So... you study development? How to have lunch with a big shot researcher

5/5/2014

My take on this answer basically comes down to what my mom told me is "making conversation," but it matters more when you have exactly one hour with someone important.

1. Introduce yourself with some interesting things and say a bit about what you study. The big shots meet a lot of people- make yourself unique, confident and engaged.

2. Be excited about what you study or plan to study, even if you're still early in your research or not sure what your topic will be. Say something brief that you're passionate about exploring (migration and domestic work?) or mention a really cool research question (what is the impact of remittances on school choices?). Step 1 and 2 are really important if the big shot meeting is over lunch. She needs time to eat.

3. Ask for advice. That's basically why your advisor sets up these lunch opportunities for you. The person you are lunching with is a big shot and she is taking time to speak to you. Run your research ideas by her and see what she thinks. Ask for paper recommendations (top three favorite fertility papers?), fieldwork suggestions, good conferences and other folks to talk to on your subject.

4. If introductions, research topics and advice don't generate enough conversation, ask questions. These should be specific, but not overly technical, questions (in the talk you gave this morning, why did you decide to use that instrument? Is it fairly well established in the labor literature?) Also ask questions about the direction of research in your field. Don't make the guest have to create conversation about the weather.

5. It's OK to play the name game. You went to undergrad with her former advisee and softball teammate? Sure. Everybody loves this person? Great, start the conversation with an awesome person you both appreciate. I do this all the time. The academic world is small and this is bound to happen anyway.

4 Comments

anon

5/6/2014 08:01:36 am

I hope that this advice was meant to be at least partly tongue-in-cheek. Offering a confident introduction and a succinct, prepared description of one’s own research agenda are both solid, if unsurprising, tips. You should certainly ask for advice about your own research, because that’s what academics do when they get together to talk. Don’t ask, “so, do you think this is a good idea?” or “what do you think I should do next?” Ask focused questions, like “have I convinced you that contamination will not be a problem with individual-level randomization?” Ask questions that your guest is well-suited to answer – things that relate to her expertise, not necessarily to the paper she is presenting this trip. “I know you measured risk preferences with incentivized games in your Kenya paper; do you think it is important to use real-stakes games in my context?” Do not ask questions that are overly generic, ask for advice you should be getting locally, or ask for advice you have no intention to follow.

But please, do not cheapen the meaningful professional encounter you’ve built up by name-dropping. This is not a first date or an interview with Oprah. It’s a professional meeting. Keep it that way. If you have a professional connection – say, you collected data in the same remote corner of Tanzania – it’s fine to mention it. Otherwise, making tangential personal connections rather than substantive academic discussion the basis of your interaction just undermines your own credibility. It might make the conversation easy to start or give you a superficial sense of belonging or approval, but you get those things at the expense of the opportunity to have a professional conversation in which you are taken seriously on your own merits. The latter is far more valuable in the long run. You’d much prefer to be remembered as the girl with the interesting field randomization problem in Peru than the girl who is friends with your former RA – and for better or for worse, this is especially true if you are a young woman.

Aine link

5/6/2014 09:47:15 am

Thanks for these comments. These are some valid criticisms and add a lot of perspective to my very student-centered advice.

First, yes, this post is meant to be slightly facetious and humorous. I have found it both surprising and awkward to sit through some lunches (with visiting speakers or department faculty candidates) where conversation is painfully lacking. Although it should be understood that asking focused research questions creates good conversation and knowledge sharing in a professional meeting, I have been frustrated to observe cases where questions are overly vague (i.e. the title of this post) and research descriptions lack confidence. I've also been known to poke fun of the socially awkward status quo (myself included!) in academia.

As for the name game, you offer a thought-provoking and critical response. Let me be clear that I perceive the name-game to be quite different from name-dropping. My intention was to suggest making light of a mutual friend ("an awesome person you both appreciate"), not just a former RA. In fact, from my social experiences, the name-game is actually "played" in the context of attending school (mostly high school and college) where the relations to these people is more social than professional. Name-dropping, on the other hand, seems to be brining up a person in a conscious effort to impress. Although these two may seem close (especially if your mutual friend is impressive), I do feel that I have the social insight to observe the difference. However, perhaps I am incorrect (and to my surprise, unprofessional) to assume that mutual friends are appropriate for a research lunch conversation.

In fact, the last thing I want to do, especially given that I am female and apparently thus judged more harshly for appearing less serious, is undermine my credibility. I do appreciate your honesty in pointing out that women might be judged more critically for this. It brings up some questions and makes me second-guess my advice. It’s true that mentioning a mutual friend does more for the “making conversation” side of things than focused research advice.

But if I’ve established myself as a serious academic by engaging in interesting research discussion and explaining my concise ideas (say, approximately following steps 1-4), do I still undermine my credibility if I am female and I mention a mutual friend?

Lastly, I think another piece of advice comes out of your response. You mention asking questions that relate to the guest’s experience, not just the paper she presented today. It’s extremely valuable to do your homework and read up on this person (or in most of my cases, do my homework when her papers were assigned) before the meeting. This way, you can have access to even more research questions, and find something that may relate more to your own topic.

Aine link

5/6/2014 09:55:59 am

One final note. The entire context of this post assumes that the writer (me) or any advice-taker is in graduate school. This is at least over the age of twenty-two. I’d rather be remembered as the woman who is friends with your former RA than the girl with the interesting field randomization. My professional seriousness was already compromised by the fact that you remember me as a girl.

Abby

5/6/2014 10:51:34 am

First a response to the current conversation. My take on this post is slightly different given that I work in the private sector and am entering business school at U of M this fall. I am constantly networking, though not about my research. The tenets of networking, however, are very similar.

In my experience, while I don't actively seek out the name game, it often occurs. People are curious when we're working in a similar field, who I've worked with and who I've networked with. Sometimes it does come down to personal pieces of where we grew up or who we know socially. If a networking meeting gets that comfortable, great, we go there. if not, then we speak only of professional associations. There is always the danger in bringing up social connections of bordering on gossipy or finding out two people are not fond of each other, etc.

For me, i read point 5 as saying that it can be okay to connect with other researchers in a social way and not just about their research. I think I would frame the final point as: Be open to connecting with the person you are meeting with on topics outside of your shared research topic. For some that will be talking about commonly known people, for others a sport you both played, a team you're a fan of, or the book you're reading. My point is that often there can be space to have a greater connection if you find areas where you connect beyond your shared research interests (and knowing this won't be the case with everyone!) Overall, I think that when working in a small world where you are likely to know some overlapping people, it's an easy connection to make.

Second - I want to talk about the second point. Because it's so important! Being able to concisely explain interests and focus (even if it isn't completely ironed out in one's mind yet) is essential to engaging another person and allowing them to delve into talking about their work. Having confidence and clearly communicating what you are working on and being excited about it allows for the other person to do the same.

So... you study development? How to have lunch with a big shot researcher

Leave a Reply.

Aine Seitz McCarthy

Categories