I had two separate conversations about online behavior recently with people who have served on search committees. The first person asked me whether it is ethical for people on search committees to google job-candidates to see if their online behavior (e.g. on facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc.) raises any "red flags." Then, just the other day, someone else expressed to me that people's online behavior can very much be expected to be held against them in hiring, especially if their online behavior is egregious or consistently off-putting. We can of course discuss the ethical issues here, if you like (and I suspect some of you will). Still, setting aside the ethical issues, there are at least two things I think are worth saying here.
The first is that, regardless of the ethics, it seems to me likely at least some search committee members are going to care about candidates' online behavior and be aware of that behavior (via facebook, Twitter, reading blogs, etc.). In other words, like it or not, I think this is an issue candidates need to be aware of and worry about. Even if one thinks it is wrong for search committees to take this kind of stuff into account, I just don't see any feasible way of policing it. Sure, policies could in principle prohibit members of a search committee from bringing up such issues in formal discussion–but I do not see any way to prevent them from doing so in private (i.e. in their own heads). I also suspect it is unlikely for there to be any moral consensus on the ethical issues here, as in my experience there is a great deal of disagreement on these matters.
The question then is how to act as a candidate. For my part, I think there are broadly three options:
- Avoid having a robust online presence (avoiding facebook, Twitter, blogging publicly, etc.).
- Have an online presence and "just being yourself."
- Have a robust online presence, but seek to have a positive one.
My sense is that due to the obvious risks of (2), many job-candidates choose route (1). Indeed, every time I've asked readers why so few early-career philosophers blog, the dominant response seems to be fear–fear of what others in the profession (particularly search committee members) might think. In other words, my sense is that people choose (1) because they think it is the "lowest risk" option. However, I am not at all sure whether this is the case. For, as I will now explain, there is a real risk in not having a robust online presence: the risk of being invisible in a pile of hundreds of candidates.
In my experience as a search committee member, I can say that one of the biggest difficulties candidates have is standing out. As I explained in my post on originality, search-committee members face a daunting task: sifting through hundreds of applications that all kind of begin to blend into each other. There you are–you have hundreds of candidates–and many of them seem so similar: similar numbers of publications, similar teaching evals, similar teaching strategies, etc. As I explained, there are ways to stand out: by being original (with research, teaching, service, etc.). However, being original is really tough–and it's not the only way to stand out. Another way, believe it or not, is simple name-recognition. Like it or not, it is a very well-known psychological fact that people tend to be biased in favor of the familiar over the unfamiliar. Indeed, put yourself in the shoes of a search committee member. You're going through hundreds of files of candidates you know nothing about, they all sort of look the same…and then you come across someone whose name you recognize. Will that make a difference? It just might: you might think to yourself, "Hey, I know who this is. Let me give their file a closer look!"
Consequently, I doubt the conventional wisdom that seems to exist–that grad students and job-candidates should pursue option (1), avoiding a robust online presence, putting their nose to the grindstone to publish, teach, and get a job the "old-fashioned way." I have little doubt that grad programs counsel their students against blogging publicly, etc., lest the "embarrass themselves" or the program. What I do doubt is whether this is actually good advice–advice that is in the student's/candidate's interest rather than the program's. For let's face brass tacks: we live in a digital age. We also live in a world of human beings–where something like 70-85% of jobs are found through networking. Human beings do not hire CVs. They have this rather strange tendency to hire people they know and like. Go figure. So, no one knowing who you are–viz. option (1)–may not be a low-risk strategy at all. It may, on the contrary, be one (of many) reasons why so many people with excellent CV's don't get interviewed or hired: they are "faceless names in pile."
That leaves approaches (2) and (3). Is approach (2)–just being yourself online–a good idea? For what it is worth, I have seen more than a few people with really controversial online personas get hired for tenure-track jobs. Their controversial-ness may have even worked to their advantage, as I've heard some say it's better to be controversial and known than not to be known at all. However, that being said, (2) is a very risky strategy, and may only pay off if one is controversial in a way some people like (see e.g. this Daily Nous post). "Just being yourself" online may be especially risky if you behave in ways that rub people the wrong way.
Which leaves option (3): having a robust online presence, while working to ensure that it is a positive one. While we all make mistakes (putting our foot in our mouth) from time-to-time, this seems to me the most "well-balanced" option with respect to risk and reward. If you work hard on avoiding coming across like an ass, the risks are minimal and the rewards may be substantial (people on the hiring side knowing who you are and maybe even liking some of the things you have to say). Consequently, I would suggest (3) is the best option, at least with respect to the job-market. It may well help you avoid being just another a "faceless candidate in a pile."
Leave a Reply to Asst ProfCancel reply