Academics Chat Thread

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I believe the old Chat thread has fallen off the front page of this section, and I thought it might be time to reinstate it. I know it's only sporadically useful, but sometimes it's nice, right?

I am a lowly postdoctoral English Lit type. Finished my PhD in 2014, teaching associate for a couple of years, and now part-time while DD is a baby. I'm currently working frantically to get my book manuscript to the publisher by my deadline (October), and also trying to regain enthusiasm for the job market.

Who else is lurking around here?

I agree. A year is quite normal now for job-hunting in the Humanities - I've known people "in the wilderness" for up to 5 years post-doc, doing short-term contracts and/or hourly paid teaching, or postdoc research assistants etc.

No wise words but feeling a bit demoralised. A no to a grant yesterday and two nos to way smaller ones in the previous fortnight. It was the last one I have in as PI this year although two others as CI still to be decided. I will bounce back but temporarily licking my wounds even though I knew the odds were way stacked against me!

Oh no panda ☹️ How galling.

Sorry to hear that panda. On the bright side, it’s more grant applications than I have managed to submit. So you presumably have things to rework in future.

I am at the end of my tether with work today. I have too much to do, not enough time and people keep screwing over my attempts to manage my workload/save my sanity. I didn’t go to an away day on Monday (because I’d rather have chewed my own arm off) and got passive aggressive ‘we missed you emails’ on Tuesday. Then the attempts started to try to get me to do an open day presentation on
Saturday. I agreed to sit on the desk for the entire open day (rather than a 2 hour slot) on the understanding that no one would try to make me do the presentation. And it’s the 3rd open day this year I’ve done all 6 hours of. The programme leader (whose job it actually is) is trying to get me and another colleague to sort it out between ourselves. So this afternoon has been email tennis. I’m not doing it (and not should the other colleague, frankly). The subject head can come in and do it, or the HoD, or anyone else who is paid more than me and signed up for this kind of shit.

And this evening I got an email from a colleague informing me that he’s moving my module’s submission date - putting it back 7 weeks - and I shouldn’t make too much fuss because he’ll get into trouble. I agreed the submission date ( which is in two weeks time) with the programme leader well before term started, and have entered it into all the required systems in good time. The students have all been working on their assignments and are on track to submit in two weeks. The whole module has been planned to facilitate this submission date. Worse than that I have a horrendous semester 2. I teach on 3, 150 student modules (one of which has 4 assignments per student) and I’m responsible for about 75% of the teaching and half the marking. The programme leader agreed my early December date so that I could manage my workload. So I am livid and am most certainly not going quietly. If they want to change the date, someone else can mark the bloody assignments.

The buggers have also sprung 5 students with an exceptional 4th submission (due today apparently) on me. Apparently I should have set up submission links for it. But since I received no information that the exam board had decided to screw their own bloody rules and waste my time failing 5 students again (I would be willing to bet a great deal of money none of them will have improved their essays any more than the first 3 attempts).

I hate this university.

Ah arbitary, that is shit. I would be livid on the extension and open day issues . Hold firm. As you say, you cannot do this in semester two at all.

If it makes you feel better, i got a horrid paper rejection on tues eve. Not nice at all and a stroppy reviewer one. Agh! I will rejig but no chance this semester as just trying to survive the teaching.

Gah. That sucks. When you decide to embark on an academic career, little do you realise that the key characteristic for success is being enormously resilient to rejection and negative feedback. Alas, I am crap at it.

I’ve got a stroppy reviewer 2 to deal with but no time to do it. I’ve only briefly glanced at it, tbh, and can’t quite face it. I had planned to do it tomorrow but now I have to spend the day fighting to avoid having to clean up someone else’s problems. I’ll do it while sitting on the open day desk rather than twiddling my thumbs.

Having dig a bit deeper, it appears that a student has complained on another module. This module is allegedly run by one of the senior leaders in the department but she has been letting a TA do it for her. So, unsurprisingly, the module is not a tightly run ship and the students are super anxious about their assignment. So she decided to solve what this student has perceived as a ‘disparity in hand in dates’ between option modules by forcing us all to change our dates. And basically asked us to do it quietly because if anyone scrutinises her module, I don’t think they’ll be delighted that a TA (with significant development needs) has been in charge.

Of course we couldn’t just tell the student that: a) they were told about their due dates in September so they’ve had plenty of time to plan around them; b) all modules are different, with different assessments, and therefore they have different due dates; and c) all the modules are taught to support the students in being ready to submit their assignments on their due date. So the complaint is just silly. But no. Instead it’s better to screw over the staff for no good reason. And mess up my carefully planned and well organised teaching schedule, which has the students already working on their assignments and well on their way to completing them by their deadline. In fact, the ones who attend classes (which surprisingly is most of them) have all told me how happy and confident they’re feeling about it. And that they’re glad that they can get this one done early so they can move on to their other module assessments.

This is what ineffective leadership looks like. And (as I pointed out in my email response) exactly how to create completely unnecessary stress for those you are supposed to be leading.

Hi, to those of you have that have published, do you by default place your PhD supervisors as co-authors even if all they have done is review (suggest a few very tiny minor changes) your study design and the paper you wrote up? (My supervisor wants me to write in the acknowledgments that she has conducted the research (!)).

CuteKinn I've found this differs by discipline. In psychology, a more 'team' model dominates, and usually people do put their supervisors on papers and some conference presentations, at least they did a decade ago. In some other disciplines, sole authorship is a big thing and so the supervisor rarely goes on at all, even if they have been quite instrumental in the structure and conceptualizing of the paper.

I agree this in advance with all students writing papers from their PhD. I wouldn't insist on being on at all, but I would do a very brief review as a result. If they want more editing/bit of rewriting/greater input, I have to be named.

@Thetreesareallgone thank you. What you describe sounds fair (and I will keep that in mind for any future students I have). My dilemma is more with supervisor asking to mention that she 'conducted' the research, when all she has done is a very light review. I suppose the solution is actually just to make clear exactly who did what in author contributions so that it is very clear.

cute, yeah, I was going to say depends on discipline. I'm on most of my students' papers, but I've also provided major input into them, including in some doing analyses. Saying "conducted" the research is a bit weird if not true. In my lowest contributions I'll say "conceived" the research (assuming that's true - but if it's not, they're likely doing a side project that I'm not involved in and thus wouldn't be author on) and "read and commented on the manuscript".

Feeling down. Our workload numbers came out this week, and I'm back down at the bottom. I don't understand. We've only been doing this for 4 years now, and I've alternated between near the top to near the bottom every other year. But I'm doing the same stuff!! And freaking me out, because this year (which will be counted next time, so not in this round) I have actually cut down my responsibilities, so I may go even lower (unless I mysteriously float back up to follow my pattern).

And I hate how much this affects me. Surely knowing that I'm not doing anything different and putting in a lot of effort, but my location in the list changes drastically, should reassure me this isn't something to pay attention to. Yet I just feel like I'm not working hard enough. :(

It's not possible it's an error? It sounds ridiculous that this isn't more transparent.

I'm sure you are working hard enough. I say this, but I never feel as if I am, either.

Just talked to my mentor, and he said don't worry about it, that people know I'm working. Sigh. That's true, but it doesn't feel true. I guess it's not just what I do, but what other people do too, so if a bunch of people published a lot more papers than 'normal' or something, even if I stay the same, I drop in the rank.

It's tough, because they've been told they have to do this - we used to just jolly all along and have only a teaching load and that was pretty transparent. But when you add in research and service and don't know what other people are doing, and things like someone hosting a BBC show in their lab or something can jump them up for the year, it feels much more random.

Hmm I don't get any workload time for doing TV I might or might not be about to do my first TV demo
But I agree don't fret about it. We put on research and admin but don't pay that part much attention.

we used to just jolly all along and have only a teaching load and that was pretty transparent

My experience is exactly the opposite. Including only teaching obscured the fact that women in the department took on disproportionately high amounts of admin - not only their allocated jobs, but also sitting on committees that require female representation, sitting on lots of job panels, doing pastoral work, doing disproportionate amounts of outreach, doing lots of open days to give the impression that the department had more women than it actually does etc etc.

Introducing an admin model (which takes into account duties outside the university too, as women are more likely to be on research council committees etc) really flagged up the fact that women had very high workloads.

I must say that I have never heard of including paper numbers (and targets for such numbers) in a workload model, though. I sit in a department where the number of papers per year could easily vary between one and ten, with all possibly being being stellar performances. Very theoretical works might result in one or two very detailed, long publications per year while very applied work might result in a paper per month. Neither is in itself better than the other.

I'm changing the subject, so please don't feel you have to reply, but I have been turning over a problem for a while and wondered if people here might have advice. It's an issue of methodology that reaches out into politics, ideology and ethics, and it's necessarily both academic and personal, which makes things potentially very fraught. Some of my research is, broadly, about sexuality in history and literature. I'm lit-trained. I've been invited to give a talk to history MA students who're trained in queer theory.

I am panicking. I've got imposter syndrome about the history bit, because it's not my primary training, and I've got imposter syndrome about the queer theory bit, because although I research sexuality, I came to it via feminism, not via queer theory.

The organisers want me to talk a bit about public histories and being a public academic (insofar as I am one, which isn't far). I'm keen. The natural thing to discuss in the context of my paper would be how history functions as a contested site for constructing contemporary identities, and how different groups argue over whether such-and-such a figure is 'really' trans or 'really' lesbian. I do really want to talk about this and think I would do it in an even-handed way, but I am worried about it.

Any thoughts would be welcome. Fair warning: I am writing this at the end of a very long day and a very long few days with a furious teething baby who won't sleep, so I am not as coherent as I might be!

I don’t know your field at all, LRD, but the principle of only speaking about what you know should surely prevail, shouldn’t it? Obviously it’s great to stretch yourself a bit and who knows, you may find an allied area of interest, but you should feel free to tell the organiser your parameters. After all, they invited you for what you know, not what you don’t.

Oh, they know my parameters. That's why I say it's imposter syndrome insofar as it's a disciplinary thing. What I was trying to say was that I'm already feeling a bit nervous with that, and then worrying about whether I should tackle this topic, or whether it's just too big a can of worms?

Well as far as I understand it, it sounds like a very politically sensitive subject. If I were in the same position (and I can imagine a similarly contentious subject in my own field), I’d steer clear, mainly as I prefer to argue things out carefully in writing and I’m not brilliant arguing things out on the fly. I reckon that’s what you need to work out, I’d that the case with you? I imagine that you’d simply say no if it wasn’t something you could tackle, but you’re holding back because it might open up a big public argument (or am I projecting too much?!) Can you still do it without the contentious topic being raised?

LRD, completely not my area, but I must say reading your words you look like you know what you're talking about! And if you're keen and have ideas, and the organisers have pegged you as someone to talk about this (external validation), it seems like you would do fine!

My only random advice is as someone in an interdisciplinary (but extremely differnt) field, if you wanted to say something along the lines of "coming at this from a lit/feminist perspective" (or whatever is appropriate) to acknowledge that your basis of background may be different from your audience's, could cover your bases. Although you wouldn't want to look too much like "apologising". But I talk very often to people who know way more about part of my work than I do, and vice versa, and it is fairly common for speakers to acknowledge their background.

Reloaded - I have no clue about the 'sensitive' nature of such things (too me, it seems your whole area is far too senstivie for me! :) but that's why I play about computers and numbers instead). If that's an issue, you'll need to assess your confidence and how you'll feel if challenged. If it's more just 'I might come at with a different perspective because of my background', then see what I've said above.

user19 - I guess I meant 'jolly along' as in we all used that and could at least agree on the ranking of effort in teaching, whereas knowing that there was a lot of other things, "oh, so-and-so does a lot of admin" and "so-and-so has that big research grant", which could vaguely explain-away being lower in the teaching ranking. Trying to pile everything in together appears to make more egregious the fact that 'research is king' and people who spend more effort on teaching, service, and outreach look like they're not doing as much. Although, I suppose since the serivce/teaching is what they use the workload to allocate more of (since they can't use it to allocate more research! if only that was the way research funding appeared... sigh), if you're up there in those rankings they'll realise they can't add too much more... maybe? I think it's a case of trying too hard to be fair and putting it "all" in, but it still doesn't work. For example, the person whose research isn't that expensive might now get credit for having written lots of tiny papers, but the person with cheap research that only slowly produces big papers with review cycles of 6+ months - like some of the theory folk - now look worse and it's harder to say 'here's the reason' because everything's supposed to be considered. Whereas when it was well known a bunch was missed it was easier to take it with a grain of salt.

LRD I'm also interdisciplinary and I make it explicit. My first few minutes will describe he problem I'm working on but tie in my personal history (after a postdoc on x I got a fellowship on y). Then I clearly say 'I am not a z person, so I am coming at this from the angle of...' and then carry on.

I say yes to every single invitation within travelling distance because I want to develop collaborations right now. So I would trust the organiser and do it, if I were you

I teach as an historian in a non-history department (I have other specialisations) so I understand slightly the imposter syndrome when talking to "real" historians (I being ironic). But you have a perspective they will not have - be clear about where you're coming from.

I've got imposter syndrome about the queer theory bit, because although I research sexuality, I came to it via feminism, not via queer theory.

I teach queer theory (although not the trans*activist rubbish non-reading /misunderstanding of Judith Butler). I teach queer theory to 2nd year students via feminism, and I point out that there are places where some gay male activism has been inimical to women's rights and feminist theory.

If you make this clear, then I don't think there's a problem. I start with explaining in very basic detail, the distinction between sex and gender, and why this is important for feminists and also for Queer theory. And I explain that I"m not talking about "gender identity" (which always sounds to me like an internalisation of that which oppresses us), but gender as a system of power, designed to oppress women, because of our biological role in reproduction.

So then you can say, well, if sex and gender are distinct, and you can name gender as an oppressive social structure, then that opens up a fluid space that's been named as "queer".

I challenge their thinking that they're so cool - the "My best friend is gay" etc etc - I say that that is still putting people in boxes of sexuality; but the idea of queering was (originally) to radically destabilise notions of sexuality as fixed and linked to sex and gender.

The problem nowadays is a lot of people who either don't read this stuff, or misunderstand it (they take Butler's arguments for recognising the cultural structures of science to mean that the verifiable data of science - biology - are just "someone's opinion" - I call it "vulgar postmodernism"). And they mix up ideas about sexuality - where queer theory emerged - into a weird way of justifying men self-identifying as women and being "more oppressed" than women.

The recent battles around trans*activism are anything but "queer theory" - but that is probably all your students will know about Queer theory at the moment.

I teach it as another tool in the way we can interpret cultural production (to use Bourdieu's term).

The idea of being ranked by the department against colleagues sounds awful, I hope it doesn't catch on.

Thanks so much, everyone. That's hugely helpful. Especially about the interdisciplinary side of things. Yes, I'll acknowledge it in exactly that way, bigkids, thanks! murm, thanks for the vote of confidence!

I should be clear: I am definitely going to do this talk. I just felt a bit in need of reassurance/guidance.

windows, that is so useful. Thank you! Maybe we can talk more about this sort of stuff - if you'd not mind? I find it really hard to find colleagues to talk to who are on anything like the same page. I relate to your description of how students often come to it all, too! A lot of mine are lovely and thoughtful, but they find it almost impossible to interrogate ideas such as 'sexuality is innate' because they've had it drummed into them that this is a taboo topic, and they're absolutely shocked at the idea of even discussing it. So you can never entertain the idea of a person who forms sexual relationships with the same sex could be doing it for complex reasons. It must be that they 'are' gay.

Bit late to the party on this but I absolutely agree on framing it as having something new to the table. I find people are usually disarmed and charmed when I admit to not being a bit expert in their field, I really wouldn't hesitate to show weakness elsewhere as long as you're shit hot on what you do know.

I'm just back from a conference. Been slaving my arse off for the past month, did childcare negotiations with DH that rivalled Brexit in complexity to get three nights away, and presented to five. Sodding. People. Fuxache.