All 16 entries tagged Author

(Re)Defining the Kinds of Articles We Love to Consider for Publication

Writing about web page https://exchanges.warwick.ac.uk/index.php/exchanges/about/submissions

The Chief Editor takes a moment to unpick the broad range of articles which the research journal is keen to consider – and tackles the question of interdisciplinarity too.

An oft asked question by prospective authors, is the kinds of articles we like to receive. The simple answer is ‘pretty much any well-written research, research adjacent or practitioner paper which appeals to a cross-disciplinary audience.’ Drawing guidance from our own policies page this has long been expressed as a submission policy as follows:

The journal normally accepts high-quality research and review manuscripts, alongside less formal and shorter interviews and critical reviews. Accepted manuscripts will be published on the understanding that they are an original and previously unpublished piece of work…manuscripts should be written with an expectation they will be read by a broad academic readership, rather than a niche, sectoral subset. Consequently, authors should assume less conceptual familiarity than when writing for audiences within their own disciplinary traditions. Submitted manuscripts adjudged to address topics for too narrow an audience, may be declined.

Let’s unpick that a little, and highlight some of the key points about making your manuscript ‘Exchanges worthy’:

Formats: Firstly, we consider work submitted under a number of formats – principally peer-reviewed research articles, and shorter editorially reviewed articles. There’s a variance in the basic word count to note here, but also in terms of the speed to publication and degree of editorial scrutiny different formats undergo. Editorially reviewed pieces also offer a wider freedom in terms of authorial voice, and are an excellent way to kick off a dialogue without contrasting your writing into a prescribed style. Many special issues comprise them heavily too, as the faster turnaround to publication is often seen as very desirable. Incidentally, many of our most downloaded and cited articles come under the editorially reviewed heading each year. However, we love peer-reviewed pieces too, and while they take longer, do let us work closely with authors over a longer period in hopefully refining their work for final publication suitability.

Scholarship: Secondly, we expect articles to hit a certain level of professional scholarship. While we consider papers from researchers, we also have and continue to be happy to take papers from professionals, practitioners and people working in research adjacent roles. We’ve also published papers from taught students too from time to time, although they’re not normally the community we target as potential authors. All articles though will be scrutinized and as much as possible held to the same quality bar. This does mean we turn down (decline) some articles which in our opinion don’t meet this requirement, but we always proffer advice on how they could be improved, reworked or rewritten to overcome any deficiencies. I am pleased to say many of our declined authors do return new versions to us for consideration at a later point.

Originality: Thirdly, yes originality matters too. We take a view that ‘previously formally published works’, falling under the ‘Ingelfinger Rule’ are out of contention. However, if you’re reworking a blog post, thesis chapter or similarly shared but not editorially scrutinized piece into a new article, chances are we’ll be fine with that. Although, as all new submissions are scanned for originality, there might be the odd question from me before we can move forward. I probably get more excited by articles which tackle topics we’ve never seen in our pages before, or which resonate with earlier publications, but that’s more a personal taste issue. Provided your piece is original and scholarly, you’ve a very good chance we’ll consider it. Minor hint: if it is a reworking of a thesis or dissertation chapter, be prepared to adjust the language and writing so the manuscript stands along as a discrete piece of writing. And please make sure the opening line doesn’t read ‘In this chapter…’ as a number of pieces I see each do!

Readership: Fourthly, there’s readership, and I confess this is probably one of the two most nebulous conceptions. Exchanges has always been published to address the interests of a broad, academic or well-informed, scholarly audience in all disciplines – not just one. Many of our authors, especially early career researchers, are finely trained to write…but to write exclusively for their disciplinary peers. One of the most common reasons papers are declined early in the editorial cycle is because they are too tightly addressed to a small range of scholars.[1] Naturally, any tight-topic focus can be a bit of an issue for the potential success of the submitted manuscript, given we expect articles to be read by a broad academic audience. Now this doesn’t mean that, say, an article on quantum loop gravity needs to be understandable to a historian, but we’d expect others in the sciences and even numeric social sciences will be able to gain knowledge from it. Generally, we tackle this during the review phase, but authors can help us to help themselves by ensuring they unpick any key terminology. The words of advice I most commonly offer to prospective authors in this regard is ‘write as if you were addressing a university wide research conference’ as a way to overcome this challenge.

Interdisciplinarity: Finally, there this is the other nebulous concept which is implicit in our title and one which I suspect actually puts off some of our potential early career authors: interdisciplinary. Originally, back in 2013, Exchanges was keen for papers which were explicitly interdisciplinary or which adopted interdisciplinary methods, methodologies or working practices. Or for those which drew on a team of authors from multiple, potentially non-adjacent, disciplinary traditions, by way of contrast. Don’t get me wrong, we still adore seeing papers like this submitted for our consideration [2], but as time went by a de facto policy became an explicit one once I came aboard to consider any paper from any discipline – so long as it is addressed to that broad readership (see above!).[3] I’m working on a more clearly defined statement to this end to appear on our policy pages in the coming months, as I feel while it’s something I’ve espoused to many would-be authors, I don’t think it’s really clear enough on the website. Perhaps another way to state it is ‘we will consider any credible, original, scholarly article within our chosen formats – and especially those displaying interdisciplinary thinking.’ Thus, if you have an idea for an article, which fits in the other criteria above, but perhaps doesn’t feel ‘interdisciplinary’ – chances are we would be keen to consider it. [4]

So, there you are in short, to provide us with an article which Exchanges be more likely to take on for review consideration as an author make sure it (a) fits our formats, (b) is scholarly and original and (c) is written for and appeals to a broad audience. If you’re an early career scholar, all the better, but this, along with any interdisciplinary aspirations of the piece, aren’t prequisities. Writing and submit a solid, accessible and engaging piece, located within a single discipline is as likely to be taken to review, as much as a piece from multiple disciplinary traditions will.[5]

You'll find our submissions page here#mce_temp_url# - and as always, get in touch with any specific questions or comments, but in the meantime, happy writing.

---

Endnotes

[1] Economic papers in particular to this sort of issue - oddly a phenomenon seems to be something I hear other interdisciplinary journal editors experience, so we’re not alone in this. Maybe it’s the mathematical approach? To my memory we’ve only ever had one mathematics papers to Exchanges, long ago, so the sample is too small to consider if this is at the root of the issue.

[2] Even if they can prove a bit more of a headache to locate, recruit and assign to willing reviewers. Afterall, if a paper is interdisciplinary, who exactly is the right person to review it other than the author(s) who submitted it in the first place? Answers on a neatly formatted review report please.

[3] I have always explained, it is our broad collection of articles, from a range of disciplines, which today forms our interdisciplinary assemblage – rather than the discrete individual articles. I feel this gives authors an easier time in creating thought provoking and informative writing for us. Perhaps if we were overwhelmed by articles we might rethink this approach. However, I don’t foresee this being a potentiality any time in the next few years.

[4] On a macro level, the range of special issue topics while themselves more disciplinary niche (but fulfilling the broad-readership goal) form their own loci of interdisciplinarity when read as a collection.

[5] Even if the latter might gladden my editorial heart just a tiny bit more.

Gareth Johnson : 03 Dec 2024 10:48 |  Tags: Advice Articles Author Manuscript New Policy Submission |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

More Frequently Asked Questions

Writing about web page https://exchanges.warwick.ac.uk/index.php/exchanges/FAQ

The annual revision to Exchanges FAQ has finished – is your question there?

It may be the summer – although looking at the weather currently I’d be hard pressed to confirm that – which means, normally, it’s time for me to pick up on all the annual update tasks. This year though I’m hard at work trying to get our next two special issues out the door, which means I’ve got a lot less time and attention available for this sort of administrative delight. That said, this week I thought it was time to do a little spring (summer?) cleaning on our Frequently Asked Questions page. It might not be the most heavily visited part of our site, but I believe it collates a range of highly useful advice based on the sort of specific questions I get week in and week out from our contributors.

I was inspired to update it based on an excellent question I was asked by someone recently about funder acknowledgements. Incidentally, in recent years I’ve been increasingly encouraging our authors to think about this sort of information, as I’d been surprised how few of them seem to offer an acknowledgement as a matter of course. Now part of the solution would be to make it a semi-mandated field in the manuscript submission process. Given I’m not going to be able to make any changes on that any time soon [1], I thought adding something about it to the FAQ would make a suitable stab at gentle encouragement.

Of course, being the kind of person I am, once I’d tweaked one answer on the FAQ, I realised how long it had been since I last systematically updated it. By which I mean, I couldn’t honestly remember if I had ever updated the FAQ. Which I wasn’t overly happy with, and hence it became a key task for the week. So, one print out later I sat in my office with my editing blue pen [2] going through the list of questions and their answers, and in a few cases creating a few new ones to add in. Now, I am not going to suggest that all the answers to everyone’s questions are there now – but I think 80% of what I am asked regularly can now be found on the FAQ page, or indeed by following the links to the various other reams of guidance we make available for contributors.

Will it stop people asking me directly? No, and to be fair, I hope not: a bit of human interaction is always a good thing. If nothing else it helps provide a source of insight into the sort of information we need to be providing or clarifying for our contributors. I do hope though that the page as it stands offers a reliable source of information and perhaps even relief to our current and potential future contributors!

Naturally, if you’ve got a great question that’s not yet represented on the page – drop me a line. I’ll be only too happy to add it into our collection!

---

Endnotes

[1] That is unless the IT Services and Library teams suddenly surprise me with hitherto unavailable developmental time. I am ever hopeful they will!

[2] Normally I edit in red or green ink, but the blue pen was to hand. #FascinatingFacts

Gareth Johnson : 25 Jul 2024 15:51 |  Tags: Asked Author Faq Frequently Information ITS Questions Updates Website |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

New Episode: Biochar, Artificial Pollination & Multispecies Justice

Writing about web page https://exchanges.warwick.ac.uk/index.php/exchanges/podcast

A new year sees a new season of the Exchanges Discourse podcast launch

It hasn’t even been a month since our last episode went live, and here we are back again with more academic chat. This time our first episode of 2024 sees a return of an old friend of the journal and podcast, as geography academic Catherine Price (University of Nottingham, UK) talks about her contributions to Exchanges. Regular readers of this blog and Exchanges will recall Catherine’s not only been on the podcast before, but was our key collaborator on the Anthropocene and More-Than-Human Special issue which we published last March. She’s such a busy scholar that it’s taken us until January to find time when we could both sit down for this chat!

Listen in here:

• Biochar, Artificial Pollination & Multispecies Justice: In Conversation with Catherine Price [25:24]

In the episode the start by talking about Catherine’s conversation article with Sophie Chao entitled Multispecies, More-Than-Human, Nonhuman, Other-Than-Human: Reimagining idioms of animacy in an age of planetary unmaking. Incidentally, this paper was one of our most downloaded ones of 2023, and has even recently been republished in the Spanish language. If you’ve not read it yet, why not listen to Catherine’s over view of the debates it covers.

Moving on from this we then turn to Catherine’s other paper in that issue which was concerned with the question Do we need Artificial Pollination if we have Multispecies Justice in the Anthropocene? You’ll notice I manage to slide in a Black Mirror reference here – and if you know the series, you’ll know exactly which episode I’m talking about! We also take a moment to reflect back on the reception for Anthropocene and More-Than-Human-World special issue of Exchanges from last March, which was very warmly received by readers. Naturally we also talk about Catherine’s future work and, as always, close with some pointers and advice for would-be academic authors.

For more on publishing with Exchanges, see our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠online guide for authors⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Or to read Catherine’s articles, visit: https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v10i2

To help you navigate the episode – here’s the index card for when we get to each part of the discussion:

• Timecode
• 0:00 Opening
• 0:47 Introductions
• 5:19 Multispecies Paper
• 11:30 Artificial Pollinators Paper
• 15:15 Special Issue Reception
• 17:40 Future Research
• 18:55 Advice for Authors
• 24:28 Closing & Outro

Gareth Johnson : 16 Jan 2024 16:49 |  Tags: Anthropocene Author Biochar Discussions More-Than-Human Podcast |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

New Episode: Conceptual Association, Advertising & Hydropathy

Writing about web page https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/mBJlx1mJwFb

The third podcast from Exchanges 10th birthday issue gets into the water cure and historical advertising

Today I’m bringing you the third in our series of 10th birthday issue celebration conversations over on the Exchanges Discourse podcast. This episode sees me in conversation with linguist, cultural historian and conceptual association scholar Constance de Silva (School of Languages, Literatures, Cultures and Linguistics, Monash University, Australia) about her recent paper and ongoing research. We had a few technical challenges so the recording is considerably shorter than Constance and my actual full conversation – although you still get well over 20 minutes of considered content! [1]

Listen in here: https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/mBJlx1mJwFb

In the episode we begin by discussing Constance’s beautifully illustrated article The Rise of Conceptual Association and Linguistic Register as Advertiser Persuasive Instruments: An Australian study of press artefacts 1800s–1950s, which was in Vol 11.1 of Exchanges. There’s a lot to say and we touching along the way on elements [2] from the rise of the water cure (hydropathy) to emerging new concepts and meanings within advertising and every day language. Constance also graciously provides some related insights from her work into the changing roles and perceptions of women in medicine too. As always, the conversation moves along to discuss her ongoing publishing activities and plans for future papers, before we close with a range of advice for fellow authors on getting published.

To help you skip around the episode – here’s guide to our discussions:

Timecode

• 0:00 Opening
• 0:51 Introductions & Context
• 3.34 Exploring the Article
• 13:06 New Words, New Meanings
• 15:44 Hydropathy, Women & Future Papers
• 18:52 Publishing Advice
• 22:30 Closing & Outro

This isn’t the last podcast for the year – surprisingly – as I recorded one earlier this week, which I hope to bring you before the Exchanges HQ closes for Christmas next week. I think you’ll find it an exhilarating listen, so stay tuned.

And of course, catch up with every episode of The Exchanges Discourse podcast, via our series index here:

https://exchanges.warwick.ac.uk/index.php/exchanges/podcast

---

Endnotes

[1] For those keeping score, we actually chatted for about 90 minutes, and got into some really interesting areas of thought and research after we stopped the recording.

[2] No pun intended!

Gareth Johnson : 14 Dec 2023 16:10 |  Tags: Advertising Author Hydropathy Interview Medical Podcast Research Water |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Author and Style Guidelines Updated

Writing about web page https://exchanges.warwick.ac.uk/index.php/exchanges/guidance

Updated guidelines means easier submission experience for authors

A task I’ve been meaning to get around for some months [1] has been to go through our Author and Style guidance pages and refresh the content. Finding the right moment has been trickier than I thought, but in the wake of our recent 10^th birthday issue, it seemed the ideal time to revisit this vital guidance to our authors, and make some judicious changes. Going through I could spot areas where the advice has been lightly tweaked over the years, and as a result some elements of it were mildly contradictory. Indeed, I strongly suspect it hasn’t come in for anything like a systematic review since I first came aboard the journal, and I don’t believe I’ve really had a look at the style guide quite as closely as I have in recent weeks.

The good news is that the changes are all now live, and both guides are – hopefully – a lot clearer.

• Author Guidance
• Style Guidance

Now, if you’re an author whose article is already underway – don’t panic! We’ve not made any major changes! We’re the same journal with fairly broad and welcoming requirements which make it as easy as possible for authors to contribute. This exercise was rather about bringing this online guidance more closely into line with what we advise authors in our 1-2-1 consultations.

Naturally though, we can’t claim to be perfect – so if there’s any aspect you’d like to see more about on these pages, let us know. We’re only too happy to keep refining and improving this guidance to ensure it continues to be fit for purposes for the next decade of Exchanges.

---

Endnotes

[1] Maybe even years.

Gareth Johnson : 29 Nov 2023 14:16 |  Tags: Advise Author Guidance Manuscripts Style Submissions |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

New Episode – Environmental Humanities & Transdisciplinary Research

Writing about web page https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v10i2.979

Following on from last time, here’s another episode of the Exchanges Discourse in discussion with a past author. This episode I talk with past journal author, Julian Westgate, about the paper he authored entitled Corals, Geo-Sociality, and Anthropocene Dwelling, which appeared in our Anthropocene special issue back in March.

During our chat we discuss the challenges of publishing as a ‘transdisciplinary scholar’ and also Justin’s reflections on conducting fieldwork around the Great Barrier Reef. There’s also an interesting segue looking at his work in the ‘exo’ field, touching on ecologies and life-potential on other worlds too. As always we touch on experiences of publication and publishing, especially with an eye for advice for first time authors and early career scholars.

Listen in here via the following links:

• https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/exchangesias/episodes/Environmental-Humanities--Transdisciplinary-Research-In-Conversation-with-Justin-Westgate-e25ctuk
• https://open.spotify.com/episode/2jG0x720JL6WJTvvzmAdzJ?si=zDPEbct0RQCiXiEFekbDwg

Episode Index

• 0:00 Opening
• 0:42 Introduction
• 4:28 Paper overview
• 13:34 Other research & work
• 17:28 Positive publishing experiences
• 21:21 Publication challenges
• 24:10 Advice for authors
• 30:45 Closing

Gareth Johnson : 07 Jun 2023 15:25 |  Tags: Anthropocene Author Coral Episode Interview Podcast Publishing Reefs |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

A Positive Experience with a Highly Regarded Journal: Author Feedback Review

It’s important to listen to contributors, and in this piece, the EIC reviews the formal author feedback from the past three years.

• [I approached the journal because] A colleague spoke highly of the process and the journal's reputation. (author #1, feedback)

For many years now, we’ve asked every author who’s published in Exchanges to tell us about how they found the experience. Not all of them take up the offer, but many do, and I’m deeply grateful to each one for the thoughts they have shared. In fact, over the past three years[1] fully 53% of all authors have taken the time to reflect on publishing with us via our online survey form. As a result, it has been possible to create a snapshot of the journal’s perceptions within its core contributing community, along with a evaluative account of their experiences within the editorial journey. I recently collated and analysed the feedback for 2020-2022, and I have to say the result was wonderful! I certainly was not expecting the comments to be quite as positive as they were.

• I was rejected by three discipline-specific journals, but realise actually that the interdisciplinary nature of my article made Exchanges perfect, and I was reassured by the positive, constructive and professional response to my informal query and the emphasis on ECRs (author #2, feedback)

What these results principally demonstrate is how Exchanges, its EIC and editorial team, along with its present operational ethos are all strongly valued by our contributing authors. Interestingly, the journal’s operational transparency, interdisciplinary remit and editorial regime were all stressed as particular highlights by authors. This is fantastic, as I would personally point to all three of these as specific strengths or perhaps unique selling points Exchanges offers to its current and potential authorial community. Even more gratifying, in response to questions about how we could improve, almost 70% of all those responding either said ‘nothing’ or took the opportunity to offer further praise for the journal and team. While I am proud of the journal and all my editorial colleagues, I was really not expecting to come in for such (all-but) universal praise in this part of the survey. Tea and medals all-around, I think!

• I have no inhibitions in saying that out of the 6 peer-reviewed publications, and the 9 rejections (including an initial editorial rejection) I have had, Exchanges has been the most author-friendly experience by quite a margin. (author #3, feedback)

Seriously though, there were a few minor areas of unsatisfied technical or procedural development identified. I am not surprised, as the chief editor I am more than aware of many aspects of the journal, our hosting platform or even our operational protocols which could benefit from a re-examination. Certainly, for example, some authors felt the duration of review or time taken to obtain feedback could have been better. I would agree, my desire is always for speedy, but quality assured, reviewing. However, I must counter how from an editorial and reviewer standpoint, onboarding reviewers who are knowledgeable and willing to contribute their insights is never an easy task for my editors. Indeed, I’ve heard from other, larger and (dare I say it) more major journal editors how they face exactly the same problem.[2] So, while I appreciate this point, I fear it is more of a universal issue with reviewing than simply our title’s approach.

• The journal seemed very welcoming to early-career researchers and researchers who were looking to publish their first article. The interdisciplinary nature also aligned with my research and the article’s content. (author #4, feedback)

Beyond their concerns, we also asked what journal authors would like to see developed by Exchanges in terms of services, options or features. More themed special issues or calls for papers were the aspects with most uniform degree of high interest, which is gratifying. I really relish working with colleagues on special issues – as editorial leads and associate editors alike, it really helps us deliver on our title’s missions. Altmetrics and the ability for readers to comment on articles followed in importance, which considering we introduced the former last year is gratifying. I remain conflicted as to the latter – personally I delight in the discourse on and around publications, but I am concerned how much monitoring or even active policing this might be on the platform.[3] Certainly, it is an interesting option but I’m not seeing a groundswell of demand for it yet. Conversely, where there was more limited interest was in terms of hard copies of the journal – which is a relief, as arranging print production is not that straightforward an endeavour. Very limited interest in multimedia abstracts appeared too, so I won’t be focussing on these any time soon either.

• I've had a positive experience and fair and strict treatment here before, so I enjoy submitting here now. (author #5, feedback)

So, going on what does the outcome of this feedback review mean for the journal? Well, in part it will drive an update and refresh of the survey instrument to reflect the last three years of development for the title. It also underscores the importance for increasing the visibility and breadth within our potential contributing community. I strongly suspect there are many, many authors who would greatly value discovering Exchanges, but how and where we reach them has always been a challenge. I’m happy to report I’m talking actively with the IAS itself and fellow journal editors at Warwick about just how we raise our collective heads further above the parapet. The message here is clear: publishing with Exchanges is an excellent authorial experience…but you just need to know we exist first!

---

My thanks to all the editors, associate editors, reviewers and authors[4] who have worked so hard to make the journal the successful experience it has been, and I would hope continues to be.

---

Endnotes

• [1] That would be for all issues published 2020-2022, or 7 journals in total.
• [2] I suspect the recent UCU industrial action will not have helped matters – and that’s before you factor in the challenging work regime faced by so many of our colleagues.
• [3] Let alone running through any legal liability this might open the journal to.
• [4] Especially those who took the time to complete the feedback!

Gareth Johnson : 07 Mar 2023 10:00 |  Tags: Analysis Author Feedback Metrics Perceptions Reflection Report |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

New Episode: Creating Informal & Informative Academic Discussion Articles

Writing about web page https://anchor.fm/exchangesias/episodes/Considering-Conversations-Creating-Informal--Informative-Academic-Discussion-Articles-e1vbokb

Last month we released a podcast episode looking at one of our two non-peer reviewed submission formats: the critical reflection article. Following feedback, it seemed a companion episode looking at the other of the formats was a good idea. Hence, today we launch a lengthy episode of the Exchanges Discourse dedicated to the conversation article. Listen in here:

• Considering Conversations: Creating Informal & Informative Academic Discussion Articles (25:33)

(Also available on Spotify)

As it is once again a lengthy discussion, there is an episode index to give you an idea of where you might want to dip in – rather than listen the whole thing.

• Opening: 00:00
• Context: 01:07
• Defining Conversation Articles: 03:33
• Why Conversations Matter: 10:30
• Writing Conversation Articles: 15:00
• Conclusion: 23:45
• Wrap Up: 24:48

The next episode of the Discourse is scheduled to be our panel discussion on interdisciplinary publishing – be sure to listen to that, as I suspect it might be our most exciting episode yet!

Gareth Johnson : 22 Feb 2023 09:01 |  Tags: Author Conversations Episode Guidance New Podcast |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

New Episode: The What, The Why, The How and The Where of Critical Reflections

Writing about web page https://exchanges.warwick.ac.uk/index.php/exchanges/podcast

A new year brings with it a new episode of the Exchanges Discourse podcast, focussing on critical reflections.

Many moons ago I wrote a piece for the blog about critical reflections, in part to address the lack of substantive information which had been previously provided about them. Since then it’s remained a popular format, but one which I’ve found many authors are less than clear about. So, before the Christmas break, I recorded a lengthy new episode of The Exchanges Discourse podcast to explore this topic.

Listen here: Creating Critical Reflection Articles: The What, The Why, The How and The Where (23:57)

(Also available on Spotify)

As it’s a lengthy episode I’ve provided some navigation guidance for listeners so they can skip to the right point of the podcast episode.

• Opening (00:00)
• Introduction (01:08)
• Defining critical reflections (04:12)
• Why they matter (09:28)
• Writing critical reflections (14:08)
• Wrap up (21:12)

Keen eared and regular listeners will notice I’ve also updated the musical ident that we use for the podcast. I thought after three seasons it was time to have a refresh of this, and I hope you enjoy the light and slightly innocuous new piece I’ve selected.

As we don’t have any more author interviews scheduled (at least not until after we publish issue 10.2 in April), I’ll be hopefully pulling together a couple more episodes in the meantime…but no spoilers for now.

Happy listening.

Gareth Johnson : 18 Jan 2023 11:11 |  Tags: Advice Author Critical Episode Podcast Reflections |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

New Episode: In Conversation with Harriet Richmond

Writing about web page https://exchanges.warwick.ac.uk/index.php/exchanges/podcast

Another author graces the Exchanges' podcast with their thoughts on research and publication.

Once more we present another new episode of The Exchanges Discourse podcast, this time featuring another chat with an author from a recent volume of the journal. In a lengthy, and lively, discussion Harriet and myself explore a range of topics from HE marketisation – always a favourite of mine – through being an outsider and locating oneself within a discipline and into the realm of cultural studies and organisational stories. I find myself saying this about all the author interviews, but its true, that once again it was a very enjoyable and informative conversation.

• In Conversation with Harriet Richmond: https://anchor.fm/exchangesias/episodes/A-Conversation-with-Harriet-Richmond-e1qq7i4

(Also available on Spotify)

I’ll be recording the next episode tomorrow, once more featuring an author of a recent paper – and I’m looking forward to a similarly illuminatory chat too. Listen out for it!

Gareth Johnson : 16 Nov 2022 10:46 |  Tags: Author Collage Discourse Episode Exchanges Interview New Podcast |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem