Do Edited Collections Matter? On Disciplinary Work in (Canadian) Political Science

Abstract

Few academic forms catch as much flak as the edited collection. They are frequently dismissed as inferior to journal articles and monographs. This presidential address seeks to rethink the place of the edited collection in political science. The argument is not that edited books and book chapters are superior to journal articles or monographs. Rather, they do different kinds of disciplinary work, contributing to political science, particularly Canadian political science, in meaningful ways. First, the address responds to the main criticisms of edited collections, suggesting they are overstated. It then moves to disciplinary work, suggesting that edited collections enable distinctive intellectual contributions, build scholarly communities, and promote inclusion in the discipline. Finally, it argues that edited collections are particularly central to Canadian political science, shaping scholarship and teaching across the subfield. The address concludes that political science should better recognize editorial labour as scholarly work to affirm the legitimacy of edited collections for those making hiring, tenure, promotion, and funding decisions.