December 2001 Email Survey of Participants at the World Cliometrics Congress in Montreal in July 2000

How did the presentation at the Cliometrics Conference help your work?

It was my first presentation and publication in English. This strongly intensified my contacts with the foreign colleagues.

Comments from participants. Contacts with others in same research area.

I got a lot of useful feedback from the presentation. The Clio format,which gives most time to comments and questions from the floor gives authors the maximum opportunity to gauge how persuasive their arguments are. At a gathering like the World Congress, given that participants come from many parts of the world, it is extremely valuable to be given comments by such participants.

Comments and questions by participants raised a number of issues that we had not considered or had not considered carefully enough. We incorporated some of these into revisions of our price index and revisions of the paper. The paper is much improved as a result.

It helped in revising for a nsf grant application which was successful.

I received many useful comments, particularly in how I should address the counterfactual arguments. Plus I received some very useful comments on where to find additional data.

It provided me and my coauthors with a alternative explanation that we had to take into account in revising the paper; it also alerted us to the likely reaction of readers, which was also important in revising the paper.

I got a number of very useful suggestions.

Excellent feedback, very helpful in revising the paper for publication.

I received valuable feedback on the paper from several people in audience. The approach of having just a few minutes to present, thus leaving much time for questions, was helpful in this regard. As far as I am concerned, Cliometrics conferences are the best for receiving constructive feedback on research.

Excellent comments.

I got very good comments from one participant (Michael Bordo) who didn't attend the talk. Some of those who attended my talk appeared to have difficulty understanding the methods, so that part was frustrating for both sides.

We got a few good comments, but lots of them were irrelevant or off the point.

As expected, with strong scholars in the audience, I received some useful advice on data issues and other sources to consult.

It was really helpful. It gave us a lot of feedback on the paper. Useful critiques concerning some econometric limitations of our estimation.

Quite a bit. I learned more about likely rections to the final version of my paper, and revised accordingly.

Excellent comments.

We got some useful comments.

Tough questions from good people - who don't know you and have no need to "sugar coat" their feeling if they diasgree with what you are doing!

The comments were comparable to receiving several referee reports - all at once. We revised the paper substantially after receiving the comments.

There were some very useful comments from the group. I was glad that people had taken the time to give us their feedback. I learned a lot just from the comments.

The paper was from NSF sponsored research and we received valuable suggestions and insights, since the attendees had actually read and thought about the paper. These comments were used in revising the paper.

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

The paper was a part of my forthcoming monograph.

The paper has been revised and resubmitted for publication.

The paper presented at the conference was very much work in progress. I continue to work on this and related papers, and I hope to have some of this work ready to be submitted to an academic journal by the spring of 2002.

Revised and submitted

Work in progress.

The paper is published in the December 2001 issue of the European Review of Economic History

It is forthcoming in a volume to be published by Cambridge University Press. The argument (with different data) has made its way into another paper that we have presented and which will be submitted to an economics journal withing the next few months.

I have still to act on the suggestions. I just finished revising another paper I gave in 1999 and will work into the paper I gave at Montreal World Clio sometime next term.

Published

The paper was submitted to and rejected by the Journal of Finance. I plan to send it to a history journal soon.

Now published.

Presented it at a number of econ conferences and seminars, got lots of good suggestions, final version now ready to go out. Will try AER first & then down the food chain.

Has been submitted to the American Economic Review and is still pending

It was just accepted in the Journal of Economic Geography (new journal edited by Oxford University Press, january 2001) Forthcoming in 2002 or 2003.

Submitted for journal publication

Being revised for submission to a journal. The Montreal version of the paper was very preliminary.

Accepted subject to final revisions for the JEH.

Submitted.

The paper has been accepted for publication at Explorations in Economic History.

Submitted a second time to a journal.

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

Greatly beneficial: research - assisted with location of data sets; professional activity – met with international colleagues/learnt a great deal; about the state of the profession/assisted with my promotion!

A number of papers presented at the conference in Montreal dealt with themes of my own current research. I particularly remember the presentations of Caroline Fohlin, Sonya Salomatina (russia), and Peter Ferderer. Hearing papers related to one's work and participating in the discussion of them at a conference is more stimulating and effective than tracking papers down and reading them.

Hold them another week so that I could attend.

As editor of Explorations in Economic History, I had a chance to meet potential young contributors and encourage them to submit and to hear a lot of papers given for the first time.

The conferences help build a community of scholars, and participation in them is a means of joining that community. More concretely, the conferences help to maintain contact with the leading edge of the discipline.

By exposing me to ongoing work across the field of economic history and to intense, interesting discussions of this research. As someone who teaches at an undergraduate institution, I find that early exposure to these ideas helps my teaching, as I can often bring these ideas into the classroom the next semester.

Apart from the talk: well, to some extent. I was missing really bright people aged 30.

I divided the paper into two parts; one a technical paper developing inter-urban intertemporal price indices and real wages for 13 Canadian cities in Canada, 1900-50. This paper (with Clint Levitt) is forthcoming in the February Canadian Journal of Economics. The other part of the paper examining the integration of Canadian urban labour markets has been extensively developed and I anticipate that it will be submitted to the Canadian Journal of Economics, possibly EEH and maybe (though it is more

It was nice to network and meet the people behind the articles I read in journals. It also Helped to get a picture of the state of the field, especially in subareas of research other than my own.

It maintained my knowlege of the current research in economic history and stimulated further research work of my own. With some papers, new forms of analysis or econometric techniques were attempted. Always a plus for a researcher to examine.......

Yes. The nature of the Clio meetings (smaller group, a select group of papers, the expectation to read in advance) puts the onus on participants to be prepared with questions. This participants are compelled to think about what they are reading and hearing. Thinking is good. It is also much easier to get to know people at a smaller meeting like Clio than at the EHA or the EHS in the UK, and getting to know people is important. I think that attending Tucson has helped me net an invitation to give a seminar this March, and these opportunities are good for young academics like myself!

Participation is beneficial in at least 4 ways. One, the Cliometric conferences have a style that is charged with excitement, and this generates enthusiasm for further research. Two, several papers related closely to my own research and thus I am brought up to date on the latest pertinent research and get the opportunity to hear what others who are not working on that specific topic think about the importance of the topic, the quality of the relevant data, and the methods used - all of which in turn benefit my research. Three, I get to discuss research with those working on related topics, and discuss the possibilities of future joint work. Four, I get to see the new members of the profession in action. One of the most important benefits of these conferences is that they make a special effort to integrate new Phds into the profession. I believe the new Phds really value this experience as they are welcomed in as equals, treated as colleagues, and see that research can be shared and enjoyed – all of which makes them that much more productive.

The opportunity to have long discussions of papers that relate to my work was very valuable.

There were papers at each conference that directly related to my current research, and I got the opportunity to talk privately with the authors as well as hearing my colleague's concerns about the general area of research. Since I am also the coauthor of a textbook in the field, the general conversation in the sessions (and out of the sessions) is useful to get a sense of what things people want included in the book.

It is always good to see motivated people having an intellectual orgy and a general good time like that which takes place at Cliometrics conferences. I found the range of topics to be ideal and the approaches take the 'right' ones for somebody like me. The Cliometrics group is very welcoming and it's nice to see such an attitude for someone new to the profession like me.

"Rain Follows the Plow" and Dryfarming Doctrine: The Climate Information Problem and Homestead Failure in the Upper Great Plains, 1890-1925, is forthcoming in the Journal of Economic History. Two other papers are under development. The seriousness of the participants in reading and discussing the papers raises issues that are important for research in other areas.

Please make suggestions for improving the conference.

Would you please send the proceedings earlier, particularly for the participants from Europe. Unfortunately I've received my copy after the conference.

Need more timely announcement of event. Eg Next year's conference is 10-12 May. But where? The link via http://cs.muohio.edu/ only goes to http://www.eh.net/Clio/Conferences/ When and where is the next world congress likely? To date the congresses have been very well organised and the organisers have gone to a great deal of trouble to get things right. Possible improvements? Is there scope/resources for a half-day/day -'pre conference' - topics to include: current PhD research or current/new techniques for new researchers or 10 things new cliometricians should know eg - in short, following the approach in several other international conferences, having a day dedicated to 'new comers' (be they PhD students or researchers in other fields coming to cliometrics for the first time) where they can network, learn something (hopefully useful!) and in a sense build the 'next generation' of cliometricians. While such activities are also part and parcel of the 'standard' conference/congress - by dedicating a day or a morning to these researchers, the profession sends a clear message that it is serious about 'passing on' the baton and at the same time, actively assists in the networking of the discipline. This is especially important for 'newcomers' who are frequently presumed to 'know' the system/people/previous debates etc.

I have no suggestions. The world congress was well organized and it went off very well.

I believe the conference was well organized. I would have enjoyed a "plenary" or "roundtable" session, and/or invited specialists.

It was a great conference (even though my houseguests kept me up too late!)

The present format is excellent

I very much enjoy the extended discussion of papers that people have previously read. I find it one of the more productive conferences, and I do not have suggestions for improvement.

Generally, the Clio conferences are excellent events in disseminating and stimulating research. I don't remember any plenary sessions discussing papers. I think there were one or two at Santander, the other previous world Clio I attended. While the numbers and format at a world Clio dictate parallel sessions to keep the numbers in a session manageable, I think one or two plenary sessions might be interesting and give a little more unity or coherence to the conference. With the field of economic history being more mature now than when Clio started, it may be good to have an occasional session (maybe one per conference) in which more synthetic, thought essays are presented and discussed. Of course the CFP would have to mention this to attract proposals. I think it'd be fascinating to get a wide range of perspectives on essays in which scholars try to pull together a body of research into a new interpretation, with the kind of interaction that Clio allows; at least it seems worth a try.

I very much like the Conferences as they are.

The wider particpation at the World Congress seems beneficial.

I really have none. The people who have run the conferences in the past few years have done a superb job. The commitment they show to the discipline is pretty awesome.

More conference support for overseas participants.

Don't know; bring more economists back into the field :-) I have only attended one Cliometric Society World Congress; I have never "made the team" for the annual Clio meetings so I do not feel that I have enough experience to make concrete suggestions. I have not put as much effort into going to Clio meetings in the last five years due to a lack of success in making the program in the first few years of my academic career and due to the fact that I find that I get much more out of other conferences; in particular, the Business History Conference which has broader approaches to history represented interested me a lot. I have had many opportunities to present my work in seminars at various economics departments in Canada and the United States and obviously, for feedback these opportunities where one's work is the focus of an 1.5 hours, will be more productive for topic development than most conference presentation formats. The Clio conference format works well if the audience has read the papers to be presented, but my sense in Montreal was that many participants had not read all of the papers (which given the numbers of them is a reasonable outcome), and in particular, I don't think that my paper captured the attention of many of the participants. The advantage of conferences like the World Cliometric Society Congress is the opportunity to meet and interact with people outside of the conference sessions. While I met many people that I had hoped to meet, by in large, the conference was one where I felt on the periphery of established social networks and consequently, one of limited opportunties for exchanging ideas with people who I know are working on, or have worked on, research in areas similar to my own. I find that I get much more out of meetings like the Canadian Network of Economic History conferences since the group has been, socially, much easier to integrate into than Clio/EHA groups (I have presented in a Clio session at the ASSA meetings). While I think that the Cliometric Society and its conferences are invaluable for economic history (from a collective perpsective), for me as an individual they are no longer events that are at the top my list for attending. As I believe that the market does speak, I do believe that this has more to do with a lack of interest/demand in work amongst the clioms in my work rather than any weaknesses or problems in the Clio society or its conferences.

I'd prefer conferences to take place in universities instead of hotels. They give you the chance of interacting in an academic environment, you are able to know other universities,...Hotels are rather impersonal places.

As I said several years ago when I served on the NSF Panel, the key things about Clio are (a) new people should get to present (b) as far as possible, it should not be exclusionary. Point (b) means disinviting certain people who want to attend every year, and actively seeking out people whom, for whatever reason, feel excluded.

The current format of the conference is excellent.

Nothing really springs to mind. I have found my two Clio experiences to be very satisfying - the Tuscon meeting was probably the best conference I have attended. The Canadian economic history group has adopted some of the "Clio Style," with positive results.

I have no such suggestions. The conference is outstanding as it is.

Keep up the good work.

I think the regular Clio meetings are fine. The international meetings need a little more thought. At some point attendance warrants multiple concurrent sections, but it would appear that program planning and attendance have not been in sync the last two meetings. Both Evanston and Santander worked well because attendance was close to the regular meeting levels, and the meetings were conducted as such. Munich was a little larger and introduced multiple sessions, and Montreal was less well attended than desirable. Because you can't be two places at once, there is an incentive to read the papers less closely (if at all). This allows a few people to dominate the conversation to a greater extent than occurs at regular Clio. I chaired sessions at both of the last two international meetings. The session in Munich had two papers. Questions for the first author dried up well before the allotted time; the second paper was roughly normal. The session at Montreal had two papers written by the profession's best, so it was relatively well attended by the standards of that meeting. The author of the first paper began extending his answers to fill the time, but the session would have benefited from many more questioners. The authors of the second paper spent much of their time in conversation with a small handful of others who filled the time waiting for the rest of the group to think of a question. I'm not sure what the answer is short of limiting attendance to the international meetings. I'm hopeful that larger attendance will bring more points of view to bear on some of these papers. Given what Clio is supposed to accomplish, I think it's relatively unfair to an author to provide a small audience with few people who've really studied the paper.

No comments here. Everything seems fine or better.