Graduate students and publication

There are interesting discussions going on at Leiter Reports about if, when, and where graduate students should publish and, on a related note, which philosophy journals are "responsible." (There's more on the latter issue here.) In English studies, at least, there are all sorts of fantasies about what the "typical" aspiring junior faculty member's CV looks like. Thirty articles! A book contract with Yale University Press! Her very own fan following, complete with newsletter! (Er, you're confusing AJFM with Judith Butler.--Ed.) From both my own experience on search committees and what I've gathered from friends at other schools, these fantasies (or more moderate versions thereof) have little to do with what actually shows up in the search pool. Book contracts? Almost never, unless AJFM has been holding down a visiting professorship somewhere. Book reviews? Perhaps a couple, more if--once again--AJFM is not fresh out of the graduate school oven. Conference presentations? Often plentiful, but I'll go out on a limb and suggest that they're often too plentiful, especially if they haven't been revised into something more substantial. (A former professor of mine once suggested that it's a good idea to keep a ratio of one article for every three or four conference papers; otherwise, it looks like you're just scattering ideas around like rice at a wedding.) Encyclopedia or other reference entries? Usually one or so. Articles? At least one, maybe two, rarely three--again, more for someone who has been teaching for a bit.

That being said, the ugly truth of the matter is that there is no agreed-on standard for "how much is enough." People can get hired at Research I campuses with no publications whatsoever, but get tossed out of a "lesser" school's search pool for precisely that reason. A campus with a 5-5 teaching load may look askance at someone who has already knocked out four articles, while one with a 3-3 may be pleased. Publishing a seminar paper that's out of your field may earn your brownie points over here, but eliminate you over there. Nevertheless, most search committees don't expect or even want a graduate student who has already been responsible for the death of several trees, especially if said graduate student has published in journals with poor or non-existent reputations.

Now, "should graduate students be publishing?" is an entirely different question altogether. In an ideal world, my answer, in fact, would be "not until they're near the end of their dissertation research." (Before you ask: no, I didn't publish anything as a graduate student, although I did attend a couple of conferences.) This isn't an ideal world, unfortunately, and efforts to alter the current state of affairs don't seem to be catching fire.

Comments

[Tinka]

As someone currently applying for a Ph.D. position, I found this interesting as I've been told several times "of course it will help your application if you have been published once or twice". I cannot help but compare and contrast.

[Sharon]

From experience (though in Britain of course), I'd say to grad students: publish with caution, publish selectively, AND ONLY do it if experienced people in the field whose judgement you trust think it's a good idea. And then get plenty of advice from them on redrafting and where to submit (and for gods sake don't forget to credit their help in the finished product).

[New Kid on the Hallway]

You know, I think that British academia may have a slightly different take on this than some American programs. I was speaking with a British grad student at an American conference and found it interesting how little support she had for presenting at the conference at all - her advisor thought it was pointless to do so until she was done (she was about mid-diss) and "really had something to say" - until then, why should she bother? Whereas my own program really encouraged students to present early (not indiscriminately, but it was seen as good experience).

That's conferences, of course, not publishing, but I think there's a corollary. Certainly my program wasn't interested in having people send out stuff that was too early/underdeveloped, but I think we were really encouraged to think about publishing as early as we could. And no, having a lot of stuff in really poor venues was not encouraged, but I think there was an unspoken urge to show that you were active/participating in the field in *some* way.

I agree with you, though, that the pressure to publish isn't necessarily ideal for scholarship, and it often was more about positioning ourselves for the job market than anything else (though I am very grateful to my program precisely for its attention to professionalizing us and grooming us for the market). And your comments about scattering conference papers around make me cringe a little, because I think that kind of describes me! (Again, we got that encouragement to present, and I may have taken it a little far. Where did it come from? Well, if nothing else, we got some money from the department to go to conferences if we were presenting. And the big conference in my field is very welcoming of grad student presentations.)