next »

[janewales]

There's no indication of geographic inertia in my department either. The faculty are from 8 or 9 different countries, and those who are from this country come from all over. We're in a fairly large, culturally diverse city.

[lotsoquestions]

I've seen some of the geezers in our department dismiss candidates and refuse to interview on the grounds that "he'd never move here."  But I think that's mostly a ploy so that they don't ever have to encounter any real competition from people whose credentials are better than their own.

[mleok]

Have you all observed any pattern of geographic inertia (the tendency for people to hire those from their general region) in hiring?  In my field (ecology/environmental science) it would have obvious practical advantages, as places have a lot of unique species and dynamics.  I do know that tippity top tier schools are more cosmopolitan, and therefore, more likely to hire from other such institutions regardless of geography, but is this the case more generally? 

So, if a hypothetical candidate from S. California, or Atlanta, applied to a job in Maine, would they be at a minor disadvantage compared to a similar candidate from Massachusetts or Vermont, all else being equal? If this exists, how strong is it? What are the mechanisms?

This issue is something where magnitude of the disadvantage in a particular instance is comparable to variation across institutions. If one has to make a gross simplification, then I would imagine that such a disadvantage is more significant at small, insular schools, in geographically undesirable locations. As many have alluded to, this would tend to fall into the catchphrase of "fit."

Like many hypotheticals, this broad question has little practical relevance to the success of an individual on the job market. In particular, if you see from the department listing possible evidence of geographic inertia, then it might be worthwhile spending more time crafting a cover letter that reflects an understanding of the departmental context.

Fedscholar, apart from crafting cover letters that emphasize your qualifications and how they address the needs of the department and institution, why worry about things that you have little (no) control over? Perhaps you're digging for a post-hoc justification for conducting a geographically limited search, but otherwise, what can you do but continue to apply to every job that you feel you are well qualified for? I, for one, would not advocate conducting a geographically limited search on the basis of any perceived "geographic inertia" in hiring, if one is truly serious about obtaining a permanent academic job.

[fedscholar]

I suppose mleok's assessment is partially correct for me. Always looking to limit my wasted time. However, I was interested in the topic, as it might be that some cultural connections or expectations might be important.
It is of personal interest, because my slice of heaven (the West) is pretty hosed at the moment, I have tried to look as broadly as possible. When I look across the country, it is hard to seem convincing that I would leave 20+ years of western experience to start up frest in, say, Michigan. And even if I wanted to, I think it would be hard to compete with those with local knowledge and connections. Although I recognize the problems with a geographically limited search, I figured if I could get some insights into the sticky points, it might be useful.

However, the thread responses have been interesting. It seems like the low likelihood of retention is one important issue for less desirable locales. I can see that, I guess. And yet other fields are more highly cosmopolitan. I know that one university in my field has staffed itself with a very large proportion of international scholars, which is pretty cool, and also a bit odd, given the obvious place-based character of ecology. I don't know the backstory on that.

[totoro]

It is true that the ecologists here are less international than people in other disciplines. In other words, they are almost all Australians or rather got their PhDs here in Australia. So maybe this is a feature of the ecology market. Whereas economics is loaded with foreigners and Australians who got foreign (usually US and UK) PhDs.

[losemygrip]

Oh my gosh.  Don't get me started on regionalism in faculty hiring.  It's one of academe's dirty little secrets. 

It definitely does happen, and it's frequently because administration will not immediately approve tenure-track national searches.   Departments end up having to hire temps or part-timers, who are typically local, and then when the full-time position opens, you have the inside candidate problem.  (Refer to other threads on this topic, but I do believe that while it isn't constant, inside candidates are often the source of the regional hirings.)

I have also noted what someone else did about California schools.  In my field it's certainly very prevalent, particularly at Cal State campuses. 

There's also a real northeastern/Ivy League bias, although Berkeley has made real inroads into that of late.  Columbia has Yale and Harvard grads, Yale has Harvard and Columbia grads, etc.  Very incestuous.

Of course, the research angle is something I hadn't thought of before.  It makes sense for someone doing coastal ecology, for example, to be hanging around in certain places.  (But not applicable in my field.)

[copper]

In my field (ecology/environmental science) it would have obvious practical advantages, as places have a lot of unique species and dynamics. 

If the concepts that form the core of your research are relevant only to the unique species/dynamics of one area, we're not going to interview you, even if that one area is three miles away.

So, if a hypothetical candidate from S. California, or Atlanta, applied to a job in Maine, would they be at a minor disadvantage compared to a similar candidate from Massachusetts or Vermont, all else being equal? If this exists, how strong is it? What are the mechanisms?

This is an issue that sometimes comes up in searches, and, ceteris paribus, I think there is a slight advantage.  As you suggest, one mechanism that is peculiar to ecology/environment is in field sites.  But it is not just a question of whether you're familiar with local habitats and can launch a local research program without having to do a bunch of unpublishable baseline observational work, but also a question of potential collaborations (potential collaborations is a major consideration in our deliberations).  Most of our field-oriented biologists have some kind of local work, and the more people working in the same area, the more opportunities there are for going after the huge grants.  That said, most of our field-oriented biologists also have field sites far away -- so if you work far away, but in the same place one or more of us do, again you have a slight advantage based on potential collaborations.  But since so many of us work in places that are far away, we also know that can work out just fine, and we are experienced in working our university's system so that if you need to spend three months on the other side of the world, you can.

However, whatever geographic (dis)advantage there is, it is much, much smaller than in USGS or EPA.  All of the positions I ever considered applying for in those agencies emphasized knowledge of local habitats/biota as an important criterion of evaluation. 

Like others said, you have no control over your geographic history.  But you can make us see collaboration opportunities, regardless of where you work.  If you do that better than someone with local ties, you win.

-Cu

[fedscholar]

Interesting take Copper.

I would say that few ecological specialties are absolutely linked to a local site, but I suspect there would be a nontrivial association. I do agree that state and federal agencies often have quite a bit of geographic inertia, so you can end up wedded to a locale. What I find interesting is people who spend most or all of their career studying a single species or group of species with a fairly restricted range (spotted owl, marbled murrelet, bull trout, Yosemite toad,etc.).  I don't do that.   My personal experience is that generalities that stretch across agencies or regions and countries are sometimes ignored entirely by government agencies, whereas the same internal topics (e.g., invasive species) are discussed to death. But that is another topic.