Recomendaciones

Figure 6.10 presents the combined network of social interactions for this field in the 1950s and 1960s. The co-location and collaboration ties have been combined using the procedure outlined in chapter 4. This combined network shows that the Australian economic history social network was characterised by three large clusters, with

collaboration generally between geographically proximate scholars. The largest and most dense cluster of social interactions was between those in Canberra. This was due to greater tendency for members of the ANU community to engage in collaboration. As the preceding discussion highlights, this was, in turn, because of the nature of the ANU at the time. The tea room culture, active seminar program, close PhD supervision, and separate departments of economic history fostered dense interactions between ANU economic historians. Elsewhere, these activities were less-developed, which resulted in less (though still some) clustering of collaboration between scholars in Sydney and Melbourne. Some nodes are located outside of these main clusters. These indicate those who worked overseas, or in smaller economic history communities such as UWA or Adelaide.

The location-based communities were mediated by individuals who held connections in a number of different groups. In a network, those located on the edge of, or in between, clusters tend to be more prominent as they have diverse connections and are able to broker ideas in the group.¹²⁹ This role can be determined quantitatively, with betweenness scores indicating prominence based on the degree to which the scholar was an

intermediary between different groups. Table 6.3 presents betweenness metrics for the combined social network. Some scholars were prominent for holding appointments in different cities. McCarty had the highest betweenness in this community, due to his role as a broker of ideas and contacts between otherwise disconnected local groups. McCarty held contiguous appointments in Sydney and Melbourne, forming a key visual conduit between these communities in Figure 6.2. Figure 6.8 also shows that McCarty had sub-authorship

129 Burt, Structural holes; Burt, 'Structural holes'; Granovetter, 'Strength of weak ties'; Reagans and McEvily, 'Network structure'; Podolny and Baron, 'Resources and relationships'.

122

connections to scholars in each of the three clusters. Rather than dominating any particular local scene at this time, McCarty was prominent by forming the path through which communication could occur between different groups. This visual and quantitative indication of McCarty’s role in the community is supported by oral history sources, with members of the community remembering him as very bright, collegial, and supportive of the intellectual efforts of others.¹³⁰ Sinclair, similarly, held appointments in Canberra and Melbourne, and was part of the collaboration networks for the ANU group. His high betweenness score was likely due to his role in connecting these two communities.

Prominence also emerged through sub-authorship. Table 6.3 indicates that Boehm had the second highest betweenness in the group. This largely reflected his diverse sub-authorship ties to British economists and economic historians.¹³¹ Blainey’s sub-authorship

connections were largely within the Melbourne community, but were diverse in terms of disciplinary background. He was prominent by linking the economic history community to scholars from engineering and natural sciences.¹³² Hughes and Wheelwright were also prominent due to diverse sub-authorship ties.

Examining boundary spanners highlights the importance of ‘connections’ for intellectual communities. Butlin, for instance, was heavily involved in the ANU community, and developed a strong reputation based on his prominence in this group. However, his connections were highly localised and as a result his betweenness score in Table 6.3 is quite modest. This has been supported by oral history sources, with Blainey recalling the limited influence of Butlin beyond Canberra.¹³³ McCarty, to compare, has been largely unheralded in the economic history community, though the social networks reveal his important role as an intermediary. This was through appointments in different cities, and sub-authorship ties to diverse scholars. The social networks thus democratise the history of this group, revealing the importance of scholars beyond their publications or citations.

130 Blainey; Davison; Merrett; Schedvin; Sinclair interviews.

131 Boehm, Prosperity and depression, p.viii.

132 G. Blainey, The rush that never ended: A history of Australian mining, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1963.

133 Blainey interview.

123 Figure 6.10: Overall social network, 1950 - 1970

Canberra cluster

Sydney cluster Melbourne cluster

124 Table 6.3: Social network centrality, 1950 – 1970

ID code Betweenness Betweenness as

% of base value

McCarty, JW JMcC 1125 100

Blainey, G GB 1115 99

Boehm, EA EBo 1042 93

Sinclair, WA WS 898 80

Shaw, AGL AS 805 72

Davison, G GD 803 71

Hughes, H HHu 758 67

Nairn, NB NN 747 66

Encel, S SE 719 64

La Nauze, JA JLN 682 61

Davidson, BR BD 610 54

Sheridan, T TS 542 48

Barnard, A AB 501 45

Hall, A AH 493 44

Smith, FB FS 475 42

Wheelwright, T TW 463 41

Butlin, NG NB 434 39

Butlin, SJ SBu 420 37

Appleyard, RT RAp 359 32

Tucker, GSL GT 321 29

Note: Top 20 scholars, ordered by betweenness. Betweenness is measured as the proportion of shortest paths to other nodes that pass through the particular actor. As the highest-scoring scholar, McCarty’s betweenness is taken as the base value. Average betweenness for the top 20 scholars is 666. For the whole sample, average betweenness is 67.

Local clusters were also bridged by the AEHR, which became the main outlet for the field’s research in the 1960s. This assisted the diffusion of knowledge, fostered some sense of an

‘Australian’ community, and promoted the professionalism of the field. The AEHR was established in 1956 as the Bulletin of the Business Archives Council of Australia. It was an attempt to “form a bridge between business people and the academic researcher

interested in the development of Australian business and the economy”.¹³⁴ The name changed to Business Archives and History in 1962, at which time the scope of the journal widened, and editorship passed from Alan Birch to John McCarty, both at the University of Sydney. The editorial board at this time involved scholars from diverse disciplinary and geographic backgrounds. Barnard, Cochrane, Hughes and Woodruff were involved from

134 Morgan and Shanahan, 'Supply of economic history', p.217.

125

1962, with other representatives from Monash, Queensland, UNE, Adelaide, Tasmania and UWA.¹³⁵

From 1966, formal ownership of the journal passed to the Department of Economics at the University of Sydney, and the name was changed to the AEHR. Boris Schedvin, also then at the University of Sydney, joined McCarty as editor, and they noted that the change in name was, in part, because the journal had developed as “the specialist journal of economic history in Australia”.¹³⁶ The editorial board changed as well, maintaining geographic diversity but with much greater representation by leaders in the field. Barnard continued his involvement, and Syd and Noel Butlin, Gordon Rimmer, Sinclair, Tucker and Whitehead were added.¹³⁷ A ‘board of management’ within the University of Sydney was also

established, with Buckley, Syd Butlin, Ginswick, and Sybil Jack administering the

publication. Interactions between scholars in this focus were likely motivated by mutual interest, with individuals forming groups in order to maximise their collective abilities and the benefits of co-ordinated action.¹³⁸

Throughout the remainder of the 1960s, McCarty and Schedvin forged the intellectual character of the journal, encouraging a mixture of approaches from more general

historical discussions, to traditional accounts of the development of industries, through to more quantitative approaches concerned with the overall sources of growth.¹³⁹ The AEHR provided an outlet through which geographically disparate scholars could communicate and discuss ideas, thus mediating the social enclaves that developed at each location.

Schedvin has argued that through his involvement with the journal in the 1960s, he probably interacted with geographically disparate editors or contributors as much as he did with local colleagues.¹⁴⁰ McCarty’s role as an intermediary of ideas and contacts in this community, demonstrated visually and quantitatively above, is further evidenced through his editorship of the AEHR at this time.

The journal also played a role in the dissemination of ideas. A number of the key debates between economic historians in the journal involved scholars with no prior social

135 These other board members were not otherwise a part of this corpus. The list of board members is on the inside cover of the journal.

136 [McCarty and Schedvin] 1966, Australian Economic History Review, 6, 2, p.203.

137 As well as Bolton (historian), Gates (economist), JD Gould (New Zealand). The list of board members is on the inside cover of the journal.

138 Granovetter, 'Collective behaviour'; Hardin, Collective action; Olson, Collective action; Samuelson, 'Public expenditure'.

139 Morgan and Shanahan, 'Supply of economic history'; Pincus and Snooks, 'Editorial reflections'.

140 Schedvin interview.

126

interactions.¹⁴¹ The publication of articles either reporting on quantitative material, or discussing the method for determining statistics, was an important feature of the journal.

Major print books were integrated through book reviews, longer review essays, or published debates. Reviews of texts authored by overseas scholars, and reports on recent global trends in economic history also provided a means through which international intellectual trends were disseminated to the Australian group.¹⁴²

The growing specialisation of the AEHR was thus an important part of the maturation of this intellectual community. The journal fostered communication between geographically disparate scholars, and provided an outlet through which ideas about economic history could be discussed by scholars. While the AEHR was an important publication, its late transition from a business archives report to a specialist economic history journal meant that its role in the propagation of the orthodox school was relatively muted at this time.¹⁴³ The journal increased in reach and influence in the 1970s and 1980s, becoming the key publication outlet for this community. This, combined with the establishment of the Society and conference, continued to foster interactions between economic historians at the national level.