Angel, I'm intrigued by this question and thought I'd delurk a moment
to respond to it. When I was in graduate school at Yale, the answer to
this question seemed very, very clear to me: we publish in order to gain
full participatory membership in our field; we publish in order to gain
stature among our peers and to be known by them; we publish in order to
be one of those who shapes the central questions and directions of our
field; we publish for visibility among a self-designated professional
reference group. Now that I'm on the faculty at the University of
Connecticut, where senior faculty are less likely to be luminaries in
their respective fields, this answer is somewhat less clear or less compelling.
I guess what I'm saying is this: when I was surrounded by academics who
would consider themselves (and be considered by others) to be central
participants in their professional reference groups, then gaining and
maintaining that centrality seemed the reason for publication. This went
FAR beyond considerations of promotion and tenure. Now that I'm in an
institution where the faculty are less likely to be central participants
in their respective fields, I find that publication is considered more of
a duty, a drudgery to be met in order to fulfill minimal obligations to
promotion and tenure committees, while the real energy of professional
self-definition is carefully aimed elsewhere (perhaps in some alternative
niche where central participation seems more of a reality?). Of course
this also raises the question: how is "central participation" defined?
I hope this is not too cynical of a response, Angel. I would appreciate
others' insights on this topic.
Robin Harwood