How to strategise your career

If you aspire to build a career in academia and ultimately secure tenure as a philosophy professor someday, you will need a career strategy. This strategy involves pondering and resolving individual choices related to research problems, dissemination of outputs, job applications, international networking, and personal branding. Keep in mind that all strategies are individual and unique, but having some form of strategy is a common aspect of approaching an academic career. The following guide summarises what I have learned from my personal experience navigating the tumultuous seas of postdoctoral research and serving as a trusted adviser to many early-career scholars and gifted students in Europe and abroad.

Academic narratives

Consider the following statement: “Academia is a global collaborative framework in which all actors are given equal opportunities (no matter their history, nationality, or wealth) and are evaluated only in consideration of their current merits and future potential”. While this narrative projects an idealised image of academia, it does not always align with reality.

The academic narrative suggests that universities are open, collaborative spaces based on meritocratic principles, where the brightest students and researchers will have the best careers. Unfortunately, this is not often the case. The academic narrative assumes an academic level playing field that is supposedly identical in all scientific domains, countries and regions, disciplines, universities, and departments. However, consider the following (imaginary) cases:

Elizabeth is a bright student from an economically depressed area of England, where schools do not have a good reputation. Will she get into Oxford?

Mark has just defended a brilliant PhD thesis at the University of Montana. Should he apply for a postdoc at Harvard?

Fatima has worked very hard with her postdoc in Rabat, and her studies have been much appreciated by her department. Should she apply for a research grant in Spain?

Vladimir is the editor of the most relevant philosophy journal in Serbia but cannot manage to attract any big names from the US. What could he do?

Lin is a very important professor in China, and her recent studies have dramatically contributed to the debate. Despite her significant contributions to the debate, why do her Western colleagues not frequently cite her work?

The academic playing field is uneven: all academics know that. Individual academic profiles – the main factor leading to an appointment for a position or the awarding of a grant – depend too much on the individual material background (country of provenance, availability of resources, etc.) and not enough on individual capabilities and potentialities. This situation has historically led to an ineffective allocation of resources, with mediocre yet wealthy students from first-world countries being able to obtain degrees at prestigious universities, while brilliant yet not wealthy students have to struggle to carve out their path to tenure.

The academic narrative, however, tells a different story. Why is that? I believe that there are at least three main reasons why the academic narrative is deployed and spread. First, to attract new students: much often, the money that departments get is directly related to the number of students they have. Second, to attract postdoctoral researchers: postdocs usually work and publish more than tenured faculty, also in reason of the constant threat of “publish or be jobless.” Departments gain in terms of money (often related to the number of publications), visibility (publications), and prestige (international researchers). Third, to attract public funds by committing to advance science and knowledge, foster social mobility, and build a more cohering and better society.

Structural randomness

Another significant obstacle in formulating a successful strategy is the presence of structural randomness. The academic job market is inherently characterised by a certain degree of unpredictability in the hiring process (as well as concerning other aspects of academic life and practices). What is crucial to understand it that possessing an impressive CV does not guarantee anticipated outcomes in terms of securing a job, obtaining a research grant, or even having a paper accepted for publication.

This unpredictability in the job market is also influenced by the individual, incidental priorities of those participating in the selection process. Notable instances include, for instance, a hiring committee seeking a different approach than yours, a journal referee disagreeing with one of your secondary claims, a grant referee harbouring personal dislikes, a rapporteur being affected by a lack of sleep before the evaluation meeting.

Compounding this, an additional consideration is the opposing trends of the CV and employability curves. Over time, a young scholar enhances her profile (reflected in her CV) through continuous work and sacrifices. Each passing year brings a replenished CV with additional items, including new publications, research posts, and taught courses. This results in a steadily increasing CV curve: the longer the time, the more impressive the CV appears.

However, the employability curve follows a different trajectory. Universities typically seek to hire either (1) young, brilliant scholars with a remarkable record of outputs or (2) advanced scholars who already hold a job, usually with tenure. A senior scholar without a permanent position raises doubts: why doesn’t she have tenure if she is so accomplished? The academic narrative obscures the actual reasons, often tied to contextual problems within the job market (an uneven playing field).

Funding your research

Research is typically financed through the submission and evaluation of proposals. A research proposal serves as a structured, detailed statement of intent, wherein the proponent outlines the significance of future research to persuade funders and their representatives to sponsor its execution. There are three primary types of research proposals, particularly in the context of philosophy: (1) doctoral proposals, primarily aimed at research-based training; (2) postdoctoral proposals, which also focus on training through research but with slight variations; (3) research grants, designed to accomplish a more extensive research goal involving multiple individuals.

These three types of proposals can be categorised into two main classes: (1) training proposals (PhD and postdocs), where research must be relevant, and the proponent must be trained for the next stage of their career; (2) grant proposals (research grants), where research must be cutting-edge and extensive enough not to be undertaken by a single scholar alone.

The fundamental structure of research proposals remains largely consistent across all types. Generally, only the level of specialisation and the scope of the research substantively change from one stage to the next. Naturally, referees’ expectations will also vary based on the type of funding being sought.

With doctoral proposals, the emphasis is on demonstrating valuable potentialities that warrant training. The expectation is not that you are already a scholar, but rather a potential scholar at the outset, becoming a proper scholar upon completion of doctoral training.

For postdoctoral proposals, the focus shifts to proving that you are a promising “young” researcher on the trajectory to becoming an independent scholar and eventually securing tenure. By funding your research, the institution acknowledges that you deserve the opportunity to progress further towards tenure.

Within the training proposal category, it is crucial to distinguish between two types of funding for both doctoral and postdoctoral projects: (1) individual fellowships, adopting a bottom-up approach where you propose and carry out your research project independently; (2) grant-related fellowships, adopting a top-down approach where you work on someone else’s research project and align your research with that project.

It is essential to note that, following the defence of your dissertation, time becomes a critical factor. Most European postdocs and research grants impose strict eligibility criteria, allowing applications only within specific time frames related to your thesis defence. For example: FWO Junior Postdoc: up to 3 years after your PhD; FWO Senior Postdoc: from 3 to 6 years after your PhD; ERC Starting Grant: up to 7 years after your PhD, and so on.

Geographical specificities

Much of what happens after you get your PhD title depends on where you are located and where are you able (psychologically and materially) to go.

United States. Graduates from Ivy League universities enjoy broad opportunities and can likely aspire to tenure-track positions immediately. If not from an Ivy League, the path may be more challenging. Career options in the US include short/long-term teaching positions, tenure tracks in smaller or mid-sized colleges, or postdocs with grants or foundations. In the US, tenure often comes early in a scholar’s career, followed by potential moves to more prestigious institutions.

United Kingdom. Graduates from Oxbridge or select institutions can expect quicker opportunities. All may consider postdocs (e.g., JRF or others) and then pursue tenure-track positions. Tenure in the UK often occurs at a young age. TIP: If you come from the European Union, remember to consider that the UK has Brexited a few years ago, with important consequences for EU citizens living there.

China. The Chinese academic system has been changing fast lately. While universities differ regarding their hiring processes, you can aim at getting a postdoc and, soon afterwards, starting a tenure track process. The latter usually starts with an assistant professorship (around 6 years in which you have adhere to strict criteria for publication), followed by a promotion to associate professor and then to tenure (either as associate or full professor) if you met all the established criteria. TIP: Do consider the Chinese job market. Its opening to global academia and the high ranking of some universities (e.g., 北大) is turning it into a much prestigious choice.

European Union: European academia relies on a challenging system of postdocs and research grants, significantly shaping careers and personal identities. On average, about 8 years and 3 to 4 postdocs are needed to secure a position (if at all). Variables affecting this timeline include your field of study, academic CV, transferrable skills, personal flexibility, financial resources, geographical origin, psychological resilience, and non-academic priorities. While theoretically possible, getting tenured right after your PhD is very rare. The timing of tenure, if achieved, varies based on your discipline, CV, and luck, occurring at any point in the process. The graphic below depicts the usual pathway to tenure that you can expect in continental Europe (and not only there, unfortunately).

While there is a good degree of randomness in any academic career and you may (or may not) get tenure at any point of your research career, there is one thing that is utterly clear: For most steps you take, you will have to write a research proposal. This is why understanding how research proposal work is probably the most important and consequential skill you will acquire. For further insights on research proposals, see the dedicated page on this website (still under construction).