next »

[Cross-Disciplinary]

I'm switching from a field in which I do not have a doctorate -- but some research experience and a few publications -- to a field where I recently got my doctorate.

As I make the transition, I want to sell myself as bringing expertise from my former (and generally unrealted) field which enhances my particular specialty in my new field.  My question is, what is the achievement threshold for earning basic credibility in a "secondary" field which will essentially be a supplement for my (new) "primary" field?

I know that I would not be competitive as a research faculty candidate in my original field without getting a doctorate and many more publications.  But how different is it when one is only seeking to establish a respectable *background* in a field?

Thanks.

[%sig%]

[Zarkov]

Interdisciplinary, cross-disciplinary, and/or multi-disciplinary work is one of those things that people in academia tout as a great idea, but it is hard to get "credit" for.  That said, (1) if you can find the overlap between the two fields, you may come close to "owning" that territory, and (2) you may find that your background is appreciated when -- for example -- they need someone with a broader background to work on redesigning the general education curriculum.

[in the midst]

Or, you might find it is valued in making strides towards working with another department/program that overlaps with your past specialization (I am also interdisciplinary in my sub-field...this is one common element for me in schools where I was invited to interview who showed great interest in the interdisciplinary aspect of my research agenda).  

In the case I purport, the "minimum" credibility may not necessarily be publication in the other discipline's major trade journals (although I'm shooting for that!), but could be as subjective as the ability to speak a common language with that other academic discipline, know some key figures and trends in the area that intersect (even remotely) with your primary, and present the ability to work towards establishing or enhancing the credibility of your department in the eyes of the other department.  It also wouldn't hurt to be familiar with funding streams of the other department/field where a bit of money could flow into your "main" area/school/department through collaboration.

Don't know whether this line of reason applies to you or not, but I do understand what you're asking!

[repackaging]

I sort of did this previously. With an MS in biology, I had a couple of publications in the field and was teaching (non-tt) at a state college.

I then completed my Ph.D. in education, so I had to repackage myself as I was applying for tt positions.  In doing so, I outlined how my previous teaching and research "made sense" in the context of my newly acquired Ph.D. (i.e., the MS + Ph.D. = larger than the sum of its parts).  I had a couple of articles merging the two fields under preview, and that was enough. I was able to land a tt position without a publication in education.

I must however state that this may also depend on the "value" or perceived value of your "previous" discipline--not necessarily relevance.

Not sure how this would have worked, had my Master's been in Education and my Ph.D. in biology...  I don't think it would have helped me land a tt job at all, no matter how I packaged myself, mostly because the field of education isn't usually really valued/appreciated by other departments... In such a case, it might make sense instead to downplay your Master's altogether.

[%sig%]