Grunwick – ‘CBH’ article publication date

I’ve just had confirmation that my article, ‘Dispute’, ‘Battle’, ‘Siege’, ‘Farce’? – Grunwick 30 Years On, will appear in print in Contemporary British History Volume 22 Issue 3. This edition is due out in September 2008. But see below to access the online version which is available already.

The Grunwick Dispute and me – ‘CBH’ article now available online

My journal article in Contemporary British History,‘Dispute’, ‘Battle’, ‘Siege’, ‘Farce’? – Grunwick 30 Years On, is now online. It became available for download on 18th December.

If you are keen to read the article but encounter problems downloading it, do let me know. And reactions are, of course, extremely welcome – otherwise why bother to write anything at all?

The Grunwick Dispute and me – ‘Today’, BBC Radio 4, 28th December 2007

I’m pleased to have made the final edit of Sanchia Berg’s report on the Grunwick Dispute for today’s Today programme on BBC Radio 4, which considered some of the impending new releases from The National Archive under the Thirty Year Rule.

To hear her report, follow this link to the Today website, then click on the 0630-0700 segment and open the .ram file. If you then fast-forward to around the 17 minute mark you will hear the Guest Editor of this edition, Professor Peter Hennessy, summarizing some of the key political issues of 1977 contained in the about-to-be-declassified files. Peter and Ed Stourton then provide a seamless segue into the Grunwick piece.

"Well done the BBC!"?

How genuinely considerate of the BBC to offer some extra online clips to accompany their “major new series” The Seven Ages of Rock. And very nice it is to be able to ‘tear’ and ‘embed’ bits of them too. However, they say the clip above will only be viewable in the UK.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t really deliver on the “major new series” promise. On the strength of last night’s first episode it is a brilliant collection of archive footage – some already widely available, but some not so common. The new oral history contributions, such as this one from the always-affable Roger Daltrey, were interesting. But if the script and analysis were, at best, passable, the truly toe-curling moments came, as is so often the case, from the usual collection of excruciatingly hyperbolic rock journalists.

Still, lots more is promised. This week focused on Hendrix. Next week we have Bowie and ‘Art Rock’. Both website and series are worth checking out. (And give me Daltrey rather than Townshend any day when it comes to verbal coherence and reasonably self-deprecating analysis!)

I wonder how this will compare with another “major new BBC series”, Andrew Marr’s Modern History of Britain, which begins this Tuesday, 22nd May? Aside from seeming (to my eyes, at least) to get the title rather the wrong way round, the trailers suggest that ‘historian’(?) AM has stitched together a lot of footage with is extremely familiar to me from my Grunwick research…

The Grunwick Dispute and me: CCBH Seminar 7 March

A reminder that I’ll be giving a paper on The Grunwick Dispute and the Media in the Summer of 1977 this Wed 7th March at 5pm to the Centre for Contemporary British History Seminar at the Institute of Historical Research, Senate House, University of London. For those who don’t know, that’s on the Tottenham Court Road side of Russell Square. Here are directions and a wee map.

You can find out more about my Grunwick research here.
Do come along – the more the merrier!

The Grunwick Dispute 1976-78

Having got the green light, I can now say that I have a journal article entitled ‘Dispute’, ‘Battle’, ‘Siege’, ‘Farce’?: Grunwick 30 Years On forthcoming in Contemporary British History. Although I have no idea when the publication date will be, it is great to know that I have this up my sleeve. For more on what I’ve learned about the process – good and bad – of getting a journal article to the publication stage while also researching a PhD on a different subject, see below.

Also, as mentioned before, on 7th March 2007 I will be giving a paper on Grunwick and the Media Agenda in the Summer of 1977 at the Centre for Contemporary British History Seminar series at the Institute of Historical Research, Senate House, University of London.

Both my article and paper expand quite considerably upon my 2005 QMUL MA dissertation Reduced Snapshots and Enlarged Negatives? Grunwick: The Left, the Right, the Media. My primary concern has never been the alleged inciting circumstances and events which precipitated the strike. Nor is my main concern the minutiae of the vast field covered by the term ‘Industrial Relations’; although, of course, I cover this in some detail, I am not a ‘labour historian’. My main interest is in the extraordinary coalescence of structural, political factors and the actions of some highly motivated individuals and collectives which elevated Grunwick – an ostensibly localized issue – to a dominant position over the national political sphere and the media (or, perhaps more accurately, vice versa) during 1977.

I want to thank my MA supervisor Dr Peter Catterall for his continuing support and enthusiasm since I started working on Grunwick nearly two years ago (and, indeed, since the very first day I arrived at QMUL in September 2004). Professor Peter Hennessy has also been a great help. My PhD supervisor Dan Todman has been extremely supportive and patient, viewing the article as a useful adjunct to, rather than a distraction from, my PhD research.

My ‘Grunwick period’, in terms of new research and writing, is now at an end; at least until I complete my PhD. However, should any major media organization land here after an internet search on the subject I do hope they will get in touch with me. And this is a subject I very much intend to return to in the not-too-distant-future – not least because I have the same again in terms of raw research as that which I have already written up. In total, it would all add up to at least three times the length of my CBH article.

Anniversaries – particularly those which coincide with the 30 Year Rule – sometimes bring out the worst in terms of ‘revisionism for revisionism’s sake’ or the restatement of over-simplistic myths about historical events. This is particularly true of one which remains as contentious as Grunwick. Many of the key participants at both the local and national level remain alive and well. I am delighted to have had the chance to correspond and meet with some of the more rational and articulate: those who are as objective about their own actions (as it is possible to be) as they are perceptive about the actions of others. I believe I have done justice in my article to the insights they have shared with me. I sincerely hope so, anyway.

But you can be the judge of that when the article comes out. As soon as I have a publication date I will post it here.

Hoop Jumping IV: The Journal Experience (or, The Thesis vs. ‘other commitments’)

I attended a two day conference this week on “Getting Published in the Arts and Humanities” organized by Reading University, funded by the AHRC (and therefore free to attend) and held at the Institute of Historical Research. It was pretty useful, if slightly overlong and lacking firm chairmanship. There were two particularly informative speakers (about whom I may blog another time). They were informative because they talked in practical, realistic, human and humourous terms – four approaches which, I think, never go amiss in the often arcane world of academia.

A disproportionately large amount of time was devoted to the issue of writing that ‘elusive’ and ‘important’ first journal article. I had to suppress a little giggle, having just been given the final go-ahead on the final re-write of my Grunwick article that very morning. That sounds hideously cocky, but, in fact, it stemmed from a huge sense of relief at having finally got it off my hands.

I wish all academic journals had larger circulations (ie, more people read them); were cheaper (which they would be if more people read them); and were more ‘accessible’ in every way (which, by definition, they would have become if more people read them). But while we are only too familiar with the concept of ‘dumbing down’, even I don’t really have a clue what I mean by ‘accessible’ – particularly in an era when most people in Britain want to bring back the death penalty; a terrifying number of them read The Sun; many of them drink Bacardi Breezers, etc, etc… While, on one level, I would have preferred to have pitched all of my Grunwick work to a quality commercial periodical or even a broadsheet newspaper (and I seriously considered and investigated this at one point) the inevitable compromises of space and word-limit made this impossible. And the one thing I will not contribute to is further sound-bite over-simplification on a subject which has already suffered this fate far too often in the last thirty years. Indeed, one of the key reasons I wanted to research the Grunwick Dispute in the first place was to re-examine reductive mis-representations.

So, I plumped for ‘academic purity’ and went for the journal route. What did I learn, in practical terms?

Firstly, if you think you’ll do ‘just a little bit of further research to expand it a bit’ before you submit the article you will probably find this snowballing no matter how hard you try to control it. You’ll find more and more and more things that you feel you must address and try to squeeze in. You’ll wonder if you should really be writing a book rather than a journal article. (In some cases, you perhaps should be.)

Secondly, even if your work has previously been commended and you believe it is in a well-developed or even ‘finished’ state – both of which were the case with me – you will almost certainly be required to make changes to it. And then maybe some more changes. This will take longer than you will anticipate, even if the changes demanded are fairly minor. It is time-consuming. It is hard work (particularly if you are struggling to come in below the word-limit). It’s not simply about re-formatting footnotes to suit the house style (although that’s a bugger of a job too, software programme or not.)

Thirdly, you’ll have your first taste of the ‘peer review’ process. I’m told that, for almost everyone, the norm is for this to be a rather mixed experience. No matter your age or stage, you’ll feel like you’ve just got your school report card. You will think that those who compliment you are the most insightful minds in the world. You will think that those who criticize you “simply do not understand the crux of your thesis” – or something slightly melodramatic and self-pitying like that. And, weirdest of all, you will have no idea who they are. Therefore, you won’t be able to clarify for them, persuade them, or shout your head off at them (the latter only, of course, in order to demolish their minor quibbles with the intellectual brilliance of your analytical insight). You surrender completely to their ‘authority’ without being able to question the ‘credentials’ which put them in that position of authority over you. That is an extremely odd situation for any fully-grown adult to choose to submit to. In that respect the process is not one of ‘peer review’ at all. You and they are not peers. They have the power to recommend or reject you for publication. The only power you retain is the right to say ‘I’m off and I’m taking my ball (ie, the article) with me’. But unless you are supremely confident that you will get published in another journal, to do that would be to cut off your nose to spite your face. The whole experience rather infantilizes one: or it did me, anyway. I’m neither proud nor ashamed to admit that. When I was acting, I always told the company that I did not want to know when the press were in to see the show, nor did I want to read reviews until after the run was over. With the ‘peer review’ process those options are not available. But there is, apparently, no other way to decide which articles to run and which to reject. (Hmmm. Not sure about that one, but can’t come up with a better suggestion.) I had to accept it, and you will also have to.

Lastly, if your cherished article which you believe you have burnished to within an inch of its life is, as in my case, not a section of your PhD, you’d better have a very patient supervisor who takes a very holistic view of your ‘personal development’. Unless you have the self-discipline of a Zen master, working on the article and/or other public seminar or conference papers will inevitably impinge upon the progress of your thesis. (And that’s without even considering teaching commitments, any domestic problems or periods of ill health; or all of these simultaneously.) It is less a matter of available time than a matter of available head-space. The pay-off, of course, is that you have two subjects on the go, and thus a more ‘well-rounded’ CV. The down-side is that you may not be, eh…quite as on-schedule with your PhD as Brett Holman of Airminded is (and I am pleased to hear that his progress is going so well – it sounds pretty ‘text-book’ to me!)

So, to conclude – and all of the above is, of course, only my reflections on my recent personal experiences, and all our subjects and circumstances vary hugely – getting a journal to accept an article is a much bigger commitment than “just re-working it a bit”. Whatever time you have set aside for it (days, weeks, months): double it. Then, to be on the safe side, add a bit more.

But it is worth it. You know you are going to finally appear in print. That is good news, both “for the CV” and in terms of self-esteem. You may, as I did, have a very pleasant editor and assistant editor to work and negotiate with. You may even, as I did, get a mildly pleasant surprise (thus far) over turn-around times. If you have the urge, the time and the energy: go for it. After all, everything in life is a learning curve. I’ll be better informed, better able to cope with the juggling, and able to do it all quicker the next time round. Won’t I?

The Grunwick Dispute and me

Apologies for relative blogging absence over summer, but thumbs have not been twiddled. Here’s a date for the diaries. On 7 March 2007 I will be giving a paper at the Centre for Contemporary British History Seminar series at the Institute of Historical Research, Senate House, University of London.

I’ll be talking about ‘The Grunwick Dispute and the Media in the Summer of 1977′. As the title suggests, I’ll be addressing why and how Grunwick came to so dominate the media agenda during that summer. Simultaneously, (as many of you will recall) the Callaghan government was being sustained in office by the Lib-Lab Pact; Virginia Wade won the Ladies’ Singles at Wimbledon and the Sex Pistols’ God Save The Queen infamously reached only number two in the singles Charts. Above all, of course, it was the summer of Queen Elizabeth II’s Silver Jubilee.

I have one article on the Grunwick Dispute of 1976-78 well on its way through the submission process. I have another article waiting for the right forum in which to appear. I will also be giving a paper on the implications of Grunwick at the national, political level at Queen Mary’s Mile End Group in March (exact date TBC). I’m hoping to secure a very prominent political figure as my respondent for that public seminar.

There is more in hand for my mini academic/media campaign on Grunwick between now and April next year. This subject continues to fascinate me and I believe I’ve gone some considerable way already towards staking a claim of ‘expertise’ on the Grunwick Dispute and contributing a substantial amount of new research. Not being one to count my chickens prematurely, however, all will be revealed when it is confirmed.

‘The Summer of Heat: 1976′. BBC2 Sat 3rd June 9.10-10.10pm.

An appeal: half-way through this programme on Saturday night my digital PC-TV decided to crash completely. The programme hadn’t proved hugely insightful, analytical or informative (although I did learn about England cricket captain Tony Grieg’s inflammatory comments during the 1976 West Indies tour). But it is part of my job to interrogate these TV programmes, whether good, bad or indifferent, and the BBC (surprisingly) has no repeat scheduled as yet. Did any passing browser happen to see it? Can you fill me in on what it covered in the second half – especially if it made any reference to the Grunwick Dispute (on which more very soon)?

"Lefties" – and the Grunwick Dispute

A three-part BBC Four series which should be an excellent opportunity for quality televisual Contemporary History begins at 9pm tonight. The BBC promises that in the three hour-long episodes of “Lefties”, “Vanessa Engle revisits the turbulent era when the extreme Left was a serious and significant political force that believed it could change the world for the better. Weaving together interviews and archive footage, each film relives a different aspect of the Left in Britain in the 1970s and 80s.” The rolling, repeated schedule over the next three weeks, and online clips of interviews, can be found through this link to the series’ own excellent BBC webpage, or by clicking on the title of this post.

Covering a slightly later period than my PhD, “Lefties” should tally more closely with my MA Thesis “Reduced Snapshots and Enlarged Negatives? – Grunwick: The Left, The Right, The Media”. I will also be blogging here on the Grunwick Dispute of 1976-78 in the fullness of time, as I begin the serious business of revising my research and looking for the most suitable places to publish excerpts from my dissertation – an important event for me, and one which will attempt to mark the upcoming thirtieth anniversary of the strike.

I will be particularly interested to see whether, and to what extent, “Lefties” places the activities of the British Left in the later 1970s and 1980s within a political continuum stimulated by the ‘mythic’ 1960s. I would love to get a debate started here amongst any interested viewers, and would be particularly interested in comments from anyone with a participatory link – however tenuous – to the political activities across the spectrum of “the Left” in the period covered by the three programmes. Will this series accurately represent your contemporary histories? Set your videos!