Survey Responses

2008 World Congress: Edinburgh, Scotland

Question 2a) How did the presentation at the Cliometrics Conference help your work?

Realized people were interested in it.

The comments I received were especially important to helps me broaden the scope of the argument and to make connections with contemporary debates. The interaction with other economic historians was even more beneficial - in terms of establishing connections and building up my knowledge of the state-of-the-art and the future directions of the discipline.

Many of the comments were very helpful.    In particular we had good questions about the nature of the trade model underlying our approach. This pushed us to think more carefully about this issue to and to emphasize that we had a very general approach.

We received valuable comments from the discussant and from others who attended the session.

Very helpful since the participants have studied the paper before the conference. Consequently, the questions raised were of a very high standard and helped to improve the paper substantially.

A few questions led us to strengthen the argument

The atmosphere was simply excellent. We had hard and intense work and enough time for long discussions before, during and after the sessions. It is in my sense, one of the very few conferences who all the papers are so seriously discussed. I will for sure participate again, as presenters or ‘simply’ as discussant.

Presentation feedback mediocre, good for meeting other researchers in same area

The comments I received helped considerably in clarifying that the key research questions are I should be addressing in the paper. Participants asked about a different set of questions than I thought central. I still think the questions should be posed differently than what the participants wanted to focus on. However, it was quite helpful to get this feedback and to reformulate how I posed the issues for my paper.

Got useful feedback

I got great feedback from specialists in the field.

Deadline helped us to complete a draft of the paper

I presented a project in a very early stage, at got a number of suggestions for paths to follow up.

 It provided me with many useful comments which I have used when revising the paper.

...feedback helped enormously in clarifying
Our ideas, and in preparing the paper for submission

The paper dealt with the slave trade. I received useful comments especially about the issues of profitability, the provisioning of slaves on the voyage, and morbidity.  These issues were addressed in a revision.

It produced a number of important suggestions and gave us a better sense of the direction and value of the work.

I got great feedback to my paper and the other presentation were an inspiration to make further improvements.

I got some good feedback on the paper and in particular a couple of people suggested I apply network analysis to my data, which I have been working on.

I received very good comments, which ultimately resulted in a high-ranking publication

2b) Please describe the current status of the paper you presented (is it published or forthcoming (please give status), submitted, etc.) 

Revised and Rees admitted to the Journal of economic history

Published

The paper we presented was published in Explorations in Economic History. Related work has also appeared on the Vox EU blog with one post receiving 29000 reads in the year that it has been posted.

The paper is being revised for resubmission to the Journal of Economic History.

German Economic Review: accepted

Forthcoming

Presented paper unpublished, in revision

I have since revised the paper two or three times and presented it at subsequent conferences. I have not yet submitted it for publication.
However, I do hope to get to that soon.

Published in Explorations in Economic History

First draft is circulating for comments.

The paper was subsequently submitted to a journal; although not accepted we are currently revising the paper for resubmission

The paper is much farther along but not yet submitted.

Revise and resubmit, Journal of Economic Growth

Forthcoming Explorations in Economic History

The paper has been accepted by the Journal of Economic History.

Under review at JEH

Forthcoming in the Journal of Economic History

The papers are still in their Working Paper form and/or under review.

 Not submitted yet, but intend to eventually.  It will be a chapter of a book.

Published

3) If you participated at the conference without presenting, how was your participation beneficial to your research and professional activity? 

The Cliometrics conference offers the best conference style that I have ever seen.  Everybody is expected to read the paper.  The author gets 5 minutes to present the essence of the idea and then it is 55 minutes of intense discussion of the topic.  The attitudes of the discussants are to be critical and be helpful at the same time.  It is a congenial atmosphere that is more like a working group on how to improve the papers being presented.  On every paper there are at least 4-6 experts in the room who would be likely referees when the paper is sent to a journal.  Many of the remaining people also make quite useful comments and a number of authors see their papers in a totally new light after hearing the comments.  The Conference also does a great deal to bring new scholars into the profession.  Up to half the presenters and up to a fourth of the participants are typically new assistant professors or late-stage graduate students.   Since everybody is expected to attend all events in the conference, the breaks, meals, and walks and rides to the venue serve as great ways to meet people and learn about their research.   I can honestly say that I have learned something new about methods, approaches, or basic information from every paper discussion I have seen at the Clio meetings. 

Sure.  I learned about a lot of interesting research underway in my areas of interest.

I presented.  But Clio is an excellent networking conference for young 
scholars/assistant professors, and is especially useful because its  
unique format provides an opportunity to see papers explored in much 
greater depth than you see at most other conferences.

It was quite beneficial to see the papers and methods used in them in order to encourage my own work.

Also the discussions with other researchers in the field gave confidence on my PhD work.
Clio Conference among some historical economics conferences can make one to see the art of the research in the field.

In the end, at one's own university, the number of economic historians doing Clio is not that big.

4)  Please make suggestions for improving the conference.

The venue was pretty rubbish, but the format remains excellent 

Keep up the good work.

Not so much for the conference, but it would be a good idea to regularly track the progress toward publication of all the papers presented.

The world conference was great. The diversity of papers and number of sessions kept there from being any dull moments. I wouldn’t necessarily go back to Scotland though to have a world congress. The weather and food were both of low quality. There are so many places in the world with more favorable local conditions. The accommodations were also sparse though that is par for the course and I am willing to tolerate this for the benefit of being in a nice location.

The conference was superbly organized and well-attended.  My only quibble is that the venue (an old, run-down castle outside of Edinburgh) was distant from decent hotels, restaurants, and sightseeing so that most conference participants dispersed each day immediately after the last session.

The conference was great (the same holds for the World Congress in Venice)

It was great

I thought the conference was very well run. No immediate suggestions for improvement come to mind.

It's a great format, keep it as it is!

I think the conference format works very well.  I have nothing to suggest.

It was a great conference.

 I enjoyed very much the conference, which was academically excellent, but I felt the catering could have been vastly better – it was poor even by British standards!

It was a very well run conference.  Although people get the papers in advance, presenters might be given a little more
time to introduce their papers.  Might serve to direct the discussion better.

None - they were probably the best conferences I have ever attended for their intellectual content and effectiveness. Along with being thoroughly pleasant occasions.

It would be difficult to make it better than it is: this is already the best conference (and series of conferences) I have attended in my career. 

Continue like that.

I think it was close to perfect. Of course, active recruitment of young scholars in developing countries can never be enough.