(1) Gray literature – need to embrace it and not exclude it; note, too, how Gary Hall’s argument about archives is, in some ways, prefigured in cultural studies’ own print history – at least in its trajectory out of Birmingham

(2) This was also going on in other contexts, to varying degrees of similarity, e.g., Australia

(3) Point of this history is to measure the so-called digital revolution and its effect on cultural studies
            --should remind us, too, of the extraordinary amount of skill and labour are necessary to self-publish, and ought to raise serious questions about the degree to which practitioners of cultural studies might now want to take that on in the digital age

(4) Notice the alignment in the 1970s between gray lit and the economics of academe; today we can produce copious gray lit, but the economics of academe are different; the alignment is all off, especially in an era of “accountability” (accounting)

(5) Claims about the “process” oriented nature of new media (Fitzpatrick) could be tempered somewhat against/by this history;

(6) Note how editorial production can be overwhelming; that’s maybe one of the key pragmatic drawbacks of gray literature – the amount of labour it takes to do that end of the work, which won’t be solved by new technologies.

(7) Seems that one of the great strengths of cultural studies was its iterability, which seems less flexible today, re: IP rights and embargoes.