You must network to succeed in academia: IHE

[polly_mer]

https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/03/09/why-and-how-women-academe-need-network-opinion

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

Feels like a page from Dale Carnegie's 1930s Bestseller How to Win Friends and Influence People.

[marshwiggle]

It's kind of interesting that the article is about how women don't like "networking", when typically women develop bigger social networks than men. I'm guessing the issue is that professional networks will include lots of men, whereas womens' normal social networks are predominantly with other women.

[Hibush]

Feels like a page from Dale Carnegie's 1930s Bestseller How to Win Friends and Influence People.

Timeless advice. But it is not attractive to some personalities who commonly populate academe. Let's call them lab rats and library mice. Discovery is great, writing about it is tolerable, schmoozing is painful.

The article has a quote from a different book.
"The people who feel least sleazy about networking are powerful people. But those who need to network the most -- the least powerful -- are the most likely to feel bad about it.

That observation is true to some extent, and I think it shows essentially survivorship bias. That is, people don't dislike networking because they lack power. They lack power because they dislike networking.

That's where the IHE article, and perhaps Dale Carnegie, meet their challenge. If people how like networking describe how they do it, every "helpful" detail will appear distasteful.

How do you present useful techniques in a way that connects with those for whom networking will always be hard, but who also aspire to a certain degree of power?

[Anselm]

Feels like a page from Dale Carnegie's 1930s Bestseller How to Win Friends and Influence People.

That was the manual of subversion used by Charles Manson to bring people into his family and follow his commands.

I asked a department head how he sorts through a hundred applications.   He told me that often he personally knows the person who wrote the letter of recommendation.  He also recognizes the name of the applicant from attending conferences. 

[bio-nonymous]

The article states: "Start easy (weather, sports, surroundings, food); go deeper (work, friends, connections, meaning); and decide whether to go still further (politics, religion, self-revelations). " I would have a bit of a problem with this advice--I was always of the mind, and taught, that you never discuss politics, religion, or sex with individuals in a professional setting or that you don't know intimately. Now I understand that much of academia is an echo chamber, but I would think there would be no better way to offend an important new contact than to start in on your political/theological truth as an ice-breaker that they may personally vehemently oppose--maybe keeping the small talk to small inoffensive subjects would be better advice?

[Hibush]

The article states: "Start easy (weather, sports, surroundings, food); go deeper (work, friends, connections, meaning); and decide whether to go still further (politics, religion, self-revelations). " I would have a bit of a problem with this advice--I was always of the mind, and taught, that you never discuss politics, religion, or sex with individuals in a professional setting or that you don't know intimately. Now I understand that much of academia is an echo chamber, but I would think there would be no better way to offend an important new contact than to start in on your political/theological truth as an ice-breaker that they may personally vehemently oppose--maybe keeping the small talk to small inoffensive subjects would be better advice?

Agreed. Even if they agree with your politics or theology, context-free pronouncements on this subject might wait for the fourth or fifth year of acquaintanceship.

[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. 

[Ruralguy]

I wouldn't probably wouldn't have known about, or gotten, my last 4 jobs without networking, in some way.

Its a total misconception that this is about backslapping at cocktail parties. I mean, yeah, there's some of that, but its more about having mentors introduce you to some people at small meetings, then you talk to them some more. When the time comes, you apply for a job that they might have some part in. Its not that anyone said "I can get you a job, call me." Its different in different cases, but sometimes its about listening to what someone said about where they work, then years later, applying for something there and rebuilding the connection.  Also, of course, there's the significance of phone calls and letters, particularly in the sciences at the post-doc stage.

So, though I don't see my self as a big giant networker, especially now, I do look back and see how it has helped me, both in getting jobs and building collaborations (I wrote one paper with someone who rejected me for a job, and this was *after* the rejection!).

[Anselm]

All of the experts outside of Academia speak about the importance of networking for job seekers.  The problem is that you can't work and study for long hours and at the same time be a social butterfly.

[Ruralguy]

Experts *within* academia have speaking about the importance of networking for at least the last two decades, maybe a little longer. Yes, long hours and introverted personalities make socializing difficult, but you can network during working hours just by paying attention to mentors and peers, attending meetings, etc.. Some parties and such might help, but its more important just to connect with people in ways that are  sensible for the profession.

[Hibush]

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.

"Could you tell me more about the undergrads you have who are interested in basketweaving technology? We are interested in diversifying our pool of graduate students, and you have good basketweaving major. I'm curious whether our tech program might be interesting to some of them. "

"You talked about your research on southeastern traditional baskets and how resilient they are to the degrading effects of heat and humidity. That was really well done. I'm working on a grant proposal on resilient baskets, but really need a collaborator with expertise in materials. Can we talk a bit about where we overlap interests? Perhaps we want to pursue something together."

"Did you see that oddly specific job ad for a basketweaving professor at CoolPlace U? Whoever gets it is going to have a pretty sweet gig. Anything on the grapevine about why the framed the job that way?"

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

[polly_mer]

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. 

When something interesting comes up, who gets to be part of the discussion?

Who gets contacted to be on the editorial board?

Who gets contacted to decide what will be the theme at the conference?

Who gets invited to be a speaker or on the panel?

Who gets the referrals when the media or government calls and the original contact has to make a referral?

Being qualified for a public call is not at all the same as being known by the people who are making the decisions based on who comes to mind after ten minutes of discussion.

Being qualified and waiting for the open call for a formal position means playing the career game on hard.

Networking alone in the sense of trying this month to build support for a personal new position next month seldom works.

Being an active participant in a relevant community to become accepted as a unique individual whom others seek out because of positive history is nearly always the way to get interesting offers and opportunities for human endeavors. 

Even in academia where all the good jobs will have a public call, the prestigious positions in academia never go to unknowns; the short list is always comprised of known people who have different trade-offs to discuss.

[polly_mer]

All of the experts outside of Academia speak about the importance of networking for job seekers.  The problem is that you can't work and study for long hours and at the same time be a social butterfly.

So you always work alone and never contact colleagues to discuss?  You never have to ask someone for help while studying?

You never have a coffee break, lunch, tea, or dinner with colleagues to break up those long hours?

You always have a private office or never talk with your officemates?

You never go to seminars and talk before/after with colleagues?  You never ask to get half an hour on the speaker's schedule for someone who works in a related area?  You turn down all invitations to go to breakfast, coffee, lunch, tea, or dinner with the speaker?

When you go to conferences, it is beyond the pale to talk to anyone outside the formal presentations and make arrangements for coffee, lunch, tea, dinner, or drinks?

Perhaps you are just too busy.  However, those of us who can manage the weekly seminar, lunch a couple times a month, and some small talk in the office/break room tend to have pretty good networks. 

A couple decades into my career, the people I know because I was a regular at monthly department lunches years ago, shared an office for a year in grad school, or were nearly always so early to the weekly seminars that we spoke regularly for several years is pretty amazing.  It's not unusual for me to know the officers of our professional societies.  I see friends and friendly colleagues in science spots on the national media monthly.  Friends and colleagues are frequently in mass-media documentaries.  I turn down national/international offers to serve on committees and editorial boards that are a result of people thinkingof me during relevant discussions.

I was at Super Dinky because I wanted to teach and live in a rural area.  Even there, because I could manage weekly lunches and meetings with the regional community, I know people who served in state offices and the regional professional societies.  I was able to relatively quickly leave SD for a new job after deciding I had to leave before SD closed because I could contact my network, line up references, and start getting a stream of job ads forwarded to me.

Waiting for people to recognize your abilities is much harder than figuring out how to have lunch out once a week and chatting to other humans at seminar time.

[kaysixteen]

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