Our books






Become a Fan

« Why Lin's "notes" are an important service | Main | "Is there Philosophy in India?" and what this question tells us about "Philosophy" in general, an essay by Ankur Barua »

02/23/2015

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Paul Gowder

IME at conferences in three disciplines (law, polisci, philosophy), Scott's points about "networking" as you describe them (haven't read the original thread) are apt. I'd sharpen them still further, thusly:

There are essentially three kinds of conferences:
- big easy to get into conferences (BE)
- small easy to get into conferences (SE)
- small hard to get into conferences (SH)

At BE, everyone toward the lower ends of the professional hierarchy in question is clamoring to get the attention of everyone toward the higher ends in a sanguinary anarchy, and those on the higher ends are basically only there to see their friends; from this it follows that the only way for those on the lower ends to see those on the higher ends is to be friends with someone who is friends with someone. This is what friendly senior colleagues, old advisors, etc. are for.

At SE, those who are at the higher ends of the professional hierarchy are not present. It is not uncommon for those at the lower but not absolute lowest ends of said hierarchy to show up hoping to "network" with others but instead discover that they are the ones with whom others still lower down are hoping to "network."

You haven't been invited to SH until you've already made it at least to the middle of the hierarchy.

"Networking" is probably a discreditable mindset anyway; perhaps necessary in a highly competitive job world but distasteful and should be avoided to the extent possible.

As for Marcus's advantages:
1) and 2) seem to me to be worthwhile to the extent one needs the practice. Some are naturally better at talkey things than others. (For example, I went to grad school after practicing law for a while; public speaking held no fears for me.)

3) seems to me to be inversely proportional to the size and directly proportional to the specialization of the conference; at a massive disciplinary conference like APA, even if anyone shows up at your panel, there's a decent chance almost everyone in the audience will know little to nothing about your area. At a small specialized conference, however, feedback can be amazing.

4) also seems to me to be dependent on some combination of personal qualities and conference qualities. IME, I have better luck in terms of hearing interesting things by attending panels based on people rather than papers; invariably a paper with an interesting sounding title by someone I've never heard of turns out to be about Heidegger or something horrible like that, whereas uninteresting sounding paper or panel topics with people whom I know to be working in interesting areas tend to be good.

What does all this suggest in practical terms? Mainly, I think, that one should go to conferences only under the following circumstances:

1) it's invitation-only and you've been invited,
2) you have mentors attending who will introduce thou around, or
3) it's specialized in your area

Scott Clifton

Marcus: I agree that attending and presenting at conferences can certainly be rewarding, especially when you cut yourself loose from thinking that you must be constantly networking. And I also agree that it's a good place to find out what other people are working on--within limits. One of the most frustrating elements of the APA talks I have attended is that, because the submission deadline is so much earlier than the conferences, a depressingly large number of presenters have responded to questions in the Q&A by saying, "I am not sure why I said that. This paper was written 1 (or 1.5 or 2) years ago and my thinking has since shifted on this issue." In other words, APA conferences might not be a reliable source for figuring out what people are currently working on.

This is why I think that Paul is correct when he points out that speciality conferences are much better at both learning what people are currently working on and at providing useful feedback. One of my areas is aesthetics and I always find useful suggestions from audiences at the American Society for Aesthetics meetings. But here's the rub: as far as networking goes, the ASA meetings are not going to be very fruitful, since anyone I have met and developed a relationship with at these conferences are likely not going to be in departments advertising for a job for which I am qualified. (This last point is a bit overstated--one of my areas is also ethics, so I have applied to jobs in departments in which people I know from the aesthetics community are employed. Unfortunately, it seems that, as one of my areas is aesthetics, departments prefer not to have two people on the faculty working in this area.)

So, in order to get something out of presenting at conferences, I have a choice to make:

1. If I want to network (God, I hate networking, but I realize it's essential to getting interviews), I should go to the big conferences (on the mere hope that I will meet someone who can help my job market success).

2. If I want to get useful feedback on papers and engage in interesting and current philosophical discussion, I should go to the specialty conferences.

Unfortunately, I can no longer afford to do both (after having spent thousands of dollars as a graduate student presenting at conferences thinking that these lines on my CV would be perceived positively--no such luck apparently). If I want a job, it looks like it has to be the relatively uninteresting and unhelpful big conferences that I submit to. And that bums me out.

Alex Guerrero

Just on the pure "CV value" (non-networking) point:

One can't infer from the fact that a CV with conference presentations on it hasn't led to a job to the claim that conference presentations are "valueless" on a CV. (As Scott Clifton notes, his publications also didn't yield a job, but it would seem similarly mistaken to infer that publications are "valueless" on a CV.)

I've only been on a few hiring committees, but conference presentations always have counted in my book, particularly if they are at good (peer reviewed) conferences, and particularly if they then lead to publications or significant works in progress. It is good for people to be putting their work out there, and getting selected for an APA is a positive sign of quality, just as getting a paper published is.

Unfortunately, given the dire state of the job market, one can do almost everything right, and still not get much job action. That doesn't mean that one doesn't get credit for checking off these different boxes, nor that one shouldn't aim to check off as many of them as one can.

Axel Gelfert

Regarding the value of specialty conferences, I think it goes far beyond getting feedback on individual papers. In my (limited) experience, 'networking' at big conferences rarely leads to long-term connections and does not afford junior people much opportunity to get to know those in senior positions (other than in very superficial ways). Specialty conferences, it seems to me, are usually more 'egalitarian', and it's easier to actually talk about each other's work and philosophical views. Also, let's not forget about the value of building connections within one's own age group or cohort, which can function as a support network, both at a personal level and, over time, at a professional level.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Job-market reporting thread

Current Job-Market Discussion Thread

Philosophers in Industry Directory

Categories

Subscribe to the Cocoon