The Secret Lives of Search Committees - Part 5: jobs abroad

In the comments section of my post in this series on originality, Pendaran Roberts writes:

This is a great blog with a lot of interesting insights. However, I seriously wonder how much the anecdotal data presented in this search committee series is worth. For example, the stuff about originality is quite questionable in my experience. In the UK at least, it looks like big funding bodies stray away from originality. I had a pretty original research program. However, the funding bodies preferred to fund stuff on Kant, for example.

I suspect the explanation is that who to fund is decided by a committee largely comprised of non-philosophers, so the stuff that gets funded has to seem on the surface to be acceptable and worthwhile...

If you're going to be original, based on my experience, it needs to be within a well-worn and, preferably, popular topic...Anyway, originality is certainly not something to shoot for simpliciter. I think what you want is a 'cool' project, immediately understandable and appealing to non-philosophers, in an acceptable and popular area. I'm not sure 'originality' really captures this idea correctly. I'd use words like 'cool,' 'popular,' 'trendy,' 'consistent with the zeitgeist...'

Now it's perfectly possible that search committees for TT jobs in America or the equivalent here in the UK function quite differently...but one of the best ways to secure yourself a permanent job in the UK is to get a 'fancy' grant or grants. So, I think PhDs in the UK (and Europe) should be thinking about how to get these grants...I know grants are less of a thing in the US, so maybe originality matters more in America than it does in the UK.

Elisa Freschi then added: 

Pendaran, being based in Europe, I also frequently think that this kind of advice only works in the US. Perhaps you might consider writing a post about the grant-system in the UK?

And, earlier on, anonymous wrote:

I am curious whether folks think the originality thesis holds for non-Anglo-American European universities. In my experience serving on hiring committees abroad, while international visibility and publishing in good journals plays a big role in hiring decisions (as well as having published monographs, in addition to articles), I get the sense that originality sometimes pushes candidates to the margins (or gets them excluded altogether).

I'm actually going to address Pendaran's point about 'coolness' in a future post in this series, as my sense is that he is right about something important here: in addition to originality (which in my experience does matter, at least in the US), it can be advantageous for candidates to work on topics people are interested in (or find 'cool'). Notice that this isn't to say originality doesn't matter. My sense is that it clearly is better, all things being equal, to be 'original' in the US market (and it's worth noting that several people chimed in to agree). However, I also think it's important--for grad students and job-marketeers--to recognize that the topic(s) one chooses to work on can also make a difference, as people on the hiring side may favor candidates whose research topics interest them. But again, I'm going to leave this for another day.

In today's post, I want to ask readers 'in the know' how jobs abroad differ on the subjects discussed so far in this series. As I explained in the second post of this series, the perspectives I'm advancing in this series are based on my particular experience on both sides of the market. While I did get a fair number of interviews and flyouts abroad (including in the UK), my experience is mostly restricted--and entirely restricted on the hiring side--to the academic job-market in the US (and teaching schools in particular). Because as Pendaran, Elisa, and anonymous all point out, academic job markets elsewhere may be quite different, I thought it might be good to pause and ask readers to weigh in on those markets. 

So, then, here are my questions for 'those in the know' (i.e. search committee members, etc.):

1. Which non-US market do you have experience with? (UK, Continental Europe, Australia, Latin America, etc.)
2. How is 'fit' understood in your market, and what role does it play in hiring?
3. Is originality valued in your market?
4. Is 'staleness' an issue on your market, and if so, how can it be averted?
5. What else is vital for competitiveness on your market not discussed in this series?

I do hope some of you chime in down below in the comments section, as I agree with Pendaran and others that it would be good to learn more about what it takes to be competitive in different markets. 

Comments

[elisa freschi]

I have been working in continental Europe and (for much shorter periods) UK and Japan for the last n years.
Unless you are really lucky, you will depend on applying for grants, and getting your projects funded (for 1--9 years, but typically 2--4) and/or work in someone else's project. In this sense, Marcus' questions (which relate to the market for TT positions) regard only a small percentage of actual jobs (most positions rather resemble post-docs). Several institutes I worked in had only 20% of their members being tenured or on a tenure track, with all the others being externally funded through grants.

I collected some data in a blog post, here: http://elisafreschi.com/2014/10/27/1144/

and:
http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2014/10/a-non-funded-project-on-deontic-logic-and-some-general-notes-on-peer-reviewing-projects.html
*update: the project on deontic logic was then eventually funded

and:
http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2014/02/what-are-your-colleagues-in-europe-doing-writing-applications.html

This being said, staleness is not a real issue (we are all stale and virtually no one is hired right after grad school), the only thing one needs to avoid are unexplainable breaks (say, years in which you published nothing).
As for 5: publications in peer reviewed journals are one's most crucial assett. Teaching is way less so, unless you want to focus on teaching philosophy at school (to 15--18ys old kids), since basically most European universities are research-centered.

(All the above might be affected by my personal experience and I am happy to be corrected if relevant)

[US to UK]

My experience is in the US (where I'm from) and UK. I've tended to do well when applying to highly ranked R1s in the U.K., whereas this almost never happens for me in the US. There are likely many factors at play leading to this difference, though I suspect part of the story is a weaker emphasis on pedigree and stronger emphasis on publications and grant funding in the U.K. Another important factor in the UK is an applicant's ability to make a difference outside academia with their research (I.e., impact).