Thinking more about this. There are two basic types of articles: those that intend to change *what* we think, and those that try to change *how* we think. The former are far more common, and easier to write; the latter are much rarer, and much harder. https://twitter.com/EvaMroczek/status/1358082272008708099

Both are necessary! Both are worthwhile! I've written both kinds. *What* articles are fun - new thoughts about texts, words, whatever. They're great. But they only engender other *what* articles. Which is also fine! It's just a limited circle of knowledge production.

And, generally, a *what* article is relevant only to those who are interested in the text (or whatever) under investigation. My article on the source assignment of three words in Exodus 33 (for example) is really useful only to people who care about sources in Exodus 33.

*How* article, by contrast, engender both other *how* articles and new *what* articles. And they are, or should be, of interest to a much broader set of readers. And they will often have cross-corpus or even interdisciplinary import. They're more productive for the field.

They're also much, much harder to write - and harder to write especially in *article* form. They're often books - which is in part why so many articles are of the *what* genre. (And why books that do the *what* sort of work are...hard to get through.)

If what a search committee values is potential for impact on the field, then it isn't a set quantity of (probably) *what* articles that should matter. It's evidence that there's some *how* ideas on offer. And if they're fewer and farther between, they should be!

And let me just add this final thought: the ability to produce *how* ideas, in either article or book form, is reasonably closely indexed to the likelihood that one will be a successful teacher. Since teaching is about communicating the *how* rather than the *what* of thinking.

Long story short: give me an applicant who has zero published articles but a dissertation that makes me go “whoa I have to think about this differently now” over someone who has six publications in the top journals but whose work is just...workman-like.

This also goes to mentorship: I can help a junior colleague produce and place articles and books if the ideas are there. I can’t teach someone to have the ideas. (Teaching how to develop and express new ideas should be happening in graduate school. Also mentorship.)