In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Anon writes:
To search committee members: how does receiving a book contract from a mid-tier press look to potential search committee members?
How should one go about listing this on their CV?
'Press' then responded:
Book contracts are not that impressive – in part, because they are not binding on the press, and they are often based on work not yet done. You say mid-tier … that is hard to image which press. Can you be more specific: Springer, Chicago, Cornell, MIT? If you are dipping lower still, it really cannot count for much.
For what it is worth, Press's comment does not cohere at all well my experience on the market or my experience hiring at a liberal arts university. Here are my thoughts.
In order to answer Anon's initial query, we need to specify what kind of institution we are talking about. As we've discussed many times on this blog, hiring priorities appear to be very different at R1 institutions and elite liberal universities, as compared to non-elite liberal arts institutions or community colleges. So then, how do search committees at different types of institutions think about book contracts?
Here is what I have heard second and third-hand about research universities and elite liberal arts institutions. A book contract with a mid-tier press will probably not help a candidate, and may even hurt them, when it comes to these kinds of jobs. I've heard that if you want a job at an R1 or elite school, if you publish a book at all you had better do it with a top press, with the top 5 being OUP, CUP, Harvard UP, Princeton UP, and Routledge (for some polls, see here and here). The reason I've gathered for this is straightforward: R1 departments and elite institutions more generally are looking for tenurable stars who publish in top places. Am I wrong about this? It might be good to hear from readers more "in the know" here!
Let us now turn to non-elite liberal arts institutions. Here, my experience is very different. When I was on my last year on the market and got a tenure-track job, I had a book contract with Palgrave MacMillan (ranked #13 here and "top-ten-ish" here). My CV that year was not all that different than the year before…yet I got a lot of interviews and flyouts that year, far more than in any year before that. So, on that count, having a book under contract with a mid-ranked press seemed to make a big difference. Then there is my subsequent experience working and hiring at my institution. Here, I have several things to say. First, publishing a book with a decent press is generally considered a Very Big Deal at my institution. No one here expects people to publish with OUP, CUP, or Harvard UP. Maybe there are some who have done so, but it is not the norm. So, when someone does publish with a decent press, people at my institution tend to look on it very favorably. Second, when hiring people, my sense is that people generally want to hire someone they expect will get tenure. And, here again, publishing a book is very helpful. Why? In part, because tenure is not decided merely by philosophers. No, the tenure process has to go through a college committee, then the Dean, then the Provost, then the Board of Trustees, and so on. In philosophy, publishing books is not the norm. However, in many other disciplines, it is the norm. And people in other disciplines are often not all that aware of disciplinary differences, and even if they are, they may be disposed to use their own discipline's standards. For this reason, when hiring someone at an institution like mine, a book contract would be a big plus: all things being equal, a book seems to me to be looked on much more favorably by college committees and administrators than journal articles. Assuming the book actually comes out, that person would be "on the fast track" to tenure, at least when it comes to their research output.
Of course, this all depends upon the book actually coming out–and, as 'Press' notes, sometimes book contracts do fall through (if, e.g, the final manuscript is rejected). However, my sense is that while this is true, it happens sufficiently rarely for search committees to worry about it too much. Assuming the candidate has some other decent publications, then a book contract provides the committee some presumptive reason to think the book will come out–and my sense is that this is usually enough for most people to look very favorably on it on a CV. In sum, then, when it comes to non-elite institutions, my experience and overall sense are this: having a book contract with a decent press is likely very beneficial for candidates. However, there is the further issue of what counts as a "mid-tier" press. I think that any of the presses ranked here would be considered just fine at most institutions like mine. However, there are other presses that I'm less sure of. It might be good to hear people's opinions here.
Finally, there's the question of how to list books under contract on a CV. There has been some debate about this here before–and, as far as I can tell, some people have really idiosyncratic views about the right way to list things. Me? I always listed my books under contract as "under contract" under the heading "Books", which I think is just fine (quick note: absolutely do not list a book merely under contract as "forthcoming"; nothing is forthcoming unless and until it is formally accepted for publication!). However, I've heard other people say that they think anything not yet accepted should only be listed under "Works in Progress." Since some people seem to care about this, I guess that's probably the safest way to go.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts. Perhaps I am wrong, and my experience isn't representative. What do you all think, particularly those of you who have hired
Leave a Reply