Comments on: Japan as the Occupier and the Occupied

By: Christine de Matos

Christine de Matos — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:04:31 +0000

In reply to Mark Dunn. Thanks Mark. Yes, you are right. I always try to have at least one early career researcher in my collections - and this one is no exception.

By: Christine de Matos

Christine de Matos — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 06:16:56 +0000

In reply to Pauline Curby. Thanks Pauline!

By: Christine de Matos

Christine de Matos — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 06:16:28 +0000

In reply to Yvonne Perkins.

Great comments Yvonne. I think that quite a number of edited books would be too specialised or too theoretical for many readers outside of the area. I also think there needs to be a more general discussion of the meaning of impact in academic circles – do we just want to talk to each other, or do we want to engage with the general public? I definitely think there needs to be more of the latter. But until it is recognised as ‘legitimate’ scholarship, it is unlikely to happen.

My Dad read this edited book – and *said* he enjoyed it. But I guess he has to, doesn’t he!?

By: Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 01:57:11 +0000

Christine, congratulations and thank you for taking on the often thankless task of putting together an edited collection. These collections are not only valuable additions to historical discourse on a range of subjects and themes but are often a great way for young historians and early career researchers to get their work published for the first time. This goes for young academics and researchers as well as for professional and public historians.
Good work and keep it up.

By: Yvonne Perkins

Yvonne Perkins — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 07:58:48 +0000

This is a thought provoking post Christine. You have opened my eyes by explaining the value to historians involved in producing the edited book, both in terms of advancing the knowledge in a particular area, but also encouraging collegiality among researchers. The latter is valuable but difficult to measure but it sounds like the production of an edited book would be a good measure for that.

As a reviewer of histories for people interested in history, but who are not necessarily historians, I have avoided reviewing edited collections. This is because I have assumed that this form is generally one for a scholarly audience. Do you think that this is an erroneous assumption on my part? Do you think that some of these type of books could become cross-over publications and develop deeper public discourse on certain topics?

By: Pauline Curby

Pauline Curby — Sun, 06 Dec 2015 21:17:15 +0000

Congratulations, Christine. The PHA is proud to have members such as yourself who do such significant work. There needs to be a campaign to have the work of editing such a compilation appropriately recognised in academia.