Abstract
As an early career researcher, I could hardly fail to pay attention to a book with this title. Yet surprisingly, as the book editor Markus Hallgren explains, there is a dearth of literature addressing how an academic career in the social sciences can be crafted. This book provides a window into the career trajectories of nine established management scholars, offering some refreshing (and useful) insider views on academia and the “practice” of scholarship. While “Reflections on a Scientific Career” is of interest to academics at all levels, Hallgren particularly emphasizes its appeal for recent PhDs. The book is to serve as a “starting point for reflections,” helping individuals make “deliberate and informed decisions” at the outset of their academic career. Hallgren’s panel of experienced scholars consists of Stewart Clegg, Lars Strannegard, Anders Soderholm, Johnny Holmstrom, Samantha Warren, Bente Elkjaer, Alf Rehn, and Daniel Robey. There is also a chapter by James March which is a reproduction of an earlier article in the Standford Business School Magazine. Unsurprisingly, given the collection of contributors, the chapters vary considerably in tone, content, and approach.
Clegg’s chapter is replete with practical and easily applied tips on writing and publishing, ranging from the banal (always file drafts with “an easy version/date retrieval system”) to the technical (“don’t start paragraphs with indexical pronouns or conditional phrases”) and the strategic (“be gentle with the (literature) dissection—the blows you inflict may damage the ego that reviews you”). Clegg comprehensively addresses how to approach the writing process, recommending to “draft early and draft often,” adding that he “usually drafts between 30 and 100 times” (p. 25). For Clegg, writing should be practiced daily. “Good writing takes time, effort and skill that can only be developed by training yourself” (p. 20). Encouragingly, Clegg is a firm believer in recycling. He wisely advises “never throw anything away” and incites young researchers to revisit “those ideas toyed with that were dispensed with during the rigors of the thesis writing process” (p. 20). These “half-baked ideas, incomplete fragments and grand proposals” can all be “dusted off” and put to use elsewhere. If you can’t make them work as standalone pieces, Clegg advises finding a collaborator who can. Clegg’s chapter also contains invaluable advice on preparing articles for journal submission. He advises how to (a) use keywords as reviewer “bait,” (b) align your paper with the target journal, and (c) respond to reviewers professionally. It is comforting to see an “old hand” like Clegg acknowledge “you’ll learn to handle the degradation eventually” (p. 27). While the novice scholar may not be aware of all of these professional “tricks of the trade,” I believe that even some more seasoned scholars could gain from his chapter.
For me, the strength of Strannegard’s chapter lies in his candid and sometimes challenging account of established (mis)pratices in academia. He addresses institutional context and illuminates the role that organizational environment, funding, data availability, and mentors can play in subject area: In order to be accepted in the organizational context I entered, I had to steer my interest in the direction followed by others who I found relevant to my interests … my interests developed in the same way as my supervisors. (p. 36)
He draws an analogy with the garbage can decision process (Cohen et al., 1972), labeling his doctoral research project both a “problem and a solution.” I found Strannegard’s chapters refreshingly honest, and believe that early career researchers need to hear such authentic accounts. We tend to pressure ourselves to find that “breakthrough” research question or “emerging subject area” which will provide a fertile research plot and brimming publication pipeline. Yet, our dissertation or initial subject area is not always our personal choice: we are sometimes left to scavenge the garbage can, but there is life after the dissertation.
Strannegard raises interesting points regarding the sharing of research ideas, claiming that “secrecy is a bad idea.” Indeed, the information sharing practices of academics depends on the system to which they belong, notably the extent to which reciprocity is expected as well as prevailing community norms about “open” science (Haeussler, 2011). Rather than preciously guarding ideas, Strannegard recommends telling as many others as possible what you are working on, emphasizing the “endless positive effects of involving others.” Strannegard also refers to central role of “critique and criticism” in academia. He frowns upon the tendency of senior academics to provide critical feedback to juniors which results in “frustration, sadness and feelings of worthlessness” (p. 40). In line with this, he advocates the creation of research groups which engender “a culture of critique that is forgiving, constructive, supportive and personal” (p. 40). Strannegard also stresses the mutually reinforcing benefits of reading and writing for aspiring “academic supermen and superwomen.” All productive academics read: “readers think better, and thinkers write more easily since they have something to say” (p. 40). Echoing Clegg, he advocates scheduled writing (“one of the best tips one of my mentors gave me, was to each and every day, for at least two hours: write”) and emphasizes the importance of routine and discipline when it comes to producing creative texts.
Soderholm’s chapter begins with a more macro-level discussion, delving into the implications of two (sometimes conflicting) perspectives on academic organizations: the “republic of scholars” and the “stakeholder organization” (Bleiklie and Kogan, 2007). A republic of scholars perspective is anchored in academic freedom defined by collegial quality self-control, peer reviews, and mentoring. A stakeholder organization predicates an academic organization which is shaped by the “context and need of the society in which it exists,” responding to demands and expectations held by both inside and outside stakeholders. For Soderholm, navigating between core academic values and peer-based quality systems on the one hand while attending to funders, partners, university, and government policies on the other is key to understanding current day academia. Together, these perspectives define the institutional environment in which contemporary scholars operate. Soderholm recounts his particular experience of research groups and advises on the purposes and processes concerned. Summarizing his world view of research teams as “fun x relevance = excellence,” Soderholm also calls on scholars to create supportive and positive research cultures, with members engaging in “constant reading, writing, discussing and interacting” in order to yield knowledge which constitutes a “greater good” for contemporary society. Soderholm’s chapter has a philosophical and thought-provoking tone, prompting the young scholar to question the prevailing perspectives in their own institution.
In the fifth chapter, Johnny Holmstrom outlines “the merits and potential” of leadership in research, and more specifically, transformational leadership. He discusses his leadership at research group and department level and outlines how he contributed to building his own university’s research profile. Holmstrom illustrates how he always tried to articulate and share a vision in order to “pave the way forward” and recounts his experiences at research group, department, and university level. For Holmstrom, research focus and research quality are two “founding pillars of vision” in academia. His vision emerged from his post-doctoral experience in long standing world class research department in the United States. For Holmstrom, the relationship between (research) science and society has become more reflexive over the years, with a now two-way dialogue in place. “As academics, we need to figure out how we can play a role beyond the publications we produce and interact with stakeholders in a clever way” (p. 58). Transformational leadership is essential in guiding and producing focused and quality research.
Samantha Warren’s chapter takes off on a lighter note and is as amusing as it is educational. Warren comes clean on her “forty-years-in-the-making imposter syndrome” and refers to the “corner cutting, half-baked and certainly not at all strategic attitude” (p. 65) which has characterized her academic career. Her passion for the profession is palpable. She recalls her realization that she could “actually earn my living, reading, writing and thinking” (p. 66). Warren advises scholars to follow their passion, however unlikely it may appear (her own PhD focused on “workplace fun” and she used visual imagery methodology). She says “find what does float your scholarly boat … get out there and launch it” (p. 69).
Warren’s chapter deals with the “everyday micro level business” of an academic career, providing practical, “actionable” advice on everything from focused writing to time management and grant proposals. On balancing research, teaching, and service demands, she advises making detailed lists, breaking tasks down into chunks and slotting them “into the odd hours of time that might otherwise be dead” (p. 76). She particularly advises young scholars to be discerning in their choice of projects and tasks, saying no to the things that drain time away and yes to those projects that “nurture you in some way, and ideally really connect with what you want to become known for” (p. 79). For grant proposals, she advises to “blow your own trumpet, loud, because everybody else will be doing the same” (p. 70). With respect to writing and submitting journal articles, Warren advocates the “art of anti-perfectionism” and “learning to be good enough.” Your work only needs to be good enough to pique the editor’s interest and referees will “always make you pull it apart and reassemble it” (p. 75) anyway.
Warren stresses the collective aspect of academic work, outlining the importance of collaboration (doing research “with” others), the benefits of “being nice” (especially with administrators) and the importance of “totally trustworthy mentors” (young scholars should have at least two or three to confide in). Conferences should be used to meet others in the same field and maybe even “pick up your own protégées.” Warren warns of the predatory behavior of “careerist, senior (and often male) academics” who “get you to do things for them that you don’t want, or need to do. Like give up all your findings in a ‘joint’ authored article that you end up writing all of by yourself” (p. 83). While many of us have been victims of this, it is somewhat reassuring to see it acknowledged by a senior academic and written in black and white.
It is sad (but perhaps telling) that the only two authors in this book who refer to pervasive self-doubt and lack of self-confidence in their abilities are women. Bente Elkjaer begins her chapter by recounting her life narrative and then draws on various examples from her life and career experiences to elicit potential “lessons” for young scholars. Elkjaer urges scholars to seize opportunities and be courageous. She candidly relates her personal battle with feelings of inadequacy and loneliness in the profession, laying bare her “fear of the podium” and the “feeling of not being sufficiently bright.” Elkjaer strongly advises young scholars to trust their mentors and own intuitions. For Bente, you need to “allow yourself to trust the advice you get from others.” Elkjaer points to the role others played in her career, citing the critical support she received from her friends, mentors, and husband. Over the years, colleagues and friends alerted her to new job openings, advised on strategic career moves, prompted her participation in key conferences, or put her forward for an editorial position. One can’t help but feel that Elkjaer is downplaying her own strengths as an academic and that this is a rather modest or muted account of her achievements. But once again, we see the collective, “networked” aspect of academia underlined.
Alf Rehn’s chapter is engaging, and certainly different, reflecting the author’s current a-typical and colorful academic career. Indeed, Alf Rehn does “a number of things that do not fit nearly with the basic notion of the university professor.” He has written a modest business bestseller as well as a “plethora of columns.” He sits on corporate boards, does consulting, and is a regular keynote speaker (notably for Al Gore which he amusingly recounts). Rehn also operates as a “real academic”: publishing in academic journals, supervising doctoral students, teaching, engaging in research projects. With one foot in academia and the other in his corporate world “engagements,” Rehn recounts how both academics and corporates are equally bewildered by his liminal positioning. He takes immense pleasure from his dual identity (“I like that people cannot quite figure me out”) and emphasizes the benefits and pleasures of switching “between roles, between masks, between engagements” (p. 108). Is Rehn attempting to disclose new worlds (Spinosa et al., 1999) as he presents the young scholar with an image of the “academic as performer”? Rehn paints the possibilities of what this career may hold for many in the future. Interestingly (and contradictory to other authors), Rehn refers to the “calm comfort of academia” (where stress levels are low) but points to the importance of engaging with the corporate world. As a young scholar, I found this chapter the hardest to relate to, but it was interesting none-the-less to read of the author’s slightly “unconventional” academic existence.
In his chapter, Daniel Robey sets out to mark the distinction between career success and career fulfillment, the latter being something which is subjectively and qualitatively evaluated. For Robey, career fulfillment is about (a) appreciating the autonomy and respect that academia offers, (b) coping successfully with career challenges, and (c) knowing that you make a positive difference in others’ lives. He illustrates each of these three aspects of career fulfillment by documenting examples from his own experience. Robey reminds us of our privileged position as academics, pointing out how most academics are given complete autonomy in their choice of subject area. As teachers, Robey reminds us that we have a moral obligation to lead by example: being a professional role model is “an important obligation with long lasting consequences.” Robey also raises the issue of ethical dilemmas that may arise over the course of an academic career and lends insights on how to deal with them.
For me, the real beauty of Robey’s chapter lies is his (constructive) critical take on the institutionalized routines which characterize academia. Robey’s experience reflects “a conventional academic career path in the USA,” but his insights are generally applicable. Robey bemoans the “career long disrespect for service activities” which arises from the tendency of tenure-seeking junior scholars to avoid time-consuming service assignments in order to maximize their research time. Robey points to the double-edged sword of autonomy: faculty members are free to make decisions about their use of time and resources, but this also leads many junior faculty and PhD students to “adopt a rather simple but flawed rule: work all the time.” It is refreshing to see an experienced and established academic highlight (and denounce) this tendency. Robey highlights the beneficial and potentially “enriching” role that family and friends can have on work.
With this book, Hallgren hopes to show “there is much more to academia than the simple instrumental way of viewing success and accomplishment in the bleak light of the ‘publish and perish’ paradigm” (p. 9). Indeed, it is surely for this reason that Hallgren includes James Marsh’s Standford article, “A Scholar’s Quest,” as the penultimate chapter. Marsh calls on “those who respond to senses of themselves and their callings” to “sustain the temple of education” (p. 128). However, I am not quite sure that Hallgren achieved this aim. While not all authors lend research-related advice (Rehn a notable exception), the majority position research (or rather publishing) as a central academic activity. Reflections and discussion of teaching practice or personal development options in the teaching domain are conspicuous by their absence.
Hallgren’s selection of scholars is also questionable. While he mentions that he was eager to show that there is indeed “many different types” of scholars, I can’t help feeling that the panel of nine academics could have been more varied. All are White, seven are men, and six are based in Europe (of those 3 are in Sweden, 1 in Finland, and 1 in Denmark). Of course, this does not mean that their experience is not valid or their narratives any less rich. Perhaps, however, it is easier to talk of autonomy, opportunity, and network building in academia when we are not classified as “incompetent others” (Gutuérrez y Muhs et al., 2012). While Warren and Elkjaer’s chapters raise issues of class and gender, not one author raises the issue of race or ethnicity.
Equally, given that the age of many “early career stage” academics coincides with the time when families are started, more discussion of the realities of combining an academic career and family life would have been appreciated. Robey explicitly discusses work–life balance and points to the potentially enriching effect of family on work. However, to what extent did these academics experience work family conflict? Warren and Elkjaer (both female academics) mention the issue of having children (or not) in academia; however, it remains absent from others’ accounts. While Hallgren acknowledges that “being a woman in academia comes with some special challenges” (p. 132), further exploration of the subject—for both men and women—would be a worthwhile addition for young researchers. While Warren does not “pretend that our careers are somehow separate from our lives” (p. 66), it appears others do.
On the whole, this book makes for enjoyable, easy reading (apart from one chapter which had this early career researcher dozing off like an old gray haired professor) and is filled with practical and thought-provoking advice.