Despite a surging public appetite for Australian history, local historians face systemic pressures that steer their work away from domestic audiences, a new study has found. This disconnect means fewer opportunities for Australians to engage with newly published research about their own past.
A recent report from The Conversation AU highlights how the career advancement metrics within Australian universities inadvertently discourage historians from publishing with local presses. Instead, academics are often compelled to pursue international publication avenues, regardless of the relevance to Australian readers or the impact on domestic scholarly discourse.
The Unfulfilled Demand for Local Histories
Australians are increasingly demonstrating a keen interest in historical narratives pertaining to their own nation, states, and communities. Book sales figures and public engagement with historical events and anniversaries consistently underscore this demand. However, much of the cutting-edge research conducted by Australian-based historians is not readily accessible through local publishing channels, creating a significant gap between supply and demand.
“There’s a clear desire among the Australian public to understand our history better, from Indigenous narratives to colonial legacies and contemporary social movements,” one historian, who wished to remain anonymous due to institutional sensitivities, told a research team. “Yet, the incentives within our universities often pull us towards journals and publishers in the UK or the US, even when our work is uniquely Australian.” This observation was detailed in The Conversation AU’s analysis.
Academic Incentives vs. Public Engagement
The root of this perplexing situation lies in the performance metrics used by Australian universities for promotions, grants, and tenure. Publishing with certain prestigious international presses or high-ranking overseas journals is often weighted more heavily than publishing with local Australian publishers, even if the latter reaches a more relevant audience and generates greater local impact. This valuation system inadvertently devalues contributions to Australian intellectual life in favour of international recognition.
Academics are, understandably, responding to the signals sent by their institutions. A publication in a top-tier international journal can be a significant boost to a CV, potentially offering a better chance at promotion or securing lucrative research grants. However, this often translates to Australian research being published in outlets that may not be easily accessible or even known to the Australian general public, or to local educators and policymakers who could most benefit from it. The financial implications are also considerable, with local publishers potentially missing out on valuable works and the Australian book market potentially losing out on significant sales.
Bridging the Publication Gap
The study suggests a strategic re-evaluation of how academic output is assessed within Australian universities. By adjusting performance indicators to recognise and reward publishing with Australian presses, institutions could foster a more robust local publishing ecosystem and ensure that Australian history reaches the Australian public more effectively. This could involve assigning greater weight to publications in reputable Australian journals and books from local academic presses, or implementing specific metrics for community and national engagement.
Such a shift wouldn't diminish the value of international scholarship but would rather balance it with the imperative to contribute to domestic knowledge and culture. It would also empower Australian historians to choose publishing avenues that best serve their research and its intended audience, rather than being solely driven by global academic competition. Ultimately, nurturing a strong local publishing environment for history benefits not just academics, but the entire nation, by ensuring that the stories of Australia are told and heard within its own borders first.
