We Can Do More

The following is a guest post by Gary Dunham, Director of Indiana University Press.

---

My goodness, University Press Week arrives once again, complete with the usual fanfare of irresistible slogans (#TurnItUp anyone?) and energized reminders of the many ways that We University Presses Are Awesome and Important. As a press director, I obviously have no argument with the basic intention and messaging of this week. I prefer, though, to use these five days less to celebrate whom we are at present than as an opportunity to reflect somberly and critically on how we could be even better. Let me rephrase that—given the challenging inequities that erupt, resurface, and fester during these times, we need to be even better as university presses.

Oh, how easier it would be if monographs were our sole mission and impact—but they never have been. University-based scholarly publishers do not reside in a well-mannered, ivory tower, blueprinted solely by the distinguished traditions and currents of scholarly disciplines. Far from it—the growing ugliness of the second decade of the twenty-first century creeps onto our campuses and seeps into our profession and days. Antisemitism explodes violently once again; racial and ethnic bigotry festers misunderstanding, intolerance, and murder. Somedays the tumult and sheer messiness of it all can be discouraging and exhausting, making us feel small and alone. It can be easy to lose sight of the opportunity and goodness that’s always connecting us with a larger world.

---

"It can be easy to lose sight of the opportunity and goodness
that’s always connecting us with a larger world."

---

But that’s just when we need to dig in our heels, recall the promise of our profession, and be even better at what we do.

In such times, university presses are right to point out that we make a difference through longstanding, peer-reviewed efforts to disseminate research based on real facts that educate us in depth about issues, our planet, and other lives, religions, and cultures. This vital information is there for all who want to read it. List by list, series by series, journal by journal, book by book we continue to light candles in the darkness.

---

"List by list, series by series, journal by journal,
book by book we continue to light candles in the darkness."

---

I am convinced we can do more. Sure, there’s a certain amount of comfort and certainty in pointing to one of our vital functions as conveyor belts of significant content from the academy. But that rightful acknowledgment crashes hard against the stark reality of the size of the audience who actually read our monographs. Let’s face it—in many if not most cases, it numbers in the hundreds for one monograph. Hundreds of readers in a nation of over 325 million people. And let’s also not forget two other unyielding realities: our scholarly books and journals tend to be very expensive and so many of them are not written accessibly. Ouch. Yeah, I know.

I am confronting these difficult questions about numbers, relevance, and mission as I revisit and prepare to update Indiana University Press’s long-term strategic plan. How, as proactive, engaged publishers, can we deepen and vivify our commitment to such topical parts of our list, and grow our readership as a result?

---

"How, as proactive, engaged publishers, can we deepen
and vivify our commitment to such topical parts of our list,
and grow our readership as a result?"

---

The answer can be found in detailed, strategic work that is not glamorous but very necessary. We need to roll up our sleeves, get deep under the hood of the long-term plans for our lists, and make careful, purposeful adjustments. Let me very briefly make three suggestions about how to rethink our approach to topical subject areas, all of which I am incorporating into our new strategic plan.

1. Transform a book publishing list into a collaborative, knowledge ecosystem. First and foremost, begin with institutional partnerships and not the number and types of books when articulating the Press’s plans for a topical subject area. Identify the key stakeholders involved in research and the production of content—museums, professional societies, institutes, etc.—and seek to build long-term, collaborative publishing partnerships with them. Those stakeholders often have built-in readerships through memberships and subscriptions, connecting the Press more effectively to highly interested readers and the current events that affect them. Taking into account not only annual acquisition and profitability goals for books, series, and journals but also coalitions and partnerships with key research and policy stakeholders provide a holistic and exciting picture of the breadth and depth of the Press’s engagement with and impact on a field. We need to brand those coalitions and partnerships strategically in our plans. How do all of us stakeholders together continue to find effective ways to sponsor and disseminate vital research in this area? 
2. Articulate and enforce writing standards to support the Press’s plans for a list. Very specialized, often jargonized, content from the gristmill of the academy end up in our inboxes all the time, and much of it understandably involves scholars writing for a very limited number of other scholars. But can such writing satisfy the greater list ambitions of the Press? We need to determine the types of writing and presentation needed to best support the Press’s long-term plans for reaching readers in a topical subject area and explicitly incorporate those standards into the strategic plan. We need to message those standards in communications with authors and work closely with the acquisition and operations teams to enforce them. Yes, I realize that writing standards take staff time to enforce, but I would rather publish fewer books that are well written, that more effectively reach the desired audience, and thus that are likely to enjoy healthy sales. 
3. Integrate Open Access fully into the strategic plan to expand a list’s readership and immediate relevance. Open Access is not the enemy; it’s not untested; it doesn’t destroy print sales; it shouldn’t be relegated to the hinterlands of a Press’s public face or strategic interests. It is in fact, a powerful, nimble promotional and educative tool. Indiana University Press’s controlled testing of OA for the past four years, along with our ongoing, in-depth collaboration with IU Libraries through the Office of Scholarly Publishing, has shown us its utility and advantage for building lists and attracting readers. Strategic plans for topical subject areas would benefit from being explicitly grounded in an orchestrated plan for open content. This could include opening up select editions and chapters to reach economically disadvantaged readers  (including students and transitional or part-time faculty, who might become part of the acquisition pipeline as future authors), to promote and showcase resonance with unfolding current events, and to encourage others to consider purchasing print editions.

In my opinion, thinking through and refining our approaches to topical subject areas is a productive response to the current challenges of this era. It’s detailed work, largely executed out of sight, but with far-reaching consequences that will make our content even more visible, accessible, and relevant to a world that needs us more than ever before.

That’s my two cents worth. So, fellow University Presses, what are your ideas for becoming even better at what we do in these trying times? During this namesake week of ours, we’re all listening.

---

Gary Dunham, a leader and innovator in academic publishing for over two decades, is the Director of Indiana University Press and Digital Publishing. Connect with Gary on Twitter at @GaryDunhamIUP. 

Join the University Press Week conversation online using the hashtags #ReadUP and #TurnItUp. University Press Week is organized by the Association of University Presses and takes place annually, follow them on Twitter at @aupresses.