publication in encyclopedias or handbooks

[socgrad]

Hi,
I am a 6th year grad student, currently working on my dissertation. I hope to go on the job market a year from now. At present, I do not have any publications on my cv. I have been invited to write articles for an encyclopedia that is intended to become a general reference source for work in my subfield, the sociology of ____. Anyway, I know that publishing articles in this context would not be as highly esteemed by future employers as would be publications based on my own original research. Before I put a lot of time into writing several encyclopedia entries, I was wondering if any of you could weigh in on how this type of work might be valued by hiring committees at colleges and universities.
Thanks!

[sorry]

At my R1 and I suspect most others, they are worth close to nothing. Sorry.

[similar]

Similar question: what about book reviews?

[drbearjew]

It really depends upon what type of job you want when you go on the market. If you're shooting for an R-1, you need to demonstrate research potential - this is evident in solo-authored works along with external funding.

If you're aiming for a SLAC, then you might be okay with reviews of the field, and work toward building a strong teaching dossier (teaching statement, syllabi, sample lectures, etc).

But, at either of those types of departments, a book review really doesn't give you much weight as a job candidate. It's an important part of professionalization, though, so don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[annoner]

Yeah, goodness, everyone wants to be so certain in their responses -- like everything on your cv gives you X number of points and selection committees are just going to tally those up.

It really depends upon the selection committee, other things on your cv, and so on. My sense is that there is an intial cut and encyclopedia entries and book reviews won't help you make it. That said, you never know. After that, selection committees will evaluate you as a complete package (*gasp*). The right encyclopedia entry or book review could make you a more well-rounded package, and that could help.

By the way: I just had to enter the text "bums on seats." What the hell is that about?

[wasteoftime]

Having served on three junior faculty search committees (@r1) I can confirm that encyclopedia/handbook entries and book reviews will get you nothing. Most will completely ignore them. Unless you are in your first couple of years or can bang it out in a week or two I would not waste your time at this point in your career.

A book chapter is worth something but not nearly as much as a peer-reviewed publication (even in a lowly journal).

In the two years leading up to going on the market you should be focussed on two things. 1) having the best possible dissertation 2) getting papers out and under review so that hopefully by the time you go on the market they are at least accepted if not actually published.

[yep]

It might seem like a low risk way to get a publication, but that sounds like time that could be spent prepping an article for submission to a journal. That might be a good task for a 2nd/3rd year student revising a comps paper that is all literature review, but since you're close to the market, you want to be working on things that either look like strong journal articles or book chapters.

What you are not factoring into your equation is that when you send out a job packet, there are items on the CV called "working papers" for work that is either under review or almost ready to send to a journal or for chapters in the case of book people. And then you would include one or two of those working papers with your application, and if they are excellent, then that is a pretty good signal that you know how to publish. (Same issue with book people who can say "manuscript under review at X press" in the letter.) OK, those aren't as good as published pieces, but that gets back to the ability vs. potential issue, and would count as evidence of your potential as an excellent scholar.

Book reviews - you want to think of that as professional service in your mind, even if they are listed on your CV after peer reviewed publications. This is probably worthwhile if you are 2nd/3rd year and have more time, but not if you're on the market soon. Maybe you get some points for an invited review? Anyway, they are inevitably more time consuming than you realize, so I would only take it if you thought the book was awesome and/or you were early stages. But it probably won't be, because they're sending it to you, a graduate student.

[aaaaa]

Let me give you an alternative perspective and tell you to go ahead and do them.

Do they count for much, or anything? No.
On the other hand, how much time does it take to write the standard 1000 word piece on a particular topic for a general audience?
Of course you should be working towards your dissertation and peer reviewed articles, but it is not like submitting a chapter or a full paper a couple of days later because you spent two afternoons banging out an encyclopedia entry are going to hurt you.

And while they really won't count for anything at most r1s and research oriented SLACs, they can help (at the margins) in a number of other places. No one is going to count them like they do other publications, but if you need to demonstrate the ability to teach "the sociology of ______" they can help.

I am pretty sure I got an interview at a masters level institution because of some of my encyclopedia entries. Not because they signaled research productivity or research potential, but because this particular job wanted a mix of a subfield and of the abilty to teach classes on a particular region of the world. My work was on the subfield, but it was my encyclopedia entries that signaled that I had more than just a passing acquaintance with this particular region.


Of course, all of this is based on the assumption that these are relatively simple, standard encyclopedia entries. If they are inviting you to write the 5000-word type of entries where you'd need to do a lot more research and spend a lot more time on them, then pass. But otherwise, as little as these encyclopedia entries may matter, how long does it take to write 1000 word entries for general audiences?

[another take]

Then again, you also have to consider how your CV makes you look overall. If all you have are encyclopedia entries and book reviews, you might get pegged by a lot of places (R1, SLAC, etc.) as a subpar scholar. If I was on a hiring committee, and two soon-to-be-completed ABDs applied, with everything equal except candidate 1 had 1 peer reviewed article in a decent journal, and candidate 2 had 4 encyclopedia entries and a couple book reviews, I'd probably lean towards candidate 1. Candidate 2's CV shows the trajectory of a 'ho hum' career already, while Candidate 1 shows more promise in what counts -- peer reviewed research articles. Quality over quantity any day.

[aaaa]

Sept 9, 2011 18:00:28 GMT -5 @another take said:

Then again, you also have to consider how your CV makes you look overall. If all you have are encyclopedia entries and book reviews, you might get pegged by a lot of places (R1, SLAC, etc.) as a subpar scholar. If I was on a hiring committee, and two soon-to-be-completed ABDs applied, with everything equal except candidate 1 had 1 peer reviewed article in a decent journal, and candidate 2 had 4 encyclopedia entries and a couple book reviews, I'd probably lean towards candidate 1. Candidate 2's CV shows the trajectory of a 'ho hum' career already, while Candidate 1 shows more promise in what counts -- peer reviewed research articles. Quality over quantity any day.

But my point is that that comparison is irrelevant. No one denies that peer reviewed publications are worth a lot more than encyclopedia entries, and that no amount of encyclopedia entries will ever be the same as a peer reviewed article.

My point is that the idea that there is a choice between an encyclopedia entry and a peer reviewed article is a false one. The encyclopedia entry should take no more than a couple of days to write, so it doesn't really impact publishing peer reviewed articles or finishing a dissertation. If someone needs weeks and weeks to write the usual 1000 to 5000 word encyclopedia entry, then this person has bigger problems than not having a peer reviewed article out.

Unless writing the encyclopedia entry requires massive amounts of time to complete (in which case the person has bigger problems), there is no reason to pass up the opportunity.

[another take]

Sept 9, 2011 21:29:04 GMT -5 @aaaa said:

Unless writing the encyclopedia entry requires massive amounts of time to complete (in which case the person has bigger problems), there is no reason to pass up the opportunity.

And my point is that at certain places, too many (or ONLY) encylopedia entries will actually harm your CV more than it will help. Publishing crap and nothing else = you're a crappy scholar. Publishing some crap and a really good piece = you have a trajectory.

[tnrd]

The encyclopedia entry should take no more than a couple of days to write, so it doesn't really impact publishing peer reviewed articles or finishing a dissertation.

This is not realistic. First of all, something like this takes longer to write well for anybody (or I guess except aaaa). More importantly, given that socgrad has published *nothing* after five years in graduate school, it is unlikely that socgrad will take only a week to write a piece like this.

My recommendation is to focus on getting some work from the dissertation out for review asap and then work on finishing the dissertation.

[aaaaa]

Sept 16, 2011 18:05:26 GMT -5 tnrd said:

This is not realistic. First of all, something like this takes longer to write well for anybody (or I guess except aaaa). More importantly, given that socgrad has published *nothing* after five years in graduate school, it is unlikely that socgrad will take only a week to write a piece like this.

My recommendation is to focus on getting some work from the dissertation out for review asap and then work on finishing the dissertation.

I am sorry, but if it takes you more than a week to write the standard 1000 to 5000 word encyclopedia entry, in a subfield you specialize in, for the consumption of a general audience, then there are bigger problems than not having peer reviewed stuff out.

Sure, it might take a bit longer if the person is writing one of the "cornerstone" entries in an encyclopedia (e.g., the "globalization" entry on the encyclopedia of globalization, or the "Max Weber" entry in the encyclopedia of sociology).

But less than 10 pages on the topic one specializes in, for a general audience, should never take more than a week. Hell, if it takes longer than a week to write half a dozen pages of a simplified review of a literature a person is familiar with, how long is it going to take to write the 200 plus pages of empirical work and analysis in a dissertation?

[socgrad]

tnrd wrote: More importantly, given that socgrad has published *nothing* after five years in graduate school, it is unlikely that socgrad will take only a week to write a piece like this.

Ouch.

[yep]

^ Don't worry - not all departments push you to write early and often. That does not necessarily correlate with quality.

However, the general point stands - you need to get more writing out there, because due to oversupply of PhDs, departments are likely to be risk averse, and are likely to want people who show the ability/strong potential to publish.

^^ Sure, an encyclopedia entry should be quick, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be quick to write. Maybe if it's a revision of your qualifying paper, but if not, then it could be a time suck. Plus it takes time away from working on something publishable. If our OP is already working on the dissertation, he or she likely has at least a conference paper to get ready for a journal submission, and to me the encyclopedia article writing is a distraction. Then again, if you (OP) want to start small, go with the encyclopedia, but hustle up and get something ready for journal submission next. Think of this first piece as practice, not the thing that gets you a job.