how to describe myself for an academic job not quite in my field?
April 26, 2013 9:22 PM Subscribe
Bear with me, this is a little bit abstract out of necessity:
I'm interviewing for a great job which is posted as somewhat outside my social sciences field. Let's call it Field X. One of the things I'm hoping to do in this interview is say that precisely because I am not directly in field X but come from somewhat-related-field Y, I can bring new and important insights to field X. How do I say this without sounding like I'm disparaging field X, which I definitely don't want to do? More thoughts after the jump.
Basically, all I'm saying is that Field X, because it requires so many years of specialist training (which I have not had) and due to certain peculiarities of the field, has tended to be very inward looking and insular, caught up in its own assumptions to a certain extent. Applying the paradigms from field Y (which I am fully trained in) can open new lines of inquiry. But I'm worried that saying all this too bluntly might antagonize the people on the search committee who are very much from Field X. I also worry that they might directly question my credentials to making any claims about Field X when I am from Field Y -- though I think the fact that the committee as a whole has shortlisted me at all suggests some of them are at a little least interested. I should point out that I am very much a Field Y person, though am hoping to be given this opportunity to move gradually into Field X.
I imagine there are a lot of questions which might come up in the Q&A regarding this peculiarity of my research background, and would be grateful if anyone has experience on search committees could throw me a few (hard or soft) questions, and potential good-answer formulations... e.g. I don't think saying outright that "Field X is too insular, and that is why I, from Field Y, can fix everything" will go down too well...
in short, I'd love any suggestions at all on how to deal with this field disjunct diplomatically and tastefully in an interview situation. Thank you so much in advance, and I'm sorry this was so abstract!
Basically, all I'm saying is that Field X, because it requires so many years of specialist training (which I have not had) and due to certain peculiarities of the field, has tended to be very inward looking and insular, caught up in its own assumptions to a certain extent. Applying the paradigms from field Y (which I am fully trained in) can open new lines of inquiry. But I'm worried that saying all this too bluntly might antagonize the people on the search committee who are very much from Field X. I also worry that they might directly question my credentials to making any claims about Field X when I am from Field Y -- though I think the fact that the committee as a whole has shortlisted me at all suggests some of them are at a little least interested. I should point out that I am very much a Field Y person, though am hoping to be given this opportunity to move gradually into Field X.
I imagine there are a lot of questions which might come up in the Q&A regarding this peculiarity of my research background, and would be grateful if anyone has experience on search committees could throw me a few (hard or soft) questions, and potential good-answer formulations... e.g. I don't think saying outright that "Field X is too insular, and that is why I, from Field Y, can fix everything" will go down too well...
in short, I'd love any suggestions at all on how to deal with this field disjunct diplomatically and tastefully in an interview situation. Thank you so much in advance, and I'm sorry this was so abstract!
First: Never, ever bring up your own deficiencies in an interview. That seems so obvious, but people do it so much. If you're at the interview stage, they've already realized that you're not a Field X person and are okay with it. However, the interviewer might ask you why you think Field Y is applicable, because it's a good question, and that leads to:
Field Y can be good without Field X sucking. That applies to bands, and coffeeshops, and books, and professional endeavors. You don't need to say, "Well, your Field X is insular and crappy, but my Field Y is awesome and better than Field X anyway." You can say, "I find that Field Y applies to Field X because it approaches many of the same questions in slightly different way -- for instance..." and then you go into a thing you've prepared that illustrates it. You don't need to make a qualitative judgment. No matter how much they prod at you, Field X doesn't suck. It's not insular or caught up in its own assumptions. Stop thinking that. Even if it's true.
posted by Etrigan at 9:32 PM on April 26, 2013 [3 favorites]
Field Y can be good without Field X sucking. That applies to bands, and coffeeshops, and books, and professional endeavors. You don't need to say, "Well, your Field X is insular and crappy, but my Field Y is awesome and better than Field X anyway." You can say, "I find that Field Y applies to Field X because it approaches many of the same questions in slightly different way -- for instance..." and then you go into a thing you've prepared that illustrates it. You don't need to make a qualitative judgment. No matter how much they prod at you, Field X doesn't suck. It's not insular or caught up in its own assumptions. Stop thinking that. Even if it's true.
posted by Etrigan at 9:32 PM on April 26, 2013 [3 favorites]
Something that might be useful to say might be that your experience in Field Y can complement others' experience in Field X. Try to be more about collaboration and cooperation and show enthusiasm for Field X and how Fields X and Y can work together. A concrete example would come in handy. Another two good words are "interdisciplinary" or "multidisciplinary".
Also, if Field Y happens to be sociology, you're in luck: we sociologists can bring our sociological perspective to EVERYTHING. Similarly, if Field X happens to be sociology, it's really easy to bring something else to the table because sociological theories are found everywhere and in everything, so if you have expertise in something, a sociologist can probably appreciate that addition perspective.
Sadly, if sociology is not remotely related, I think I'm out of advice and would definitely go back to my first paragraph. Good luck! :)
posted by juliebug at 12:28 AM on April 27, 2013
Also, if Field Y happens to be sociology, you're in luck: we sociologists can bring our sociological perspective to EVERYTHING. Similarly, if Field X happens to be sociology, it's really easy to bring something else to the table because sociological theories are found everywhere and in everything, so if you have expertise in something, a sociologist can probably appreciate that addition perspective.
Sadly, if sociology is not remotely related, I think I'm out of advice and would definitely go back to my first paragraph. Good luck! :)
posted by juliebug at 12:28 AM on April 27, 2013
I would mostly avoid getting caught up in generalizations about disciplines. The way to get around it is to just talk in your discipline's idioms about practices, methods, and studies that are relevant to both disciplines. Hopefully, you'll delight folks with your 'native' reference points and turns of phrase, not in a way that's confusing but that actually performs the cross-disciplinary illumination thing you're hoping to tell them about. I guess that's what I'm saying: show, don't tell.
The committee already imagines you in a few ways related to your discipline, maybe in stereotypical terms (which could be annoying or could make it easy for you to surprise them), but more likely as a sujet supposé savoir--a subject presumed to know--which is a way of saying they liked your stuff enough, so far, to project some imaginary presumption of knowledge/interestingness on you that you mainly just need to not disappoint.
So being the most articulate you can be about things you already know really well is your best shot and way safer than extemporizing stuff that may actually reveal how much you don't know about their field. The way to talk about their field is to just encourage them to keep talking about it themselves, and when you actually have these insights you think your discipline brings to bear, offer them up as questions or points to consider.
posted by Monsieur Caution at 1:40 AM on April 27, 2013
The committee already imagines you in a few ways related to your discipline, maybe in stereotypical terms (which could be annoying or could make it easy for you to surprise them), but more likely as a sujet supposé savoir--a subject presumed to know--which is a way of saying they liked your stuff enough, so far, to project some imaginary presumption of knowledge/interestingness on you that you mainly just need to not disappoint.
So being the most articulate you can be about things you already know really well is your best shot and way safer than extemporizing stuff that may actually reveal how much you don't know about their field. The way to talk about their field is to just encourage them to keep talking about it themselves, and when you actually have these insights you think your discipline brings to bear, offer them up as questions or points to consider.
posted by Monsieur Caution at 1:40 AM on April 27, 2013
This would be my pitch: you have (in the least few years) started applying the expertise you acquired in field Y to (specific research area you love) in field X. You're finding field X all the much more exciting because of this as it's helped you make the following insights: (list contributions). You look forward to collaborating with experts in field X to further your work on (list future research projects related to field X).
Congrats on getting the interview and best of luck!
posted by Milau at 5:02 AM on April 27, 2013
Congrats on getting the interview and best of luck!
posted by Milau at 5:02 AM on April 27, 2013
« Older Help me, I'd like to have a social life. | Why is Ob/Gyn pronounced Oh-bee/Gee-why-en? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by starcrust at 9:26 PM on April 26, 2013