A reader writes in:
I was wondering if I could get The Cocoon's response to the following couple of questions:
1) Is a single publication in an edited volume (put out by a good press) better than no publications at all when heading onto the market (assuming you also do have some stuff out and under view)?
2) What is a hiring committees perception of a graduate student who has a paper in an edited volume?
I figure the answer to 1) is obviously "yes," so I guess 2) is the more important question.
One comment before I leave you to it: I have heard people say that edited volumes are where good publications go to die, which I think is silly. I work primarily in the history of philosophy, and I often find that essays in edited volumes are much more interesting than essays in journals, since in journals you mostly find articles of the form "X said this Aristotle on motivation, Z said this on Aristotle on motivation, here I come, Y, and I will say this." Whereas in volumes, you find work that is exploring neglected views, or just taking some risks. In any case, I guess there is the worry that hiring committees might ask themselves: "If this is a publishable paper, why isn't it in a journal?" The answer is often: because it grew out of a conference that had a book contracted for the talks. But still, I could see this question arising.
Good questions. Although this data is seven years old now, my sense has long been that candidates coming out of top programs don't necessarily need any publications in order to get a TT job (has this changed?). Indeed, when I was in grad school, the word on the street was that it was actually better to have no publications coming out of a top program than publications in "weak" venues. So, I'm not sure having a publication in an edited volume is better than nothing, at least for candidates coming from top-ranked programs. For other candidates, I think a publication in an edited volume probably is better than nothing. Indeed, having served on four hiring committees now, I can attest to this. However, even here I think there are several important caveats to bear in mind.
First, my experience is that search committees probably do lend significantly less weight to publications in edited volumes than journal publications. The reason for this is plausibly two-fold. On the one hand, I've heard some people say that publications in edited volumes may be more about "who you know" than the quality of the work. I don't mean to say I agree with this, just that it's something I've heard people say. Consequently, only having publications in edited volumes may lead search committee members to have a question in the back of their minds: namely, is this person's work really good, or are they just really good at networking? Then there's the issue of tenure. People hiring for TT jobs are often, in my experience, very much concerned with whether the person they hire is likely to get tenure. In brief, you're not going to get tenure at most places for publishing in edited volumes (for the reasons noted above). People on tenure and promotion committees typically want to see publications in peer-reviewed journals. So, then, for these reasons I think publications in edited volumes may be a positive. Nevertheless, they may not make you look at attractive as candidates who have published in peer-review journals.
Second, on the question of whether edited-volumes are where good articles go to die. I'm not sure whether this is true as a generalization–but, for all that, I do have some anecdotal experience that seems to cohere with the claim. I published one article in an edited volume with a very good press several years ago. I think it was a good article on a topic of real public importance (the normative consequences of election results, including the nomination of Supreme Court justices). Further, I think the volume as a whole–which included some well-known people–was really good. Nevertheless, it's been two years now since the volume was published, and I still haven't seen a single review of it, and unlike many of my other articles which have been cited and engaged with at least a little bit, my article in that volume hasn't been cited or engaged with at all. Of course, maybe two years is too little lag time for the work to get out there, and I still have plans to publish in some edited volumes moving forward (which I hope will be read). But I would be lying if I said I wasn't worried that the first volume I published in really was where some good articles went to die.
But, of course, these are just my thoughts and experiences. What are yours, particularly those of you who have served on search committees?
Leave a Reply