IMO, grad workers get nothing out of—and might even be put at risk by—writing Book Reviews. We don’t get paid, they don’t make CV’s that much more competitive, there’s no guarantee they’ll translate to a job, and if we anger someone it could have negative repercussions.

#PhDChat

There might be reasons to write Book Reviews (e.g. you want to review your friend’s book or you don’t have enough money to buy an important text so you sign up for a review). And I’m open to other perspectives. But I’m not sure the cost/benefit shakes out for grad workers IMO.

I’m also very sensitive to the power dynamics of Book Reviews. If a grad worker, particularly a minoritized grad worker, writes a Review that critiques a text and the scholar who wrote the text (likely their senior) doesn’t take it well, the grad worker can be attacked.

Folks might say “part of the academy is critical feedback so a senior scholar, especially, wouldn’t attack or demean a grad worker for a Book Review.” But I feel like that position ignores all the ways grad workers are often attacked/penalized/policed by *some* scholars.

Such a position also ignores the way grad workers (especially those who aren’t unionized) receive very little structural protections. If a grad worker pisses off the wrong person, their whole career can be undermined and upended. That unfortunately happens often.

So again, I’m open to other perspectives, but as stands I haven’t found an argument in favor of grad workers writing Book Reviews that convincingly accounts for the multiple intersecting power dynamics at play in that form of [unpaid] labor.

Thinking about this because a month ago I decided to pull an invited book review I had written because as I thought about the possible repercussions of my review (which was more on the critical side) I was worried I would lose more than I would gain through publishing.