Am I a fraud or imposter if I write an academic book without a degree?

June 5, 2023 4:26 PM

I have published an "academic" book and would like to publish another one. Does this make me a fraud or imposter since I don't have a degree?

As the title indicates, I am an "uneducated" in the formal sense, blue-collar worker, since I never completed higher education. When I became homeless after my dad committed suicide on my 18th birthday, I couldn't afford college and was more in a "survival" mode anyhow. I had to work to support my mother and I, and having worked myself up through companies, I am not so sure a degree will really do anything for me anymore. Maybe I will try to go back to college, I don't know.

However, despite my educational shortcomings, I am a prolific reader and writer. My home library contains almost 2,000 hardcover and paperback nonfiction books from 1780 - Present. About a year ago I published my first book which examines the right of peoples to self-determination under international law. My book won an award from an international writer's organization based in the US for the categories "Politics and Government" and "International Law".

Soon I will be making my own trip to Central Asia and the Middle East to do my own "field work" for a new book I want to write (also nonfiction/academic).

At the back of my head, I always have this nagging anxiety that I am not really an 'academic,' that I am not qualified to write on these subjects, that I am in fact a fake or wannabe academic or scholar. Must authors writing about these subjects are professors with Ph.Ds., something I'll never have. Perhaps I am not qualified to pass judgment on what they write. I know there are many famous autodidacts in history, but in my experience self-learning is usually looked down upon by most people. (Employers at job interviews have even mocked me or found it amusing that I wrote an "award-winning" book.)

Some advice on how to manage this relentless self-doubt and anxiety I have would be appreciated.

posted by 8LeggedFriend to Education (30 answers total)

Have you read any of what passes for doctorate work, of late? The less said about the state of humanities academia, the better.

Anyway, some of the most popular historians don't have PhDs. Dan Jones "only" has an undergrad degree. Ditto Barbara Tuchman. And the many best-selling books they published are about research they undertook AFTER they graduated, obviously.

(And are employers really "mocking you", or just been surprised and impressed? It sounds like you have a very sore spot about your education, and might be inferring insults that aren't really there.)

Anyway, go forth, research, cite, publish, and enjoy. (And do keep in mind that for folks who did spend enormous sums of money and years on PhDs, your success will feel like a thumb in the eye, so maybe just don't tell them.)
posted by fingersandtoes at 4:37 PM on June 5, 2023 [12 favorites]

I have a degree, from a fancy school, on fancy paper. I also frequently experience imposter syndrome.

I deal with it in two ways:
1) Sometimes that nagging voice in my head is right, and I don't know what I'm doing. I will check in with collaborators and get feedback. Often they don't have much to add, which means I'm not an imposter. Sometimes they do have good feedback on what I missed, and then I learn something.
2) Sometimes that nagging voice in my head doesn't have any specific negative feedback, it's just whiny. So I fake it till I make it a bit and nobody has caught on yet. Which means either I work with idiots and they deserve me, or...I'm not actually as terrible as I think I am.

Basically imposter syndrome is just your brain not getting enough feedback. Maybe join a writer's group? Get an editor?
posted by Narrow Harbor at 4:41 PM on June 5, 2023 [12 favorites]

You can write whatever you want for whomever you want!!! Perhaps you’d be more comfortable framing it as a travelogue with a focus on geography and history?!

I recommend reading Henry Rollins if you haven’t already: he defines himself as a blue collar worker-cum-author and he puts out some great stuff. I also think of zines and other forms of self-publishing or old school blogging. Sometimes they’re personal, sometimes they’re academic, and often they’re a mixture of both. Good luck!!
posted by smorgasbord at 4:43 PM on June 5, 2023 [2 favorites]

Also, congratulations on your well-deserved reward!! And fuck those assholes who make fun of you for something they never accomplished themselves: there is so much jealousy out there and please remember that snobbery is really just insecurity parading around in a fancy cloak.
posted by smorgasbord at 4:45 PM on June 5, 2023 [3 favorites]

Keep a copy of this list on your phone. Refer to it whenever you need a reminder that you have every right to be brilliant and contribute to human knowledge without a university degree. Print it out on a poster and put it up on your office wall for the benefit of your snarky coworkers. You can put it next to your framed award for your previous work.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 4:48 PM on June 5, 2023 [7 favorites]

An academic work is a specific thing, meaning related to academia. I think you should think more of doing scholarly work, which is less defined. Academic works, especially the first book, are often very boring and follow a pretty strict formula. If you don’t have to follow that formula because you’re not trying to get tenure, you’re lucky and can do it how you want to do it. Academia is all about socialization, so yes, your work is different, because it’s really hard to emulate that without the 5-7 years of training. And there’s also no point to emulating that because it’s about convention not producing knowledge or disseminating it. I think my entire point is, it’s totally fine to feel that your work is not academic because academic isn’t a standard, it’s a style. And a pretty bad one at that.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:55 PM on June 5, 2023 [34 favorites]

You can absolutely be an expert and publish a book without a degree! There is no gate and no keeper. But you mentioned "fieldwork" -- so, I wanted to ask -- is your work with human subjects? Academic research with human subjects (so, not oral history, not journalism) is governed by federal regulations, and research design is supposed to be approved by an Institutional Review Board which is an organization dedicated to protecting the welfare, rights, and privacy of human subjects. For people who do not have institutional affiliation, there are paths to go through this process, although it is fairly expensive out of pocket.

I am not all saying that your research would have something like this happen, but if you look up the saga of Jared Diamond's article on vengeance in The New Yorker and the subsequent (very justified) lawsuit by the tribesmen Papua New Guinea that he wrote about for defamation, it is an instructive tale of what can happen when Western researchers (in this case an academic! But one who did not go through IRB approval and who treated personal conversations as "data") use work with human subjects in non-Western contexts and don't think through the issues of informed consent, anonymity, etc.
posted by virve at 5:05 PM on June 5, 2023 [27 favorites]

I managed to be a primary author of a few papers in a couple high-profile science journals and have also contributed work to a Springer Verlag book without a doctorate. While I know the lack of a PhD makes certain career options much less likely, to answer your question, I make up for my insecurities by reminding myself that I'm published, that I made my parents proud in the process, and that there will never be a shortage of dumb-as-paint PhDs and employers out there who think they are hot stuff.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:29 PM on June 5, 2023 [3 favorites]

Self-published or traditionally published? If it comes up in a job interview, it would probably be better to simply say that you write non-fiction about X without going into the details about scholarship or awards.

In general, I believe that people should write what they want to write, and that includes scholarly work by people not affiliated with an academic institution. Create what you want to create.
posted by betweenthebars at 6:08 PM on June 5, 2023 [3 favorites]

For a long time, at a tertiary institute I worked at that normally required full-time academics to have a PhD, there was a highly regarded member of staff who wrote books and was kept on staff until retirement because of their expert knowledge and ability in their field.

You'll also notice that while the preface may contain the authors' qualifications and experience, the cover uses just their names with no titles (like Dr or professor).

Historically, some people were kept out of educational instructions due to gender, race, poverty etc but still did excellent work. Beatrix Potter was an expert in mushrooms and used her considerable artistic skills to record varieties and sent the results of her work to various scientific associations.

Finally, a publisher is most concerned as to whether your book will fill a gap in the market and sell. Sure, it's helpful if you're Professor Whatchmacallit, but if the publisher doesn't care, neither should you.

Lastly, in some tertiary institutions, there's a doctorate that is predicated on publications. In other words, dependant on your university, you may qualify for a PhD based on your book. It's not an honorary degree. It's the real deal. The details, however, I'm unsure of.

If your last book sold, you are an author, not an imposter. Be proud. Accept your intellectual capacity and hard work. Some PhDs never write more than a chapter or 4 papers a year.
posted by b33j at 6:39 PM on June 5, 2023 [1 favorite]

On preview, Virve brings up a significant point. It may be worth troubling yourself to see if you can jump through the hoops to get a PhD via publication and then, become an unpaid researcher linked with your university so that you can use their ethics process. Other benefits include online (and in person) membership to the library which gives you access to so many papers so if you want to increase the academic nature of your writing you can reference other works not in your personal library.

Another thing I would suggest is aiming for a Grad Dip (often the entry requirements use previous experience rather than previous studies) and do a part-time online year of study into research methods. If you don't have Creswell on your shelf, you're missing out. There are many wrong ways to research in the field (as opposed to researching written materials) and it may be invaluable as you continue your journey as a non-fiction author.
posted by b33j at 6:50 PM on June 5, 2023

Seconding that, if you aren’t in the academy, you aren’t an academic, but that has nothing to do with being a scholar.

The main reason (outside of snobbery) that academics and scholars are leery of autodidacts is that they are often selective readers who don’t spend the time to build up a solid foundation of theory and past (often somewhat obscure) scholarship in many languages and traditions. Whether this applies to you or your work is something you would be the best judge of.

I’ll also agree that getting a book written and published is quite an accomplishment to savor, and, without knowing the tone and intent of your writing, a good accessible-to-the-general-public book underpinned by solid scholarship is likely worth more to the world than a highly-academic and less-accessible title on the same topic.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:58 PM on June 5, 2023 [7 favorites]

A couple points: I have never heard of an institution granting a PhD to someone because they published a book. In the US, PhDs are awarded after coursework, some sort of exam, and passing a dissertation defense. Publishing a book is neither necessary or sufficient. If your book won writing awards it is very different than a dissertation (half joking here). There is so much more to a PhD than that.

To reiterate other points: my advisor didn’t read books to me. My classmates didn’t guide me while I went through old documents. My department didn’t write my code. I did all that, by myself. What my PhD gave me, and what lots of good PhD programs give people, is the baseline training to get started doing original research in a very narrow and specialized way that is aimed at a very narrow audience. If you wanted to know what you’re missing from doing a PhD, and how your book(s) may be different, is that I had endless hours of conversations with people about my work. I had to stand in front of a room dozens of times, present my research to smart knowledgeable people, and defend my work. The research was all done on my own so don’t worry that others have something you don’t want it comes to research. What they do have is community input and exchange. That, I think, is the main difference between an autodidact and an academic. Now, for me, I’m a smart person but my research output without that community would be pretty shitty. I leaned on them pretty hard, others may have less so. Point being academics produce work because they have research funds and sabbaticals and community costing those things, not necessarily because of skills or intelligence.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:48 PM on June 5, 2023 [8 favorites]

Writing, research, thinking - these are about connecting ideas to each other, and then connecting ourselves to those ideas. Who is best qualified to connect more people to more ideas, academics who grow up academic, follow an academic path, and live like other academics? Or someone who has a foot in that world, and another foot in the world that I, and many many very important people today, inhabit?

The important people I reference are people who vote, who act, who fight, who connect in friendship, who talk to their friends, who raise their own children, and who do not trust authoritative academic voices. This distrust is so grave that it is destructive to our prosperity, safety, and health, and it is also merited. It is almost impossible for someone immersed in academia, or in the educated class that touches it, to understand what it is like to feel so much disdain, contempt, or pity with what feels like a monolithic authority over the thought and decisions that steer the world.

I am not saying that any or even most academics or educated people actually look down on the rest of the world. It is likely that truly educated people are usually either educated past that, or too busy to even have time for it. I also believe that most people are far more open to persuasion, reason, and a change of heart and mind than we commonly expect.

Still, you feel like an outsider, it seems, and you don't have to look far to guess that many, many people feel this to a greater degree of bitterness. And it matters.

Understanding that sensation, understanding what it is like to be the outsider that you are, is a gift. One you do not want, but one that you alone have the power to share with a world that so, so sorely needs it.
posted by amtho at 8:49 PM on June 5, 2023 [1 favorite]

The question of whether you are a good candidate to write this book is an issue entirely between you and your publisher. Your publisher likes your track record and thinks you do good work and wants to publish your book. That’s all that matters
posted by deanc at 9:14 PM on June 5, 2023 [1 favorite]

You are getting caught up in the difference between an academic who writes and an academic writer. You are an academic writer and that requires no degrees, but rather good, well-researched writing, which can be done by anyone.
posted by hworth at 11:21 PM on June 5, 2023

As you're getting conflicting answers on the existence of alternative routes to a PhD, here is some information on PhDs by Publication, which are a real thing that exists, but in some countries more than others.

As far as the imposter syndrome: I think the advice to find a community for feedback is good, both for rigour and as a helpful counter narrative to some of the minimising reactions you've received. (These don't surprise me btw, I noticed quite a dramatic difference pre and post PhD in people's reactions to me, and some of it was based in status perceptions not the merits of the qualification).

You are not in the academy, but it is legitimate to be an Independent Scholar, and I wonder also whether finding other people who work under that term could be helpful to you.
posted by Ballad of Peckham Rye at 12:21 AM on June 6, 2023 [6 favorites]

I'm in a field that came late to post graduate education, at least in my country -- I was literally one of the first PhDs educated here -- so I have several colleagues who are professors and do academic work, but never had the education for it. They are good. But some struggle with insecurities, and sometimes there are things they don't have access to. Getting a grant can be difficult without the papers, though it isn't impossible. Finding a group of like-minded scholars is the way to go, they can then bake you into a larger project. this will be easier the more you publish. You meet people at conferences and seminars. In the beginning you can just listen and learn, then you can send in your own papers and thus tell people about your work. I'm going to meet with a former colleague next week to plan a proposal for a research project, and I can help with the technicalities of research planning while he has the knowledge. It'll be fun, and good.

One thing I've noticed is that people from non-academic backgrounds thrive the most when they build on their life experience and are confident those skills are valuable. Not necessarily literally. Two of the coolest scholars I have met were both originally electricians, and both moved on to social sciences, one pedagogy and one political science. They don't go around talking about wiring, but they have amazing people skills, are very straight-forward and are good at explaining hard theory in ways everyone can understand.
posted by mumimor at 1:16 AM on June 6, 2023 [4 favorites]

I want to take a step back from some of the snark here about academia. There's some discussion of the difference between 'scholarly' and 'academic' work above, and if that's a distinction that's useful to you then by all means use it. How the distinction works can be a bit of a mystery. But here's one way it might be drawn: a piece of scholarly work which counts as 'academic' is one that's been through the process of expert peer review. This can mean that the author(s) has presented bits of work-in-progress at conferences and workshops, and had their ideas shaped by discussion and engagement with other people working on similar or related topics. They've perhaps carved off small sections of the text and sent them to peer-reviewed journals as standalone articles, and received written comments and developed the ideas further as a result. A book-length work (a monograph) that's sent to an editor at an academic publisher (a 'university press', for instance) might then be sent to a couple of people who work in precisely that field, who are asked to submit reports explaining their verdict as to its merits, and what changes (if any) would be needed to strengthen or improve the work.

All of those things can be done by anyone, with or without a PhD or higher degree. Many (but not all) academic journals accept online submissions through a portal; the user creates a login with an email address and password, and uploads their document. Many (but not all) academic journals employ a process of blinded peer review, so the reviewers (and even the review editors) don't ever get to see the name, affiliation, credentials or anything else of the person who submitted the work. Usually what happens is that the review editor skim-reads the document in order to make a quick judgement about whether to proceed further; if it doesn't look like a fit for the journal it'll get what's called a 'desk rejection', i.e. a rejection without any supporting comments or reviews. Assuming this doesn't happen, the review editor will try to find a couple of people who work in the relevant field who would be willing to read and comment on the work. It can be helpful to the review editor if the author has filled in the metadata fields on the submission page which say something like 'keywords' or 'topics'; it'll be easier for the review editor to direct it towards someone relevant. Reviews editors can't be experts in every field, and can't be expected to make expert judgements about the content and contribution of every submission, but they keep excellent spreadsheets of people who work on different topics who might be willing to read pieces and write reviews. For the most part, all of this activity in this paragraph is free. Some journals charge a small 'submission' fee to the author, but they're the exception rather than the norm (and indeed, one of the distinguishing features of predatory publishers is that they have a 'pay to submit' policy). Reviewers are not paid directly for their labour. Reviews editors are not paid directly for their labour.

Conferences and workshops: these are usually advertised on academic mailing lists (listservs etc) or, depending on how well organised the field is, on centralised events listings sites. Anyone can subscribe to one of these mailing lists, there's no need to have a university affiliation, or any credentials. When conferences / workshops are first announced, they usually issue a CFP, a call for papers, or a CFA, a call for abstracts. Anyone is allowed to submit their work to these, normally by email, normally with the submission prepared for blind review (no name / other identifying details on the document). Usually the CFP/CFA describes the range of topics they're anticipating the submitted papers/abstracts or talks might address, with a tight word limit for the submission, and a deadline. Submissions are processed using blind review by the conference organising committee, and acceptances / rejections are sent out. Again, none of this process costs anything to the submitting author. Attending a conference or workshop can be expensive though (there's a registration fee, the cost of travel and accommodation etc). I don't think there's any strong expectation that everyone at a conference or workshop will have a university affiliation and a PhD; in my field its recognised that lots of conference attendees might be junior scholars (i.e. people who might be working towards a PhD, or an MA) or that they might be independent scholars (i.e. people who have a specialised interest in the field but pursue it without working in a university department). There are often people at a conference about X who have no qualifications in X at all – it's not unusual, for instance, for people in field or industry Y to have a side-interest in X, and to attend conferences or workshops on X as a way of fuelling that interest and getting a sense of what people are saying about X.

Submitting your work to journals and to conference / workshops can be one way of getting the benefit of critical discussion and engagement from other people who work on similar or related topics in your field. Not everyone feels as though they need it, or want it. (This is true for 'academics' as much as anyone else – I know many people who avoid conferences and workshops, and who struggle to engage with reports from reviewers at academic journals).

Sending a book manuscript to an academic publisher is also something that's cost free, and doesn't depend on your credentials or affiliations. Subject editors for academic publishers welcome approaches from prospective authors (it makes their lives a bit easier); it makes sense to approach publishers who are already publishing works in relevantly related topics, particularly if they publish a 'series' that you think your work will fit into nicely. You'll probably be asked to complete a form of some sort, which usually involves giving them an extended abstract of the work, a prospective table of contents, a sample chapter, and a kind of 'pitch' spiel about why this work is of significance now, who it's most directly relevant, why and how your piece makes a direct contribution to the current state of the field, and a list of which other recent publications it can be directly compared with and how it differs from them. The subject editor may make a decision, based on this information, to proceed to getting the work peer reviewed, or they may decide that the work doesn't fit with the kinds of markets that they're aiming at. Reviewers may recommend changes to the overall structure, or its direction, or might flag up omissions (pieces of the published literature that need to be taken on board), or want to discuss whether some of the claims made in the work actually hold up.

The (somewhat aspirational) idea behind these kind of peer-review and editorial processes is to strengthen the quality of the overall work, and help it to make a more effective contribution to the state of knowledge. By integrating the work with other things that other people know about, and having lots of different minds thinking about it in the process of its creation, the hope is that we collectively help each other to take positive steps forward (epistemically) and to avoid missteps. There's no knockdown (indefeasible) argument as to why anyone should want their work to go through peer review, and its perfectly possible for anyone doing anything scholarly to avoid it altogether. But at least as I've described it above, it's also perfectly possible for anyone doing something scholarly to be able to submit their work to some kind of peer review process (assuming there are relevantly related conferences, workshops, journals or academic publishers) without needing any university affiliation or credentials or higher degrees.
posted by Joeruckus at 2:50 AM on June 6, 2023 [6 favorites]

Others have addressed issues around qualifications, awards and so on. In terms of that person mocking you in the job interview, sadly I think if you tell people are making an effort in an area like writing, you will be subject to some doubt and even ridicule. I remember sitting at a dinner table watching a bunch of older people mercilessly grill a young woman who was an emerging painter. Why was she doing it, how was she planning to support herself and (not quite in so many words) who the hell did she think she was? Later she asked me why people treat her like this so often, and it struck me that people are jealous because she's following that artistic impulse. In many cases they would love to be doing something like that, but they either wouldn't know where to start or don't think they are entitled to it.

You don't (I think) want to be the kind of person who walks around thinking everyone is jealous of them. That's just awful. But the fact is that people are going to be jealous. Employers, in particular, are going to be suspicious because you have other interests and they think they are entitled to all of you. I don't think you should hide that you're doing this. You fucking rock for doing it! But you will get some negative reactions sometimes.
posted by BibiRose at 3:57 AM on June 6, 2023 [7 favorites]

Are you a female / female-presenting person? Because if so, people questioning your credentials doesn’t stop even when you literally write the book defining your field. Not having a PhD means that people who have one may give your book and your scholarship more scrutiny, and feel more inclined to prejudge you. But that will include men with PhDs in fields completely unrelated to the one you’re working in (“engineer’s disease” is a thing). So some of the worry you’re facing is simultaneously real, and not real.

If your scholarship is solid, and the book can stand on its own merits, it will be taken seriously by people who understand the subject. Once it’s out there, you’re no longer just ‘8LeggedFriend’, you’re ‘8LeggedFriend, author of _____” and that becomes part of your credentials. And each subsequent good book you write will add to that.

If your book isn’t solid, having a PhD might let you coast a bit longer as a serious academic because you literally would be one, but if your book isn’t well-researched or written or developed enough to stand on its own, then a lack of credentials won’t really be the problem.
posted by Mchelly at 4:43 AM on June 6, 2023 [6 favorites]

A degree represents certification that you’ve spent time with more senior scholars and have learned enough of what they know that they think you are worthy of some amount of trust on that basis. The burden of proof is higher for people who haven’t put in that time — but ultimately, a good contribution is a good contribution regardless of who authored it. What defines a good contribution? My belief is that it’s disciplinary experts who get to make that call. Your book won an award — that’s great! Who chooses recipients for that award? Are they themselves experts? If so, I really think you can put these worries to rest, because you’ve already passed the most important test with flying colors.

If the group that gave you an award doesn’t itself have scholarly bona fides, you may be implicitly allying yourself with some sort of intellectual outsider movement for the field you’re writing in. That can be good, if your ideas have the potential to reshape your field, and if you’re comfortable inhabiting that role. But not all outsider ideas will do that, and not all people are temperamentally suited to being outsiders (it’s hard on me personally).

One thing you can do if you’re more of an outsider than you want to be is see if you can get your work in front of people who will criticize it meaningfully. Getting enough attention for a review, even a negative one, is actually a good thing. It enfolds you in the conversation — which is what it means to be a scholar. Desk rejects, where they decide not to engage, also happen (two in the last year for me, ugh) and indicate that in some way you need to retool the work, or retarget it to a new scholarly audience, in order for that piece of work become part of the conversation. But those things are in your power.

There’s an infinite regress of turtles here, but I think that’s part of the nature of scholarship. It’s a much more little-c conservative pursuit than is generally acknowledged.
posted by eirias at 5:47 AM on June 6, 2023 [3 favorites]

No, you are not a fraud or an imposter.

Consider yourself a badass for accomplishing this without the formal/institutional training. You're definitely not a fraud, and not an imposter if you're not misrepresenting yourself. You're just doing something without having had an institution teach you how to do it, having gotten the knowledge yourself.
posted by entropone at 6:35 AM on June 6, 2023 [4 favorites]

"Some advice on how to manage this relentless self-doubt and anxiety I have would be appreciated."

As long as you are honest about your credentials, sources, experience, etc. there's no reason you shouldn't write on these topics. You don't need an institution to officially endorse your ability to research and write.

Imagine if Samuel Clemens felt like he was unqualified to write because he didn't finish school. I'm sure I could spend the day citing giants in various fields whose credentials are minimal but their contributions were and are valuable.

You've written a work that won an award. That's a good sign that your work is appreciated and you didn't need a degree to be valued.

The work is what matters. If you took up painting and produced a masterpiece, would you question it because you didn't have an MFA? If you picked up the guitar and wrote some songs people loved, would you question yourself because you weren't classically trained as a musician.

Being from a blue collar background in white collar circles is tough, it's easy to have imposter syndrome and feel out of place. Even with a degree! I was the first in my family to graduate college, and I've never felt fully comfortable with it. But the work is what matters. If you can do it, don't let external feedback dissuade you from tackling whatever project you like.

I mean, if you were writing self-help medical texts, I might feel a bit differently. If we were in "cure your cancer with beads" territory then you should feel inhibited about that.

But you're researching and writing about nonfiction/cultural topics that people can assess for themselves. As long as you cite your sources and everything, I think you should feel empowered to write on "academic" topics to your heart's desire.
posted by jzb at 7:43 AM on June 6, 2023 [1 favorite]

You should watch the last episode of the latest season of Queer Eye. Bobby Berk has a beautiful conversation with the makeover-ee about how those who come to their careers/life projects from a nontraditional path often have the insights and outside the box perspective to change the world in really important ways. He then shifts his inner scripts from "I'm an imposter from a poor family" to "I'm a pioneer." In that he's blazing a trail and going where no one in his family went before and that he's exhibiting great amounts of creativity, talent and potential in doing so.

I really think you deserve congratulations for this. In my opinion being a published and award-winning author is a much more impactful achievement than being an academic and studying obscure topics for a handful of experts.

Instead of focusing on whether or not you deserve to write a book I would focus on marketing your existing book to have the biggest impact you can!
posted by winterportage at 8:26 AM on June 6, 2023 [2 favorites]

I have never heard of an institution granting a PhD to someone because they published a book. In the US, PhDs are awarded after coursework, some sort of exam, and passing a dissertation defense. Publishing a book is neither necessary or sufficient. If your book won writing awards it is very different than a dissertation (half joking here). There is so much more to a PhD than that.

Quite a few UK institutions offer a PhD by publication. This is typically based on a minimum 4/5 papers in a field over a 5 year period, with a new linking chapter. You still have to pass the viva voce that is the single exam for PhDs here. I think the Humanities will often see books submitted as a substitute for papers, and some institutions will accept books for PhD by publication.
posted by biffa at 9:19 AM on June 6, 2023 [1 favorite]

I work (and have a phd in) political science and can't speak for other fields. It's possible some might actually formally gatekeep in some way.

With every journal and publisher I am aware of, there is no requirement that you have any degree at all to submit your work for review and eventual publication. Anyone and everyone is entirely free to submit, and the people who end up reviewing your work will have exactly zero idea who you are (unless they've seen you present this work at a conference before -- which, by the way, is also open to literally anyone who wishes to submit their work for possible presentation).
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 9:25 AM on June 6, 2023

UEA is an example of a conventional and respectable (they have Nobel laureates) university in the UK offering a PhD by publication, with reasonably detailed information about what is required. Not that you need to do a PhD, but if you are open to a non-American institution they are more accessible and flexible than you might think.
posted by plonkee at 10:00 AM on June 6, 2023 [1 favorite]

In short: No, you are not a fraud or an imposter. Enjoy!
posted by Bella Donna at 10:16 AM on June 6, 2023

Just taking your question very literally: my dictionary app says an imposter is "a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others, especially for fraudulent gain."

You aren't claiming to have a degree; you aren't claiming to have qualifications you don't have - you're sharing your research in an honest way with others who might like to learn more.

George Santos is an imposter. You are a published author - and I admire your accomplishments, and applaud you for continuing on to write more!
posted by kristi at 8:15 AM on June 7, 2023