Skip to content

The NACBS Blog

Stephanie Barczewski
Clemson University 
Like many of us, I have had difficulty focusing on much except the coronavirus pandemic for the last few weeks. So, I decided to turn my lack of attention on anything else to a minor historical research project.

As I heard reports of the spread of coronavirus around the world, it struck me that, in a number of former British colonies, travelers – in some cases returning citizens and in others tourists or overseas visitors -- from the United Kingdom were responsible for bringing the first case of coronavirus to those countries.

This led me to a question: were the historical ties resulting from older colonial and continuing postcolonial relationships more responsible for spreading coronavirus than the ties of present-day globalization? The answer is yes, though it’s a close race.

Of sixty former British colonies, twelve (officially anyway) have no cases of coronavirus as of March 27 (Botswana, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvaluand, Vanuatu and Yemen). For one other (Barbados) I was unable to determine the source of its first case.

Of the remaining forty-seven, coronavirus was brought to eleven of them (23.4 percent) by travelers from the United Kingdom, either tourists or their own returning citizens. The eleven are: Antigua and Barbuda, Cyprus, Dominica, the Gambia, Grenada, Jamaica, Mauritius, Myanmar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Zimbabwe.

The United Kingdom was tied with China as the leading bringer of the virus to its former colonies. In six (12.8 percent), the virus was brought by someone from Iran; in five (10.6 percent) by someone from the United States; and in four (8.5 percent) by someone from Italy.

Of thirteen current British Overseas Territories, seven (the Falkland Islands, the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, South Georgia Island, Tristan de Cunha and the Turks and Caicos Islands) have no cases of coronavirus as of March 27. For one other, the British Virgin Islands, I was unable to determine whether there was a British source of its first case.[1]

Of the remaining five, coronavirus was brought to two (40 percent) by travelers from the United Kingdom, again either tourists or their own returning citizens.

If we add the former colonies and current overseas territories together, travelers from the United Kingdom were responsible for bringing coronavirus to thirteen of fifty-two (25 percent), a larger proportion than any other source. China is once again in second with eleven (21.2 percent), with the USA, Iran and Italy again next in line. It’s important to note that Chinese tourists take around 160 million trips outside the country each year, while British tourists take only 75 million, and around two-thirds of those are to the European continent, which means that the United Kingdom is playing a relatively bigger role as well as an absolutely bigger one. Although tourists, at least from what I can glean from press reports, are not the main issue: in only three of the thirteen cases were tourists the first bringer of the virus to a particular country. In ten, it was brought by a returning resident of the country who had traveled to the United Kingdom. (I would speculate that many of those ten were probably visiting relatives.)

Assessed regionally, the role played by travelers from Britain in spreading the virus was by far the strongest in the Caribbean, with eight of the thirteen nations located there (Antigua and Barbuda, Bermuda, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines). Next comes Africa with three (the Gambia, Mauritius and Zimbabwe), and the Mediterranean (Cyprus) and Southeast Asia (Myanmar) contain one each. So the global impact was far from uniform.

The ties of empire are therefore still strong, particularly in the Caribbean, when it comes to determining the patterns of global travel, and unfortunately in this case in the determining the routes that a virus takes in its spread around the world.

This is obviously quick-and-dirty analysis, and I’d love to hear more thoughts and insight from my fellow NACBS members.

[1] The first two cases arrived in the British Virgin Islands on 26 March and are categorized as being from ‘Europe and the United States’.

0 Comments Read full post »


Interview with Jonathan Connolly

Posted by rdaily under Interview | Tags: labour, south africa, walter d. love | 0 Comments

Jonathan Connolly is the recipient of the 2019 Walter D. Love Prize. Connolly’s winning article (for the best entry in British history) was “Indentured Labour Migration and the Meaning of Emancipation: Free Trade, Race, and Labour in British Public Debate, 1838-1860,” Past & Present 238 (February 2018).

In August 2020, he will take up his new position as assistant professor in the Department of History at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

 How did you become interested in this topic?

Early on in graduate school, I began reading about indenture in the South African context, where I was interested broadly in processes of imperial expansion. Like many I think, I was struck by how quickly the indenture system took shape, so soon after abolition. An interest in origins led me to the southern Caribbean and then in particular to Mauritius. As I read more, I became increasingly concerned not only with what indenture ‘was,’ but with how it was represented. Many of my interests and nascent commitments as a historian involved the political culture of imperial rule—attempts to understand and rationalize power. So my earliest question, the question that eventually led to this article, was ‘why did indenture become less controversial over time?’ By extension, ‘how was indenture rationalized, alongside Britain’s commitment to antislavery?’ And, ‘what might debate on indenture tell us about the concept of “emancipation” and what it did and didn’t mean?’

Did you make any particularly important archival findings? Was there a moment when you felt like you had achieved a breakthrough in your research? 

I relied mainly on newspapers and other public representations for this project, and many of the individual articles I read are fascinating in their own right, rhetorically and politically. But if there was a sense of ‘breakthrough,’ it came through the gradual realization of a longer-term pattern of change. Seeing the dramatic transformation in the Times’ position on indenture for example, over the course of twenty-odd years. That pattern made many individual claims all the more striking. Meanwhile, teaching also played a significant role. In the midst of the project, I taught a small seminar on antislavery and abolition. Rereading canonical antislavery texts (with students encountering them for the first time, no less) helped emphasize how later representations of indenture subverted antislavery ideals, often radically.

Does your project engage other disciplines? If so, which ones, and how?

I certainly hope so. My earlier training in comparative literature played a role in generating the project and in the close reading of political language more generally. One of the article’s key themes is discursive normalization, which is I think of interest broadly in cultural studies, but also potentially in the social sciences, especially historical sociology. And certainly the article takes inspiration from an interdisciplinary methodological tradition traceable back at least to Said: that is, the use of interpretive methods to uncover how, historically, particular modes of thought have helped justify and enable particular relations of power.

Does your project have any particular relevance to the contemporary—political, social, cultural, etc.?

In large part, the project was an attempt to understand how indenture, in spite of its severities, came to be seen as a natural part of the modern world. If scholarly work on humanitarianism often foregrounds moments of recognition, histories of emancipation may emphasize an inverse trajectory: about the hiding of violence and responsibility. That dynamic is of both historical and contemporary interest. In this case, the logic that emerged in favor of indenture in the 1850s bears a striking resemblance to something that may seem inevitable today: that patterns of mass consumption in parts of the world depend on extreme low-wage labor far away.

What are you working on next? Will you be pursuing related research questions or turning to something completely different?

The article is part of a larger book project, tentatively titled Worthy of Freedom. The focus of the project initially concerned political culture and ideologies of power, as this article attests. But over time, the project grew larger and more diverse methodologically. In addition to the ideology of indenture, the book examines the system’s legal structure and its local and global economic effects. I endeavor to show how the legal category of ‘free labor’ changed over time, and trace a set of private, official debates on the subject, whose trajectory largely mirrors that of the public debates analyzed in the article. Meanwhile, I became fascinated by the ways in which indenture shaped the political economy of emancipation, and by the material relationship between indenture and free trade. I published some of my economic arguments focused on state debt in “Indenture as Compensation: State Funding for Labor Migration in the Era of Emancipation,” Slavery & Abolition 40, no. 3 (2019). A key interest and challenge for the book is interweaving these three levels of analysis.

0 Comments Read full post »


Interview with Melissa Glass

Posted by rdaily under Interview | Tags: early modern, essay prize | 0 Comments

Melissa Glass of Dalhousie University, winner of the 2019 NACBS M.A. Essay Prize, tells us about her project, “‘The Rust of Antiquity’? Print Culture, Custom, and the Manorial Court Guidebooks of Early Modern England”

I have a reputation among my friends for being a bit obsessed with manor courts. My twitter handle is even @ManorCourts, for goodness sake (which, yes, is both evidence of my obsession and shameless self-promotion)! Manor courts were local administrative and judicial tribunals in medieval and early modern England that functioned partly as small claims courts and partly as forums to resolve issues that impacted the community—all administrated by the landlord and his steward representative. Usually held twice a year, these courts expected participation from people throughout the manorial community in order to settle minor disputes between tenants (especially regarding debts), create local byelaws (especially to protect communal agricultural resources), and present and punish misdemeanours that disrupted the peace. They also created a public record of customary land transactions, elected local officials, and ensured all obligations to the landlord were met. At their heyday before the Black Death, at least 10,000 of these courts existed throughout England, but they slowly and steadily dwindled as economic and social circumstances changed and other institutions gained power—especially parishes and the petty sessions of the Justices of the Peace. These courts left behind terse entries written in Latin on parchment rolls and books, with very few details regarding the events’ circumstances or the court’s decision-making process. Their quotidian entries with lack of context or explanation make manor court records simultaneously revealing, yet opaque sources.

I first stumbled upon the existence of manor courts at the Lancashire Archives in Preston, England, while I was on a semester studying abroad in the UK as an undergraduate student. It was my first time at an archive, and I was looking for a topic for my honours thesis. I started ordering—almost randomly—the oldest documents in the archive, mostly just for the thrill of handling parchment that was over 450 years old for the first time. My first discovery was the manor court rolls from the Honour of Clitheroe. The challenge of the handwriting and Latin was initially very daunting, but luckily the archive had a published translation of the records, and a new window into the world of early modern England suddenly opened up to me. The squabbles between individuals, the attempts to manage shared resources as a group of neighbours, and the complex arrangements of land sales were not at all what I had expected from this “antique” society. The idea that nearly every community in medieval and early modern England had a public institution where everyday problems could be sorted out and recorded, and that many of these records still existed, simply blew my mind.

My honours undergraduate thesis ultimately became a close examination of the early Elizabethan records of the Honour of Clitheroe, and I am currently completing my master’s thesis on women’s role at a variety of manor courts from 1558 to 1700. I started my master’s program at Dalhousie University by taking a seminar on “Print Culture in Early Modern England” with my supervisor, Dr. Krista Kesselring. In this class, I realized that before I progressed any further with my research I needed a better understanding of what these courts were, how people viewed them at the time, and how they fit into the broader English legal system. I turned to the various manuals that were written for court stewards that provided step-by-step instructions on how to properly run a manor court. These manuals explained whose participation at the courts was expected, what issues were within the courts’ jurisdiction, and added some thoughts on how these courts had come into being. This essay won me the 2019 NACBS MA essay prize—possibly only due to the wonderful wealth of material provided by Early English Books Online. I was particularly interested in a group of manuals written between 1561 to 1666 because they were the first ones written in English as opposed to Latin or French (making them accessible to a wider audience) and they were written during the manor court’s main period of decline. I was much less interested in the authors’ detailed explanations of court procedure than in their brief but illuminating comments on the broader function of the manor courts in English society. I scoured the texts for clues about the authors’ opinions hidden in between dry, legalistic descriptions.

Ultimately, I found that the legal scholars who wrote these guidebooks saw manor courts as a still necessary but old-fashioned form of justice without a clear role in the legal system moving forward. The function of custom and communal memory, so fundamental to local manorial courts, continued to play an important role in the organization of early modern English society, but these unwritten “ancient” customs were increasingly in tension with broader cultural impulses towards codification and uniformity. The authors nevertheless treated manor courts as subjects worthy of study, examining them with sincerity and solemnity as institutions integral to the traditional functioning of the commonwealth and the execution of justice throughout the country. However, these guidebooks helped to articulate an ideal form of court procedure, which, apart from never actually existing in any one court, ultimately hindered the flexibility and localism that had been so central to manor courts’ operation for many centuries. This genre of early modern manorial court guidebooks demonstrates an unusually clear sense of the transition from “medieval” to “modern”.

I am hoping to start a PhD in early modern English history in September 2021, and my research is broadening into a much wider range of topics as I progress. But I believe that focusing on manor courts as an undergraduate and master’s student has helped me to build a stronger foundation of knowledge than many other subjects would have done. In studying manor courts, I have had to become familiar with early modern agricultural practices, the economics of the land market, the social dynamics and politics of landlord-tenant relations, how civil litigation could transfer between jurisdictions, the importance of stewards and lawyers in the countryside, women’s work, and the impact of coverture—and much, much more. Writing my essay on manorial court guidebooks was essential for helping me to develop a holistic understanding of the often-disparate pieces of daily life that were handled by manor courts and place them within the intellectual context of their time. It is truly an honour and so encouraging that this research has been recognized by the NACBS – thank you!

Melissa Glass with fellow NACBS prize winner, Zach Bates of the University of Calgary, at the 2019 NACBS in Vancouver. 


0 Comments Read full post »


Interview with Penelope Ismay

Posted by rdaily under Interview | Tags: Friendly Societies , Penelope Ismay, Stansky Prize | 0 Comments

Interview with Penelope Ismay, Boston College

Co-winner of the 2019 Stansky Prize for best book in post-1800 British Studies, Trust Among Strangers: Friendly Societies in Modern Britain (Cambridge University Press, 2018)


How did you become interested in this topic?

I came to graduate school interested in modernity; it was EP Thompson’s Making of the English Working Class that pointed me in the direction of friendly societies. I had been dissatisfied with the old stories of modernization because they seemed to suggest that competing individuals in pursuit of their own self-interest inadvertently produced social cooperation. I could not understand how people trusted such individuals. Reading Thompson, I came across the mention he made of friendly societies, an organization I had never heard of. I was shocked to learn later that these mutual aid societies were the largest working-class organization of the nineteenth century. Yet in his book about the making of the working class, an 800+ page book, Thompson mentions an organization with millions of working-class members only three times. Friendly societies seemed like a missing link that might help me tell a new story of social cooperation in modern societies.

Which archives and/or collections did you find most helpful?
I conducted research at the national archives in London, but then toured the country, visiting as many local archives with friendly society records as I could. Local archives gave me access to the minute books of local Odd Fellow lodges, covering many years in the institutional life of individual societies. This enabled me to follow the way members talked about the problems they encountered and the dead ends they hit before they found a solution that worked. One problem that kept coming up again and again was the problem of trust, both trust in other people and trust in institutions. How could they trust the strangers knocking on their door claiming to be Odd Fellows from some other town? And why should they be obligated to relieve such strangers even if they were legitimate Odd Fellows? By tracing their solutions, including the ones that failed, I began to see larger patterns emerge. The shape of the national system of reciprocity was a result of the process through which the members solved problems of trust over the years.

Was there a moment when you felt like you had achieved a breakthrough in your research?
 Yes! I remember it clearly. Historians had long assumed that the Odd Fellows had been part of a system of extra-local reciprocity since the eighteenth century that merely expanded in response to industrialization. But as I tried to find traces of these connections in order to flesh it out, it became apparent no such system existed. The crackdown on associational life during the French Revolution effectively eliminated any functional institutional ties between lodges. So, how the working class members of isolated Odd Fellow lodges in the early nineteenth century built an international organization that, by the end of the century, distributed tens of thousands of pounds annually in mutual aid became my story.

Does your project engage other disciplines? If so, which ones, and how?
My project engages a number of other disciplines, most notably sociology. My historical questions tend to be sociological in nature, how do modern societies work? How is cooperation achieved in a society of strangers? They are versions of questions that people have been asking for hundreds of years. The trick for me as a historian was finding versions of these questions as they emerged historically. Obviously, as Britain changed so radically over the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, people wondered how the whole thing would hold together. So, I tried to listen to how they talked about it, what solutions they offered, and how they justified those solutions.

Do you have any advice for graduate students and early career professionals as they begin research projects or embark upon the writing process?
The idea that you are now the historian, leading other historians through a story of your own creation, is scary enough to generate some extraordinary anxiety and some extraordinarily creative procrastination techniques. The strategy that worked for me was to observe myself in these moments and note the steps I took before I finally sat down to write. I learned to understand these steps as “my process.” In fact, I wrote them down on a sticky note and then the next time it happened I tried to accept that there would be a process that unfolded before the writing happened, but that the writing would in fact happen. Because we are all so different, I think the best thing to do is to keep asking other scholars how they approach it. Sometimes learning that everyone experiences some version of a fear can diminish it. My only other advice is to celebrate every accomplishment of research and writing, no matter how small.

Does your project have any particular relevance to the contemporary—political, social, cultural, etc.? 
It strikes me that if there is not anything new under the sun, we might do worse than to listen to some of the ideas that intelligent people in the past articulated for solving the problems we continue to face.

What are you working on next? Will you be pursuing related research questions or turning to something completely different?
I am working on a book about the different kinds of boundaries Victorians drew around self-interest. It is a new project. But it addresses questions related to those I examined in Trust Among Strangers, about how modern societies hold together. Economic self-interest used to go a long way in explaining how strangers could engage in economic exchange and cooperate socially. A number of early Victorians certainly held this belief. But after the 1850s, such a view was hard to sustain. Faced with increasingly regular financial crises, rampant political corruption, and a revolution in family relations, Victorians gave as much attention to the dangers as to the merits of self-interest. I am interested in the new ways they talked about bounding it.
0 Comments Read full post »

Louisa Foroughi, PhD Student at Fordham University, shares how the 2019 NACBS Dissertation Fellowship has supported her research project, “What Makes a Yeomen? Status, Religion, and Material Culture in Later Medieval England”

I first visited the church of St. Edmund, King and Martyr, in Acle, Norfolk, in August 2018, looking for traces of its most famous parishioner, Robert Reynes (d. 1511). In addition to holding agricultural land, Reynes worked as a scribe, and served as a bailiff, churchwarden, and guild alderman in Acle manor and parish. He was thus a quintessential “yeoman,” usually defined as an affluent farmer situated on the rural social hierarchy above husbandmen and below gentlemen.

My dissertation explores the cultural and social construction of yeoman identity in rural England, c. 1348-1538, focusing on how medieval yeomen performed their status through religion, material culture, and text. I have quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed almost 2,400 cases from the Court of Common Pleas, and over 400 wills produced by husbandmen, yeomen, and gentlemen from East Anglia. I have also produced two case studies focused on yeoman manuscript compilers, including Robert Reynes. My work reveals the practices and signifiers that yeomen used, such as dress, piety, and office holding, in order to distinguish themselves from other rural social groups.

The Church of St. Edmund, King and Martyr, in Acle, Norfolk

The men who claimed yeoman status provide, however, only a partial view of the development of their identity. Women in yeoman families were critical to their status performances, even though, unlike “gentlewomen,” they had no status identifier of their own. The NACBS Dissertation Fellowship is funding my research into the ways in which the female relatives of yeomen participated in creating, maintaining, and changing their families’ statuses. As recent studies of urban and gentry women have shown, women in medieval England performed paid and unpaid labor; made strategic decisions about inheritances; maintained their family’s standard of living; educated their sons and daughters; and upheld their family’s reputation through their behavior and religious practices. But accessing their roles in these varied arenas of life is difficult. Women were legally, socially, and economically disadvantaged in medieval society, and consequently left fewer written records. The lives of rural and non-elite women are particularly poorly documented.

But because the female relatives of yeomen came from comparatively wealthy, literate, and powerful families, they are better documented than other peasant women. In the course of my initial research on yeoman testators from Norfolk and Suffolk, I discovered that nearly fifty of their wives, widows, or daughters had left wills, simply by noting whenever a woman with the same surname as a yeoman testator appeared in wills indices or databases. As part of the NACBS grant, I have collected all of these wills and am searching for further documents written by women related to the 187 Norfolk and Suffolk testators described as “yeomen.” Beginning with women with the same surname and then advancing to those close in time and place to testators, I intend to find a core group of eighty to one hundred women linked by marriage or birth to known yeoman families. The sample size I have selected for the female relatives of yeomen is intended to offset the idiosyncrasies of wills, while still providing a manageable body of evidence. I will later select four to six women to serve as closer case studies, and seek them out in parish and manorial records. I have already spent one month in England, during which time I gathered the wills of 167 Norfolk women whom I am linking to yeoman relatives. I will continue this work when I return to archives in Norfolk, Suffolk, and London for three months in the spring.

A chance survival I encountered in Acle Church offers an example of my approach and anticipated findings. In the floor near the rood screen lies the brass of Emma and William Gay, d. 1505. Emma’s name struck me immediately because I had previously located her will, which is written in Robert Reynes’s hand and in which he is named as one of her executors. By the time she wrote her will, Emma had been widowed twice over. She provided for her daughter Margaret’s future by leaving her valuable goods, including a blue belt decorated with silver and a yellow and green coverlet. Emma also owned a house and fields, which she asked her executors to sell after her death to fund her generous religious bequests, including a new mass book for Acle church.

Through her high standard of living, Emma would have confirmed her husbands’ wealth and status—but she may have been wealthier than either of them, having survived them both. Through her religious gifts, she demonstrated the family’s faith—but she may have been especially pious, as she also left her daughter a set of prayer beads, a personal mark of faith. She herself forged connections with local yeomen when she sold her lands to three men, including Robert Reynes, whom she also named as her executor. Finally, Emma left money for the memorial brass, asking for prayers for her and her husband’s soul. Fittingly, it bears the date of her death, rather than his. Emma Gay’s will demonstrates that through wealth and longevity, women at a social level equivalent to the yeomanry could use material culture and piety to elevate their own status and that of their families.

Emma’s will and memorial brass are the most direct witnesses to her life, as women appear far less frequently in manorial and legal documents than their husbands. To augment wills written by the female relatives of yeomen, I will visit the parish churches patronized by yeoman testators and their families to search for further material evidence of their presence. I will also visit yeoman buildings such as the Bayleaf Wealden Farmhouse, which shows how architecture structured domestic life, and view artifacts comparable to those mentioned in yeoman wills, like the silver mounts on Emma’s belt. These spaces and objects lend materiality to a world that scholars not resident in England can rarely access. I am grateful to the NACBS for providing me with the opportunity to expand our knowledge of the lives of rural women, and the identities they helped to create. 

0 Comments Read full post »


CFP: NACBS Annual Meeting

Posted by rdaily under CFP | Tags: 2020, annual meeting, cfp, mwcbs | 0 Comments




Chicago, Illinois

November 12-15, 2020 


Deadline: 15 March 2020 

The NACBS and its affiliate, the Midwest Conference on British Studies (MWCBS), seek participation by scholars in all areas of British Studies for the 2020 meeting. We will meet in Chicago, Illinois, from November 12-15, 2020. We solicit proposals for presentations on Britain, the British Empire-Commonwealth, and the British world, including Ireland, the Americas, Asia, Africa, and the Pacific (etc.). Our interests range from the medieval to the modern. We welcome participation by scholars from across the humanities and social sciences, from all parts of the globe, and from all career stages and backgrounds. We reaffirm our commitment to British Studies broadly conceived, and welcome proposals that reflect the diversity of scholars and scholarship in the field.

We invite panel proposals that address selected themes, methodology, and pedagogy, as well as roundtable discussions and lightening rounds (8-10 presenters with one chair, a few minutes to each presenter) of topical and thematic interest, including conversations among authors of recent books, reflections on landmark scholarship, and discussions about professional practice. We are particularly interested in submissions that have a broad chronological range and/or interdisciplinary breadth, and that are tightly connected by a theme.  Standard panels typically include three presenters speaking for 20 minutes each, a commentator, and a chair, while roundtables typically include four presenters speaking for 15 minutes each and a chair. We are open to other formats, though; please feel free to consult with the program committee chair.

To secure as broad a range of participation, we will also consider individual paper proposals. Panels that include a diverse mix of presenters across fields and career stages are particularly welcome. To foster intellectual interchange, we ask applicants to compose panels that feature participation from multiple institutions. In an effort to allow a broader range of participants, no participant will be permitted to take part in more than one session in a substantial role. (That is, someone presenting or commenting on one panel cannot also present or comment on another, though individuals presenting or commenting on one panel may serve as chairs for other panels, if need be.) Submissions are welcome from participants in last year’s conference, though if the number of strong submissions exceeds the number of available spaces, selection decisions may take into account recent participation.

As complete panels are more likely to be accepted, we recommend that interested participants issue calls on H-Albion or social media (e.g., @TheNACBS on Twitter or on the NACBS Facebook page) to arrange a panel. If a full panel cannot be arranged by the deadline, however, please do submit the individual proposal and the program committee will try to build submissions into full panels as appropriate.

In addition to the panels, we will be sponsoring a poster session.  The posters will be exhibited throughout the conference, and there will be a scheduled time when presenters will be with their posters to allow for further discussion. 

The submission website at will open in late January; submissions will close as of 15 March 2020.

All submissions are electronic, and need to be completed in one sitting.   Before you start your submission, you should have the following information:

  1. Names, affiliations and email addresses for all panel participants.  PLEASE NOTE: We create the program from the submission, so be sure that names, institutional titles, and paper titles are provided as they should appear on the program.
  2. A note whether data projection is necessary, desired, or unnecessary. Please only request if AV is central to convey your presentation.  (Because AV is now enormously expensive, it will be provided in only some of the meeting rooms.)
  3. A brief summary CV for each participant, indicating education, current affiliations, and major publications.   (two-page maximum per CV.)
  4. Title and Abstract for each paper or presentation.   Roundtables do not need titles for each presentation, but if you have them, that is fine.  If there is no title, there should still be an abstract – i.e. “X will speak about this subject through the lens of this period/approach/region etc.”
  5. POSTERS: Those proposing posters should enter organizer information and first presenter information only.

All communication will be through the panel organizer, who will be responsible for ensuring that members of the panel receive the information they need.

All program presenters must be current members of the NACBS by October 12, one month before the conference, or risk being removed from the program.

Some financial assistance will become available for graduate students (up to $500) and for a limited number of under/unemployed members within ten years of their terminal degree ($300). Details of these travel grants and how to apply will be posted to and emailed to members after the program for the 2020 meeting is prepared.

0 Comments Read full post »


2020 NACBS-Huntington Library Fellowship - DEADLINE EXTENSION

Posted by rdaily | 0 Comments


The new deadline is December 15. For more information, please visit the NACBS-Huntington Library Fellowship page.

0 Comments Read full post »


2019 NACBS Annual Meeting Program

Posted by rdaily under conference, NACBS 2019 | Tags: draft program | 0 Comments


The current draft of the 2019 NACBS annual meeting program can be downloaded HERE, or on the conference mainpage. 

 (updated November 5)

0 Comments Read full post »


Announcement of NACBS Mentoring Program

Posted by rdaily under mentorship program | 0 Comments

The North American Conference on British Studies is pleased to announce a new mentorship program. This program pairs advanced graduate students and early-career scholars (who have received their PhDs within the past five years) with established scholars.

The goal of the mentorship program is to draw on the broad experience of the NACBS membership to help graduate students and early-career professionals thrive as British Studies scholars and begin to forge networks beyond their graduate institutions and/or home departments. Mentorship, however, is also meant to be reciprocal: established scholars will also benefit from the knowledge, experience, skills, and networks of those at the beginning of their careers.

Mentorship may take a range of forms, but it is primarily intended as a means to offer concrete advice regarding the academic and professional job markets, developing and sustaining research agendas, publication strategies, finding and sustaining networks of support, juggling professional commitments, and other career-related issues. Mentors are not intended to provide support for dissertation research and writing, or advice with the specifics of meeting the standards for retention or tenure at any particular institution, nor are mentors expected to engage in letter writing for mentees.

The mentoring relationship will run from August 2019 through June 2020. Mentors and mentees will re-apply in summer 2020, should they wish to continue with the program, and at that point may be matched with a new partner.

Communication may take place via email as often as once per month, but the program envisions three or four conversations over the course of the year. An in-person event will be scheduled for NACBS 2019 Vancouver, which will serve as an opportunity for mentors and mentees to check in. However, attendance at the conference is not a requirement of participation in the program.

This program is open to all scholars of British Studies wherever they may reside. We ask that mentors retain active membership status within NACBS throughout their participation in the program, however mentees are encouraged but not required to join the NACBS.

Those seeking mentorship and those willing to be mentors should fill out forms online by July 31, 2019. Prospective mentees can find their form here. Prospective mentors can find their forms here. Partners will be matched and notified by email by the end of August 2019.

NACBS asks that established scholars whose departments will be advertising jobs in a British-related field in the 2019-20 academic year wait until the following year to volunteer as mentors in order to prevent any conflicts of interest.

If you have questions about the program, please contact the Chair of the Mentorship Committee, Nadja Durbach at [email protected].  

0 Comments Read full post »

How Class Worked in the Age of Empire. Comparative and Transnational Perspectives

3rd Congress of the European Labour History Network (ELHN)
19-22 September 2019
Amsterdam, International Institute of Social History (IISH)

As Pepijn Brandon and Aditya Sarkar underline in “Labour History and the Case against Colonialism” (International Review of Social History, 2019, pp. 1-37), labour historians are ideally placed to question the imperial revisionism and revivalism which at present seems so vivacious both in academia and in public debate. This was probably not so true, or so striking, half a century ago. Indeed it took the Global Turn of the 1990s, the rise of comparative and transnational approaches, and notably the efforts initiated in Amsterdam by the scholars in charge of the International Institute of Social History (IISH), for labour history to become less Eurocentric and consider the workers of all continents, whether “free” or unfree, as worthy of interest. Today the contribution labour history can make both to public discussions of imperialism and to a deeper, more sophisticated understanding of the past, is clear enough – and the panels we will present at the 3rd ELHN Congress will hopefully highlight that potential. Many new alleys have been explored over the past twenty years, but the way class worked in the Age of Empire – an age that did not end with World War One but culminated in the inter-war period and survived beyond long after 1945 – is still in need of further analysis. We know too little about the way cheap labour in the colonies and on the oceans was exploited and organised to serve metropolitan interests. We know too little about the plural mechanisms of class relations in the imperial world, relations that included subordination as well as accommodation and rebellion, relations that were defined and contested in a variety of official or militant languages.

The co-ordinators of the “Labour & Empire” working group welcome proposals for twenty-minute papers. Panels of three or four papers will be greeted with special attention. Potential topics include but are not limited to:

  • * Labour law in colonial settings and its relation to labour law in the metropoles.
    * Patterns of work and control of the workforce – notably in agriculture, mining and transport.
    * Transnational / transimperial / transcolonial labour activism.
    * The interplay of anticolonial nationalism with trade-union, syndicalist, socialist or communist internationalism.
    * The part played by labour movements in decolonisation; how they challenged the authority of the colonial state but also of the post-colonial states.
    * Working-class views of or implication in colonial atrocities: genocide, partition, famine...

These issues can be considered in relation to the European empires as well as the contiguous empires of East Asia and the United States. The focus of the papers should be on the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Proposals should be submitted to Yann Beliard ([email protected]) and Gareth Curless ([email protected]) by 10 June 2019. Feedback will be given in the following week.

0 Comments Read full post »


2016 annual meeting
adam matthew
annual conference
annual meeting
blog post
British and Irish Studies Intelligencer
Call for Editors
conference, NACBS 2014
conference, NACBS 2019
conference, NACBS 2020
deadline extension
Digital Humanities
Emergency Funding Grants
emergency grant
executive committee endorsement
executive director
extended deadline
Folger Fellowship
Graduate and Early Career Caucus
Grants and Awards
international students
MA essay prize
meeting minutes
member news
mentorship program
NACBS Membership Offers
new book
new officers
Pre-dissertation award
pre-dissertation grant
Priya Satia
Rights Task Force
test category
walter d love prize
Zoom Session
“White House Conference on American History”


Affiliated Organisations