 |
 |
|
|
||
| Subscriber home page |
| |
|
||
Editorial structure and procedure; Writing the DictionaryEditorial structure and procedureThe decision to publish the new dictionary as a single entity within twelve years brought significant editorial benefits. It would now be easier to maintain the Dictionary's coherence because it would emerge from a single generation of contributors, editors, and staff. To the editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica's eleventh edition, even fourteen years (1875–89) had seemed 'an impossible system', preventing any one editor from seeing the project through and denying the volumes 'proper unity of conception or uniformity of treatment'. (30) Matthew was determined to avoid such dangers. The decision to publish the Dictionary only when it was complete had the effect of emancipating the writing phase from the tyranny of the alphabet which had governed the DNB's preparation from 1882 to 1900. Instead, the text could be prepared through mounting a series of what were in effect subordinate research projects on specific areas of subject matter, whose subdivisions could be monitored by specialists.For Matthew the project for the new dictionary constituted 'a formidable challenge to our generation'. (31) It required a carefully considered editorial structure. This he devised in consultation with Nick Wilson and Robert Faber, the project editor, who was Matthew's first appointment to the project staff. Matthew aimed to secure an appropriate specialist level of advice and editing for every article, to make the editorial responsibility for it clear to both staff and contributors, and to prevent duplication of work. He began by dividing the subject matter (the existing DNB articles to be reassessed, and the spaces available for new subjects) into twelve research areas. Each was treated as a separate sub-project, operating according to a separate timetable within the overall project, and each was supervised by one consultant editor, appointed by the editor (the consultant editors are listed here). The consultant editor proposed to the editor a strategy for improving the area's coverage, and also for reviewing completed work. All the people included in the new dictionary were assigned to areas, defined chronologically and thematically. Everyone included up to 1500 formed a single area. Thereafter Matthew placed some people in thematic areas for specialist attention: art and architecture, 1500–2000; literature, 1500–1779; literature, 1780–2000; business and the world of labour, 1500–2000; science, 1500–2000; and medicine, 1500–2000. The remainder were divided into five 'general' chronological areas, one for each century from the sixteenth to the twentieth. Matthew and his successor as editor acted as consultant editor for the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In addition to consultant editors for the twelve subject areas, Matthew appointed two consultant editors with responsibility not for specific articles but for aspects of the edition as a whole. The consultant editor for women was appointed to prompt and review women's inclusion in all subject areas; the consultant editor for likenesses supervised the selection of all the images used as illustrations. Soon after being appointed, Matthew consulted academic advisers about the DNB's strengths and weaknesses. In the first months after the start of the project in September 1992 the focus was on detailed planning (including the appointment of consultant editors), on circulating announcements, and on soliciting suggestions for entries and offers to contribute. Tens of thousands of questionnaires were circulated to the memberships of learned societies and readers of journals, and were distributed widely at conferences and through correspondence; all suggestions were registered for further assessment by editors. Responses to the questionnaires helped to shape many of the early strategic decisions. During this initial period Matthew appointed the first project staff: in addition to the project editor (who became project director in 1997), these were the project secretary and personal assistant to the editor (January 1993) and the research director (May 1993). He also began recruiting additional temporary or part-time help from among Oxford's graduate students. Their intelligent interest and willingness to work on a great variety of tasks, from research to keying in data to filing, proved important in completing the Dictionary. In May 1993 the staff moved into 37A St Giles', a house owned by OUP, which was thenceforward the new dictionary's base. As Matthew sometimes observed, its location half way between the Bodleian Library and OUP's headquarters in Great Clarendon Street symbolized the project's dual nature, and the collaboration between scholarly and publishing concerns that was integral to it. Research began in earnest in the second half of 1993 on three areas chosen for the contrasting academic and practical challenges that they posed: the general nineteenth-century area, pre-1500, and business and the world of labour. Work started on other areas in 1994 (science), 1995 (medicine), 1996 (literature, 1780–2000), 1997 (art and architecture, general eighteenth century, general twentieth century), and 1998 (general seventeenth century, general sixteenth century, and literature, 1500–1779). Although refined over time, the organization of research was essentially the same in each area. At the start of work on an area, its consultant editor reviewed its DNB coverage and content, and recommended a structure for subdividing it into 'blocks': that is, into smaller groups of people who fell into broadly similar fields of activity. Matthew allocated an allowance of new spaces to each consultant editor, who then distributed them between blocks. The consultant editor recommended specialists as associate editors, subsequently appointed by Matthew, to advise on each block. There were eventually 373 associate editors, whose names appear here. They advised on blocks ranging from 6 to 500 articles (the average block comprised about 140 articles). Their initial responsibilities were: first, to review each DNB article in the block, and recommend whether it should be replaced by a newly written article, revised substantially, or revised more lightly; second, to propose new people for inclusion, from the associate editor's own expertise and through assessing all the relevant suggestions for introducing new people into the Dictionary; and third, for each article to be included, to recommend a contributor, a word allowance, and whether an illustration should be sought. At the start of work on each research area, Matthew (together with the research and project directors and the relevant consultant editor) appointed one or more research editors as the in-house staff for that area. Each block was assigned to one associate editor for specialist academic advice, and to one research editor on the staff of the Oxford DNB. In some cases, a research editor had responsibility for all the blocks in an area; the blocks in larger areas were divided between two or three research editors. The average remit of each research editor covered between two thousand and three thousand articles. The research editors, generally post-doctoral research scholars with an appropriate specialism, were central to the whole process of commissioning, researching for, and writing the Dictionary. Each brought distinctive and widening contacts to the task, for which substantial organizational and diplomatic skills were essential. Their core duty was to pilot each article from the commissioning stage onwards until it met the Oxford DNB's editorial standards. They sometimes also acted as associate editors for blocks where they had specific expertise, and they contributed many articles. In-house staff revised or wrote some 9 per cent of the Oxford DNB's articles. No DNB supplement existed to cover people who died between 1991 and 2000. Although the careers of most who died in that period had been pursued many years earlier, such articles carried to an extreme the difficulty of writing about the recent past, where scholarship is usually thinner and perspective relatively lacking. The editor, in his capacity as consultant editor for the twentieth century, assumed direct oversight of these articles, working with a research editor who was appointed in July 1998. The procedure for dealing with the recently deceased grew out of the system for consulting panels of advisers that had been established by the editors of the DNB's supplements; but this was extended in scale, geography, and expertise. Many potential candidates were identified as 'possibles' for inclusion through drawing upon newspaper obituaries, specialist journals, and suggestions. These were sorted into occupational groups, and guidance on selection within them usually came from practitioners eminent in their field. The number of advisers for each group ranged from three to more than twenty, depending on the group's size and diversity, and the editor's decision was based on collating all the advice received. The Dictionary's advisers on the recently deceased, numbering some 400, have not been named publicly and were unpaid, but their anonymity should not allow their important services to go unrecognized. For twelve years the consultant editors, associate editors, and advisers on the recent past shaped the editorial effort, forming an indispensable network of judgement and expertise. The Oxford DNB and its readers owe much to their labours. Writing the DictionaryAfter receiving the advice of consultant and associate editors on every article, the decision to commission a contributor for each article was taken in house, and the editor signed every invitation. Word limits and Notes for Contributors provided necessary discipline, especially in ensuring that comparable people received comparable coverage. The editors did not view the lengths initially prescribed as final: where a good case for changing them was made, word allowances were often adjusted. In addition to the text of the article, contributors provided a list of the sources and other references to be printed beneath it. They were asked also to provide an abstract of the essential life details covered in the text, such as date and place of birth, education, death, and burial; this recorded (with commentary where necessary) the sources used for each of these key events, and enabled editors to ensure that such details were covered as fully and reliably as possible. The aim throughout, as in the DNB, was to secure clear presentation, conciseness, predictable scope, well-balanced treatment, and the clear separation of fact from interpretation or speculation.When commissioned to revise rather than rewrite an article, the author was asked to check the DNB text for accuracy, remove archaisms, reinforce both text (especially in respect of core biographical data) and bibliography, and if possible provide information about the person's archives, likenesses, and wealth at death. A revision could, however, become a rewriting when this seemed justified. Some articles in recent supplements, especially those on people who had died since 1970, were carried over to the Oxford DNB largely in their existing form. In such cases the original authors were given the opportunity, where possible, to update their articles so as to enhance historical perspective and enable them to merge unobtrusively into the single alphabetical sequence that covered the whole of British history. A central task of authors—whether of new articles, replacements for old articles, or revisions—was to summarize and clarify the latest state of knowledge. Many authors and editors drew upon the vast amount of manuscript material which had become available in print since the DNB's day, and many could capitalize upon their years of relevant research. While preparing their articles, some were inspired to embark upon further, separately published, studies. Contributors' research was supplemented centrally from the project's own resources organized under the research director, Elizabeth Baigent. These mainly comprised documentation on standard life events. Searches for birth, marriage, and death certificates were undertaken in collaboration with the four General Register Offices: England and Wales (from 1837); Scotland (from 1855); Ireland and subsequently Northern Ireland and Éire (from 1864). In addition, searches of Scottish parish registers from 1553 were undertaken through the Scottish GRO. All these materials were routinely requested by and were provided to contributors, or were incorporated by the editors into articles after delivery. Considerable effort was made centrally to enhance the new reference sections appended to each article. For archives, this involved searching the National Register of Archives, the British Library National Sound Archive, and the British Film Institute National Film and Television Archive. For likenesses, the scholarly catalogues of the chief national galleries were searched. An extensive survey of British records of wealth at death was conducted, using the published calendars for England and Wales (from 1858), Scotland (from 1876), and Ireland (1858–1922), and, from 1922, the calendars for Northern Ireland and Éire. Much of the information about wealth at death comes from these public documents. For earlier periods wills primarily from the courts of Canterbury, London, and York were obtained from the Public Record Office (now the National Archives); contributors also supplied information from secondary sources and private information. As with all documentary evidence, information about wealth at death requires careful interpretation: the Dictionary's aim is simply to present what is found in the public records. The lists of sources provided by contributors were dealt with differently from the other reference sections, and consist not of comprehensive bibliographies but of the materials used by the contributors and editors when preparing the article. The Oxford DNB's bibliographical lists include sources ranging from archival records through published material of every variety to videos, oral history interviews, inscriptions on monuments, and websites. Almost half a million individual citations are provided in the Dictionary and every main article cites at least one source. The project's bibliographic editors aimed to verify citations, resolve discrepant versions of sources appearing many times, and impose a consistent scheme of abbreviation where this could simplify citations and save space. With help from a powerful computer program, they could compare groups of similar citations and, after detailed research, edit them collectively. Once delivered, each article was reviewed by the research editor, who co-ordinated its further editorial scrutiny. Among the Oxford DNB's most important features was its monitoring process, both from inside the project and from outside expert advisers. The associate editors read all the articles in their block, except where the DNB article needed only light revision. They were asked to indicate whether they thought the draft article a fair and up-to-date account of the person's life and work, whether it successfully combined specialist scholarship with accessibility to a non-specialist, and whether its bibliography adequately represented past and present scholarship. Articles longer than 1250 words were also reviewed by the consultant editor, and those over 3000 words by the editor himself. In the light of their comments and advice, changes were implemented either by the research editor in house, or by the contributor; this stage involved much co-operation between authors and editors. The research editor then submitted the article, together with its supporting material and comments, to the editor for approval of its content. Every article received this final scrutiny, which often resulted in further amendments. It was then 'passed for content' either by the editor or by the research director, who for this purpose deputized for the editor in some parts of the Dictionary. Editorial approval of content was the major gateway in the article's journey from writing to publication, and marked the end of the research phase. The advent in the 1990s of email, whose use Matthew actively promoted within the project, made it much easier to build up the network of personal relationships between contributors and project staff. Throughout the project both editors sought to strengthen relations with contributors not only by signing invitations to contribute, but also by writing the postcard informing them that their articles had been approved for publication. Periodic newsletters, sent to all contributors from December 1995, kept the contributors in touch with the project. So also did the editor's monthly website messages, which appeared from June 2000, and the Oxford-based 'DNB seminars' held from January 2002. In all, the names of 9804 authors appear as contributing new material to the Oxford DNB, either as writing new articles or as revising existing ones; a further 2746 authors' names are given as having written material for the DNB which now appears in revised form. A separately published Index of Contributors accompanies the Dictionary; it lists all contributors, together with details of the articles they wrote or revised. The scale of the contributors' effort should be acknowledged. They received only modest financial reward for each article; the fees were in the nature of honoraria and could not reflect the effort expended. The contributors' role was not confined to writing: they often suggested new names for inclusion, and frequently put the editors in touch with other scholars working in their field. Many served the Dictionary in ways that went far beyond any call of duty, especially those who came to its aid in autumn and winter 2001–2 by taking on as yet unwritten articles, thereby ensuring that the overall deadline would be met. Others gave valuable specialist help with formulating the editorial conventions applied throughout the text—on such issues as transliteration, and the names of institutions, events, and places. To those whose contributions amounted to at least fifty articles or 50,000 words, and to others who undertook long-term research projects for the Dictionary, the editors offered the title of 'research associate'; their names are gratefully listed here. The new dictionary was, in short, a worldwide collaborative venture whose planning and execution involved a two-way traffic in ideas.
|
