support of an institutional repository and an institutional investment into a digital infrastructure that will by no means be consistent from institution to institution, or from country to country. It also potentially compromises our scholarly integrity: putting the accepted but not final version online means that there is the potential for multiple versions of articles to circulate with multiple forms of citation, different paginations and so forth. Fundamentally, the Green route places the burden of archiving and maintenance onto the individual repository and also undermines the intellectual support and framing that a journal itself is supposed to provide. We are exploring the possibilities of creating a parallel Green archive for the JMC, but we also wonder how the Green route will ultimately effect the future of journal publication. Both Green and Gold dismantle the structure of journals in favour of the dissemination of individual articles and it is important to evaluate the impact of this on the editorial policies and intellectual framing of journals.
What do we mean by “Free”?
Both Gold and Green routes demonstrate that open access may ensure an opening up of readers, but that there are still significant costs. The recent success of the new online only, open access anthropology publication Hau, demonstrates that open access journals can work well, but also demonstrates that they depend upon significant financial support from Higher Education (or equivalent) Institutions as well as a significant amount of freely donated labour. In the longer term is this a model that can be applied to the entire realm of academic publishing? This journal certainly requires a robust institutional framework that ensures the income and the labour required for its production. It is important to carefully assess what kinds of support journals need to be successful, ethical, and sustainable.
Alongside the supportive environments of some universities and learned societies, organizations such as JSTOR have been established to consolidate and archive scholarly material, made available by subscription, but on a non-profit basis. Whilst it is not without its detractors, as the Aaron Schwartz case made clear, JSTOR makes its content available for free or at low cost to high schools and to other institutions in more then 69 countries. The cost of its subscription has not gone up since 1997 (source: about.jstor.org/10things). In turn, it does not claim copyright on any of the material it archives which means that that material may freely (or at cost) circulate elsewhere as well. Perhaps the non-profit model of economic costing and institutional infrastructure instantiated by JSTOR, and some University Presses, alongside the critical regime of the creative commons license, will create a publishing ecology that is both ethical and liberal, allowing authors to make strategic choices within a strong framework of accountability.
We also wonder if the possibilities of electronic publishing have been realized within academic journals as they transition to online. At present online journals generally maintain the form (largely text based), the structure (set numbers of issues per year, set word limits for articles) and the coherence (themed issues, centralized editorial staff) of print publications. Yet we now have the capacity to present other kinds of data hyperlinked and internally cross-referenced. We can present articles simultaneously in multiple languages, amongst many other possibilities. What are the implications of electronic media for the form of the journal essay – a tightly written textual argument, limited to a set number of words or pages? These developments are attractive, especially for a journal such as ours, but may require further costs and skill-sets that cannot be taken for granted amongst most academics involved in editing journals.
The climate of open access has therefore provided an opportunity to rethink the intellectual framework, as well as the economy, of scholarly publications. Accessibility means more than electronic circulation – it requires us to think about the politics of language, of inclusion at every level, to understand our current and possible constituencies, and how we may best engage with them. The current shift of publishing practice must make us reflect on the intellectual frameworks and aspirations of academic journals, as well as on their place in the world. Conceptualizing open access as the reduction of each article to a single payment makes what should be a collective and on-going conversation and responsibility into a one-time individual decision.
We are currently debating all of these issues at the JMC so that we can make a considered decision about the future of the journal, in terms of its form, content and its model of distribution. Before any decisions are made, we would very much like to solicit the views of our readers. So please take some time to answer the short survey below by following its link. Our readership is the most important part of our community and we would like to hear from you.
Survey Link: www.surveymonkey.com/s/WK73QPM
Haidy Geismar and Susanne Kuchler, Editors, Journal of Material Culture
(with thanks to Daniel Miller, UCL Anthropology and Martin Moyle, UCL Libraries)
Miller, Daniel 2012 Open Access, Scholarship and Digital Anthropology, Hau 2 385-411
@Taylor&FrancisOpen, Twitter exchange with @haidygeismar July 3, 2013.
Our editor at Sage, very kindly provided us with a series of links about OA publishing from their perspective, focused around a conference they convened in association with the Academy for Social Sciences and the British Academy.