next »

[hegemony]

Novelists talk about "the breakout novel" -- the one that takes them from another weakly-selling name on the list to actual attention.  In academia I think every discipline has also seen its breakout ideas -- bigger steps forward, or at least more prominent steps forward, than the tiny increments of knowledge by which the field usually moves.

So if ever I'm going to have a breakout idea in my career, I've now had one. I put X and Y together with A and B, and thought, "But wait a minute!  If we formulate it like this, it explains all of this!  It's a unified field theory!  It's the answer to something people have been nibbling away at for some time, but in one all-encompassing theory.  It cures cancer!  It brings peace to the Middle East!  It..."  Well, perhaps I'm getting a little carried away, but it actually is a pretty good idea, and very likely the best one I'll ever have.

I've had a couple of illuminating ideas before, and generally I publish them and they sink without trace.  I get footnoted by a handful of people who then get delegated to footnotes themselves, and the total impact is pretty tiny.  I suspect this happens to many of our ideas, many of them more potentially world-shaking than mine.  I'm always reading books that promise to deliver a bold new paradigm, and a whole new vocabulary to talk about this and that, and the vocabulary is never used again and nobody refers to the bold new paradigm.  And sometimes those books are fluff, but sometimes they're excellent and they're just lost in the din.

So my question is: how do the people whose ideas get noticed do it?  What is the actual career path of those ideas?  I don't doubt that some of it is luck.  But what's the part that's not luck?  What's the path, as you've observed it?  How do those game-changers get their game-changing noticed?  What would you do with a Breakout Idea?

[weathered]

Relentless, aggressive, and almost shameless self-promotion. Unfortunately, it seems to work for some people.

[bwwm1]

One possibility that could help is to get someone who's very prominent in your field to take notice and endorse your book (if that's the publication venue you're planning on following). Some publishers ask who could provide an endorsement for your book, and if you choose carefully, then this person could begin relying on your research. I've had the fortunate experience of someone who's prominent in my field do just this with my book. He's started citing it in his publications and drawn more attention to it than I could ever have done and for that I'm most grateful. I evidently have no idea what this will translate into in the long run.

[pgher]

If you're in a journal field, don't try to write one mammoth, field-changing paper. Write one significant one, then a flurry of extensions, explorations, etc. Get your work in front of people in lots of venues, like conferences.

[larryc]

I think this varies by field.

In history, you need to turn your idea into a catchy phrase and concept. The Middle Ground. It needs to be right there in the book title and you present it in the intro as more than an explanation of events in your study, but a model that could be applied elsewhere. The book should be preceded by an article and some conference presentations that outline your discovery. And then:

Relentless, aggressive, and almost shameless self-promotion.

I cut out "shameless" because it is nothing to be ashamed of. Your idea must be promoted, for the good of humanity. Or are you just going to hide your cancer cure under the rug?

[weathered]

You didn't cut out shameless, you cut out "almost." :)

I think this varies by field.

In history, you need to turn your idea into a catchy phrase and concept. The Middle Ground. It needs to be right there in the book title and you present it in the intro as more than an explanation of events in your study, but a model that could be applied elsewhere. The book should be preceded by an article and some conference presentations that outline your discovery. And then:

Relentless, aggressive, and almost shameless self-promotion.

I cut out "shameless" because it is nothing to be ashamed of. Your idea must be promoted, for the good of humanity. Or are you just going to hide your cancer cure under the rug?

[larryc]

You didn't cut out shameless, you cut out "almost." :)

I think this varies by field.

In history, you need to turn your idea into a catchy phrase and concept. The Middle Ground. It needs to be right there in the book title and you present it in the intro as more than an explanation of events in your study, but a model that could be applied elsewhere. The book should be preceded by an article and some conference presentations that outline your discovery. And then:

Relentless, aggressive, and almost shameless self-promotion.

I cut out "shameless" because it is nothing to be ashamed of. Your idea must be promoted, for the good of humanity. Or are you just going to hide your cancer cure under the rug?

Du'oh!

My point remains: Shamelessness is for winners.