Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

University Presses and Emerging Disciplinary Configurations and Orientations: An Exploration and Discussion

  • Published:
Publishing Research Quarterly Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

University presses publish books according to their respective publishing specializations and programming. Disciplinary interests supported by university presses align with their strengths and adaptation to the vicissitudes of the scholarly communication system. This discussion frames changes in humanities and social science disciplines published by university presses via examination of AAUP Directories for 1998, 2003, 2008, 2013, 2017 to ascertain and clarify disciplinary alignments and changes in emphases over time. Special attention is focused on discussion of disciplinary emphases, including evolution of nomenclature and changes for multidisciplinary and area studies. Over the past 20 years, university presses have published scholarship reflecting the changes of disciplinary orientation captured in subject interests and emphases, evolving with disciplinary changes occurring in academia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For an insightful discussion of tribalism as a useful metaphor, see [1].

  2. See [2, 3].

  3. See [4]; for a fascinating discussion of academic and disciplines, consult [5].

  4. An interesting observation concerning disciplines is proffered: “For what the foregoing evidence suggests is that the modern disciplinary categories of knowledge are ostensibly integral entities that conceal a heterogeneous historicity. Our familiar disciplines have secret histories, their apparently monolithic integrity sometimes obscuring a radically disparate and interdisciplinary core. Indeed, within the history of a discipline may lurk precisely the interdisciplinary trajectory that modern studies seek by laboriously engineering its conjunction with another discipline. To acknowledge this is to endorse a modicum of scholarly humility.” in [6].

  5. For a sound presentation of how disciplines have evolved under institutional changes, see [7].

  6. For discussions and entrees into interdisciplinarity, consult: [8].

  7. For continued reading, see [9, 10].

  8. For an incisive study of professional culture and vetting of knowledge, see [11].

  9. See [12].

  10. See [13].

  11. Here are a number of well-conceived observational histories and accounts of university presses [14,15,16].

  12. See [17].

  13. This methodological debate has animated a number of emerging fields [18]; for a more recent discussion see [19].

  14. See [20].

  15. An analogous phenomenon is the birth of an emerging field centred on the history of the humanities beyond the traditional construction of disciplines. “We welcome articles on topics from all regions and all periods, both before and after the formation of university disciplines and including recently established fields such as media studies and digital humanities, as well as discontinued such as aniquarianism” [21]. University presses may consider this emerging field as a fruitful publishing endeavour.

  16. Art history and art publishing has become more open to other disciplinary perspectives, originating with other humanities and social science disciplines [22, 23].

  17. For a very interesting counterpoint to interdisciplinarity, see this compelling argument for traditional disciplines [24].

  18. Regarding academic history, see the still pertinent publishing study conducted in [25]. It should be noted that Townsend did not examine categories of interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary history.

  19. More specific to publishing dissertations, this trend is ubiquitous, especially vis-à-vis multidisciplinary scholarship [26].

References

  1. Becher T, Trowler PR. Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bourdieu P. Homo Academicus, trans. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bourdieu P. Pascalian Meditations, trans. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Veysey L. The plural, organized world of the humanities. In: Oleson A, Voss J, editors. The organization of knowledge in modern America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1979. p. 1860–920.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Clark W. Academic charisma and the origins of the research university. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  6. McKeon M. The origins of interdisciplinary studies. Eighteenth-Century Stud. 1994;28(Autumn):17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bender T, Schorske CE. American academic culture in transformation: fifty years, four disciplines. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Frodeman R, editor. The oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bennett WC. Area studies in American universities. New York: Social Science Research Council; 1951.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Waters NL. Beyond the area studies wars: toward a new international studies. Hanover: Middlebury College Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lamont M. How professors think: inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Hérubel JPVM. Musings on disciplinary morphology and nomenclature in the humanities and social sciences: implications for book selection. J Sch Publ. 2007;39:318–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hérubel JPVM. Disciplinary morphologies, interdisciplinarities: conceptualizations and implications for academic libraries. In: Mack DC, Gibson C, editors. Interdisciplinarity and academic libraries: ACRL publications in librarianship No. 66. Chicago: ACRL; 2012. p. 17–53.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jagodzinski CM. The university press in North America: a brief history. J Sch. 2008;40:1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Meisel JS. American university presses, 1929–1979: adaptation and evolution. Book Hist. 2010;13:122–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Haney-Jones BG. The restructuring of scholarly publishing in the United States, 1980–2001: a resource-based analysis of university presses. New York: Edwin Mellen Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hérubel JPVM. Disciplinary affiliations and subject dispersion in medieval studies: a bibliometric exploration. Behav Soc Sci Librarian. 2005;23:67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shapin S. Discipline and bounding: the history and sociology of science as seen through the externalism-internalism debate. Hist Sci. 1992;30:333–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kelley DR. Intellectual history and cultural history: the inside and the outside. Hist Hum Sci. 2002;15:1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Shryock RH, Daugherty DH, Gabriel RH, Jones HM, McDowell T, Schneider HW, Vance RB, Young D. American studies: a statement by the committee on American civilization of the American council of learned societies. Am Q. 1950;2(Autumn):286–8.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bod R, Kursell J, Maat J, Weststeijn T. A new field: history of humanities. Hist Hum. 2016;1(Spring):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pisciotta H, Frost J. Trends in art publishing from University Presses, 1991–2007. Art Doc J Art Libr Soc N Am. 2013;32:2–19.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hérubel JPVM. Professionalization, university presses, specializations, and the ecology of art historical scholarship, 1970–2009. J Sch Publ. 2014;45:289–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jacobs JA. In defense of disciplines interdisciplinarity and specialization in the research university. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Townsend RB. History and the future of scholarly publishing, field does better than most in getting books published, but problems loom. Perspectives. 2003;41:32–7.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Goedeken E, Hérubel JP. Two sides of the same coin? Trade and University Press publishing of revised dissertations, 2007–2016: some observations. Publ Res Q. 2018;34:170–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Purdue University Libraries-HSSE Library, Purdue University, 504 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907-2058, USA

    Jean-Pierre V. M. Hérubel

  2. Iowa State University Library, Iowa State University, 701 Morrill Road, Ames, IA, 50011-2102, USA

    Edward A. Goedeken

Authors
  1. Jean-Pierre V. M. Hérubel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edward A. Goedeken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Pierre V. M. Hérubel.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hérubel, JP.V.M., Goedeken, E.A. University Presses and Emerging Disciplinary Configurations and Orientations: An Exploration and Discussion. Pub Res Q 35, 39–51 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-018-09624-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-018-09624-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation