Is it just me...

...or is this just weird? It's the second column written by two academics going on the job market together, although they're not a romantic couple. As far as I can tell, the only thing they share is an academic field and extensive collaboration. They argue that they do their best academic work together, so they're going on the market together.

I have to acknowledge that my own discipline (history) is notoriously individualistic and has no real tradition of collaborative work, so maybe this isn't as strange as I think it is, but I just really don't get this. Especially in these days of global connectedness, do you really have to be at the same institution as someone to work with them? Why would you want to link your career permanently to another person's in this way? What's the incentive for the hiring institution?

Am I missing something?

Updated to add: Okay, so there are a lot of interesting comments, many of which don't find this particularly odd. I think this is a disciplinary/institutional divide, as I don't think you're going to see this kind of hire happen in history departments/at small teaching schools any time in the near future (history departments do on occasion hire two-for-one, so to speak, but invariably this is a spousal/partner hire). And I should also add that my question didn't mean to imply any disrespect to the two scholars involved - it was just based on honest curiosity.

Comments

[drkaren]

Its not you. I think that it is totally weird.... But, interesting. If the presence of 2 researchers with a joint agenda and "institute" potential can bolster the reputation of your PhD program, Department, or Uni, so be it!
What are the chances of finding a package deal, though? I suppose if they are "hot" enough, there will be departments willing to buck up. (Hell, i bet my dean would throw lots of money at a pair if they were hot enough).

The cryptic references to marriage have me wondering if their isnt something ELSE going on there! Its clearly a joke, but still..... am always suspicious of covert romantic activity! ;-)

[New Kid on the Hallway]

I know, I wondered the same thing about their crytpicness! Although why would you write a column about this if you were trying to be cryptic?

I still have a hard time seeing this work in history (though they're not historians, of course), but then, if you had a pair of people in a field and a school had some big center of institute related to the same school, maybe...I'm so used to small teaching schools where they don't want/need more than one person per teaching field! ;-)

[profgrrrrl]

Oh that is entirely weird if there really isn't a romantic connection.

I collaborate with people all the time. They don't need to be co-located. See, we have these nifty things these days called telephones, faxes, the Internet ...

If they really need to be connected at the hip they should be writing grants to cement their deal together.

[Jeff Erickson]

I think they're a couple, or they're about to be. Notice that she writes about "the fact that we're not REALLY EVEN a couple in the romantic sense of the term". A tenured professor of English wouldn't use so many weasel words to say "we're not a couple". Like Dr. Karen said, the jokes about marriage are another clue.

Then again, their names are both male. Maybe they worried about homophobia.

I also think this is seriously weird, and I work in a field where collaboration is expected. I know several pairs of people that do their best work together, but I can't imagine any of them applying for jobs as a package, or that such an application would be considered seriously.

[negativecapability]

I don't get it either...especially since the topic they collaborate on is so specialized -- what institution needs *two* faculty members who write about video games? I can see the need for one such specialty in a media studies department or an English or literature department, but not two on the same campus (then again, I suppose I'm just stodgy and conservative). You'd think that with the emphasis on technology and such they would embrace those nifty new communication tools.

One of the reasons I'm so glad I found this group of blogs is that for a while the thought that all academics were like the people who write these articles for the Chronicle really freaked me out. (not to pass judgment on these guys but rather to say that the tone of these articles in general makes me a little queasy)

[jeremy hunsinger]

I think it is actually not so wierd, it is just 'inverse'. more and more universities are using cluster hires to hire several people in one set of related topics to gain an advantage in the competitive marketplace of higher education.... one area that some universities would like to expand into is computer games, so they are targetting those universities and hoping their package of collaborative development will prove more convincing in a cluster hire than hiring two individuals people and hoping they work together. in the end, with cluster hires you are trying to build a team that can go out and win something, be that recognition, grants, students, or something else, so they just have to convince people that their collaboration will gives the university an edge. the strategy makes sense in terms of universities that tend to do cluster hires.

as for the rest, it makes me feel like a gossip to talk about that, so i'll not.

[New Kid on the Hallway]

The cluster hire idea makes sense...I've just never taught at a school that would actually do cluster hires, so it's not something that occurs to me.

As for the gossip bit (and I wear the label proudly, because gossip is just information given a bad name), well, yes, if they are partnered then homophobia might be a concern, but it just seems strange to me that if you were in a romantic relationship with someone, but didn't want it to look like a romantic relationship, that you would then go and write a column all about how you were applying for jobs together just like a couple when you're really not a couple. (The applying together doesn't necessarily seem strange, but that you would write a column which clearly raises all these questions does.)

I should say, too, that none of this is presented in the spirit of critique - if it works, more power to them; I don't have a *problem* with this. I just find it sort of baffling.

[wolfangel]

I was once told of a pair who did the same -- also, IIRC, not romantically involved, doing most of their research together, and writing a joint dissertation(?!). But, you know, amazingly good in their field, as well as a number of years ago.

Collaboration is much easier when you're nearby, internet or not.

If they're not a couple and know they're not, perhaps it seems so obvious that they're sort of making it silly because it never occurs to them otherwise.

[jointhenoise]

I don't think its all that weird at all. My husband and one of his friends thought about doing the same thing last year. They are profesors in a rather small academic field. In reality, there are probably only about 100 active researchers in their discipline. They thought about trying to get hired together because they were unhappy where they were at (each was at different universities) and if they were jointly hired by an institution, the research group would likely become one of the strongest programs in the country for their field. They looked at it as a way to try to concentrate their energies together to do good work and share resources.

[Rudbeckia Hirta]

Now, what I want to know is what one needs to do in order to get "computer games" to be one's research area. Because I think I could be pretty productive at computer games. :)

[hc]

It is not uncommon in my field for "cluster" hires, especially for institutes that want to develop a profile in some sort of research area. But how I've seen it done is in the following way: Big Poobah is hired to "direct, oversee, nucleate" - whatever - the program. Part of the package that Big Poobah gets is significant power in deciding a certain number of hiring slots. He will generally fill some of them with junior people from current institute (the ones in favor), and leave others behind to fend for themselves (i.e., scurry for other jobs elsewhere, since they're no longer protected from the top). Then he will hire who he wants to fill the remaining slots. This scenario happens more commonly when the institute has most of its revenue from non-teaching sources (grants, industry collaboration, patient care etc.) so that the a significant portion of faculty positions/faculty salaries (even tenure-track or tenured) can be "soft" money.

Note that in this case, Big Poobah does not go out on the market together with his "collaborators" - he is Big Poobah, who is negotiating power and prestige for himself. That's the thing that makes the Chronicle scenario seem odd to me. The authors claim to have interviews, though....

[Nels]

Well, Ken and I earned our PhDs at the same place, though he finished before I started. I don't think it's so odd primarily because he was known for his original and innovative work. Plus, there is so much talk in our field (composition) about collaboration, and people have been wondering about such things as this and collaborative dissertations and such for years (I took a class in collaboration where we talked about such things). One of the reasons Andrea Lunsford moved to Stanford was to be closer to her collaborator, Lisa Ede (and, well, it is Stanford)

Did people accuse Gilbert and Gubar of being lesbians? I don't mean that to be flippant or accusatory. I really wonder about that. They seem to be the embodiment of collaboration, at least in the feminist vein.

[New Kid on the Hallway]

The 6-degrees-of-separation power of the internet - we encounter someone who knows one of these people! :-)

Nels, I don't know who Gilbert and Gubar are, but I think it would be very hard for historians to imagine getting hired as a couple (or even WANTING to be hired as a couple) unless you were in a romantic (affective? what's the best word here?) relationship. The field's just not structured like that, so I think people automatically jump to conclusions. I am a little more familiar with hc's Big Poobah model, but I agree that this column doesn't read quite like that, either.

But no disrespect intended to either of these two.

[jeremy hunsinger]

well i should admit to it also, i've met both of them, and seen them give a collaborative presentation.

[Nels]

Oh, I know you didn't mean any disrespect and I didn't read it that way. It is a case that is worthy of questions and attention.

I'm thinking of Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar who wrote The Madwoman in the Attic and really revolutionized feminist theory, at least literary theory and about the arts. They ended up doing lots of work together, and when I was in graduate school in women's studies, they were held up by some as symbolizing a new way of working together and creating scholarship not based on the masculine idea of me, me me. My article. My book. My ideas.

Composition studies (where these two were trained though they now work on literacy and electronic environments) has had a lot to say about authorship and work like this.

All that said, I cannot imagine working that closely with anyone. I am an introvert and an individualist to a T.

(And, New Kid, Da Man is in history, so I know what you're saying.)

[profgrrrrl]

I think the part that seemed weird to me was the going on the market together bit. Not the concept of a cluster hire -- have seen that happen. I do collaborate. I agree that it can be easier if you're nearby (although sometimes having 2 institutions behind you has advantages, I must say). I've seen people try to hire their friends and collaborators at their own instituations. But I've not heard of a non-romantic couple shopping schools together-- that's the element of this that seems like a new twist to me.

While I did say I think it is weird, I meant it as weird unusual, not weird bad. Just to be clear :)

[Mel]

I thought their first column was weird, and so is this one. And I think it's in some ways disingenuous -- on their part and on the Chronicle's--to be representing this situation as somehow representing a facet of the job search process.
Collaboration is one thing -- but to basically be insisting on a spousal hire for your collaborator is really not usual in humanities depts. Many institutions don't even do spousal hires, or only reluctantly. There's also the issue that one of them is established & tenured, the other a freshly minted PhD.
If Older Tenured Male professor decided to go on the job market with Sweet Young New Phd Woman everyone would assume there was another agenda beyond their supposed intellectual collaboration. I'm not saying that there is, in this case -- but that they are milking the natural curiosity to squeeze out columns about something which shouldn't even be relevant. Each of them should write his own damn job letter.

[Mel]

Gilbert and Gubar met when they both were already teaching at Indiana U, a few years before they published Madwoman in the Attic.

I think people only really assume about romantic entanglements when you're trying to weasel a t-t line for somebody. Especially in this job market.

[michelle]

I didn't read the article but I read your post and about half the comments and it sounds like this is traditional Chronicleland publicity for the academic world:

Look at us. You can do it, too. Take your significant other with you. It's not true what they tell you about living in separate places or sacrificing anything like people who are important to you.

(Totally fictionalized quote, of course. It's good to have an imagination.) Blah blah blah.

[hc]

I am amazed at the effort you go to to make sure you are not offending any of your commenters, or the authors of the piece we are commenting on. I should have gone into a field where someone gives a damn about whether someone is offended or not. (thanks for being so sweet :)

[Manorama]

I don't like the way the Chronicle represents some of these stories, either (echoing Michelle). However, I do think that generally, people are honestly trying to (perhaps having to, out of material necessity) redefine what it means to go on the job market. Stressing the importance of human connection, a human relationship, to one's work seems central to trying to change a process which requires us to forget those connections and relationships. I'm not sure how to define/understand the relationship between these two either, but perhaps that is precisely their point.

I like to think of it as assessing one's needs and pursuing jobs accordingly, resisting the abstraction of human connections that the market imposes onto us, rather than saying that someone is trying to weasel a job (that seems so...presumptious and condemning).

Btw New Kid, I will echo what is said above about how careful you are to keep your blog exchanges comfortable and respectful. This is part of what makes me look forward to reading your comments page :)

[Rana]

The only example I've ever encountered of historians being "on the market" together involved a married couple who were hired for a single position (even sharing the same office). I don't know that this is necessarily a great thing, even though it meant both of them were able to work together. I mean, they had fights over office space, and the fact that they were sharing only one salary made things difficult.

But this was a married couple, with all sorts of non-work incentives to seek employment in the same location. For a "couple" who are simply work partners... I don't know so much. It seems to me that there would be all kinds of complications to take into account (such as how tenure, benefits and office space would be managed if they are only half-time), and if I were on a hiring committee, I'd be sceptical about the long-term viability of the arrangement. What if one of them is a great colleague and hard worker, but the other isn't? What if their research interests diverge later?

Perhaps some of my reservations stem from a latent resentment that they think they could make this odd arrangement work, but I hope that's not the case. I don't find the arrangement weird so much as impractical and slightly naive. Time-shares are certainly a viable form of work-load management, but the only places they seem to be common are in the corporate world, and largely with administrative and clerical positions. I'm just not convinced that the translation to academia would be as smooth as these job-seekers would like to believe.

[dr sniffly]

I've been wondering about that one too - I have the impression that in my field it would really harm you in your job hunt, and I can't see why you'd want to do it at all, with the kind of electronic communication that's available now.

[jeremy hunsinger]

well, i don't think this is a 'spousal/partner' type hire. i think this is a hire to establish a research program or to add to an existing research program. if you think in terms of grant money from collaborative work, hiring these two could boost a program that is heavily comp-sci oriented or heavily engineering oriented by providing the collaborative focus with other disciplines that many granting programs now seem to prefer. this isn't a hire though that happens at the department level, unless it is an interdisciplinary department. it is a hire that happens because a dean or a vp sees a strategic opportunity and makes it happen. i do think it is a somewhat different mindset from a department hire. it is not an unfamiliar mindset in humanities or history though, just rarer, because money is tighter, and convincing people is harder for a number of reasons. however, i point you to two sets of cluster hires that we're doing at vt, one is in theory and has a history component, http://www.aspect.vt.edu and another is in digital arts and that crosses arts, theater, music, and engineering. those are the types of slots that these guys could take, if they were topical, but someplace like the UC system, georgia tech, some of the big midwests, and some of the major southerns uni's are looking seriously into establishing computer game studies, so i'm actually pretty sure that they will get picked up somewhere as a team in the next few years.

[New Kid on the Hallway]

Jeremy - I looked at the Aspect page (though briefly), and saw the listing of open positions. I can understand the goal of building up a group of people involved in a particular research question/issue. Do people frequently apply jointly for such positions? (I can understand an institution making such a hire, I'm still not used to seeing a pair propose themselves to be hired.)