Skip Navigation
Falvey Library
You are exploring: Home > Blogs

Limited Term Assistant Prof/Lecturer at Dalhousie U (4/30)




The Department of Philosophy at Dalhousie University invites applications for a 10 month Limited Term Appointment at the Assistant Professor/Lecturer level, effective August 1, 2013.  This position is subject to budgetary approval.  Areas of specialization: Metaphysics, Epistemology. Areas of competence: Early Modern Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind. The Department also needs classes taught in Understanding Scientific Reasoning and Intro.


The successful applicant will teach courses at introductory, intermediate and advanced undergraduate/graduate levels, with some limited graduate student supervision and committee work. Excellence in teaching and research is required. Applicants must hold (or be about to receive) a Ph.D. in Philosophy. Salary will depend upon qualifications and experience. Course load will be 3 and 3.


Applications should include: a complete curriculum vitae, transcripts (undergraduate and graduate), writing sample, teaching dossier (including evidence of teaching effectiveness),  a statement of research and teaching interests and philosophies, and three confidential letters of recommendation (in hard copy, forwarded separately by the referees). A record of publication will be an asset.


Applications should be sent to Duncan MacIntosh, Chair, Department of Philosophy, Dalhousie University, 6135 University Avenue, PO Box 15000, Halifax, NS, Canada B3H 4R2. (Please use for correspondence).  The closing date for applications is April 30, 2013.


All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply; however, Canadians and permanent residents will be given priority. Dalhousie University is an Employment Equity/Affirmative Action employer. The University encourages applications from qualified Aboriginal people, persons with a disability, racially visible persons and women.

1 People Like This Post

CfP: Lehigh Philosophy Conference (Deadline 5/1/13)

Call for Abstracts

“The Last Chapter”

Lehigh University Department of Philosophy
Inaugural Annual Conference
Thursday, October 3 – Friday October 4, 2013

Keynote speakers:
Paul Guyer, Jonathan Nelson Professor of Humanities and Philosophy, Brown University
Nancy Sherman, University Professor, Georgetown University

The Lehigh University Philosophy Department invites submissions for our first annual philosophy conference.  Submissions should address one of two dimensions of the conference theme: either aspects of the often under-read or overlooked final chapters, sections, or moments of philosophical texts, or philosophy’s relation to the idea of its own “final chapter” or of that of some other domain.

Topics for submissions focusing on the theme’s first dimension—texts– include, but are not limited to:  How do the text’s concluding thoughts stand in relation to the remainder of the work? How do they inform or deform the coherence of the philosophical project at hand?  How does one properly end a philosophical work? Is it important to attend to the last chapter? Papers may treat specific texts or specific oeuvres: e.g., the Critique of Pure Reason or Kant’s oeuvre, Tractatus 7 or Wittgenstein’s oeuvre, Leviathan or Hobbes’s oeuvre.  Submissions are welcome on any period of philosophy or employing any method of following philosophical inspiration.

Papers focusing on the second theme dimension might address such questions as these: Does or should philosophy see itself as aiming for a concluding chapter or as eventually reaching an end?  Is our enterprise necessarily interminable? If not a conclusion, what other ends, if any, does or should philosophy seek? How does or might philosophy distinctively address the end(s) or endings in other disciplines or domains of life?

Submission deadline:
May 1, 2013

notification by June 15, 2013

Electronic submission of detailed abstracts (750-1000 words) should be in MSWord or pdf format.  Reading time for presented papers is 30 minutes.

Send abstracts as attachments to <> with “conference submission” as the subject. Please include in body of e-mail your name, paper title, institutional affiliation, and contact information.

Department of Philosophy
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA 18015


IAS Summer School, University of Warwick, 15-19 July 2013

  • Posted by: Annika Thiem
  • Posted Date: February 23, 2013
  • Filed Under: Library News

CALL FOR APPLICATIONS: Contesting Claims for Expertise in a Post-Secular Age: In Search of Intellectual Life
IAS Summer School, University of Warwick, 15-19 July 2013
The current moment seems to be one of ‘crisis’ or at least of dramatic change for the authority of academic expertise. Policy debates over climate change, embryology and the like have often seen scientific knowledge politicised, problematised and reduced in public imagination to just another partial ‘perspective’. These issues are particularly acute where scientific expertise runs up against that of, or associated with, markets. Whilst authority that is grounded in the experience of practicing natural and social science seems to flounder, authority that is associated with market forces seems only to gain in stature – despite recent disasters wrought under the watch of just such expertise. This creates and compounds a series of dilemmas for critical academic practice that are bound up with changing conceptions of what constitutes public life. The arrival of a post-secular moment in which religion has re-entered the public sphere further unsettles debates about expertise, science and religion. This summer school provides a space for postgraduate students, postdoctoral fellows and other early career academics to come together to respond to this ‘crisis’ and to think through new avenues for intellectual life, practice and collaboration – reaching across boundaries of science, religion, critique, participation, pragmatism, vitalist ethics, and explanation. Together, we will work through the challenges of the present moment and ask whether there is a conceptual language or theoretical framework for addressing such challenges beyond disciplinary divides. The summer school offers a mix of expert lectures and participant-led discussion groups as well as workshops organised by members of the Authority Research Network. For more information about the summer school, please visit our website:

Keynote academics:
Bob Antonio (University of Kansas), John Holmwood (University of Nottingham), Amy Levine (Changwon National University), Celia Lury (University of Warwick), Andrew McGettigan (Independent), Thomas Osborne (University of Bristol), Nigel Thrift (University of Warwick, tbc), Stephen Turner (Florida University), Sarah Whatmore (University of Oxford)

Application process:
1. Please complete an application form (attached) and return to by 5pm, March 15th 2013
2. We will consider all applications, and inform successful applicants, by April 15th 2013
3. All successful applicants will be required to register for the summer school by May 15th 2013
Registration fee: £200 to include accommodation and food for the duration of the summer school. Applicants are required to cover their own travel costs.

Bursaries: We have some money available for fee waivers and travel bursaries. If you would like to be considered for either or both of these, please indicate this on the application form. Our resources are limited, and we will prioritise those applicants without sources of institutional support.

Alex Smith, Claire Blencowe and Gurminder K. Bhambra, Department of Sociology, University of Warwick

Dr Julian Brigstocke
Lecturer in Human Geography
School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences
Plymouth University
Plymouth PL4 8AA
United Kingdom

t: +44 (0)1752 584977


CFP: Governing Technology: Material Politics and Hybrid Agencies (Stanford, due 3/22)

Governing Technology: Material Politics and Hybrid Agencies
*Thursday, May 9 and Friday, May 10, 2013*
*Stanford Humanities Center*
* *

This conference aims to bring together two communities of scholars: those examining the ways that states and other institutions have sought to govern technologies, and those examining the ways that technologies have influenced the practice and form of governing. In the process, we will revisit the concept of governance through the lens of *material politics*.

As some technologies promise the world and others threaten to overrun it, scholars in the humanities and social sciences have turned a critical eye to the agentive power and material effects of technology, as well as the responses that this power invokes. Research on technology’s entanglements with states, transnational organizations, and other powerful institutions has often taken its cues from science and technology studies. In particular, pioneering work in STS on materiality, on governmentality, and on hybrid and nonhuman agency has become more and more a part of mainstream work in history, geography, anthropology, communication, literary studies, sociology, and beyond. Scholars from across these fields have, in turn, developed new frameworks of analysis that go beyond classic conceptions of governmentality and materiality to incorporate their own disciplinary strengths.

Cornell professor Steve Jackson<> will discuss the interplay between governance and technology in his keynote lecture <>. The conference will wrap up with a roundtable discussion on building the STS community in the Bay Area and beyond, featuring STS professors from Stanford and several nearby Universities of California.

Call for Participation

We invite papers that consider (or critique) the relevance of *material politics* in understanding the relationship between governance and technology: how states and other institutions respond to challenges imposed by new and emerging technological developments and how technologies, understood broadly, become part of governing.

Papers from any discipline or institution are encouraged. Possible topics include, but are not limited to:

– Natural resource management and extraction
– The politics of environmental regulation and tourism
– National or transnational policies on innovation and intellectual property
– The regulation and development of biotechnology
– The agency and role of non-governmental organizations
– Governing dangerous materials
– The politics of agricultural technologies
– Medical innovation and regulation
– The *un*governability of certain technologies
– The politics of technology in public health or urban planning
– Historical accounts of technological governance or agency
– Theoretical discussions or critiques of material agencies
– Theoretical discussions of governance through the lens of material politics

Please submit the following to **:

– *A submission abstract* of no more than 250 words
– *A brief biography* of no more than 50 words to be included in the conference program

The deadline for submissions is *March 22, 2013*. Notifications will be sent and the schedule posted by April 12, 2013.


Extended Deadline 2/10: GSA Literary Studies and the New Phenomenology

German Studies Association Conference

October 3-6, 2012; Denver, CO
Literary Studies and the New Phenomenology
Hermann Schmitz and the Neue Phänomenologie is growing in recognition among German literary scholars as well as theorists around the globe who are working on questions of space. However, his nuanced conceptions of feeling also offer insight into questions of affect and emotion that have been important in literary studies in recent years. How does Schmitz’s articulation of Gefühl as Atmosphäre resonate with current debates about the distinction between emotion and affect? How does Schmitz’s history of feeling fit with the history of emotions as reflected in literary texts? How does his politics of emotions come into conversation with the political and ideological meanings assigned to emotions in specific texts? Papers are invited that explore the implications of Schmitz’s philosophy for thinking about affect and emotion in literature. We are particularly interested in papers that:
– open perspectives on concrete literary texts from the early modern period to the contemporary as read against the backdrop of Schmitz’s phenomenology;
– use and expand Schmitz’s phenomenology in order to explore historic shifts in the understanding and distinction of emotion, affect, and atmosphere;
– point out the methodological and conceptual limits of Schmitz’s theory in the context of literary studies, genre studies, and poetics.
We seek 15- to 20-minute papers, in English or German. Please send an abstract (~250 words) and a brief CV that includes institutional affiliation by  FEBRUARY 10th, 2013, to both Jan Jost-Fritz ( AND Anna Leeper (


CFP: Monetization of User-Generated Content — Marx revisited

CFP: Monetization of User-Generated Content — Marx revisited

Forum Editors:
Jennifer Proffitt, School of Communication, Florida State University
Hamid Ekbia, School of Library and Information Science, Indiana
University, Bloomington
Stephen McDowell, School of Communication, Florida State University

Two TIS articles, Fuchs (2010) and Arvidsson & Colleoni (2012), which
develops a critique of the former, have generated considerable debate,
including a response from Fuchs (2012), regarding fundamental questions
about the core processes of value creation and social and economic
organization in contemporary societies. To further this conversation, we
invite 4000- 5000 word Perspective essays, which are published at the
discretion of the guest editors / editor, and should address one or more
of the following questions the Fuchs and Arvidsson & Colleoni debate
* Is the production of user-generated content a form of labor? Or,
should it be re-thought as an affective investment? Or something else?
* Do the theory and concepts that are part of a labor theory of value
limit our understanding of user-generated content? Should we choose a
different point of departure for our theoretical endeavors?
* Is the Marxist notion of commodity an appropriate analytic for
understanding appropriation of value in the case of user-generated
content? Or, should it be de-centered from such an analysis?
* Is the notion of “labor time” relevant to the production of
user-generated content?
* How can Marxist and historical-critical perspectives engage with the
new organization of information economies and information societies?
* Is it appropriate to extend Dallas Smythe’s notion of “audience work,”
which he developed in 1970s when broadcasting was the dominant mode, to
the Internet world? What are the problematics of extending “old”
theories to “new” technologies?
The Perspective essays should have layers of thought that take the
thinking beyond Fuchs and Arvidsson & Colleoni. Approximately half of
the essay should be devoted to a reflection on / critique of these
writings and the ensuing debate, and the remaining half should extend /
add to the theoretical foundations of the debate.

Interested authors are invited to email an abstract (no longer than 500
words) to Jennifer Proffitt (email: by March 1, 2013.
Authors of selected abstracts will be invited to submit their
Perspective essays by July 1, 2013.

For pdf copies of Fuchs (2010) and Arvidsson & Colleoni (2012), please
send an email to

Arvidsson, A., and E. Colleoni. 2012. Value in informational capitalism
and on the Internet. The Information Society 28(3): 135-150.
Fuchs, C. 2010. Labor in informational capitalism and on the Internet.
The Information Society 26(3): 179 -196.
Fuchs, C. 2012. With or without Marx? With or without capitalism? A
rejoinder to Adam Arvidsson and Eleanor Colleoni. tripleC 10(2): 633-645.




Call for applications: The Groupe de recherche interuniversitaire en philosophie politique de Montréal (GRIPP), spanning the departments of political science and philosophy at McGill University, l’Université de Montréal, Concordia University, and l’Université du Québec à Montréal, invites applications for its 2013 manuscript workshop award. The recipient of the award will be invited to Montreal  for a day-long workshop in April/May 2013 dedicated to his or her book manuscript. This “author meets critics” workshop will comprise four to five sessions dedicated to critical discussion of the manuscript; each session will begin with a critical commentary on a section of the manuscript by a political theorist or philosopher who is part of Montreal’s GRIPP community. The format is designed to maximize feedback for a book-in-progress. The award covers the costs of travel, accommodation, and meals.


A. Topic: The manuscript topic is open within political theory and political philosophy, but we are especially interested in manuscripts related to at least one of these GRIPP research themes: 1) the history of liberal and democratic thought, especially early modern thought; 2) moral psychology and political agency, or politics and affect or emotions or rhetoric; 3) democracy, diversity, and pluralism. 4) democracy, justice, and transnational institutions.

B. Manuscript: Book manuscripts in English or French, not yet in a version accepted for publication, by applicants with PhD in hand by 1 August 2012, are eligible. Applicants must have a complete or nearly complete draft (at least 4/5 of final draft) ready to present at the workshop. In the case of co-authored manuscripts, only one of the co-authors is eligible to apply. (Only works in progress by the workshop date are eligible; authors with a preliminary book contract are eligible only if no version has been already accepted for publication).

C. Application: Please submit the following materials electronically, compiled as a single PDF file: 1) a curriculum vitae; 2) a table of contents; 3) a short abstract of the book project, up to 200 words; 4) a longer book abstract up to 2500 words; and, in the case of applicants with previous book publication(s), (5) three reviews, from established journals in the field, of the applicant’s most recently published monograph. Candidates are not required to, but may if they wish, submit two letters of recommendation speaking to the merits of the book project. Please do not send writing samples. Send materials by email, with the subject heading “2013 GRIPP Manuscript Workshop Award” to Arash Abizadeh <arash.abizadeh at>. Review of applications begins 10 January 2013. Contact Arash Abizadeh <arash.abizadeh at> with questions.

Evaluation Process: The final decision for choosing the winner of the GRIPP manuscript award lies with the GRIPP Jury. The Jury will seek to meet within the first two weeks of the rolling deadline for submissions.  All bilingual regular faculty members of GRIPP have the right to participate as members of the Jury. Each regular faculty member of GRIPP has the right to suggest a short-list of up to five proposals for consideration by the Jury, but the final decision rests with the Jury itself. All elements of the Jury’s deliberations are confidential; unfortunately it is not possible for the Jury or its members to provide any feedback to applicants concerning the merits of their proposal. A full list of the regular GRIPP faculty membership is available at <>

Previous GRIPP Manuscript Workshops:
May 2012: Daniel Viehoff (Sheffield), The Authority of Democracy
May 2011: James Ingram (McMaster), Radical Cosmopolitics: The Ethics and Politics of Democratic Universalism
April 2010: Hélène Landemore (Yale), Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many
April 2009: Alan Patten (Princeton), Equal Recognition: The Moral Foundations of Minority Cultural Rights
March 2009: Kinch Hoekstra (UC Berkeley), Thomas Hobbes and the Creation of Order


1 People Like This Post

CfP: The Legacy of Enlightenment and the Politics of Spectatorship (9/30/12)

44th Annual Convention: Northeastern Modern Language Association (NeMLA)
March 21-24, 2013
Boston, MA

Dramatic shifts in the realms of philosophy, art, economics, physiology, and jurisprudence during the Age of Enlightenment were predicated on a preoccupation with spectatorship. This panel’s inquiry begins from the proposition that a central “dialectic” of Enlightenment lies at the meeting point between medium and spectator. From Lessing’s theater to the philosophy of Adorno and Horkheimer, from Brechtian and Artaudian notions of viewership to the construction of contemporary museums, the visual legacy of  Enlightenment rationalism continues to affect the way we engage politically and culturally with the world around us.

We seek contributions that explore diverse manifestations of the politics of observation. How do “enlightened” performances and artworks construct or critique particular modes of viewing? What are the political implications of the work-to-audience relationship in the realms of gender, race, class identity, or other social categories? What spectatorial expectations underlie philosophical works by Leibniz, Kant, La Mettrie, and others? How do notions of the public and private spheres map onto concerns for spectatorship? And how do notions of “enlightened” observation change in the aftermath of the Age of Enlightenment strictly speaking?

Topics might include, but are not limited to:

·       – Theoretical and philosophical approaches to spectatorship in the Age of Enlightenment from Descartes to Lessing to Kant.
·       – The politics of spectatorship in medical shows and other events in the public sphere.
·       – Modern and post-modern approaches to Enlightenment spectatorship in film, literature, and art history.
·       – Implications of the philosophy of the Frankfurt School for contemporary spectatorship.
·       – Analyses of audience-work relations and the politics of the spectatorial gaze in visual or literary works.

We welcome abstracts for interdisciplinary papers.

Please send a 500-word abstract and one-paragraph biographical
sketch to Pascale LaFountain ( and Tracy Graves (

Submission deadline: September 30, 2012.


Useful Resources for the Academic Job Market

Resources for the Academic Job Market compiled by Ryan Cordell. Some of the material is more directed toward the job market in English, but much of the advice is helpful across the humanities and even more broadly.



Minding Your Manners for the Conference Interview

By David D. Perlmutter

It was a heady time for a graduate student at his national conference as he rushed from one job interview to another. Late to one and out of breath, he quickly began his introductory talking points: how he was just the right fit for the position, the department, and the university. The members of the search committee sat in silence until the student paused, allowing one of them to interject politely: “I think you’re in the wrong room. You’ve been talking about another school.”

The faculty-job-search process is a particular mix of the professional and the ad hoc, the programmed and the unexpected. Unlike in corporate America where a few people, or just one, may play a direct role in nonexecutive hiring, searches for assistant-professor posts may involve scores of people, from undergraduates who evaluate a candidate’s teaching presentation to a college dean who meets with the potential hire one on one.

The campus visit by a finalist is the subject of much scrutiny, but the equally vital meet-up that happens first is the conference interview. That is the point where you meet faculty members from your desired employer for possibly the first time, and potentially the last. Because of the importance of the occasion, the conference interview is worth planning—in detail. At the same time, it is also an occasion to accept the unhappy, the surprising, or the absurd with good humor and levelheadedness.

If you can, go. It is an old insight about politics and hiring that the world belongs to the people who show up. Conference interviews are not an endangered species, but their primacy has been challenged by the increasing costs of attending conferences, the reduced (in some fields) number of positions open, and the rise of the Skype interview as a replacement. Nevertheless, if you can manage it, go to the conferences identified by your advisers.

Conferences, despite their preplanned nature, are free-flowing entities. Unforeseen opportunities will pop up. Departments may have secured permission to hire only after the conference program went to press, and then decided to hold interviews at the last minute. Or maybe a job is not yet “official,” but the department is doing selective interviews in anticipation.

You may even have others connect the dots for you. During a recent research panel at a conference, one of our doctoral students impressed an attendee who then invited the student to interview for a position he had not heard was open. Impromptu recruiting is not unusual.

If you have a choice between doing an initial interview by phone or in person at a conference, choose the latter. I have no data to prove that people who interview at conferences tend to be invited more often as campus finalists than those who interview by phone or Skype. But it simply makes sense that you have a better chance of making a good first impression of the real you if you meet key players face to face. In an era in which a single tenure-track opening attracts hundreds of applicants, any narrowing of the odds can help.

Be ready for your close-up—all the time. A friend, now a professor, once described going to a conference as a graduate student looking decidedly casual in a T-shirt, sandals, and scruffy coiffure. He planned to tidy himself later for his paper presentation. Then he ran into some people who knew his adviser and who had an opening in their department. They were just finishing their interviews but wanted to squeeze him in—in an hour. He showed up dressed nicely, well shaved, and wet-combed. A member of the committee commented, “You clean up well, young man.”

Fields and institutions differ in their sartorial and grooming standards for job candidates. If you’re interviewing for a job as an assistant professor of painting at a freethinking liberal-arts college, the dress code is going to be different than if you’re seeking to become an assistant professor of accounting at a conservative religious university. There are few academic hiring situations, however, where being “cleaned up” will make a bad impression.

Of course you must also be ready intellectually. A spontaneous interview might erupt at any moment in an elevator. Last-minute schedule changes could force an earlier-than-expected meeting: “Hello? I know we planned to meet on Friday, but we need to do our interview now because our chair is leaving early.” Furthermore, in today’s hiring environment the whole world is listening. I have heard graduate students make comments in hallways and coffee shops at the conference hotel that would not go over well if heard by members of a search committee. And who is to say they are not sitting at the next booth?

So prep for a job interview before you leave home, and be ready to go into candidate mode at the extension of a hand to shake.

Know the players and the playhouse. That 10,000-times-told piece of advice about job interviews is always right: Personalize your application, especially when you are meeting anyone face to face. If possible, try to find out which members of the department will be conducting the interview. Once you have their names, do your homework—their history, accomplishments, role in the department. You don’t need to get too chummy, but recognizing them and having something to say about a topic you share in common is always a good icebreaker and shows you care about your potential colleagues and the open position. Make sure to send their names to your references and advisers, asking if any of them have a connection.

Do research on the department, too—what it does, what it wants, and where it’s going. Take your notes to your interview. It is both helpful and impressive if you can pull out a file card (or a screen on your iPad) that lists, for example, the courses the college offers that you think you can teach.

Keep your answers short and on message. Think of a conference interview as akin to a press conference. You will get peppered with questions, ranging from the expected (“What attracts you to our opening?”) to the at-best inadvisable (“Hail from Utah, eh? So does that mean you are Mormon?”) to the zany (“If you could be any kind of nucleic acid, what kind would you be?”). Your level of coolness under fire will be one way people evaluate you. Whatever you are asked, come to the meeting with talking points and use them. If your research experience and publications exactly fit the qualifications stated in the job ad, make sure the committee knows that. Don’t let the interview end without enumerating your strengths.

Read the room. Preparation and rehearsal are vital to job interviewing, but anything can be overdone or come off as forced. And you need to be ready to adapt if you encounter topics you haven’t prepared for. Make your points, but don’t forget to listen to the members of the search committee and notice the subtler signals of body language.

There is no hard-and-fast rule about the length of your answers to questions. You should, however, through roaming eye contact, be able to gauge when enough is enough and your interviewers want you to move on.

Two rhetorical tools in your interview kit may help out in such situations. First, don’t just memorize a fixed answer to common questions. Develop both a short and long version of your answer. Second, have a “wrap up” comment in reserve that allows you to wind down when you sense they want you to finish. Example: In answer to a research question, say, “Anyway, I have much more on this in my most recent paper, and I can send it to you, if you wish.”

Don’t overschedule yourself. Conferences are expensive, budgets are tight, and the time passes quickly. Many graduate students on the job market try to maximize their investment by tightly scheduling their days and nights on site. That strategy is sensible—until it interferes with your interviews. The point is to be “tanned, rested, and ready” when your moment to shine is nigh. Showing up five minutes late, sweating and flustered, because you had another meeting that ran overtime does not make a good impression.

Plan some downtime. Rest, especially between interviews, if you can, and allow yourself Zen interludes to get ready mentally and review your notes for the next interview. Likewise, get to know the conference site plan; be realistic about how long it takes to get from one room to another. Keep in mind that while conference traversing is chock full of chance encounters with friends, it is also possible that new job contacts might surface and slow you down.

Come with handouts. A graduate student told me he had “aced” a conference interview: He had received great responses to his answers and felt like he had truly impressed his audience. The afterglow lasted for two days until he ran into a member of the search committee who obviously could not remember who he was without some awkward prompting. It turned out the panel had interviewed a dozen other candidates as well. (Not to mention that for senior professors, conferences are continual memory challenges, with hundreds of vaguely familiar faces alongside the well-known ones.)

One tactic to make you stand out is the handout. Bring extra copies of your CV, maybe even some syllabi, and so on. But also consider providing a short—no more than a page—summary of your qualifications. Some candidates go further to help memory prompts by including their photo on the page. Use that sheet to answer some of the obvious interview questions like: “Which of our classes do you see yourself teaching?”

Say thanks, but not too much. You will find wildly varying advice on the protocol of post-interview acknowledgments. My age and ancestry drive me to advise the formal: Send a written thank you (on a card, not copy paper) to anyone who interviewed you. Other senior faculty members will tell you not to bother, but I think some form of timely thanks is justified, especially if you were treated well.

A final note. One of the most tragic circumstances of modern academic hiring is that you can’t give candidates real—or really any—advice on what they did wrong. (In a future column I will talk about some ways to figure that out for yourself.) It is sad to see a candidate perform well in many ways but then display some flaws in, say, the research presentation that may eventually sink the person’s candidacy. Clueless about the error, the candidate will presumably make it again at future interviews.

A conference interview is no guaranteed bridge to being a finalist for an academic position. It does, however, afford an early test market for some of the ideas, talking points, manner, and tone that you will offer in the much more grueling campus visit. A conference interview is a great opportunity to learn what scores and what falls flat.

David D. Perlmutter is director of the School of Journalism and Mass Communication and a professor and faculty fellow at the University of Iowa.



Next Page »


Last Modified: September 19, 2012

Ask Us: Live Chat
Back to Top