ProBrownBag:

Professionalization Brown Bag Series

This page records notes from past sessions of the professionalization series. Please add notes you took from that specific session. Please also feel free to add other helpful suggestions or links or resources.

Great Short Presentations - January 16, 2013 - Dave Rigby

 * Can't find my notes from this. I'll try to get the slides from Rigby, but does anyone have notes they could contribute?

Strategies for Writing Journal Articles - February 4, 2013 - Eric Sheppard
How and When to Write Journal Articles

How
 * Think about what you need to be able to write. Can you write in short spurts? Do you need bug chunks of time? Figure this out and then set a habit early.
 * For all your writing, keep in mind what you have (or might have) to contribute and what the audience will be.
 * Use seminars to develop ideas and draft pieces that will be useful to you.
 * Solicit feedback (particularly from your advisor) if you aren't already getting it. It is part of their job to do this.
 * Use bibliographic software. Start early since its value builds over time.
 * Organize sessions at conferences and on campus to build a community and a conversation you are part of, and to get feedback on your written work and ideas.
 * Solicit peer support... form/join a writing group.

When
 * Develop a plan early and in conjunction with your committee to build journal articles into your entire grad career. Don't just submit papers in your last year.
 * Seek out collaborative projects with faculty.
 * Plan your dissertation to have bits to carve out for publications. Organize the dissertation to make this easy to do.
 * If you are planning to write a book from your dissertation, don't write a separate literature review chapter (publishers immediately cut them out anyway). Also try to build in some chunks of it to publish as articles so you have something published as you go on the job market.
 * Don't aim for the highest ranked journals. Aim for where you will get good feedback and it won't take forever to hear back.

Check list of musts
 * Make sure your article is well organized.
 * Make sure it is impeccably written and edited (especially as a a junior scholar) and conform to the guidelines exactly
 * Think hard about graphics - make sure they are very clear and effective (and you should research this)
 * Cite strategically. Don't cite everything you have ever read. E.g., cite summary articles of big debates.
 * Pay attention to the length (many are about 22 pages of double spaced writing). Have the length in mind as you start writing. E.g., don't wildly over write an intro or lit review that will definitely have to be cut way back - that's just not efficient.
 * Get feedback from your professors before submitting it.

Some basics
 * Different kinds of publications
 * Book reviews - These are likely to get published and you can learn a lot doing them. Look for journals that actively solicit reviews and ask your professors for opportunities to do this.
 * Lit review articles - There are fewer opportunities for these, but there are journals that publish things like this: Progress in Human Geography & Geography Compass. The new exam structure could allow you to turn one of your papers into one of these. This has to be more than just a smart summary. It has to be a critical review, that is thought provoking.
 * Research articles
 * Other
 * Pick topics you are passionate about.
 * Be well prepared to write. You must have done the reading and done the research. You have to have rich enough material already collected to draw on.
 * Match your passion to a broad interest. Speak to a broad community of scholars. Place your empirical work in the context of the broader conceptual work bead debated/developed.
 * Make your contribution clear on page one.
 * Don't have too many arguments in one paper. Don't go for minimally publishable units, but make sure you have one clear, strong argument, not a thousand ideas. Feedback is critical for this. Try writing an abstract early and aim for a linear narrative structure (don't let it branch too much).
 * Pick a journal (and a back-up journal) early in the writing process. Relate your article to debates going on in that journal.
 * Consider topically specific journals (as opposed to generalist disciplinary journals). You are likely to get better/more thoughtful reviews and you are more likely to get read.
 * In your engagement with the literature, frame critiques as you would like to receive them. Honest but respectful. Constructive criticism.

Demystifying the Publishing Process - February 20, 2013 - John Agnew

 * Demand and supply side effects are pushing the increasing importance of publishing.
 * Choose where to submit, and then craft the paper towards a specific journal.
 * Citations within that journal are a predictor of acceptance into that journal.
 * The editors do a desk review. This means they make a basic determination of whether the paper fits with the journal. Then they send it to outside reviewers (often 2 of them).
 * Review outcomes include
 * Accept with minor revisions
 * Accept with major revisions. In this case, your changes go back to the reviewer. This is actually a good outcome. It indicates that they want the article. It is definitely worth the effort to address the reviewer comments by revising, and then resubmit it.
 * Reject with major revisions (which is crazy and doesn't make sense. If you get one of these, just submit the article elsewhere.)
 * Reject. If you get this, actually revise it (use the comments - the reviews can be very helpful!) and send it elsewhere.
 * Start with the toughest journal.
 * Annals, PiHG, and Transactions are all platform journals (broad disciplinary journals). The acceptance rate for these is about 20%, but if your article passes desk review and gets sent out to external reviewers, the acceptance rate is much

higher.
 * Niche journals have some advantages though.
 * Odds of getting accepted are higher than in a platform journal.
 * The review process tends to be shorter for niche journals.
 * Newer journals often have faster review times and often an easier review process.
 * More focus in a set of publications is better. If you want to diversify, diversify in your teaching ability/portfolio.
 * Use written exams as the basis fore publications. Consider PiHG for review articles.
 * Avoid having your conference papers on the web. Abstracts, like AAG does, are okay, but entire papers on the web can screw you over for getting into journals. Many journals run TurnItIn-like software to make sure people are submitting already published papers.
 * Environment and Planning D is very theoretical. There's little empirical content it in.

Approaching the Academic Job Market - April 24, 2013 - Larry Smith (Jamie Goodwin-White not able to attend)

 * "Best job on earth!"
 * You can work hard, but you don't have to (once you have tenure).
 * The job security is very reassuring (and relatively rare in other careers).
 * The job security allows for an intellectual security - you can study what you want, not what someone else tells you to study.
 * The money is good - not at first, but it ramps up fast. Particularly at R1s, the money is good. And the salary is for 9 months of work, so you can get summer funding to supplement your salary. In this economy and with the budget cuts at public universities, the FTE are fewer (so it is harder to land one of these jobs), but the salaries aren't going down.
 * Tenure track jobs allow you to let your interests develop over time. You might find that over time your interest shift towards teaching from research. Few others jobs allow this kind of career development/shifts. (But you have to be at a university with at least an MA program to have a balance of research and teaching.)
 * It is wonderful to work with graduate students - at such a pivotal moment when they have so much potential.
 * How to be a strong candidate
 * Work really hard. Work harder than everyone else. Publish a ton. Grad school isn't a time to "find yourself", to play. It is a time to work really hard to set yourself up well for the rest of your life.
 * Getting an interview is the hardest part. And to do this, your hard work needs to show up on your CV and in your letters.
 * Rule of thumb: 5-6 papers while ABD puts you on the top of the pile. If your dissertation is more book style, then aim to get it published while you are ABD. And get to this point by the fall of your last year, because post-docs with this number of pubs are not as impressive. The point of having publications is that it demonstrates productivity & lessens the risk of not getting tenure (which is no fun & feels like a bad investment for everyone).
 * Certain skills can be important. GIS is the only somewhat universal one. In many departments quantitative skills are valued, but not in all.
 * How focused/diverse should your paper be?
 * Entirely unrelated papers aren't good. But too narrow a focus is a problem as well.
 * Demonstrate that you can collaborate.
 * Other paper specific advice
 * Don't target crappy journals, but definitely do look at turnaround times for reviews. Don't let your work go somewhere where it will sit for too long before they give you a decision.
 * Don't hold back publications if you don't already have a job offer. If you do have a job offer, then you can take a little more time so that those papers "count" towards tenure rather than getting you a job.
 * Lead author is important. Single author is a little less so (at least for science-y types).
 * Be ready to talk about your next moves. Where is your work going? Don't look like you are burned out and have no new ideas.
 * Applying for jobs while ABD
 * Don't miss the opportunity because you think you aren't quite ready.
 * Make sure that in your cover letter and definitely in your rec letters that it is clear that your committee is ready to sign your dissertation (that you absolutely will finish before starting the job).
 * Applying to jobs with descriptions that aren't exactly your field
 * In other departments - in some this is challenging, but a rule of thumb is that if you can publish in that discipline's flagship journals, then you can apply for their jobs. Also, if you can get letter writers from that discipline, then you have a better chance. Interdisciplinary departments (e.g., Institute of the Environment) are certainly possibilities. Just apply.
 * Applying for jobs that aren't advertised for your sub-discipline. Generally R1s want the best person, not necessarily a particular type of expertise. Teaching colleges might need something more specific. If you are really interested, contact the hiring committee chair to ask if it would be at all appropriate for you to apply.
 * Cover letter
 * Be polite & formal. Be deferential.
 * Make it specific to each place - do not let it be boilerplate.
 * Make it short. Max 2 pages. One page is better.
 * Make a case for the fit.
 * The CV does a lot of the work of selling your accomplishments - so don't be repetitive.
 * Do not come across as arrogant.
 * Interviews
 * Make sure you know what everyone does and have a question ready for each person.
 * Be a nice person. Start on this now!
 * Job talks
 * In the job talk, make the connections to the department
 * 50 mins exactly - not a minute longer.
 * Cast a broad net at the beginning to make everyone interested, have some crazy-hardcore stuff in the middle to wow them, then bring it back to everyone at the end.
 * The job talk really has an outsized importance.

Considering Non-Academic Careers - May 1, 2013 - Michael Shin
Download a recording of the full conversation (mp3)

Shin has worked for the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO - Rome) and for McKinsey & Company (management consulting in Boston).
 * In general, being flexible (and considering all your options) is more important than ever. Shin was very encouraging of people seriously pursuing non-academic jobs.


 * Bias against getting back into academia?

He didn't face a problem coming back to academia, but he did have tenure and was on a leave of absence. The problem for younger scholars is that the academic job market is really tough and the competition for jobs is intense. So the challenge of coming back to academia after working outside it is less any overt bias against non-academic work than it is about remaining competitive for academic jobs (e.g., publications). Some departments might be more supportive of non-academic leaves. Shin personally sees it as important to bring in a broader view of what's going on it the world.


 * Pacing of work, compared to academia.

The FAO was similar to a university. Management consulting was unbelievably different. A "long" project there would be 6 months. Also, all the work is team based. He felt there were some trade-offs between speed & quality - that there were caveats to their studies/reports that were just never addressed because of the speed of the work. But he loved the team work. It was intense, but rewarding. If you are particularly introspective or deliberate, this team based work might be challenging.


 * The average tenure at McKinsey is 18 months. There is an expectation that you will work 19 hours a day, work hard and burn out. Further, if you do want to move up within the firm, you can also expect to travel 5 days a week for a while. Hard to move up. Few women move up.


 * What's needed for management consulting jobs?

A PhD is definitely not a liability for getting management consulting jobs. However, not all areas of expertise will be considered useful. Try to keep a pulse on what is going on in industry/private sector. Pedigree is important in these jobs - mostly it is Ivy League graduates. However, UCLA PhD is pretty good. Ability to work in a team is absolutely key. You need to be able to quickly identify what your contribution to a particular project will be. You'll likely need to reframe how you "sell" yourself - away from general contribution to the field/science/knowledge and towards what you can provide to the client.


 * Other job options beyond management consulting?

If you can code, you have a lot of options. If you do qualitative methods, you might have a harder time in the private sector.


 * How can we keep our options open for getting private-sector jobs?

It is a little less clear & predictable than for tenure track jobs (e.g., publish a lot...). One key thing is to have a serious methodological expertise. (This is something we need to push for within our dept anyway.) For many private sector jobs, this means quantitative methods, deep familiarity with Excel. Additionally, be able to quickly produce directional insights about a problem. Private sector isn't that interested in every level of robustness checks, but rather directional insights that help mitigate risk and help narrow choices.

For learning Excel - at UCLA, as students, we have access to a ton of training videos on Excel. Via Learn IT @ UCLA, go to linda.com.


 * For international organizations, the work is prescribed, but more deliberate. White papers are more in the style of journal articles, but aren't peer reviewed in the same way. Again, directional insights are important. One way into these orgs, is doing consulting work for govt/NGOs while a grad student.


 * More general advice applicable to many kinds of jobs:

Ask thoughtful questions about the place/organization you are interviewing with. It is not enough to be able to talk only about yourself, your interests & work.

Relationships are still incredibly important. Ask yourself if your advisor would pick up the phone and make a call on your behalf to somewhere you wanted to work. If so, good. If not, ask yourself what you could do to get to the point where that would happen.

Applying for the NSF Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement (DDRI) Grant - May 8, 2013 - Tom Gillespie
Download a recording of the full conversation (mp3)

Tom was very encouraging of us applying for this. Apply as soon as you are ABD (so you have a 2nd chance and can make use of the comments you get back on it). Once you get one NSF grant, it is easier to get more, so go for it.

DDRI doesn't cover tuition/living expenses - only research expenses.

Applications are judged on two main criteria: Significance of the project (e.g., is this transformative of your field?) and likelihood of being successfully completed (esp. according to the timeline). Scales available in the NSF Geography and Spatial Sciences Program (GSS) website (see section Merit Review Principles and Criteria, subsection Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria). On the idea of being transformative, see the NSF-GSS Strategic Plan, page 2 - on the graph, you want to aim to do work in areas B & C for the DDRI. (And then A, B, and C when you apply for career grants later as a prof.)

It is crucial to start early on these applications - at least 2 months ahead. You need to coordinate with Kasi and with the grants office in Murphy to apply for NSF grants. Your advisor also has to be the PI on DDRI grants, so they also need to be on board ahead of time.

Here are a few documents that are helpful.

NSF-GSS Strategic Plan, 2011-2015 here

NSF-GGS main website here

Recent DDRI Grantees (see the amazing diversity in the projects - not just hard science people get this!) here

Other advice from Tom:
 * Go to the Grants Office in Murphy - there is a ton of stuff to apply for. Having gotten grants increases your likelihood of getting more and of getting a job.
 * Tom has generously offered to give anyone feedback on their applications before they apply. Take him up on this!

Structure of Academic Writing - May 15, 2013 - Dydia DeLyser
Download a recording of the full conversation (mp3)

At this level, it's time to take writing seriously--different from when we were undergrads. Now, the topics we write about will live with us for a long time.

For a 10-20 page paper, you can hold all the information you need in your head. Not so for a thesis or dissertation, so you have to tackle it in chunks.

So how do we do that?

Take Control of the Process

We think of writing as something we can't control--we need a ritual (e.g. "I can't write until I've had my coffee"). But the truth is, we can write anytime, anywhere, if we *train* for it.

Writing is something we should do *every day.* Think of it like a marathon--we'll only improve if train every day. You know what it feels like to be "in shape" physically? It's the same for writing. You know when you feel "in shape" for writing when you've been doing at least a little every day. Make the commitment to *yourself*, not your advisor: 15 minutes per day, 7 days a week.

To finish a project, you have to up the ante. Make a contract with yourself for 4 hours a day, 4-5 days a week. We're guilt-motivated, so make a spreadsheet for yourself to log how many hours you spent writing.

I advocate for a time commitment, not a page commitment, because a page commitment doesn't validate the revision process. With a time commitment, you can walk away happy and guilt-free at the end of the day.

Take Control of the Piece of Work

You must have an outline/structure. The same way you control your data--you have to control the narrative.

Don't be afraid to use the tried-and-true writing structures. This will help you be sensitive to your audience, which is probably just going to read the abstract and conclusion anyway. Having a rigid format is a good thing--it allows you to put your creative argument where your audience expects to find it.

Break it down into sections--again, you can't hold it all in your head at once.

Outlines are a dynamic, living document. Change it continually as your ideas evolve and you get deeper into a project. Situate yourself in the subdiscipline, so people know why your work is important.

Your Argument -- this is the scholarly point you're making. Some are polemic, others build on other arguments.

"Everything points at your penis!" -- Dydia tells the story of a fellow named "Tony" who would apparently point at his crotch whenever he made an important point in a conversation. Let's all learn from "Tony" and remember to keep pointing toward the important part of our argument as we write. (Other interpretations of this anecdote welcome)

Sometimes ideas need to gestate If ideas aren't flowing onto the page, you may need time to wrestle with them in your mind.

Tell stories/anecdotes. This is an effective tool at the beginning of papers, and you can return to the anecdote at the end, creating a satisfying full-circle effect.

Lastly, don't shortchange revisions!