You must network to succeed in academia: IHE

[apl68]

This comment kind of reinforces the impression, given by humanists remarks, that relationships with actual humans is not a norm among humanities scholars. I find that really curious.

Yes.

The networking is being part of the community. 

It's not just a matter of job seeking, either.  I don't have any plans to go on the job market ever again, but I am active in professional bodies within the state library communities.  I've gotten to know a number of my professional peers that way.  Should I ever have the misfortune to need to find a new position, those connections will no doubt come in handy.  In the meantime, this peer network is valuable because of the information and expertise we are able to share.  I've learned a great deal that I need to know to do my job better this way.  Maybe once in a while I've also managed to share something of use to somebody else.

I learned about my current job from an odd form of "networking."  A friend of a friend saw a public advertisement in-state for the position.  Knowing that I worked in the field, and was hoping to move back to the state, she got the news to me.  I applied and, due to the job's isolation and obscurity, proved to be the most qualified candidate.  And was able to bring strong letters of recommendation from my supervisors.  Not sure what the moral here is, except that you never know what connections might point you in the right direction when you need it.  And that it's always a good idea to try to do the kind of work that earns good letters of recommendation.

[marshwiggle]

This comment kind of reinforces the impression, given by humanists remarks, that relationships with actual humans is not a norm among humanities scholars. I find that really curious.

Yes.

The networking is being part of the community. 

It's not just a matter of job seeking, either.  I don't have any plans to go on the job market ever again, but I am active in professional bodies within the state library communities.  I've gotten to know a number of my professional peers that way.  Should I ever have the misfortune to need to find a new position, those connections will no doubt come in handy.  In the meantime, this peer network is valuable because of the information and expertise we are able to share.  I've learned a great deal that I need to know to do my job better this way.  Maybe once in a while I've also managed to share something of use to somebody else.

I used to think "mentoring" sounded similarly odd. Until I realized that I mentor my TAs. Specifically, as I chat with them in an around the labs, I explain why things are set up the way they are, what I've observed as patterns in student behaviour, etc. Many have thanked me for some of those insights, and some have gone on to teach in one form or another, and have updated me with their progress and how what they learned from working with me was helpful.

As others have said, it's not about playing golf together; it's about proactively engaging in professional activities and getting to know people in that context.

(I've also gotten value from getting involved in educational development activities that have connected me with people from different disciplines that I wouldn't have otherwise encountered.)

[lightning]

I really do think that some young academics harbor the fanciful notion that truly good scholarship & research transcends networking, and that anyone engaged in networking is probably a hack whose scholarship & research cannot stand on their own. IOW, they think they are above networking.

Eventually, they will learn, sometimes the hard way.

Related to this, some young academics are lucky, in that their education or even family situation affords them a professional network, straight out of the gate, due to connections that are part of their training. These people can be the most irritating because, even with their advantage, they don't recognize that their professional network has helped them (or they don't even realize that they have a professional network already), and they chalk up their success to their own individual brilliance.

[polly_mer]

Listening to and relying on mentors to help your networking plan requires, ahem, you to have mentors willing to do this.

Good thing that peer networking is a thing and doesn't rely on having mentors.

College roommates, the people from volleyball club, and the classmates from various levels can all contribute to a solid network. 

The problem I see is people who refuse to interact in positive ways with the humans in the relevant communities and then wonder why those folks don't accept them as part of the community.

It doesn't work to hang out with the chess team when one wants to be playing soccer.  Going regularly  to the Y for the Saturday afternoon pick-up game won't get one a place on Mansfield United, but it may result in an invite to join the Green Tuesday night team.

Networking well just means having people who accept one as part of the community.  Focusing solely on who is powerful now doesn't tend to work nearly as well as interacting with those who share common interests and going up the  hill together.  One great mentor is not nearly as good as many friendly peers who each have at least one good mentor.

The weird thing to me is how few people who spend their intellectual energy with human literature make the connections between relationships and acceptance into the broader community.  The relationships vary by community and access to power varies by community, but the basic need to be connected in the ways relevant to the community remains.

As lightning writes, one reason to go to the "best" college and grad program one can is that the relevant networking is relatively easy.  Go to lunch regularly and talk with the same set of people at seminars and you're a good 70% of the way there.

[Wahoo Redux]

I personally have never seen networking work, at least not in the humanities, at least not for jobs, although I've known a couple of people who have tried.  The field is simply too competitive and stressed, and inside hires tend to already be working at the place that hires them.   I have gotten a publication or two because I met an editor of a literary journal at some conference, but that's it.  Then again, I hate small talk and am not great at schmoozing.

This comment kind of reinforces the impression, given by humanists remarks, that relationships with actual humans is not a norm among humanities scholars. I find that really curious.

Here are things I might say when networking with someone I've met at a conference a couple of times.

No backs are slapped, but the conversation may well proceed over some adult beverages.

Sure.  And I have several Facebook friends who I met at academic conferences.  And my wife got a casual offer to collaborate with an Ivy League prof after a campus guest lecture...which has yet to coalesce into anything concrete.  So "networking" works somewhat, I guess.

I think the solitary nature of humanities scholarship neutralizes "networking" as an effective professional tool.  We seldom collaborate.  Our careers outside of teaching and service (very localized) stand or fall based on solo publications.

Then again, maybe I don't run in the right circles or schmooze good.  I've done a number of national conferences, and I have met some very nice people, actually had a few nice dinners and even some drinks...but that's about it.

We have normal "human" relationships with other humans in every other regard in our lives.

[Ruralguy]

I e seen humanities people do it, but perhaps they were just extroverts .

[kaysixteen]

I think you are right, those humanists who are good at this sort of stuff are on the high end of extroversion for humanists, who are a solitary, introverted lot, in general, and do not collaborate the way scientists do.

Peer networking is ok, provided one's peers have the means to assist you in any job-obtaining, etc., endeavor.   If all your peers are in the same boat, however, that creates a gripe session.

Many of these activities are also clearly classist in nature, requiring money and time to engage in, and also (more or less) the sort of soft-skills knowledge that those raised in these classes get growing up.

[polly_mer]

Many of these activities are also clearly classist in nature, requiring money and time to engage in, and also (more or less) the sort of soft-skills knowledge that those raised in these classes get growing up.

If humanities folks really do "have normal 'human' relationships with other humans in every other regard in our lives", then they have the relevant skills, regardless of their social class.  The problem remains applying those skills to their professional lives.

For example, knowing a guy at church who can help troubleshoot the car radio is no different from  getting a volunteer slot twice a month to start interacting in the library community so one then knows several " guys" in the relevant community.

Calling a friend to chat about the latest episode of Funny TV Series is no different from walking back to the office discussing the seminar just seen.  One interesting part of the virtual conferences and seminars is how frequently colleagues call to chat right after a presentation, just as we would usually chat in the hall afterwards or walking back.

Regular conference attendance to see the same people and do coffee/lunch/dinner is no difference from regular attendance at the monthly potluck, summer town festival, or annual camping trip.


The parts relate to class come in through:

* keeping the established social networks and not expanding to incorporate the new colleagues.  Time, energy, and money are limited.  However, figuring out a way to make new friends or at least friendly colleagues is very important.  Attending the weekly seminar and chatting over cookies is a low-cost, high-return activity.  Bringing a lunch and eating it with other students in a common area is a low-cost, high-return activity.  You don't need a huge new network right way; you need a couple new friends who are each also have a couple new friends.  The way to make friendly colleagues is regular interaction.

* worrying about being too transactional as part of networking.  Yes, seeking out a big wig to suck up is not in our wheelhouse for those of us who grew up poor.  However, joining a group discussing something interesting is networking.  Even as an engineer, I have fabulous college memories regarding staying up late, eating generic chips, drinking just water, and discussing life, the universe, and everything.  I'm still in contact with several of these people and that's not about hoping they will get me a job.

Grad school should similarly be a time of sharing and discussing.  Sure, we read and write alone for hours, even in fields where we work on teams.  However, at regular intervals, there should be intellectual discussions with colleagues.  As one advisor put it, you should know your dissertation and those of the people at three of the nearest several desks...and I do. 

I remain angry about Covid risk and modeling discussions on these fora because I regularly had lunches for three years before the shutdown where epidemiologists were regular participants along with astrophysicists, explosives experts, nuclear experts, climate modelers, statisticians, machine-learning experts, and political scientists.  I'm not an expert in those fields,  but technical discussions and shared problem-solving has built a network and knowledge far beyond reading the mass-media news.  Many people brought lunch from home because that's significantly cheaper than the cafeteria prices and comments were appreciative of the Star Wars lunchbox.

* declining invitations to spend a couple days together for a professional activity because of expense.  A person must be in the place participating with the community.  One makes friendly colleagues on the six-hour drive, a shared room at the cheap end of town, and navigating an unfamiliar supermarket to get sandwich fixings for the week as well as talking outside presentation rooms.  Even locally, that shared horrible mandatory workshop goes better with commiseration at the breaks with a new friend as you share snacks brought from home.

Those road trips in college to go home via shared ride on the bulletin board or even just the college roommate selected by chance are opportunities to expand the network.  The college academic undermatching that was a concern several years ago pales beside the common situation of folks who get to an elite place and then self-isolate instead of making potentially lifelong friends who have the relevant networks.  You don't have to be the best networker to be well connected; you just need one high vertex node within a couple levels

* focusing on the known public process with formal titles instead of thinking about the individual humans in charge.  For example, my MIL is a member of a church with about 100 members.  The pastor is officially in charge, but if you want to influence flowers, program, Sunday school, speakers, fellowship food, or pretty much anything that isn't the sermon or pastoral duties, then you speak with my MIL or one of her best friends.  We were visiting during a snowstorm and the phoneline was hot as those three ladies discussed whether to inform pastor he was cancelling services as unsafe.

While academic hiring is a formal process, all the decisions about the relevant community are not.  Acting as though the community is governed by formal processes instead of human interactions means accepting a low-status role and being continuously frustrated by being locked into that role.  One has marginalized one's self that way.

* Choosing what's affordable on the preselected continuum instead looking for the best choice in the affordable range.  I remember seeing an emerald green, cable-knit very soft sweater in the store and asking for it for Christmas.  I received a scratchy, shapeless, pea-green sweater because "you asked for a green sweater and I can make one for much less than the one in the store".

Going to a graduate program is similar.  Yeah, one might have a doctorate in the relevant field that technically meets the listed requirements to the letter, but it's missing the spirit to the cognoscenti.

I remember one job applicant who was bragging about how rigorous his online PhD work was and how favorably it probably compared with mind.  I had an office next to my advisor and we spoke nearly daily.  We sat at the computer together to revise some paragraphs.  We had quarterly meetings with my committee members who were world-experts in the area and spent a day at the blackboard with the bleeding-edge science.  Therefore, no, I'm not impressed that the applicant's advisor was required to provide feedback on each draft within two weeks of receipt with a three-iteration minimum.

In summary, I see many humanities folks get stuck because they ignore the human aspect of their professional lives.  I become frustrated with individuals who then insist that the system should be changed to be more of a formal system with the human factor eliminated because that is somehow more humane.  Engineers discuss at length the effect of the diversity of human factors and the humanities people want to ignore the human factors in favor of a decontextualized classism force.  Interesting.

[polly_mer]

I e seen humanities people do it, but perhaps they were just extroverts .

A joke around here is the extroverted scientist looks at your shoes when speaking instead of their shoes.

[Sun_Worshiper]

I don't think one has to network to be successful, but it can help. Personally I hate networking, am not good at it, and do not have mentors in my life who have helped me with this. Despite my lack of network, things have gone well for for me overall. However, I have been overlooked for several opportunities that instead went to someone 'in the club.' I can't say for certain that these went to others because they were better networked, but I suspect this has been the case. If I could do it over again, I'd get more involved early on in the professional associations in my field as a way in.

[Ruralguy]

If I had it to do over again, I'd pick different parents with even higher intelligence and even better looks (people seem to like physically attractive people).

[Sun_Worshiper]

If I had it to do over again, I'd pick different parents with even higher intelligence and even better looks (people seem to like physically attractive people).

Agreed, I'd make my parents taller too