Clio Conference 2009: Gettysburg
2a) How did the presentation at the Cliometrics Conference help your work?
I got a lot of good feedback that I could include in the paper, which had just been rejected from a journal before I went to Gettysburg. The suggestions were as detailed as econometrics estimations and as general as literature suggestions.
Comments and criticism were very helpful
It raised some conceptual issues, helped me see connections to other scholarship I had not considered, and increased my enthusiasm to complete the work.
The conference pushed us to focus on the wider issues involved and consider their relevance to more general issues in economics and economic history.
It helped enormously. Participants suggested ideas for additional data and tests of my hypothesis. Other suggested dividing the paper into two because I had two theses going at the same time. I was somewhat aware of this but very helpful comments helped me think through how to divide the paper. Additional questions and comments fueled ideas for at least two other papers and have inspired me to finally work towards a book during my sabbatical in 2011-12.
2b) Please describe the current status of the paper you presented (is it published or forthcoming (please give status), submitted, etc.)
The paper is about to be submitted to a first rate academic journal
The paper I presented at the conference is forthcoming in an edited volume to be published by Stanford University Press later this year. The paper will be part of a book that I plan to publish.
Unfortunately the paper was rejected again after I submitted it to a different journal, but I believe it was significantly improved after the clio conference, as the referees comments were not as negative.
Part of a wider and still ongoing project
Unfortunately, a combination of heavy teaching, committee work, chairing a department, having a new baby mean that Iím still working on the revisions suggested. With next year my last on the committee and a sabbatical ahead, there is research light at the end of the tunnel during which the research presented at the conference will be submitted.
3) If you participated at the conference without presenting, how was your participation beneficial to your research and professional activity?
The conference provided an opportunity to participate in presentations from leading edge researchers and provided knowledge on the latest techniques and topics in economic history research. The conference also provided valuable networking opportunities. As a personal example, one of the participants provided me with new information on micro data gathering techniques that I used on my next trip to the archives.
It always helps to be aware of new work in the field outside of one's own research areas.
Attendance good for networking
Attending clio and reading the summaries in the newsletter is critical to understanding where the frontier is in research in econ history.
4) Please make suggestions for improving the conference.
Conference was well organized and an excellent opportunity for professional development.
You folks are doing a great job.
I think the format of the conference (5+55 minutes) does maximize the feedback per paper, but I think it would be better if the speaker had a little more time to talk. In five minutes one can only briefly talk about the idea and the results, without going in to the way the issue is addressed. If the readers have briefly looked at the paper, the main question may not be very clear and some questions may be misdirected, which wastes everybody's time. If the distribution of time were 10+50 minutes, the extra five minutes for the author would make a lot of difference, whereas, questions and comments should not be that much hindered. After all, if there is a pressing comment from the audience, that can always be addressed at lunch or coffee break, whereas the author only has one chance to explain his work without interruption once.
I have no suggestions since I like very much the current format.
The Clio conferences are among the best I attend. Participation is high; new scholars are embraced; comments and discussion are of the highest caliber. I wouldnít change a thing.
None - they were probably the best conferences I have ever attended for their intellectual content and effectiveness. Along with being thoroughly pleasant occasions.
As a first time participant and donít really have suggestions. The conference was very well organized and incredibly beneficial with an impressive group of participants.