Interesting discussion about publications by graduate students.
Clearly these expectations differ by field. I know several people in economics who have been hired at fine schools without any publications to their name. But in history, sociology and political science my sense of the anecdotal evidence is that a publication or two will save you from being culled on the first round. Who knows though?
Academics' reluctance to study themselves means there probably isn't much data on this matter. Not to mention that any study would really require delving into the internal politics of committee decisions, and hiring decisions are always over-determined anyway. It's easy to say that all other things being equal, the publication will help, but the other things are rarely equal.
As for the question, "should graduate students publish", my answer has two aspects;
(1) How does publication fit into the professional training we are doing?
(2) What are the marginal benefits and costs?
(1) How does publication fit into the professional training we are doing?
Ultimately being an academic means participating in the conversation. That means presenting papers at conferences, that means submitting articles tor publication.
Finishing your dissertation well also requires feedback from people beyond your committee. Conferences can be a good place to get feedback. Referees of submitted manuscripts can also provide this feedback.
Just as graduate students relax their focus on their dissertations to get experience teaching, so too they can relax the focus on the dissertation to see an article through to publication. Both are part of becoming an academic. Which is more important -- teaching or research -- will depend on the opportunities available, and a person's own ambitions.
(2) What are the marginal benefits and costs?
Ultimately it all comes down to costs and benefits at the margin.
Publications while in graduate school that don't detract from getting the doctorate should probably follow a profile something like this;
If they want to send it off to another journal with minor revisions and try their luck again, they should do so. But if the paper is rejected twice, they should probably put the manuscript aside and focus on the dissertation.
Done like this, the publication in graduate school evolves naturally and relatively easily from the dissertation work. The benefits along the way -- the feedback from home faculty and peers, and conference participants -- is important. If it leads to a publications it's a big bonus.
Never having been on a search committee I'm not sure how graduate school publications will be viewed. I hope that having published a bit will signal that I'm capable of seeing things through to the end, but that will also require finishing the dissertation in good time.
In other words, so long as the publications appear complementary to the dissertation they should be a good thing. If they appear to be a substitute and distraction, they could be viewed as a bad thing.
With that, back to work, back to the dissertation ...
Posted by robe0419 at December 2, 2004 09:12 AM | TrackBackI think you're correct about the cost/benefits as they relate to time. My impression (not very scientific - based on being on a search committee last year and general cultural osmosis) is that someone who rockets through a history doctorate in, say, 5-6 years will not be expected to have produced articles (or as many) during the process, because that's pretty quick (especially depending on what field your in - language and travel requirements and so on). But if you take longer to finish (like, oh, say...me) then it will be more to your benefit to have publications, because it will demonstrate that you've become part of the conversation as part of the dissertation process, and that naturally takes longer. If you take a long time to get through the dissertation and have no other-than-dissertation things to show, I think that will start to sound warning bells.
(Followed the link over here from Sharon at Early Modern Notes...am a blogging historian myself.)
Posted by: New Kid on the Hallway at December 2, 2004 10:09 AMIT DEPENDS!
It really does: for a committee looking primarily for teaching experience, all the articles in the world won't keep you in the pile (quite the contrary). Don't forget that most positions weigh teaching at least as heavily as research.
That said, your comment about marginal cost is reasonable: if doing the paper advances your research, by all means do it. If it builds on work you've already done and doesn't require a lot of extra time and energy, get it out there.
One component of graduate school, much like the HS-College transition, is learning to think not like a student but like a scholar, and a big part of that is learning to write and think at a higher level.
Posted by: Jonathan Dresner at December 2, 2004 05:57 PMGood discussion. In my field and department publishing as a graduate student is seen as a must. The program has even been revamped so that students can potentially get a publication or two out of course requirements (e.g., written prelim exam).
BUT--it is increadibly time consuming, and never ending. If you get a rejection from a journal (as I have twice) you have to think about if/how to revise, whether/where to send someplace else, etc.
Plus, the time lag means that even if you do eventually get something published, it likely will not see the print of day until after graduation (tho it is nice to be able to put "in press" next to your name on your CV).