Learning from my PhD mistakes (and there were many!)

When I think back to my PhD now – which you can read here if you have a sudden bout of insomnia – I sometimes cringe a little … well, maybe a lot depending on what day I (try not to) think about it. This is not only because I came to hate my PhD – well, mostly – but also because I end up thinking another mistake I made at some point during the process. I’ve actually run a workshop with graduate students specifically called “learning from my mistakes” which was about identifying the various ways I would do things differently if I had a time machine – why I’d bother re-doing my PhD if I actually did have a time machine is not worth asking!

I thought it might be useful to outline the various ways I managed to screw up my PhD in this blog, primarily as a learning exercise for others about to embark on this journey or those already on their way. Now, I have to say at the start that my PhD passed with pretty minor corrections – they took me a weekend to do – so I obviously managed to pull things together at the end, but for a long time I went through the usual doctoral angst, especially the night before my viva.

Anyway, here goes with displaying my dirty pages for all to see …

REVIEW: The Rise and Fall of Neoliberalism

A nice review by Sean Phelan of The Rise and Fall of Neoliberalism published in 2013 Critical Discourse Studies 10(1), 117-119.

Sean Phelan ends with the following ...

"Overall, this book is well worth a read. It contains a number of excellent contributions, with the chapters by Jessop, MacLeavy, Tyfield, Fine, and Lohmann worthy of special mention. The editors also deserve praise: the book includes a lot of thoughtful cross-referencing of arguments from chapter to chapter that is not always evident in edited volumes. The neoliberal zombie may limp along, but thoughtful interventions like this help us better understand what a proper death might look like. It also underscores how its death will necessitate a politics of recomposition that creates a different kind of social order from the legacy and effects of our neoliberalized inheritance."

At the risk of annoying (British) people ...

I think I may have offended some British academics with a recent blog post ...

I thought it might be helpful to write about why I wrote what I did. Over the last year or so and as a result of moving to Canada I have come to the conclusion that collegial governance in British universities has been gradually eroded – or maybe it never really existed in the first place.

Having worked as a ‘tenure-track’ equivalent in the UK and now in Canada, I have witnessed two very different ways that universities can be run. In contrast to Canada, and from my experience, there seems to be very limited collegial governance in British universities, especially for junior academics on the first rungs of the ever-so-greasy career ladder. This might be hard to stomach as a junior (or senior) academic working in Britain, especially at a time when British-based academics are facing so many unwelcome pressures ranging from the new (e.g. Impact Agenda) to the old (e.g. RAE/REF), and from the external (e.g. market in student fees) to the internal (e.g. student demands). However, I would argue that all these pressures are part of this wider problem with collegial governance … and this is not just my perspective because others like the Campaign for the Public University are raising similar concerns about where British universities are headed.

I want to make my comments here more concrete by referring to the specific example of departmental hiring decisions – the topic of the offensive post I mentioned above. A concrete example will help to illustrate the differences between collegial governance in Britain and Canada as I have experienced them. I’ve outlined these in a table for convenience sake. Where I am unclear about the process (for want of experience) I have speculated – on the basis of anecdotes, hearsay, etc. – and highlighted that it is speculation.

For North Americans: the peculiar British interview process

REPOSTED at The Professor Is In ... (02 April 2013)

I wanted to write a post for North Americans seeking jobs in the UK academic labour market. First, because there seem to be far more jobs over there at the minute and turnover is definitely higher; both result from institutional pressures like the RAE/REF – and if you don’t know what those are and want a job in the UK then best get reading! But I also wanted to forewarn and forearm applicants about the peculiarities of the UK interview process. Having been through the wringer a few times already – see this post – I thought I might be able to say something helpful.

Much of this is taken from my experiences with several interviews in the UK, including with members of the Russell Group. If you’re North American (or from elsewhere) then you’ll need to find out what that means – see here – as Britain has a finely honed hierarchy of universities, as with everything else in its class-obsessed culture. To start with, it’s worth pointing out that in several cases, the jobs I’ve applied for were not always a step-up so I was sometimes rather ambivalent about them. This likely affected my 'performance' on the day and my view of process, detrimentally in some cases. It is also worth pointing out that now I have had experience with the North American interview process, I tend to unfavourable compare the British process to the North American one.

Workshop: Dimensions of Value and Values in STS

I will be participating in a PhD 'training workshop' at the University of Edinburgh next month called Dimensions of Value and Values in Science, Technology and Innovation Studies (17-18th April).

There might still be spaces left for PhD students to apply ... although maybe it's too late in the day now.

Endorsement: "Resistance in an Age of Austerity"

I was recently asked to read and write an endorsement for Owen Worth's Resistance in an Age of Austerity which is going to be published by Zed Books early next year. It's a really interesting book which examines the rise of conservative and religious social movements in response to the problems of (neoliberal) globalization, as well as the (apparent) failure of left-wing social movements to offer alternatives in light of the ongoing global financial crisis.What I said:

"Neoliberalism is rising, phoenix-like from the ashes of the financial crisis, while the left flounders. By showing how the crisis has, in fact, been hijacked by conservative and religious movements from around the world, this incredibly timely and insightful book provides an important answer to why no left alternative has emerged. A must for anyone interested in resisting neoliberalism".

Well worth a read when it comes out - no pun intended!

Merged: A Hybrid Show

I just wanted to 'advertize' this art show called Merged: A Hybrid Show, which is about to start in Toronto this week - opening night is Thursday 20th from 7pm, I think. It's at the Felix Norman Gallery on Queen West.

I really enjoy the work of one of the artists, Tony Taylor, who'll have his work on display. To quote from Tony Taylor's website ...

"This collection of work is a reflection on world economic forums and G summit series and how they undermine democracy and often lead to violently disrupting the civilians and cities in which they are hosted. These well-publicized events highlight an opportunity for world leaders and corporations to bump elbows, share anecdotes and discuss economic philosophy, disregarding any opportunity for public participation or representation.  For me these events resemble a gathering of the animal powerhouse’s from the financial and political jungles where only the wealthy survive..."

Just one of his paintings ...

"The Emergence of a New Asset Class" (2012) - Tony Taylor

It's not just the 1%

Just had another short piece published on the New Left Project website called 'It's not just the 1%' - it's part of a series on 'The Politics of Housing' that NLP are running over about a week or so.

"Over the last year there has been much talk of the wealth and power of the top 1% heralding the return to the Gilded Age of the early 20^th century. The Occupy Movement arose in response to this increasingly blatant concentration of income and wealth at the top of society, compounded by corporate malfeasance and complicity in the origins of the ongoing financial crisis. This radical inequality has been most obvious in those countries most traumatized by years of supposedly free market restructuring ..."

Read the rest of the piece here.