Hello all,

Was reading the thread on publications. If there are final years here, can people post in on what they think makes for an 'ideal' candidate for a great post doc or a really good start (whats sometimes called a fast track start...)?

Those in social sciences, please DO write in....

Topics included but not limited to:

1. Thesis
2. Publications
3. Supervisor
4. Reference Letters
5. Networks
6. Transferable skills
7. Methodological knowledge (quant and qual issues)
8. Teaching and Admin
9. Other areas : Such as languages etc and add ons
10 Past research
11. Age
12. Academic performances and history of acad grades etc
13. Any other issues....

Best!(up)

I am only a first year and not in social sciences,however...

In my subject/university, for post-doc by the most important thing is a few good publications. It does not matter much what knowledge or qualifications you have, it is your ability to apply that knowledge in producing good publications that counts. I know some PhD students do not have that, in which case then I suppose you would have to have a convincing application and it would help if your supervisor had a good reputation. Post-docs are only temporary and tend to move around so things like teaching skills are only relevant if you are applying for a lecturer, I think.

It does depend on the university: some universities are very focussed on teaching, so you would have to have good skills in this area, others are research-focussed.

Why should age matter?

We had a workshop recently on applying for postdocs in the social sciences where we went through the different options available. It seems that for the 'big' postdocs like British Academy, Leverhulme and Nuffield, publications are essential but the most important thing is a well-thought out research proposal which is a significantly original contribution but also acheivable within the 3/4 year time frame. However, the ESRC postdoc scheme is quite different and offers a year's funding on the condition that you produce 3 or 4 publications - so the emphasis is really on people who have not published during the course of their PhD. On top of that, of course, there are the random post doc opportunities offered by departments/research centres where the most important aspects seem to be ability to fit in with the research agenda of the particular institution and the potential to develop a record of funding and publications.

I would add 'Personality' to the list - there is no point being the ideal candidate if other members of staff find it difficult to work with that person. Otherwise, the list is fairly thorough.

I'm not sure why you list age...age should not be on a CV.

======= Date Modified 18 Sep 2008 12:09:03 =======
We had a training session on this recently. Here's what i remember:



To get shortlisted for a lectureship, the key things apparently are:

peer-reviewed publications and evidence of networking via conference presentations etc

good teaching experience

good academic history in terms of grades, scholarships, awards etc

fitting the job advert (obvious but apparently a lot of people don't use their cover letter to say how the meet the job specifications)



To get through the job talk and interview:

plans for a independent research programme for the next few years beyond the PhD

ability to make the above sound interesting to as many of the staff as possible

potential for grant-getting

knowledge about current issues in HE and teaching generally

personality - coming across as a decent and collegiate human being.



We were allowed to watch the job talks for a recent lectureship in our department and it was VERY enlightening - if you get a similar chance, go along!

Oh and we were told specifically that supervisor / institution were much less important - it was our own achievements not those of our universities or supervisors that mattered.

i'm in sociology. we were told, in regards to lecturers rather than post-docs, that a key issue is that you demonstrate potential. so you've written a thesis on X, will you now spend the rest of your life on this narrow topic, re-writing chapters of it for publication? or are you going places from here? so it helps to have a new project in mind, and ideas for several other follow-up projects. you can write about these things in your CV. similarly, it helps if you have done other things than "just" your PhD. shows that you have broad interests and are capable of pursuing multiple things at the same time. less risk that you are nothing except your PhD.

where my partner now works, they are constantly recruiting. this is in economics. for them, they prefer ONE publication in a big-name journal to 10 publications in less important journals. the reason being: if you have 10 publications, and none of them made it into a big journal, then probably none of your future publications will, either. it seems like you have reached your highest achievable level. probably, for the rest of your academic life, you will just keep publishing sort of unimportant papers in sort of unimportant journals. it doesn't seem you are going places. on the other hand, if you have only one publication, but it is in a top journal, you have already proved that you can work to the level necessary for such journals. maybe you can do it again. you have potential.

next important is probably your ability to find funding.

i believe that a glowing reference letter from a top-notch scientist (such as, someone who is a serious candidate for a nobel prize or such) can make a huge difference. else, references probably don't matter very much.

in sociology, new staff are often made to teach methods courses. being solid in methods (you don't have to be brilliant) and perhaps experience in teaching methods will always help.

i think that networks are mainly useful a) to hear about opportunities that aren't advertised (yet), and b) to find collaborators for joint projects. only if you are really lucky will you know someone who will actually champion you in that department where you are applying.

admin, like teaching methods, is one of the things academics generally don't like doing, and so it gets dumped on the most junior colleagues. having admin experience will not hurt. but nobody is going to employ you for your admin skills (except perhaps as an administrator)

in certain cases, languages or special skills might be a plus. say if the department is trying to build connections with a russian research institute and you are fluent in russian. or if they are just setting up a global virtual seminar series with video conferences and you are a tech wizz.

In the social sciences how many publications can one expect to target, in the course of the phd? and what kinds? in what places i mean,,,

in many countries around the world, a person who completes a PhD would be expected to have a good number of solid publications under their belt. say 5-10 (several of them as or with co-authors). after all, doing a PhD is considered as doing research work, and a PhD often takes significantly more than three years (more like 6), and PhD students are often involved with a number of other projects beside their PhD. and if you have been doing research work for 6 years, and are any good at it, you'd better have a few publications.
however, in the UK a PhD is seen more as "learning to do research" than as actually doing research (although it is, obviously, learning by doing, so that sort of makes the distinction difficult to uphold...). thus, in the UK, it is quite normal (though not the rule) to get a PhD with no or very few publications, and no experience with any other research apart from your own PhD. you can then get post-doc funding with the explicit aim to start publishing and to develop new project ideas. but if you are applying for lecturer positions, you might be competing with recent PhDs from abroad who have more to offer. you'd be competitive with them only after a few years of post-doc-ing.
of course it is entirely possible to do a fast PhD, and get a few good publications (quality is worth more than quantity), and work on other research projects on the side. many people do. but it is definitely not easy! overall i would say that there are two "average" paths to success: a) fast PhD with few to no publications, then a few years as post-doc where you publish as much as you can and develop new research interests, then apply for permanent positions. b) take much longer for your PhD, but publish succesfully while you are at it, and get broader research experience under your belt in that time too, and teaching experience wouldn't do any harm either. then when you graduate, you'd be extremely competitive for post-doc grants and quite competitive for going directly to a permanent position.

so i'd say there is really no straightforward answer to how many publications you need to get during your PhD to be a great job market candidate when you finish. personally, i think it is a good strategy to focus on one only, but as top-notch as possible.

I've spoken informally to professors who are in the midst of recruiting and they have all said 2/3 publications plus a PhD (or near complete PhD) is fine for a first lecturership job.

I should add that's a non-science perspective.