I’ve recently spent a lot of time in our HR suite conducting job interviews and here are the answers to questions at interview that I suggest avoiding or at least thinking about a bit more.
My upfront disclaimer: – a) this is just my view, b) there is no academia, if you are an an ECR, talk with a trusted mentor who understands your field better than I do – there are lots of difference between fields and this means a sensible answer in one area is a dumb one in another.
So here are some random thoughts in no particular order.
I’m going to publish all of the things!
Now this varies depending on if you are an ECR or a bit further on in your career but the key rule is that it’s got to be credible in light of your CV. In a tough job market it’s very easy to over-promise but for various reasons (partly to do with changes to the REF that is a different blog entirely) it is better to have a clear research strategy that shows you are selective. I’m more interested in a candidate who can articulate a pipeline of strong outputs (which could be papers, book chapters) that are fewer in number than some promises that indicate that you are an alien who doesn’t need to sleep or that you are completely unrealistic about what can be done in a specific time-frame.
Dr. Kieran Fenby-Hulse makes a good point (and he makes many excellent points about research you should follow him) that your covering letter is where you should outline your research narrative. It’s good advice because covering it there forces you to articulate it clearly to yourself before anyone else.
Now if you feel that you have under-performed because of factors such as working in an institution that has given you a heavy teaching load I think it’s perfectly OK to mention that but I’d always link it to a discussion of material that you can output with more support/time.
If you are coming from a professional background and this is your entry into the academy you might be a bit stumped by this question of research anyway. I’d suggest having a chat with a friend who is an academic before the interview and have a thinking about what in your current practice might be developed into a research area. I’ve seen professional candidates (and Business Schools get a lot as do media schools and so on) come unstuck because they confuse Academic with Teacher. Academics teach but we do more than that and you need to make sure you understand that before going in. I have never once seen a professional who if they cannot answer this question where I do not think “You fool! That work you did with organisation X would be an amazing study”.
I use all the journals!
You are doing super-well and then one of the panel asks ‘So what do you consider your go-to journals to inform your teaching’. Now this isn’t a question that I actually ask myself but it’s one I’ve seen asked in interview and its one that has completely thrown people and I’ve seen strong candidates crumble. Fundamentally if you claim to be an expert in area X, we’d expect you to be able to at least *name* some journals in your area. You might even give a ‘depends’ answer but if you cannot name one…
I use YouTube all the time in my teaching!
This one is a bit of a baffler – at some point, you might get asked, ‘what do you consider to be innovative in your teaching?’ and quite a few candidates them go on about how they make use of YouTube. Now I use Youtube myself but it raises more questions than it answers. Most UK Universities spend a lot of money on various services (BOB, Lynda.com) and candidates who talk about making use of the existing T&L infrastructure in their University indicate to me that they are engaged with what is going on in their University and what it provides. It also suggests to me they are engaging with their Learning Technologists or at least reading the updates they sent out.
I can totally explain that thing you asked me about, I’m an expert in whatever it is
A usual way for a panel to conduct an interview is to divide up the questions and ask the same ones to all of the candidates. Now as a rule of thumb, people get questions based on their own specialism or job role… or they totally go off and ask whatever question they like. The bottom line is disregarding questions about your own research, the person asking it is likely to know the boundaries of any response.
The question might be about subject-level TEF, it might be about REF Impact case studies, it might be about anything. The bottom line is that bullshitting your way to an answer is the worse possible thing to do. The long you ramble on with your made-up answer, the worse it gets. The person asking the question is nodding and smiling not because they think your answer makes sense but because they feel sorry for you.
Think about this – the interview panel are likely at this all day and depending on how many posts they have to offer, doing this tomorrow as well. When asked, take a moment to consider your answer – even saying “let me think about that question for a second”. Then provide the answer in the least possible words you can manage. We thank you for this.
Good question, my current University is crap
This is a tricky one – are there a lot of bad practices in HE – yes, is there bullying – yes, Do Straight White Guys have a much easier time – absolutely. However your interview is really not the time to hash out your problems with your line manager, your department, your dean or anyone else. The real problem with raising this in an interview is that the interviewer has no way of assessing the validity of your complaints and therefore has to consider your complaints in a vacuum. Reveal all *AFTER* you get the job.
Did I mention my PhD is from X
Yes repeatedly – The TEF and REF assess your University, we don’t. It’s really not a significant factor once you are in the interview room.
Hey Charles let’s take about our kids, I’m a male candidate and we can bond over this.
This is an answer to a question I never asked and I don’t have any – stop it.
Thanks I don’t need the feedback
You didn’t get the job, so why don’t you want the feedback to find out why? A surprising number of candidates decide that it’s not worth having. Baffling.