IIRC, our own Ben Yanke wrote a post about that at the Chant Cafe, defending P&W but, generally, not during the Mass.

Not to offend anyone, but I've never really thought of "Praise & Worship" and "Scholarly" going together in the same sentence. Just as I've never heard of a scholarly paper on the 'music' of Eminem, so I've never heard of a scholarly paper on P&W. YMMV

But if such a thing actually exists, it's probably in the hands of OCP or a big Protestant/Evangelical publisher.

I think the protestants have the corner on that information.

I'm curious.... why are you trying to defend it, and in what context? In the grand scheme, it seems indefensible as an ideal form of music for the liturgy

it seems indefensible as an ideal form of music for the liturgy

And O.J.Simpson was deemed indefensible, too, Ben. There's no need to sell this to the CMAA choir. But, in order to sell "ideal" sacred music to "the folks" one needs to be conversant in other styles in order to properly demonstrate the ideal effectiveness of chant, polyphony and hymnody. YMMV.

There must be some forum for P&W practitioners too, or even for Catholic P&W-ers. Perhaps their users would know of some more material.

it seems indefensible as an ideal form of music for the liturgy

Whoops, I hit the thanks button on your post while trying blearily to click at a "reply" button (that we don't have). Just wanted to point out that I would guess most people who promote Praise 'n' Worship music (and many people who don't, too) would deny the very assumption that there is a single "ideal form of music" for all liturgy. (I think it's up for debate whether the Church even believes that chant is the ideal, which is when they sing Byrd's Mass for Five Voices at a Mass nobody walks around afterward saying, "Well, it was nice and all, sure... but it fell sadly short of being ideal.")

I'm going to x-post this on the "white list" thread as well.
Whilst pondering the badminton set re. WIII/WIV, it occurred to me that MJM's point is quite valid, allowing for some circumstances. One such circumstance would be at Francsican U. Steubenville, where their "homegrown" bound hymnal is ratio'd similar to the Gather model, but decidedly with P&W (Maher/Hart/Angrisano) content prominent as well. Well, how does that work? It seems to me that the chapel(s) there, and maybe other gathering spaces have sufficient quantities to suffice for use at liturgies, devotions, para-liturgies, animal blessings. IIRC, from an alumnus in my choir, their ability to chant, to chorally render polyphony etc., hymnody, religious song and P&W was not all compromised or discouraged by the very eclectic repertoire in that hymnal (I snuck a copy, don't tell 'em.) In fact, my FUS gal sang the soprano solo in Allegri's Miserere, but loved singing all that syncopa stuff in the book as well.
I hope it's noticed I'm not engaging in the liturgical theology debate over hymntext content. But that a hymnal might serve in non-liturgical interests is a viable concern.

I'm sure others besides me listen to Immaculate Heart Radio and are thus aware they have launched two internet music stations, one P&W and one "Sacred." On the broadcast station, however, IHR uses P&W almost exclusively as bumper music. And, of course, they're also marketing the P&W channel quite extensively.
Does this strategy, likely a demographic strategy, unwittingly promote P&W as licit and viable for worship to inclined listeners? IHR doesn't seem to offer any regular programming that would help young listeners make such distinctions.

it seems indefensible as an ideal form of music for the liturgy

Specifically, for the Mass. For devotions, fine. For processions, fine. Not for Hours.