1. A lot of people talk a lot of crap about book chapters especially for junior people and it’s generally true that the untenured or folks on the market should not do too many of them. But book chapters can still have, well, internal (even if not external) goods. A brief thread. https://twitter.com/jeffguhin/status/1252253371383218176

2. The first and most important rule of book chapters (and this also goes for invited submissions to speciality issues of low-status journals) is to never put your “best stuff” there, but by best stuff I mean something very specific.

3. I don’t mean not to send stuff you consider your most interesting or most creative or maybe even your best insight. I mean don’t send stuff you consider the best fit with what your discipline demands in its most prestigious journals. You need those pieces as articles.

4. The 2nd rule is related to the first one which is a question of time. You really do have to focus your energy and time on well placed articles and books because that is where the status is, most of the citations originate, and where evaluations for tenure and jobs will focus.

5. But assuming you have a little bit of time and energy, book chapters are ideal to work out an idea you have not quite formed yet or to scratch an intellectual itch that needs more attention than a blog post or Twitter thread but not quite the intensity of a full-blown article.

6. The main thing about book chapters I think is also a little bit like blogging or posting on Twitter: It’s not going to help your career directly. Think of it almost like you would think of a hobby. But this is a hobby that supplements and strengthens your intellectual goals.

7. I wrote a chapter on Robert Bellah’s Catholic imagination I’m really proud of. I would never have written it as an article. I doubt it will be cited much or do much for my tenure. But I’m way more pleased with the hours that made that chapter than the hours that saw Tiger King