'X and philosophy' books

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

I was wondering what people think about contributed chapters to "X and philosophy" books. Are they just considered a 'popular publication' or are they closer to a contributed chapter to an edited volume? Are they peer reviewed in any serious sense?

Good questions! I contributed a chapter a few years ago to Westworld and Philosophy, a book in Blackwell's Philosophy & Pop Culture Series. I enjoyed writing the piece a great deal, and it was cool to have the piece featured on a major fan site--and in addition to being fun to write, I think it's good for our discipline to be engaged in public philosophy and outreach like this. Obviously, given that the series is written for the general public, the piece wasn't technical or very advanced. But I do recall it being peer-reviewed, going through one round of minor revisions.

As for "what people think" of pieces like this, my sense is: it depends. Presumably, hiring and tenure committees at R1's aren't going to assign much (or any?) weight to these pieces, but I know second-hand that people at teaching-oriented colleges and universities--including tenure committees and (especially) administrators--love stuff like this. Remember, at teaching-oriented places, the primary focus is on students. More down-to-earth, popular-facing pieces like these can not only interest students in our disciplines, but also be featured in college magazines for parents, alumni, and donors--particularly if and when the pieces are featured various places online, increasing the university's visibility. In terms of how they should be listed on a CV, I'm not sure there is a clear-cut answer. On the one hand, my experience is that they are peer-reviewed, and often 'do real philosophy.' On the other hand, they are pitched toward a popular audience and presumably not reviewed with the same kind of rigor as more professional-facing work does. 

What do you all think? How do you view these pieces, and how do you think they should be listed on a CV?

 

Comments

[Fwiw]

The safest bet, I think, would be to list these separately on the CV as ‘public philosophy publications,’ or something like that, and maybe with a note indicating that they were peer reviewed. I’ve never been on a search committee, but when I see CVs on which these are listed alongside fully ‘professional’ publications, I read as CV padding, which is not to say that these publications aren’t fun and valuable in a sense.

Relatedly, I’ve been very tempted to write one of these, but have never been able to justify spending the time that I need to write other things. Maybe this, and my admitted suspicion about these publications and the unfortunate snobbiness that it reveals, indicate that we as a profession should rethink our relationship with these editions. Marcus also makes good points about their value.

[Conrad]

I think that it's a mistake to assume that the value that a non-mainstream contribution, such as "Philosophy and X", adds to a CV is independent from what else is on the CV. Echoing FWIW, if the *only* publication on a CV is a "Philosophy and X" contribution, or a blog post, or etc., I'm going to think that, at best, this person mismanaged their time, or, at worst, that they can't place work in mainstream journals.

On the other hand, if the CV lists publications in, e.g., Nous, Journal of Philosophy, BJPS, Ethics, etc., a "Philosophy and X" piece will make me think that the person is well-rounded, can speak to multiple audiences, might be someone I'd like socially, etc.

I don't really care where it's listed. I'm not going to confuse a "Philosophy and X" contribution for a piece in PPR just because they're in the same section on the CV.

[Tim]

I would list it in its own separate category like 'philosophy for the public' or 'publications for popular audiences' or something like that. I wouldn't confused it with a peer-reviewed research article, even if it was listed among such articles. But it would seem to me odd to list such different things together.