Search Career Advice


Browse Archives

Career Advice

I'm Sorry I Published

October 5, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Ever since this piece on the hiring process in philosophy was published in Inside Higher Ed, there has been a lot of discussion about the role that pedigree should play in hiring committees' decisions about job candidates (see here, here, and here). However, there has been little discussion about publications or, rather, discussions about publications have been about what kinds of publications are most helpful. The underlying assumption seems to be that publications in reputable journals are a good thing on the job market. Many people I know delay going on the market until they get a paper accepted somewhere reputable (I hear that there are some departments, usually departments with a particularly good pedigree or reputation, that encourage students not to publish).

Given that it seems to be common wisdom that publications are helpful, two anecdotes I heard in the past week or so scare me a little bit. Both anecdotes are about departments that were searching or are planning a search. Both departments see their department as mainly a teaching department, but they do have research requirements (I think 3/3 or 3/2 loads). Also, according to both anecdotes, these departments consider publications in top journals as counting against a candidate!

I can think of a couple reasons a department might see publications as counting against a candidate. One might be that a publication (or publications) in good journals indicate a level of ambition to do philosophical research and so indicate that candidates will not be happy with the amount of teaching they will be expected to do. Along these lines, departments might be worried that an unhappy candidate is more likely to leave, and if you are worried that the administration is not likely to replace the hire, you might aim to get someone you are confident will stay. Or, the department might take the candidate's research ambition as a reason for thinking that candidate won’t be the kind of colleague who will be fun to have around (all work and no play) or that the students will suffer because of it.

Another reason might be that the departments in question think that applicant’s with publications are likely to get “better” offers from more research oriented schools. Given this, the department thinks it better to aim for “more realistic” candidates.

With respect to these reasons, I think the second is a really bad reason to count publications against a candidate. Given the state of the job market, it seems unlikely to me that candidates with a publication are out of the reach of any department. This may be different with respect to candidates from NYU with four publications in J. Phil., but, at least with respect to the general population of applicants with publications, it seems true.

The first set of reasons might be good, if the inference from publications to strong research ambitions were a good one. Of course, we have good reason to think this inference isn’t good. While research ambitions would explain the publications on an applicant’s CV, so does the fact that the common wisdom with respect to publication is that publications help you get jobs.

I’m not sure if the anecdotes I mention generalize (someone get the experimental philosophers on it … ZING!). If discounting publications isn’t widespread, that is all to the good. If it is widespread, someone needs to tell us graduate students what we can do to alleviate the worries of the relevant departments. I, at least, would not count myself unlucky (in fact, quite the opposite) to get a job in a department like those I described. I did my undergrad work in a department with a heavy emphasis on teaching and was extremely pleased that there were extremely qualified philosophers there to guide me.

The fact, if it is a fact, that I have publications does not mean that I’ll neglect my teaching duties, or that I won’t go out to lunch or the pub with my colleagues. It just means that I had something (maybe) interesting to say and thought that putting it out there might improve my chances of landing a job in philosophy. Many of my colleagues, I’m sure, feel exactly the same.

John Basl is a graduate student in philosophy at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on I'm Sorry I Published

  • Posted by Adjunct George on October 5, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • From what I have observed, the more the tenured faculty worship their god of publication, the shorter shrift the students get. You cannot serve two gods and when publication becomes king, then the students suffer. Class sizes rise to free up time for faculty research. The larger the class sizes, the less the student learning. You can have either a department that emphasizes teaching or emphasizes research. Choose one.

  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on October 5, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • That would be a natural perspective for adjuncts to have, but it doesn't make it true, George.

  • Don't lower standards
  • Posted by superdude on October 5, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • I've heard these arguments against well-credentialed candidates before (sometimes from my own department). When you think about them for a minute, though, the conclusion is that they're wrong and detrimental to the department.

    Why would you deliberately go after an inferior candidate as your top choice? Why give up before the game even starts? If you're going to do that, you might as well advertise that you don't want well-qualified applicants, but rather the mediocre and under-prepared ones.

    And top-flight applicants may have a host of reasons for applying. We have hired two faculty who could basically write their ticket to any other job but chose us for quality-of-life reasons.

    Pre-emptively giving up on good applicants just doesn't make sense.

  • Class sizes are not a product of Publications
  • Posted by Amy L-B on October 5, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • I teach at a university with a 4/4 load. We have a teaching emphasis and the expectation of publication both. We also have ever-growing class sizes. This latter circumstance is due to the sad emphasis on profit: more butts in the seats equals more cash.

  • Pubs = improved teaching
  • Posted by anon on October 5, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • I've been on faculty at three institutions, an R1, a regional MA, and now a liberal arts college. In every department the best teachers were also the most successful researchers. It's been my experience that the faculty members who publish little or not at all aren't using all that free time to become better teachers. They've just checked out altogether.

    At our SLAC we count publications for a lot in hiring. In fact, the last 4 faculty we hired all had 3 or more articles in good journals. And all have been outstanding teachers and great colleagues. Far better than the two lifetime associates who sit in their office and complain all day.

  • I'm Sorry I Published.
  • Posted by Viper on October 5, 2009 at 6:30pm EDT
  • I support anon here since certain tenured faculty do little in the way of research and publications that do add to teaching. The cases cited are the result of insecure and jealous faculty members who should be subject to the long overdue requirement of post-tenure evaluation. I suffered from such "dead wood" in my previous department and feel that they are a blight on the university's real mission and purpose. Publish and be damned at such places. You will be welcome at others.

  • Seen it from both sides
  • Posted by No Longer a Prof on October 6, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • I've done time in the hinterlands of academia and in the coveted spaces too. I come from a blue collar family and my undergrad college was all I could afford, a regional state university branch with a strong commitment to teaching.

    And I taught at a similar state school in another state, later, with my MFA. There, as a faculty member, I participated in a number of candidate interviews and department discussions where the better candidates brought to campus were almost always rejected out of hand, with the assumption that "We'll never get him/her." Job market being what it was, however, some seriously tremendous candidates would troop out to our out-state school and profess to desire the job. To say that sitting tenured faculty, from a time when job markets were not so competitive, were intimidated by these candidates and their book contracts in hand, etc. would be a massive understatement. It was some of the ugliest sniping I've ever seen.

    Years later, with a Ph.D. from a terrific school, I went on the market (1998), and with amazing luck, had quite a lot of interviews and campus visits. One of them was at my alma mater, which also was still the town where my grandmother lived. I was delighted to be able to give my talk before some faculty members who taught me at the beginning of my journey and had given me a start.

    I didn't get the offer from there, however. Quite honestly, I probably would have accepted it, over the better universities where I interviewed, just to be close to someone dear to me, and my old school was a sentimental favorite. I found out later that they'd ruled me out, between the two candidates brought in, because they didn't think they could get me. I was hired by another school with a much better reputation, and was much less happy. The person who did get the job, who perhaps didn't come from as high-powered a Ph.D. program as I did, has gone on to do just tremendous academic work, and left my alma mater after about 4 years.

  • Posted by ml on October 6, 2009 at 5:30am EDT
  • Adjunct George: I think there needs to be balance.

    I have taught at a few universities and honestly, I did not know what good teaching was until I met people who focus primarily on teaching. All the places I'd been were places where people did a lot of research and among those people, there were some good teachers. But later, I met some phenomenal, unbelievable teachers who were all about teaching, little about research. And I realized that the reason my professors in college and grad school weren't like these teachers was probably because I went to major research universities.

    That said, some people are good at both. Personally, I find that the more I get into my research, the less attentive I am to my students. But I care about them so I try to do a good job anyway. It has started to annoy me when people constantly trumpet the idea that a person can be massively prolific and the greatest teacher on earth. I think this is true for senior scholars who are re-teaching a lot of classes--so long as they are motivated in that direction. There are some other cases it is true. But I think people want to conceal the fact that teaching and research can compete. Let's just face that fact. You can be a good teacher and a good researcher but producing a large amount of research pulls one away from teaching and also motivates you to structure your teaching in such a way to have time for your research. But that's OK because professors need to do research and the ultimate result is a benefit for the students.

    This is true so long as one doesn't outright resent students for taking away from research. There are certainly a number of people with that attitude at top universities but by no means do all people have that attitude.

    I say this as someone who thinks that it is absolutely necessary for students to have good researchers as their professors. But I've come to see the value of balance. There are things that a person who doesn't do a lot of research can do, such as assign many writing assignments and personally grade them. These benefit students. I like the idea of departments containing a mix of people with different focii, and with mutual respect for those who want to focus more heavily on one or the other side of the teaching/research divide. The individuals themselves should strive for balance, also, I think. If you teach classes, there is a basic obligation to be responsible to one's students. Most professors understand this.

  • Teaching/publishing trade-off, or power play?
  • Posted by DFS on October 6, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • Our candidates for hire know the low salaries they can expect at my CC. Thus, it never ceases to amaze me when the most senior in my department always veto any well-published candidate.

    Through personal knowledge of these titans in their own minds, it has become apparent to me that they merely feel threatened by potential peers, if not by any possible 'betters.'

  • Follow the money
  • Posted by Nick Armstrong on October 6, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT
  • I have to split my raise pool with whoever we hire. I want them dumb, so I can get a higher percentage of the pool. If you come sauntering in here with a bunch of A journals, I see you as a guarantee that I'll never again even keep up with inflation. Good for you, just take it to someone who values your mind more than their own salary.

  • Depends on the Dept.
  • Posted by 20-Year Adjunct on October 6, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • If the department has a strong teaching focus and is now under the gun to do more research, hiring committees may be motivated to hire someone who does not make everyone else look bad.

  • It cuts both ways
  • Posted by PQuincy , Lucked into the charmed circle at In the middle of the R1s on October 6, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • First of all, different institutions will behave differently, at all levels, so it would be rash to generalize (at least, not without lots of data that is not being collected).

    Just to balance the picture: I hate the 'we'll never get her' mentality, but sometimes prudence calls for it. Even at a middling R1, searches are extremely expensive and time-consuming, and Deans hate failed searches or people who leave after a year or two. And in many searches, working hard to get the 'star' who has several offers means that other fine candidates have to wait during negotiations...and often end up taking another offer themselves. Then the 'star' decides on school B, and one's left holding the bag. After a few times around this carousel, departments get burned, since even though they had excellent 'gettable' candidates -- usually at least a dozen -- by the end of the process, they can end up empty handed.

    However, this is separate from 'not publishing' from the candidate side. Any school who would preemptively exclude a published candidates is seeking mediocrity, whatever their prestige or workload. It's not a place an active scholar-teacher is likely to thrive, because envy in one part of our jobs is likely to bleed over into other parts.

    Unfortunately, because of the structure of hiring, and because every candidate has to say (truly or not) that they have dreamed their entire life of coming to any college they have a short-list invitation to visit, well-intentioned behavior on all sides sometimes leads to stupid outcomes. In the end, hiring is awfully arbitrary at the final stages.

  • Count your blessings.
  • Posted by S. T. Oical on October 6, 2009 at 8:45pm EDT
  • If you apply to a department that fears excellence, you may not really want to be there. Such an outfit will be doing you a favor if it doesn't hire you.