Hi,

Since this is my first post, I thought I’d give a brief intro to myself – I’m a FT social science PhD student in North West England in my late 30s. I’m in my third year – hoping to finish writing soon. It’s been a traumatic experience: isolation, changes in supervisor, writer’s block, stress and trauma – I identify with many of the posts which have been made here. Oh yes!

The specific point I wanted to raise concerns the role of social skills. My social skills aren’t great – I’m pretty reserved and reflective – but before my PhD I worked for 10 years in a job which required a lot of communication, so I must have some skills! However, during my PhD experience I have become increasingly aware of the importance of social skills for research. I find that people who are able to network are capable of getting ‘inferior’ research published or cited and it makes me feel left out in the cold.

More significantly, I have come to think that the whole field that I am working in is based on who you know rather than what you can say. This isn’t good news for me, particularly as my research topic goes against the orthodoxy. It makes me feel that academic life just isn’t worthwhile!

Does anyone one else feel this – how do you deal with it? I wonder if it more the case in arts/ humanities/ social sciences rather than the sciences?

Louisa

Hi Louisa

I can relate to what you're saying - I'm also not very outgoing, which is why doing a PhD suits me - am relatively happy most of the time to sit here, with books and articles, reading and writing by myself!

I'm also in the social sciences, and am not sure if the need for networking is more endemic in this area. I find it odd that networking results in getting published - if articles are submitted, then go out for anonymous peer review, how does networking come into this? Or am I being naive?

But I agree that networking is important, to collaborate on articles, to find work etc etc. I live in a different city to my university, so am not on campus much, and I also notice that those who take part in faculty activities etc do get ahead more. But I think this is just life in general, and haven't noticed it being any worse in academia. If you were fine at networking in your last job, use those skills in academia too - force yourself.

I find academia to probably be more cliquey than other professions, as academics in my field have known each other for a very long time - there's not much churn as in my previous profession, where new people were entering all the time, and so you'd meet newbies quite regularly. Here, they all know each other, and I think it can be hard for students to break into these circles.

No solutions really - I force myself to go to things, give conference papers, network etc. You sound as if you can do this too - good luck!

Hi Louisa,

I've been thinking about all this stuff recently too, as have come to the end of mine. Maybe assessing your social skills isn't a great idea during the writing up stage of a PhD. It's probably the most solitary part of the whole doctoral process and doesn't allow a lot of time for doing much about it, if you think that's needed, although from your earlier work experience it doesn't sound as if you've got a problem! Myself and other posters in older threads on here have noticed how one's appearance and personal habits can change during the latter stages of a PhD, not always in a terribly sociable way, so it seems fairly common. Anything like hermit tendencies, bad dress sense, forgetting how to speak other than to the checkout girl in the supermarket, putting on weight etc can all be sorted out after submission, with less stress involved.

Networking is important so people know about your research, whether it results in getting involved in collaborative research projects from an early stage as a post doc, being asked to contribute a chapter to an edited book, knowing where jobs are coming up etc. I see it as an 'extra' that ought to offer me slightly more opportunities than any gained purely from the intrinsic value of my written research, or maybe just by making it easier to achieve what I want to do. Maybe this is where people with 'inferior' research have the advantage, although their work must be valid or it wouldn't be published/cited at all. I know what you mean though, where run-of-the-mill work gets published by people with connections, rather than anything more groundbreaking by those who don't put themselves about as much.

The prospect of 'networking like crazy', as a colleague recently admitted to doing, doesn't fill me with glee as I am still mentally in isolated PhD mode. Plus I've never been great at going to work events and talking to people because I have to, rather than because I want to. However, I will make more of an effort from now on as that's the way things work, especially in my field (the same as yours). Also, after all the work I've put into my PhD, I feel as if I owe it to myself to make the best of what I've achieved so far and see where it takes me.

Hi,

Thanks for your replies. Yes, I think it’s right that the isolation and pressure of endless reading and writing can make you go slightly crazy. I have also experienced similar physical effects e.g. putting on weight. I work at home on my own a lot…

Networkers do gain a lot of advantages, but so do people who toe the party line. I sometimes think that my field is all about consensus, nobody daring to question the status quo, or to rock the boat. On reflection, I feel that being more conventional would have made things a lot easier for me. That would have been the strategic thing to do!

I also wonder whether things have been different for me because I am older and am researching an area that is partly based on my professional practice. I’m sure this has made me a ‘difficult’ student. I haven’t been prepared to compromise on certain issues. Someone has said to me that it’s good that I can think outside the box, but on the other hand the ‘box’ is so important. I wonder if it’s all box! Am I strong enough to fight against it? Is it worth it?

In relation to Sue2604’s post – Re anonymous peer review: I suppose this process can ensure that submitted papers are assessed on ‘merit’, but I think social networks have a role to play before this point (e.g. feedback on draft papers). I also wonder how anonymous peer review really is, particularly when the content of the paper makes it obvious to those ‘in the know’ who the paper is by!

Maybe I’m just becoming bitter!

Lou

Obviously I don't know about your particular situation, but whatever you decide to do in the end is likely to be influenced by what you want from your PhD. If you did it for career reasons then any decisions, whether it's networking, toeing the party line or submitting articles for not-very-anonymous peer reviews, might need a bit of compromise on how you work within the academic system or make your own personal views known. I'm not suggesting you need to become ultra-smarmy and suck up to people, cultivate any latent Machiavellian tendencies or cross over to the dark side, but if academia is your chosen career path for the foreseeable future then I think you need to accept it to some degree, including any of its perceived failings, particularly within the current, exceptionally grim, economic climate.

Probably won't make you feel any better, but I felt quite cynical during the latter stages of doing mine, it seemed such a treadmill and I wondered why I was doing it some of the time.... thankfully, plodding on to the end has helped dissipate the worst of those feelings!

Thanks, Rubyw - I think that's true. I suppose I need to decide if I want to stay in academia, and at the moment I’m thinking not. But since jobs are so scarce, I won’t have many options to choose from I think!

Maybe things will look different once I've completed my thesis - it sounds like this was the case for you.

Lou