Korean Job Discussion Forums

[tob55]

[PRagic]

Agreed. You have to be careful about going down that esoteric topic route, especially when you're doing your dissertation, and even more so when you start establishing your research agenda.

Those heady, narrow topics are getting harder to feed into the top journals for one thing, plus hiring committees are looking for people who can guide a wide range of research topics that are more broadly 'popular'.

[Spongebob Squarepants]

I just wanted to sound off on this too to offer another perspective concerning training received to perform job responsibilities.

A PhD, as many will know, is a qualification for which you undergo training in conducting research. It does entail building a knowledge base in your area of speciality too, but the main thing that distances a PhD holder from the MA holder is the program of independent research. If your PhD supervisor is doing their job correctly they will socialize you into this culture from your first year and they will not let you graduate until you are at least relatively competitive for the market (i.e., have a few peer-reviewed publications under your belt).

Since the PhD is training to do research (cf the EdD, DBA or PsyD), the majority of TT jobs require you to conduct and publish research in order to contribute to new knowledge in your field. Granted, many MAs do get involved at conferences or in other venues for professional development and publish various things (editorials; magazine pieces, etc.), but they do not have the training or mentality that comes with the intensive training for independent research that a PhD prepares you for. While they play a vital role in the professionalization of the L2 teaching profession they rarely contribute new knowledge to the field.

We also hear of PhDs in regular/visiting non-TT positions around Korea, and these people are precisely the ones who did not get the memo that a PhD lines you up at the starting line to be a "productive" researcher. They decided to focus on teaching or teacher training, both of which in reality account for only a small percentage of the TT hire's work responsibilities. I too have seen some really good peers complete their PhDs only to be stuck in revolving VAP (visiting assistant professor - i.e., adjunct) positions. It's a little sad actually.

As for the fixation on SCI ranked publications, of course western institutions and tenure review committees do weigh things like impact factor and peer-review highly, and there is a natural hierarchy where, for instance, a chapter in an edited anthology is worth marginally less than an article published in a 1st-tier peer-reviewed journal. But, there is not nearly as much of an obsession with the AHCI/SCI/SSCI holy trinity for tenure as there is in Japan, China, Korea, and the Middle East. Tenure committees want to see a balance of first-class research, teaching success, service commitments, etc. I have never heard of tenure being denied (in the west that is) over one's peer-reviewed research not being in SCI/SSCI journals. Whereas here, it seems that all I hear from faculty is the fixation on the SSCI journal article that will make or break their career.

Note also that academics at many Korean universities have not had the long history of publishing that is the norm for western institutions, so here they still do incentivize it with cash rewards (not sure what the right term would be) that are almost like a research grant after the fact. Colleagues in the west were incredulous when I mentioned supplementing my salary with these financial incentives, which are non-existent in many other countries where it is assumed that publishing research will be one of your job duties.

[PRagic]

Very insightful post. Yes, unfortunately, there are many, many doctoral degree holders that never receive opportunities to pursue tenure in a TT slot. And, as I previously posted, there are a number of people who do get into the TT, but then do not publish enough to maintain their positions.

The sad fact is that there is a dearth of TT positions in general, and only about 30% of academics will even make it onto the tenure track. I believe smaller percentages actually make it to the rank of full professor.

I would have to argue, however, that there is indeed a premium on SCI/SSCI publications in the west, at least in N. America. You need at least a handful to make it to the rank of Associate Professor, at which time you can be cleared for tenure. To make full professor in the social sciences at R1 institutions usually means that you'll need at least 30 SCI/SSCI publications and at least one major, major league grant (NSF in the US).

The market is so competitive now, that even people applying for Assistant Professor positions at decent R1 schools in the US have an AVERAGE of AT LEAST 2 SCI/SSCI publications a year since they finished their doctorate. If the university happens to have a big name and/or be located in a great place to live, it's even more competitive. So, yes, if you're stuck in visiting/adjunct positions, it becomes tougher and tougher to move up and out because you simply don't have the time or resourses to publish enough to get that competitive.

Having said this, the system in N. America is set up to allow for a steady stream of publications. By the time one has been promoted to Associate Professor, one normally has at least a few doctoral students. Any dissertation worth its salt is good for a minimum of two SSCI publications, and it is tradition to publish at least one with your advisor. So even if you're not cranking out your own research, and most have at least one project going on at any one time on their own or with a research partner, odds are that at least one publication will be coming out every year.

My understanding is that European schools aren't as hung up on SCI/SSCI publications, but the fact is that there are more than a few journals that originate out of Europe and deal almost exclusively with Euro oriented topics.

The emphasis on these peer reviewed publications here stems from a desire to move up in the international university rankings. In turn, this helps to attract better, or at least more productive, scholars.

There are TT positions at smaller, private universities and less competitive state schools that don't place such a high premium on grants and publishing; it's great if you do it, and you need to do some to keep your job and get promoted, but it's not a career breaker if you don't publish every year. These are teaching oriented positions, and the teaching load is therefore often a bit heavier than at your typical R1 school (where a 2/2 or even a 2/1 load is standard).

The long and short of it is that if you're going to make it in academe, you have to start planning well in advance of even entering your doctoral program. Where you study, your dissertation chair, your topic, the teaching and research experience you'll receive, all will impact your chances at getting that TT job. In reality, it's best to seriously consider even your major. Research it. Are there jobs or is there a total glut of Ph.D.s? Are there opportunities in the private sector if you can't get a foot in the academe door?

There has been a lot of discussion in the Chronicle of Higher Education on this very topic. The concensus seems to be that individual doctoral programs have the responsibility to research all this and to let applicants know the deal prior to actually starting up their studies. I don't agree; I think the responsibility rests with the individual. Some people have money and time and want to really get into their topic. Maybe they love 9th century Mongolian poetry and don't care if they ever get a job related to their degree.

IMHO, though, the biggest mistake people make when they decide to pursue a doctorate is to think that they'll be on easy street once they get that magic piece of paper. Nothing could be further from the truth. In actuality, that degree just gives you the minimum qualifications to break into academe, nothing more, and from there is gets mighty competitive mighty quickly.

[PRagic]

Oh, and I hear you on the book chapters. Would be great if they counted for more 'points'. I have three coming out in 2015, one solo and two with a research partner, and none of them will gain us as many points as SSCI publications.

Another thing that could be adjusted? Some universities insist on reviewing your publications every single year. That puts additional pressure on researchers to try and spread out publications rather than putting their work out there when it's actually ready. On top of the book chapters, I have 4 other SSCI publications coming out next year, partly because my individual projects came to fruition, but partly because the people I wrote some with want/need the publications for 2015. Now that means that other work I'm doing that I could possibly push ahead with for a 2015 publication will get back burnered so that I can be sure they'll come out in 2016. Kind of a pain, but there are of course worse problems to have lol...

[Weigookin74]

[PRagic]

Preaching to the choir. Yup, I have one cousin with an EdD who for some reason chose to never get any actual secondary ed teaching experience, and he has been unable to break out of adjunct status for over 5 years now; just way too many people with better degrees and real world experience. Another cousin has a Ph.D. in social work. Admirable, and she loved the work, but was never offered a tenure track gig.

Plan ahead.