Article(s) or book manuscript: how to choose?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I am wondering when one should start considering changing a long paper manuscript into a book project.

I am a junior faculty member working in a traditional area of analytic philosophy. Publishing a book is something that had never occurred to me. Recently, I am working on two interrelated papers, each of which becomes longer than what most journals recommend. While I know that the recommended length is not a requirement, I started considering whether it would be a good idea to develop a book project that includes these two papers (and more, of course). I know that some people's books were developed from paper manuscripts, so I am curious to hear others' suggestions, especially things that I should consider in order to make the decision.

This is an excellent question, and I am curious what readers think. My general experience is that many people advocate 'thinking strategically' here. For example, I have heard many people say things like, 'As a junior person, you should try to publish some of the papers on the project in well-ranked journals, so as to test the waters and develop a reputation as a researcher. Then, if all goes well, try to publish a book.' I certainly understand this kind of strategic thinking, but I also think that there are limitations to it. Allow me to explain.

It has always sort of seemed to me that the nature of the work itself should dictate what kind of work it should be. For example, some things just work as articles: namely, arguments can be formulated and defended effectively in a relatively self-contained manner, say in ~10,000 words. Other things don't work so well that way: namely, arguments that are more systematic and holistic, requiring something like 50-100,000 words to properly flesh out and do justice to. The italicized phrases here are, I think, important. Sometimes I hear people say things like, 'If you can make an argument in 50-100,000 words, you can also always break it up into a series of articles.' This may be true, but I also think that in many cases it is suboptimal. For example, sometimes the point of a first chapter of a book may only be fully able to be appreciated by readers in virtue of what comes after--so, having everything 'in one place' (i.e. a book) may make more sense than trying to publish things as a series of articles in different journals.

In any case, it isn't clear to me that there's just one way to make the decision here. There are, rather, strategic considerations worth considering, but also considerations related to one's judgment as an author for what kind of format the work itself calls for--and ultimately, I think, one may have to make up one's mind which considerations to favor. But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Comments

[Bookie]

If you are pre-tenure, then do not do a book, UNLESS you are required to for tenure. They are so much work. I have written three books, and each would have been impossible without a sabbatical leave. Even still, two of the books only appeared in print 2 years after the sabbatical. Books are long term investments.

[Marcus Arvan]

Bookie: I have to disagree with you on this. I didn’t need to publish a book to get tenure, but I published one anyway—and it appeared to help me get a tenure track job (I was much more competitive on the market once I had a book contract, and even more competitive still, landing a job, the year the book was accepted and forthcoming). What I would agree with is this: it’s probably not a good idea for a junior person to try to publish a book to the exclusion of other things (i.e. publishing articles and teaching well). Generally speaking, my sense is that it tends to be a bad idea to “put all of your eggs in one basket”. But, it seems to me, if a junior person can do these things and publish a book with a good press, it is only likely to help them, not hurt. Also, although writing a book is (as you note) a ton of work, it can also be an exciting and rewarding process.

[Bookie]

Bookie, here, again.
I cannot imagine having the required concentration without a break - and the pressures leading to tenure are not conducive to it. I have a very controlled writing style - I like to really know where I am going, and when you write a book there are so many ways to loose your way. You have to be very critical with yourself, and be prepared to through large parts of a project out. Maybe our competing advice, Marcus, is a function of our working styles.

[Only Humean]

I've seen a lot of junior colleagues fail to get tenure after starting book contracts. As Bookie mentions, books are all-or-nothing affairs. A lot can go wrong - the book can fail to materialise, or it can bounce around editors desks' for a while. Some places also require a book to be in print to properly count for tenure (unlike articles, where 'Forthcoming' is an acceptable state of being), or they might even require book reviews to be out. If I were advising a junior colleague in my department, I would caution very strongly against writing a book pre-tenure, unless you already have a tenurable body of work.

This is not to say that some like yourself can manage admirably, Marcus. But advising on the probabilities, I would go the way of Bookie.

[Tim O'Keefe]

One thing I'd recommend is talking to your department chair or (if you have one) a senior member of your department you trust / who is mentoring you. Obviously, this depends on your departmental culture and what your relationships are like with members of your department, but hopefully the senior faculty, if they'e smart, want their TT colleagues to be successful and get tenure.

They'll know more about the formal and informal standards and procedures at your institution for going up for promotion, and you can tell them about where you stand with regard to publications and things at various stages in the pipeline. You can talk together about putting together a plan that makes sense for you.

Maybe, intellectually, it would work better to take the long papers and turn them into a book project instead--Marcus is right that you should keep those intellectual considerations in mind. But if so, are you at a state where you can start working on that project and still feel secure about meeting tenure requirements? Or maybe it would be better to turn for now to some other paper-length projects until you're secure about where you stand in the tenure process, and then return to the book after you get tenure (or later in TT when you've gotten enough other pieces out there). But making these determinations depend upon the particulars of your situation.