In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" post, a reader writes:
I know this is a bit late, but I wanted to pose a question that's been on my mind lately. The simplest version of the question is "How much does an active conference record matter for the job market?"
Here's a bit more context. I'm ABD, but, unlike most of my peers, I haven't presented at any conferences so far. There are a few reasons for this. First, I have a great deal of trouble condensing my ideas into the usual word limits. While I of course might be biased, I don't think the reason is that I'm just egregiously wordy. Rather, it simply seems to me that my ideas are rarely suited for brief presentations. For whatever reason, so far I've been drawn largely to sweeping, radical theses–the kind of thesis that requires a lot of setting up, illustrating connections, forestalling potential misreadings, responding to important-to-deal-with objections, etc., if one is to show its philosophical interest and plausibility. Unfortunately, it hasn't always seemed possible to carve out some small part of the research program(s) to present; in order to have something genuinely interesting and worth presenting, I'd have to bring in more than could fit into the usual 30-minute slot. Or at least, that has often been my perception of things.
Second, from my various presentations in classes and workshops so far, I've learned that I'm not very good at coming up with snappy responses to objections in the Q&A period. When someone raises an objection I haven't considered, I tend not to have much to say about it in the moment. And in those moments, usually all I can say is something like this: "That's very interesting, thank you. I can certainly see the challenge. I'm afraid I don't have a response at the moment; I'll have to think about it more." While this, of course, isn't ideal, it's always struck me as preferable to trying desperately to bullshit something. The feeling I've gotten, however, is that if you give the above response to more than one or two of the objections you get in a Q&A period, audiences are likely to suspect that you're stupid, or lazy, or copping out, etc. The prospect of having that be my first impression on a group of fellow philosophers at a conference isn't very appealing.
Lastly, I find online discussions to be far superior to conferences as a mode of philosophical exchange. Online discussions are more convenient in that they don't require the time and money that would be needed to travel to and from a conference. And in online discussions, there's more time to consider others' feedback and offer well-thought-out responses. This has made it more difficult to work up the motivation to apply to conferences; it's as if my brain is telling me, "Why bother going to a conference when you could just make a blog/forum/etc. post about your idea?"
In light of the above factors, I've never been all that interested in conferences. At the same time, though, I realize that the job market is approaching, and I've been wondering whether search committees might expect me to have some conferences under my belt. Thus, I wanted to ask how much you've found conferences to matter for the job market.
Some related questions:
First, is it okay not to have any conferences if one has a solid publication record?
Second, insofar as conferences do matter for the job market, roughly how many are needed for a "respectable" record? One? Two? Etc.
Lastly, insofar as conferences do matter for the job market, do you have any advice that might help someone like me to conference more (and/or be better at handling conferences)?
In reply, Amanda wrote:
While I don't think conferences help very much, I do think not having any could hurt. It suggests a lack of engagement with the philosophical community, and an unwillingness to step outside your comfort zone. I suspect this is true at both teaching and research schools. For research schools the reason might be that researchers know a huge part of success is networking, and most networking is done at conferences. I am not sure about this but this is what I suspect. And we all remember Jared, who has one of the best publication records of any scholar I have ever seen ever, but no job still as far as I know. And he has never presented at a conference.
I would for sure though put the workshops on your CV if you have no conferences. That might be enough to not raise a red flag. I think 3-4 conferences would be enough that search committees wouldn't care. Also, I recommend going to conferences because the feedback you get can be invaluable. I can't understand not going to conferences myself – it is one of the main reasons I am in the profession!
While I agree with Amanda that not having conference presentations could hurt, my concerns are somewhat different. My concern isn't that the person in question might look like they aren't engaged in the philosophical community or good at networking. Frankly, as someone who has served on two search committees, I could care less about these things. I recognize that everyone is different, and some people may not enjoy or have funding to attend conferences. I could of course be idiosyncratic in this regard–so I would be curious to hear if other search committee members share Amanda's concerns.
More broadly, though, I am skeptical that search committee members care much about conference presentations. First, the job-market is saturated with people with good publishing records–so, to be competitive research-wise, one really needs to publish or have some other major advantage (such as grad school pedigree). Second, in my experience committees are typically concerned with hiring someone likely to get tenure. Since publishing is generally necessary for tenure, committees in my experience tend to be looking for someone who has demonstrated the ability to publish–not just present at conferences.
All that being said, I do have some concerns about the candidate's self-described situation in relation to their lack of conference presentations. They describe themselves as someone who is "not very good at coming up with snappy responses to objections in the Q&A period"–adding,"When someone raises an objection I haven't considered, I tend not to have much to say about it in the moment. And in those moments, usually all I can say is something like this: "That's very interesting, thank you. I can certainly see the challenge. I'm afraid I don't have a response at the moment; I'll have to think about it more"." To me, this is worrisome. First, candidates are likely to receive challenging research questions in first-round interviews. Second, if they make it to the on-campus interview stage, they are going to have to give a job talk. In both cases, my experience is that search committees care about whether a person can come up with a well-reasoned response. While it is okay on occasion to admit that you don't have a good answer and could use more time to think about it, I think it is important to not do this too much–and that conferences do develop one's abilities to answer challenging questions effectively. In short, while I'm not concerned about lack of conference-presentations per se, I think it is important to recognize that certain conversational skills (in interviews and Q&As) matter, and that if one does not attend conferences, one may not develop those skills to be maximally competitive on the market.
But these are just my thoughts. What do you all think?
Leave a Reply