Editor's Note: "Methods and Practices"

IF 1.1 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
{"title":"Editor's Note: \"Methods and Practices\"","authors":"","doi":"10.1353/wmq.2023.a910394","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Editor's Note:\"Methods and Practices\" Joshua Piker THIS article by Sharon Block represents the initial offering in the William and Mary Quarterly's new \"Methods and Practices\" section, a companion to the journal's \"Sources and Interpretations\" section. The Article Forum that follows, \"Self-Revision in Historical Writing,\" is intended to extend and amplify the conversation begun by Block's innovative article. Five scholars whose work intersects with the issues raised in the article have provided essays engaging with Block's work, and the Forum concludes with Block's response to those essays. Articles published in \"Methods and Practices\" can explore new methodologies or re-situate more familiar ones in new contexts. Alternatively, authors can use these pieces to discuss their practice as researchers and writers, experiment with new forms or styles, or point to novel paths forward for the field. These articles may be grounded in archival research, but many will not be, and the nature of an author's archive will depend on the article's goals. If the project's needs point in that direction, authors should feel free to adopt a writing style that is more conversational, interrogative, speculative, or polemical than is typical of academic articles. All authors, however, must work to situate their projects in clear and recognizable ways within the field's ongoing conversations. \"Methods and Practices\" articles will typically be shorter than the standard research article. We expect that most will have fewer than 6,000 words in the text and 3,000 words in the notes, although we recognize that particular projects may require a wider scope. Please consult with the Editor—as Block did in this case—if you believe that your article would benefit from a higher word count. I am grateful to the six authors in the Article Forum both for taking on this assignment under a tight deadline and for completing it with such care. I would also like to thank my colleague, Julia Gaffield, who stepped in as Interim Editor when I went on sabbatical in July 2023 and oversaw the editing process for the Forum. Joshua Piker Editor (on leave) William and Mary Quarterly [End Page 647] Copyright © 2023 Omohundro Institute of Early American History & Culture","PeriodicalId":51566,"journal":{"name":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2023.a910394","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Editor's Note:"Methods and Practices" Joshua Piker THIS article by Sharon Block represents the initial offering in the William and Mary Quarterly's new "Methods and Practices" section, a companion to the journal's "Sources and Interpretations" section. The Article Forum that follows, "Self-Revision in Historical Writing," is intended to extend and amplify the conversation begun by Block's innovative article. Five scholars whose work intersects with the issues raised in the article have provided essays engaging with Block's work, and the Forum concludes with Block's response to those essays. Articles published in "Methods and Practices" can explore new methodologies or re-situate more familiar ones in new contexts. Alternatively, authors can use these pieces to discuss their practice as researchers and writers, experiment with new forms or styles, or point to novel paths forward for the field. These articles may be grounded in archival research, but many will not be, and the nature of an author's archive will depend on the article's goals. If the project's needs point in that direction, authors should feel free to adopt a writing style that is more conversational, interrogative, speculative, or polemical than is typical of academic articles. All authors, however, must work to situate their projects in clear and recognizable ways within the field's ongoing conversations. "Methods and Practices" articles will typically be shorter than the standard research article. We expect that most will have fewer than 6,000 words in the text and 3,000 words in the notes, although we recognize that particular projects may require a wider scope. Please consult with the Editor—as Block did in this case—if you believe that your article would benefit from a higher word count. I am grateful to the six authors in the Article Forum both for taking on this assignment under a tight deadline and for completing it with such care. I would also like to thank my colleague, Julia Gaffield, who stepped in as Interim Editor when I went on sabbatical in July 2023 and oversaw the editing process for the Forum. Joshua Piker Editor (on leave) William and Mary Quarterly [End Page 647] Copyright © 2023 Omohundro Institute of Early American History & Culture
编者注:“方法与实践”
这篇由Sharon Block撰写的文章是《威廉与玛丽季刊》新“方法与实践”部分的第一篇文章,是该杂志“来源与解释”部分的配套文章。接下来的文章论坛“历史写作中的自我修正”旨在扩展和扩大布洛克创新文章所引发的对话。五位学者的工作与文章中提出的问题有交集,他们提供了与布洛克工作有关的论文,论坛以布洛克对这些论文的回应结束。发表在“方法与实践”中的文章可以探索新的方法,或者在新的环境中重新定位更熟悉的方法。或者,作者可以用这些文章来讨论他们作为研究人员和作家的实践,尝试新的形式或风格,或者为该领域指明新的前进道路。这些文章可能是建立在档案研究的基础上的,但很多都不是,作者的档案的性质将取决于文章的目标。如果项目的需要指向这个方向,作者应该自由地采用一种比典型的学术文章更具对话性、疑问性、思辨性或论战性的写作风格。然而,所有作者都必须努力将他们的项目置于该领域正在进行的对话中,以清晰和可识别的方式进行。“方法与实践”的文章通常比标准的研究文章短。我们预计大多数项目的案文将少于6 000字,注释将少于3 000字,尽管我们认识到某些项目可能需要更大的范围。如果您认为您的文章将从更高的字数中受益,请咨询编辑-就像Block在这种情况下所做的那样。我非常感谢文章论坛的六位作者,他们在紧迫的期限内接受了这项任务,并如此细心地完成了它。我还要感谢我的同事朱莉娅·加菲尔德(Julia Gaffield),她在我2023年7月休假时接替我担任临时编辑,监督论坛的编辑过程。《威廉与玛丽季刊》编辑(休假)[End Page 647]版权所有©2023 Omohundro早期美国历史与文化研究所
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
52
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信