|
|
RESULTS FROM SURVEYS OF CLIOMETRICS CONFERENCE
PARTICIPANTS
December 2001 Email Survey of Participants
who attended the Annual Cliometrics Conference in Tucson, AZ in May 2001.
How did the presentation at the Cliometrics Conference help
your work?
Our paper was in the area of political economic history. We received direct
feedback
from a large group of economic historians who pointed out some errors in our
work, and
we learned how to redirect the paper to interest this particular audience.
Unlike the majority of conferences I have attended, attendees to the Clio
closely read
each paper ahead of time and each conference session is focused on one paper.
The
experience of having 40 or so people (many of them at the very top of the
field)
concentrate on helping me to improve my paper was fabulous. They asked specific
questions, made numerous suggestions and comments, and just generally provided
support for the project. This was definitely the best set-up for a conference
that I have
ever attended.
Excellent comments and lots of encouragement. The comments clearly reflected
that the
audience had read the paper carefully. I used the comments to substantially
revise the
paper before submitting it to journal.
My co-author and I received a lot of very useful feedback. It will influence
planned
revisions on the paper we presented as well as the direction of our future
research on this
topic.
There were several good suggestions regarding content and exposition.
The comments i received help me in both writing and in guiding further work.
It was extremely helpful for revising my paper.
I am not an economic historian. So presenting an economic history paper to
an audience
of economic historians gave me an appreciation of their concerns.
The questions brought a number of issues into focus, leading me to search
for some new
data to resolve these questions. As a result I made two research trips to
England in the
summer of 2001 that uncovered interesting new sources.
That was the first presentation of that particular paper. It was, like my
flesh-and-blood
children, at an appropriate stage of development, but it did need some focus.
The
comments offered by participants helped direct me to some of the more interesting
questions raised by the paper and away from the duller issues. Discussions
during the
presentation and informal chitchat before and afterward helped clarify a wide
range of
things, from which institutional features may have led to the results I found
to which
econometric techniques could deal with problems in the data, and even how
to pitch the
whole idea to journal editors. The paper is much better now thanks to the
feedback I got
at Clio, and I am optimistic about getting it into a better journal than I
usually publish in.
We revised extensively, based on Tucson 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 submitted to a journal for publication.
Still in revisions.
Submitted the paper to Journal of Economic History.
Under review (i.e., submitted to a journal).
It is under review at a journal
SUBMITTED TO THE JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC HISTORY
It was submitted to a journal.
Submitted.
Part of the paper is being published under the title "Shelter from the
Storm: Housing and the Industrial Revolution" in the Journal of Economic
History, March, 2002. Another part will be published under the title "Land
Rental Values and the Agrarian Economy, 1500-1912" in the European Review
of Economic History, 2002.
I presented it at another conference 2 weeks ago and intend to revise it
one more time.
The plan is to send it out to a general interest economics journal early in
2002.
Submitted.
The paper has been accepted for publication at Explorations in Economic history.
Submitted a second time to a journal.
We then submitted it to the Economic Journal, where it is pending.
If you participated at the conference without presenting,
how was your participation beneficial to your research and professional activity?
It was one of the best conferences I have ever attended. The style of the
conference (very
short presentations, long discussions, reading of the papers in advance) led
to a
discussion of very high quality. I benefited a lot from hearing the comments
of other
people and to learn about their way of thinking. Moreover, the topics were
all
economically motivated and never purely technical. The conference was relatively
small,
such that one could talk to basically everybody. I met many interesting people
with
whom I could discuss their and my own work. The social component also was
very
important. It was my first time at a Cliometrics Conference and everybody
was very open
and welcoming.
As a participant , I had the rare opportunity of discussing my copious margin
notes with the authors. The group's intense engagement with a common text
is an ideal learning
environment - not only for the presenters! Discussants observe their own responses
to the
papers in the context of other professional feedback. Did others find the
same points
lacking? Did others respond favorably on the same issues? Why or why not?
The
conference gave me the opportunity to compare my own understanding and assessment
of
a paper with that of senior people in the field. As a new researcher the conference
left me
with a clear imprint of the professional standards of the discipline. The
open conversation
among experts, the back and forth between the writer and the audience revealed
to me the
variety and the quality of scrutiny a piece of work will undergo. I haven't
seen this kind
of breadth and depth of engagement anywhere else, not in other conferences,
not in
departmental seminars, and not even in referee reports.
By keeping me in touch with younger people in my field--the personal contact
is quite important for a small field like historical economics. The flow is
I think two way: younger people like to have old ladies like me around, too.
I am not an economic historian but I use substantial amounts of data from
earlier periods.
I'm doing research using banking history, the history of financial markets
and research on
economic growth. I found discussions of economic growth in various periods
very
illuminating and gathered several useful references. I met a couple of people
whose work
I'm using and I'll be much better able to discuss my research on stock market
returns with
them. I appreciate having had the opportunity to attend the Cliometric conference.
The Cliometrics Conference is like no other conference I attend. It occurs
at a completely different level of intensity. The papers are discussed at
a much more in-depth and deeper level than at any other conference. What this
does is foster much closer academic relationships among participants. This,
for me, has lead to a number of collaborative projects with participants,
that I'm certain would not have materialized had the conference not occurred.
Highly beneficial
I also "worked the crowd" at Tuscon, finding out about data sources
I needed (from Chris
Meissner, Greg Clark and Ken Sokoloff); recruiting three people to give papers
at the
Harvard Economic History Workshop this year (Chris Minns, Ken Sokoloff and
Werner
Troesken); and discussing possible collaborations with Greg Clark and Kyle
Kauffman.
I made some changes in my US economic history class, adding two new papers
to the
reading list. One of these ideas came from a paper presented, and one came
from a
discussion with a colleague about his work. I hope to have a sabbatical next
year, and I
have applied for a couple of grants to fund part of a year. At this conference
I was able to
talk to people and get advice on where to apply for grants. I was also able
to use contacts
from the conference to get recommendation letters for these grant applications.
I am editor of the newsletter and member of the board of directors of clio.
Attendance
allows me to network with my fellow members as well as solicit ideas for future
issues of
the newsletter and find reporters for future conferences. I am also able to
oversee the
reporting of the conference and help the reporters if necessary.
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.
Please make suggestions for improving the conference.
What is especially important about this conference as opposed to typical
field or regional
conferences, is that with a small number of presenters, everyone has had the
opportunity
to read the paper ahead of time and offer substantive comments. I used this
model when
organizing a conference a couple of years ago and I think it works very well.
I have no
suggestions for improvement per se, but would emphasize not to let it get
too large in the
future (in terms of the number of presenters) where that will no longer be
possible.
None that I can think of now.
It could not be improved. It was truly outstanding.
The conference is very well run and the format is the best I have experienced.
Limiting
the size, circulating the papers ahead and not allowing the presenters to
present their
papers ensures that everyone reads all of the papers. Thus presenters receive
a
tremendous amount of considered (not off-the-cuff) feedback and participants
get a lot
out of the other papers being presented, both because they have read them
and because of
the intense discussion that each paper provokes. The papers are carefully
chosen by the
organizers and provide participants with a good sense of current research.
I have no
changes to suggest.
I think we've got it about right. It's very open, and does not have the In-Group
feel of
some such groups. For example, it is open ideologically, so important in such
a fraught
field as economics. That perhaps would be my only tiny, tiny suggestion: reach
out of
little more to Marxists and Austrians and Institutionalists, old style.
I have no suggestions. It was the most efficiently organized conference,
with the most
attentive and helpful participants, that I have ever attended.
I think the quality of the papers and the discussion are crucial. In order
to get them, I might consider recruiting a few papers and people you think
might generate positive externalities. Instead of a long-drawn out banquet
with many speeches, i think a banquet that allows for a lot of table-hopping
and/or mingling afterwards would be a good idea. I think long banquets detract
from the interaction between faculty and students that should be -- in my
view -- a very important aspect of the meeting.
One might think about having two or three general topics on which the conference
would
be focussed. This would ensure that there would always be several people working
on a
similar topic.
I like the Cliometrics Conference as it is now.
It already is one of the best conferences in the profession.
I think the conference works extremely well as it does. There is an excellent
balance
between established scholars and younger scholars. This MUST be maintained,
and I'm
sure it will.
I don’t have any particular suggestion. I thought it was very well run
and useful to me.
The conference was very well organized and was in a pleasant location which
facilitated
interaction with other faculty and students. Go back to Arizona!
Hard to imagine how. Give away free beer maybe. My favorite part is watching
the
sharper senior people in action. That kind of civil but fearless questioning
is the essence
of how we refine our work into publishable--and even readable--articles and
books. So
keep inviting those stars, so that the rest of us can learn how to go and
do likewise. Lanna and Price, thanks for doing all the foundation-work to
keep Clio going!
The Clio conference is the best conference on economic history. I don't think
it could be
better.
The Cliometrics conference is a very productive use of NSF funds. The conference
provides an unusually active forum for economic historians to present, discuss,
and criticize new work. The format insures that everyone has read the work
and is prepared to talk. This is particularly valuable for young scholars,
and the conference favors new PhDs in the program process.
I don't need more outlets for my research, I travel too much as it is. But
a substantial portion of the people on the program don't have my opportunities.
The Cliometrics conference blends new PhDs, scholars from the middle ranks
of the profession, and nationally and internationally known economic historians.
The first two groups don't get to do this often enough. The organizers of
the conference do a marvelous job of mixing skills, interests, and expertise.
Keep funding Cliometrics.
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.
No comments here. Everything seems fine or better.
Earlier Surveys
The Cliometric Society performed surveys of the scholars who
have presented their work at the Cliometrics Conference in July of 1995 for
the scholars who presented papers between 1985 and 1995 and again in June of
1999 for the scholars who presented papers from 1996 to 1998. In July of 1995
a letter asking for an accounting of papers was sent to 140 scholars who had
presented one or more of the 172 papers at Clio conferences between 1985 and
1995. Eighty-three respondents reported on 107 papers. Papers presented at Clio
formed the basis for 67 journal articles (either already published or forthcoming).
Papers at Clio also formed basis of 28 larger works, such as a book or monograph.
The survey results:
Published in a Journal: 67
Already Out: 59
Forthcoming: 8
Part of a larger work (book, monograph, etc.): 28
Already Out: 18
Forthcoming: 10
Still in Progress Toward Publication: 29
TOTAL 124
(Note that total exceeds number of replies because of multiple attendance and because 17 papers were published in more than one journal, or published both in a journal and as a chapter in a book.)
In June 1999 we sent out emails to scholars involved in the 36 presentations of papers between 1996 and 1998. Out of 36 people, 28 responded. Given the short time frame and the emphasis on presenting work in its early stages at the conference it is impressive that eight of the papers are published (5) or forthcoming (3) in journals (including the Journal of Economic History (2), Explorations in Economic History, Journal of Finance, Research in Economic History, Journal of Population Economics, Federal Reserve Board of St. Louis Review, European Review of Economic History). Five more were part of a larger work that is published (3) or forthcoming (2). Four of the papers are currently being revised for resubmission to a journal, three more are under review, and two are part of dissertations. Two participants stated that their work originally presented at the Cliometrics meetings has resulted in grant funding of research projects.
Responses to the survey question:
‘How did the presentation at the Cliometrics Conference help your work?’
1999 Survey
The conference gave us very useful feedback on the way to set up the empirical test of the propositions developed in the paper. It also allowed us to gauge with a large and active audience which elements of our argument the audience found persuasive, and which elements needed further support.
There is no other conference I know of that offers the same level of valuable feedback to the author of a paper. I presented two related papers at the AEA and SSHA meetings the same year. There the paper is briefly summarized by the author and the audience asks a few questions. For the author, the only real benefit is exposure of his or her work. By contrast, at Clio. I spent 5 minutes summarizing the paper, which had been read by most of the audience. The next hour was a very valuable conversation. From the cliometrics conversation, I got ideas about framing the issues in the paper (including specific references to literature with which I was unfamiliar on income distribution and poverty in the early 19th century). In addition, I received some useful feedback on data sources and econometric estimation techniques. More generally, the conversation gave me a chance to see how my audience was likely to respond to the arguments made in the paper -- where there were weaknesses, where and how additional supporting evidence was needed, where the presentation lacked clarity, etc.
In two major ways:
1) Excellent comments and questions from the audience that helped me to improve the paper.
2) Exposure to a select audience to make them aware of my work on this topic.
The Clio Conference was the most helpful presentation I have given to date. People had good comments both at a technical level and in terms of what they found interesting. I was young then, and didn't always take as much notice as I should. If I had I guess the paper would have been out by now. I would definitely be keen to go again.
Participants provided invaluable feedback on my research. The conference structure, in which all participants are expected to read and critically comment on every paper fosters an active and intelligent exchange of ideas, not only with regards to one's own work, but also with regard to others'. Presentation and/or attendance at this conference is an invaluable learning experience.
The Cliometrics Conference helped my work in a number of ways. I got a great deal of feed back on the paper from a very knowledgeable group. While other audiences gave some comments, the Cliometrics Conference participants had more in-depth knowledge of the type data I was using and therefore their comments were more focussed. I got important experience presenting (I was a graduate student at the time). Finally, I got to know a fellow participant who was later able to give me additional data that I could link to my data set that provided me with instruments for my two stage least squares estimation process.
The constructive comments and questions I received during my presentation helped me improve my paper. In particular, the comments I received (1) helped me refine the empirical methodology I used to test the effects of child labor laws and (2) motivated me to investigate more thoroughly the political economy of the enactment of these laws.
The conference provided many suggestions that would help the paper towards publication. I am a couple of weeks of work away from finishing the paper and sending it off to a journal. I also connected with other researchers who have worked on related topics
I received a number of useful comments on the estimation of the model and the presentation of the results. These were incorporated into a revised version (with acknowledgement to participants at the conference).
The presentation helped me in the following ways:
- Quite different questions from the usual ones, probably because of the public being American and not my usual European one, but also because of the diversity of the centers of interest of the public.
- An opportunity to make my work known by people who are not usually interested in that subject or in European economic history in general.
We received very helpful comments at the Conference, which helped in revising the paper for publication. The comments will also be helpful in the future work we plan on this line of research.
The presentation and feedback obtained became the basis for a successful NSF grant proposal, with essentially the same title as the clio '97 paper, to extend and enlarge the study. The grant provides two years of funding, 1998-2000, and we are currently working hard on it. It should lead to further papers and either a book or parts of related books.
Regarding the typhoid paper presented at the Clio meetings. The paper has been accepted for publication in THE JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC HISTORY. The project from which this paper is a part has, since the Clio meetings, received funding from the Earhart Foundation ($9,752) and resulted in my receiving a National Fellowship at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
The comments I received at Clio were instrumental in all of this: the Clio participants were incredibly constructive and helpful. Of all the meetings I attend (the American Economics Assoc; the Economic History Association; and various others) the Clio meetings are the best. Even when I am not presenting, I learn a great deal from the discussion.
I realize this is more than you might have wanted, but I just wanted to say how valuable I think the meetings are.
It was in preparing the paper for the Clio conference, where I had to speak to a general audience of economists, that I realized that work I had done on the specific topic of agricultural productivity and output growth in the years 1700-1850 had much wider ramifications for estimates of growth in the Industrial Revolution period. The paper for the conference explores these ramifications.
I got valuable feedback from the other participants at a critical stage in the works' development. It is rare to have an audience that has already read and thought about the work being presented even though the work is in a preliminary stage -- the discussion was focused on the work's central arguments, evidence, and potential extensions rather than on peripheral issues (when the audience has not read the paper and therefore is not clear on the work's main purpose, the discussion often gets sidetracked -- this doesn't happen much at Clio).
The spirited discussion was, as usual, useful in making final revisions in the manuscript before it was published.
The presentation offered a forum in which to discuss the work in depth. It is one of the most useful ways of getting feedback, especially since all participants have and read the papers ahead of time and so have had time to think about the papers and prepare questions. The participants at the clio conference are always involved and interested in cliometric methods and research.
Personally, I have presented a number of papers around the US this year whilst I have been visiting at Harvard - but I can definitely say that my presentation at Clio was the most useful in terms of feedback and constructive comments. I think that the format of the conference is a key element of its success (no one has an excuse to skip any sessions because everything is laid on by the organizers!) and I hope that in the future we will be able to run conferences on a similar basis in the UK.
Please pass on my thanks to the organizing committee and Miami University for the opportunity to attend the conference and present my research. The Clio conference makes a really big contribution to the study of economic history and I hope that it continues to flourish for many years to come. Well done!
Presenting at the Cliometrics Conference provided me the opportunity to expose my current research to other economic historians for critical comments and suggested revisions. This experience was invaluable because the group of individuals present at the Conference is representative of the larger body of researchers that will ultimately utilize my findings in their own research and teaching.
The presentation directly helped my research in three ways. First, previously unrecognized omissions and limitations of my results were discussed. Second, several related questions from discussants suggested the need for additional explanation and clarification of the model employed. And finally, participants at the conference expressed satisfaction with the current results and direction of my research agenda.
I definitely plan to submit additional research for consideration at future Cliometrics Conferences. This is a unique and important forum for the discussion of current research in the field of Economic History and definitely deserves continued support.
The Cliometrics Conference is different from many others- a detailed discussion follows a brief presentation. I greatly benefited from the discussion. The participants had already read the paper and had thought about the questions that were raised. For work in progress this was an extremely useful exercise. It helped me to look at the paper more critically and to address the questions that others had found confusing or difficult to understand. It has encouraged me to look at new issues and develop the paper in a constructive way. The conference has certainly helped me to write a better paper.
The Cliometrics Conference provides an unparalleled forum at which to get well-informed feedback on research. I have been able to improve the quality of the argument in my paper considerably as a result of the discussion. The quality of the discussion is far better at Clio than it is at any other conference I attend.
Having 40 individuals in my field read my paper was great exposure. Many of these individuals have worked and are currently working on topics very similar to my own. This means I get feed back from interested people on the cutting edge of research.
I was also lucky enough to discuss my ideas for future research with interested participants on a one to one basis. These discussions prompted me to think in new directions and energized me to pursue my ideas further.
More than anything the '99 Clio conference gave me renewed confidence to continue with a more ambitious research agenda. It was much appreciated.
It was the first time I presented the particular paper ("Peasants' standards of living and capital formation in pre-plague England: some regional contrasts") to a wider audience. The unique format of the conference exposed me to a significant number of comments and criticism from the participants. …
Let me also express once again my deepest gratitude for the hospitality I received and reiterate that the round table discussions that take place proved to be my most valuable experience I have received from a conference so far.
The Cliometrics Conference provided a unique opportunity to present my latest work before a large group of prominent economists who had all read the paper in advance. As preparation by participants is a key part of the conference, this allowed for a keen and constructive session in which areas for improvement were clearly identified. I would liken the experience to having at least 10 referees' reports submitted in an hour! This is an invaluable advantage to a junior scholar who often must accept comments in a more costly manner (i.e., a negative editorial decision).
Professor Williamson is an ideal PI for this NSF grant. It is in my opinion a model project for demonstrating how much value can be added to research through a judicious use of your resources and an earnest desire among all participants to make the conference a success.
We found the feedback from participants at the Cliometrics Conference to be quite helpful. In particular, we received several suggestions on how to substantiate our preliminary evidence on the effects of technological innovation. Moreover, several participants proposed very interesting
extensions to our work.
The presentation made clear that I needed to do a better job of placing my model in the context of previous literature. It also gave me ideas about further regression analysis. My paper is going to be much better as a result.
Comments from 1995 Survey
I got lots of very useful comments on the paper at the conference. More important in some ways, I met and really got to talk to many economic historians, both new and established. I was just starting my first job and the people I met there have continued to be people I turn to for feedback on my research and my teaching.
I received many valuable criticisms and suggestions. This was the first major economic history gathering at which I had presented a paper. Participants were very positive and supportive.
The presentation at the Cliometrics Conference was extremely helpful. It allowed me to present my work to the scholars whose work I had utilized and critiqued and to receive many thoughtful comments and suggestions about how to proceed with my project.
Immeasurably. It gave the confidence to continue and suggested criticism I had to attend to. It is really thanks to the Clio Conference that the paper eventually won the Cole Prize for the best article of the year in the JEH.
It helped in two ways. First, I got very helpful feedback regarding the paper. Second, I got to interact with many of the very best economic historians in a friendly and intellectually lively environment.
It was invaluable. The comments I received, both at the presentation and afterward in informal chats with other participants, were of uniformly high order. I especially liked Clio’s conference format with participants required to read the papers beforehand and presenters limited to five minutes prior to opening it to audience questions. It is head-and-shoulders above the usual conference format, and makes the conference a set of mutually-beneficial conversations rather than a haphazard set of mini-lectures.
Clio comments were addressed (taken account of) in the version now at REStat.
The importance of the Clio Conference is also the mentoring of new Ph.D.’s by the established members in the profession. Especially for women, who are still underrepresented in economics, such an introduction into the network is of immeasurable value to future success in the field. Meeting people in a small group setting allows for much better junior to senior interaction than can ever occur at the larger conferences. Senior members of the profession have continued to ask me about my work presented at Clio. That is a very stimulating professional experience, and quite a positive, and often overlooked, long-run benefit of the Clio conferences.
This was a presentation of my job-market paper, soon after I had gotten a job. The comments I received significantly helped me clarify the main thesis of the paper, as well as giving me a better idea of what level of proof and persuasion I would have to demonstrate for this paper to be successful.
In a more indirect way, the presentation helped my work by making several of my more senior colleagues in economic history aware of my work. Because of this exposure I met several new people and was subsequently invited to present at several economics workshops, including Harvard, Washington University in St. Louis, and North Carolina Research Triangle. I can't even begin to quantify the benefits of this exposure.
I would like to say the conference presentation was an immense help. The quality of comments, especially regarding new ways of thinking about the interpretation of our results, was the best of any conference I have ever attended. This conference is simply the most intense experience I have ever had presenting a paper.
I present papers at conferences generally in the hope of getting good comments and feedback that will improve later revisions of the work. The Cliometrics conference is absolutely the best regular conference that I know of in this regard. This is because of its unique format and ‘esprit de corps’.
In addition to the comments I received during the presentation, many of the conference participants offered helpful comments afterwards. I received more helpful comments at the Clio Conference than at any other conference where I have presented.
The conference is unique in that (in general) all participants read each paper so that little time is spent on presentation and most time is spent on questions and critique. This helped me see the areas of interest and weak points of the work. Much more valuable than any other conference I have attended.
There were helpful suggestions on how to formulate a test of the model. I was able to interact with the two people in the US who knew most about the subject.
The paper would have never been published in the AER without the input (suggested revisions) by Clio participants.
The Cliometrics Conference is among the very best in Economics. The papers are interesting, the discussion is focused, and many points made are very helpful for authors and informative for others attending. I have been delighted both times that I have attended.
Widened familiarity with it. I found the level of discussion at the conference the best of all conferences I have attended. A very constructive – but exacting – group!
The audience was helpful in its econometric advice and suggested several important implications of the results. It became a chapter of my dissertation (which won the Allen Nevins prize).
At the paper's presentation and in later one-on-one discussions, questions, comments, criticisms and suggestions were offered to me that helped me identify and correct weaknesses in the paper. I particularly appreciated the willingness of conference participants' to read a paper outside their geographical area of expertise. I benefited from the opportunity to compare the case I analyzed with those in the same genus with which my colleagues were closely familiar. Also helpful were the criticisms of the economic theory used in the analysis I received, which are much harder to come by in meetings of Latin American historians. ...Both CCs I have attended have been very stimulating, because of a number of reasons. Economic historians from outside the United States would benefit much from them and I would encourage their increasing inclusion in future CCs if possible.
Provided critical ideas that were helpful in preparing both the article and book for publication. These works have become classics in their field -- the first use of cliometrics to study domesday book.
As a graduate student, the conference presentation was a valuable learning experience that taught me the necessity of motivating empirical research with a clear statement of the research question and historical context.
Enormously. It was the most helpful portion of my dissertation work. The comments and criticism I received made my paper (dissertation chapter) a very solid piece of work.
Although it has been some time since I presented the paper, I do recall two ways in which comments helped me to improve the paper. First, the paper was rather long and diffuse, and several participants suggested concrete and useful ways to sharpen the focus. In the end, I used the material in two papers. Second, at the more gritty level, several comments focused on the regression estimates and suggested techniques to deal with the problem of heteroskedasticity.
The comments were very valuable for focusing our work on this paper and telling us the issues that we should address.
Discussion led to a broader perspective on political aspects of government finance and to work in progress by others on related topics of credit markets in France.
I received valuable feedback through comments and challenging questions. I believe that this feedback improved the quality of my work on this and related papers. The conference’s location in Spain also gave me a chance to expose my work to more Spanish economic historians.
As usual, I received numerous helpful suggestions as well as thoughtful criticism, which helped in further revision of the work.
I received some wonderful suggestions for revision. Revisions are still underway.
It suggested some new and very important lines of inquiry that we have to follow up and also convinced us that our argument is at bottom correct.
The Clio presentation lead to considerable refinement of the paper.
A great deal – excellent comments from a highly knowledgeable crowd!
Questions and discussion forced us to write a better paper.
Good comments.
The paper [my co-author and I] presented at the conference was published after being revised based on some of the discussion at the conference.
Discussion led me to improve the conceptualization and measurement of market integration. Also led me to some new sources on wheat markets in France.
Sad to say, Dan Raff as Chair let earlier speakers drag on, and I only got one or two questions which were of no use. But I think this was just bad luck--a couple of months earlier at Canadian clio I got some great comments.
My presentation allowed me to gather useful feedback from other scholars who had been considering similar questions.
Absolutely! The debate sharpened our thinking and made for a far superior paper.
Although this particular paper has not yet been published, the discussion at the conference was beneficial in terms of the larger project of which this was part, and had some influence on the drafting of parts of papers subsequently published...
I received some useful comments...in intellectually stimulating discussions.
The discussion triggered some improvements and extensions. It also bolstered my confidence, as a non-historian, that our approach was solid.
Clio Conference participants’ queries helped to clarify and strengthen the argument.
It helped sharpen the argument.
Reactions of participants helped me to formalize what I was arguing, and seek the appropriate data.
The presentation at the Cliometrics Conference helped me to clarify my argument, and the paper in general, and to see where the paper needed to be strengthened by additional evidence or argument.
I took a great deal of flak. It made me more determined to publish the paper.
The most helpful suggestions I ever received on this paper were made at Clio. I have augmented the database and undertaken Monte-Carlo simulations to satisfy concerns expressed at the conference.
Gave us excellent comments that helped us model the setting better.
It provided me with an opportunity to discuss some initial work with colleagues from both the US and France.
Received valuable insight for revision.
Provided excellent forum for testing ideas and getting useful comments.
Feedbacks, helpful comments and discussion.
Revealed areas of weakness.
Many suggestions that helped to clarify arguments in the paper. Also, many useful ideas for further work.
I discarded part of the paper and focused on the rest.
The presentation at the Cliometrics Conference helped me to clarify my argument, and the paper in general, and to see where the paper needed to be strengthened by additional evidence or argument.
The 1985 presentation was certainly an important beginning in the work that was finally published. It is also part of a more encompassing interest in historical prices, living costs, and standard of living that is ongoing.
[This presentation] was instrumental in fostering those improvements that eventually led to publication...[We] are continuing our work in this area and were encouraged to do so by the response given to our 1988 presentation.
At the time I was a graduate student completing my dissertation, and the paper was part of that dissertation. As a result of the presentation, I got lots of good advice about how to sharpen my argument, learned lots of facts that helped my argument, and was told about some relevant data sets that I made use of later on.
I presented this paper at an early stage in the research and the feedback from the presentation directed the rest of the work. Maybe I should have ignored it; the paper has been rejected by the JPE, the AER, and QJE; I’m still sending it around.
Again, the paper was at an early stage. I learned that in several spots my argument was confusing and sent the reader thinking about the wrong things. I have entirely rewritten the paper and I hope it’s better...
A great deal.
Good comments.
Received valuable feedback on revising the article.
Exposure for the first time. Lots of comments.
I was just beginning a large research project when I presented this paper. Response by conference participants encouraged me to continue the project, gave me lots of ideas about what would be interesting issues.
Lots of stimulating comments and suggestions. Extensively revised the paper in light of these suggestions before submitting paper to be considered for publication (now under review).
Refocused work.
Good questions.
Provided some useful questions which have directed my subsequent research on this topic.
Very much. It helped putting together, in a few pages and a few minutes, ideas gathered for one or two years. The discussion was lively.
Very valuable feedback will help me in the next stages of revision. Paper will be presented next at a conference in Copenhagen (Sept. 1995).
The critical remarks helped me improve the specification of my econometric model.
A large number of comments and new questions have been raised. I was able to make acquaintance with a number of experts in the field.
I still remember some of the trenchant points made!
The discussion made clear some problems in presentation of my position and raised questions about how well I used my evidence.
90% of the comments received at the 1995 conference were incorporated into the paper, resulting in a greatly improved manuscript which was sent to JEH last month.
Sharpened the argument--called attention to some problems trying to deal with both US and CSA veterans.
It made me aware of the wider implications of my research.
I got some good comments.
It clarified a number of technical problems having to do with my estimation procedure.
Helped to focus my arguments and raised questions and issues I had not thought of.
The Cliometrics Conference helped me to focus the discussion of the paper and broaden the context in which the argument was being presented.
