next »

[fishbone]

   How do humanists and social scientists view non-academic publishing?  I'm following on the last topic as a TT asst prof at a research university.  A lot of people in history, political science, or literature write occasionally for generalist interest publications or opinion magazines, especially as reviewers.  Magazines like The New Republic feature academics.  What are the politics for a TT person looking to write for a general audience?  I've had a few opportunities, and would like to do more.  But how does this affect tenure or being a strong candidate for a better job?  Scholarly research and publication in the field is a given, but I'm curious about the consequences of trying to reach out.  Any suggestions from other people?  How would a candidate or colleague who does this be seen?

[%sig%]

[history anon]

My suspicion is that, in most cases, general op/ed publishing can't help you, at least as far as demonstrating research productivity, and it could potentially hurt you, if 1) you spend too much time on it to the detriment of your research, or 2) if you say something controversial that offends someone who will be judging you.  I would suggest waiting until after tenure to try to become a "public intellectual."  Just my $.02.

[Zarkov]

I think the answer depends if you're working for a research or a teaching institution.  Non-peer reviewed writing counts for little or nothing in the R1 world, especially if you're trying to get tenure.  On the other hand, a teaching school may "count" and even encourage one's work as a public intellectual.

[uh uh]

I think you are using the wrong word. Humanists, the word, is a general term more associated with "humanism'. I think you are talking about a particular discipline...so say it...someone working in English, history (although in some universities history is considered a social science), etc. Or, more simply, working in the Liberal Arts