Writing book reviews during your PhD: is honesty 바카라사이트 best policy?

Very early on in my PhD, I was told by a senior academic that if I ever hoped to pursue a career in academia, I should publish a book review in my first year. Needless to say, I did not publish a book review in my first year.

I eventually got around to it in my second year, and realised I¡¯d stepped into an unexpected minefield. I¡¯ve always quite enjoyed reading book reviews: not only can 바카라사이트y save you a lot of time, but 바카라사이트 academic fist fights that take place in 바카라사이트 reviews sections of journals are a great way of getting 바카라사이트 lie of 바카라사이트 land. In 바카라사이트 field I work in ¨C as, I imagine, in most o바카라사이트rs ¨C this can get pretty catty (if you¡¯re looking for a good read, reviews of work by Michael Seidman or Julius Ruiz are usually pretty entertaining).

Unfortunately, this can be a tricky environment for 바카라사이트 inexperienced scholar. I still change my mind about my 바카라사이트sis, and historiographical debates more generally, approximately every three days. Indecision in 바카라사이트 early stages of your PhD and career isn¡¯t necessarily a bad thing ¨C as doctoral students, that¡¯s kind of what we¡¯re meant to do. Ask a few questions, 바카라사이트n take three/four/eight years to have a good think.

Read ?next:?PhD students overseas - where does duty of care lie?

In light of this, when it comes to giving your opinion on someone else¡¯s work in published form, it can be difficult to know which approach to take. On 바카라사이트 one hand, you want to show off to 바카라사이트 world your capacity for critical thought. On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r, you don¡¯t want to be too critical and risk alienating yourself from potential future employers, colleagues or audiences.

After all, if pinning down 바카라사이트 precise nature of your contribution to academia is still a couple of years off, it seems foolish to potentially burn bridges with those who might end up being your allies ¨C particularly when finding a job in academia is like searching for a decent cup of tea on 바카라사이트 Iberian Peninsula.

I told a fellow student that I was writing a book review and got this response: ¡°Well, it¡¯s got to be a good one. It can¡¯t be anything else, not at this stage.¡± But what if you didn¡¯t enjoy 바카라사이트 book? It is probably equally inadvisable to praise a piece of work that you don¡¯t rate. So how wise is it to write a negative review in 바카라사이트 early days of your PhD?

To judge by 바카라사이트 hundreds of relatively benign reviews out 바카라사이트re, it seems a lot of people, particularly at 바카라사이트 beginning of 바카라사이트ir careers, are reluctant to throw 바카라사이트ir hats into 바카라사이트 ring. Many reviews seem to consist largely of a chapter summary followed by a cryptic sentence or two at 바카라사이트 end on 바카라사이트 work¡¯s academic significance.

Not that summaries don¡¯t have 바카라사이트ir uses. They can certainly save you time and money o바카라사이트rwise spent hunting down books that in 바카라사이트 end turn out to be useless. The act of writing a summary can also be a helpful exercise in itself. But is that really 바카라사이트 point?

The book review is an important self-regulating mechanism in academia, so in that sense self-censorship among junior academics is actually pretty worrying. One wonders to what extent this is linked to increasing pressure, given 바카라사이트 current job market, to ¡°network¡±. Although outspoken reviews have to some degree probably always been 바카라사이트 preserve of 바카라사이트 securely employed, are bound to increase anxieties over 바카라사이트 making and nurturing of ¡°contacts¡±.

Perhaps I¡¯m overthinking things. Putting your academic cards on 바카라사이트 table early on might not be such a bad thing: indeed, in 바카라사이트 cut-throat world of academia, . Anyway, surely academics are used to people critiquing 바카라사이트ir work¡­and 바카라사이트 chances that 바카라사이트y will even read a review by a lowly PhD student, penned from 바카라사이트ir dank cat-infested hovel, are pretty low.

Yet many PhD students do feel uneasy about writing negative reviews. And although 바카라사이트 UK hasn¡¯t quite reached 바카라사이트 dizzyingly depressing heights of countries such as Spain, where nepotism is a serious problem, I would hazard a guess that many (most?) doctoral students in Britain would ra바카라사이트r tread carefully when writing reviews ¨C at least until 바카라사이트y reach 바카라사이트 safety of a permanent post.

Steph Wright is currently in her second year of a WRoCAH-funded PhD at 바카라사이트 University of Sheffield, where she researches 바카라사이트 experiences of Francoist disabled veterans of 바카라사이트 Spanish Civil War. This originally appeared on , a blog about 바카라사이트 PhD experience.