CAREERS IN ACADEMIC CENTERS
Hosted by Paula Foster
September 2001
The following Guest Speaker Discussion originally took place on WRK4US in September of the year 2001. Because WRK4US has a confidentiality policy, all names and email addresses have been altered or removed, except for the moderator's and the Guest Speakers'.
The discussion can be read in two ways--by simply scrolling down and reading the whole thing, or by clicking on the topical links below, which take you to specific places within the discussion. The discussion can also be printed out in its entirety for your reading convenience.
Special thanks to Kristin Fitzpatrick who volunteered her time to edit this discussion and prepare it for posting on the web. If you are interested in editing a future discussion, your help will be much appreciated; email Paula Foster, WRK4US List Manager, at pfchambers@sbcglobal.net .
Joining us for this discussion will be four PhDs who work, or have recently worked, in academic centers:
- Margit Dementi of the Simpson Center for the Humanities, U of Washington
- Steven Tepper of the Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Princeton U
- Susan Dunn of the Stanford Humanities Center, Stanford U
- Nigel Rothfels , currently of the Edison Initiative, formerly of the Center for Twentieth Century Studies, both at U of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
"Academic centers" are non-departmental units located within university settings, serving as loci of important research and thinking on particular sets of issues or problems, often from an interdisciplinary perspective. Through fellowship programs, conferences, special colloquia, publication, research themes and clusters, and other initiatives, academic centers seek to advance research in a given subject area and promote its dissemination. Academic centers provide a potentially rich employment opportunity for recent Ph.D.s in the humanities because of the highly specialized work (e.g., scholarly publication) which these units perform.
Paula Foster
WRK4US list manager
Introduction of Guest Speakers
Steven J. Tepper
Deputy Director of the Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies
I have been interested in academic administration since my senior year in college at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1989). At that time, I served as president of my senior class and had a chance to work closely with university deans, the chancellor, and trustees. Helping to run a university seemed like important and meaningful work that combined my interest in teaching and learning with my desire to exercise leadership, outreach and management.
I was hired after graduation as assistant director for the University of North Carolina's Bicentennial Observance -- an 18-month national observance celebrating the birth of public higher education in the U.S. After one year with the project, the executive director resigned and I was appointed by the Chancellor to direct this $5 million dollar project (including facing the task of hiring a project team of 20 persons). I stayed in this position for 4 years until the completion of the project, at which time I returned to graduate school to get my masters in public policy from Harvard and then to Princeton to get a Ph.D. in sociology. I went to graduate school with the intention of returning to university administration. Along the way, I developed a strong interest in cultural policy and the sociology of art and culture, both areas I pursued at Harvard and Princeton.
I came to Princeton in 1996 to work with professors Stan Katz and Paul DiMaggio, who had just founded the Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies. After my second year in the sociology department, I began to work part-time for the Center -- running conferences, administering the Center's budget, and helping with grant proposals. By my third year, I was working almost full time and completing the dissertation in the evenings and on the weekends. I also started interviewing for jobs outside of the university -- nonprofit consulting firms, foundations, private learned academies/centers, etc. Princeton ended up matching an offer from another organization and asking me to stay on in a permanent position as associate director of the Center. I completed my dissertation while working in this capacity.
In many ways, my position is the perfect balance between the academic and nonacademic worlds. My job currently consists of 4 different responsibilities: 1) Administering the Center (which includes strategic planning, working with our foundation sponsors, managing our budget, helping develop new research directions and projects, organizing conferences and speakers, running our fellowship and grants program and dealing with all external communications and outreach; 2) Research (as part of my position, I am director of a big research project that investigates cultural conflict in America, including managing several research assistants related to my own work on conflicts over art in American cities); 3) Teaching (I will be teaching in Fall 2001 and will hopefully teach one or two courses at Princeton each year); 4) Consulting (part of my time is contracted out to the Pew Charitable Trusts to do a series of evaluation projects and to organize some small policy-focused meetings for them).
I am not in a tenure-track position. I am an administrator who has managed to carve out some teaching and research for myself. I don't feel I have the patience or temperament to bury my head in the sand and do what it takes to get tenure some place. I would love to have some freedom to write and research, but without the pressure. I feel like I have that opportunity now. For me, it is important to have one leg in the policy world; not just research about policy, but actual policy itself. So, I enjoy the projects I am doing with the Pew Charitable Trusts and expect that I will always be doing some consulting with projects and programs on the ground. While I think the work would be available(lots of foundations and organizations are looking for independent contractors to do research, evaluation and program development), I don't think I would enjoy working only as an independent consultant in the arts and culture field. It is important to me to have some institutional base, and I think the consulting work comes easier and more readily when you are identified with an institution.
If over the next five years or so I am able to publish one or two good books, I will likely investigate the possibility of applying for jobs at the level of university dean, assistant/associate provost, etc. I would only be competitive for these posts if I were a credible candidate for tenure (I would be appointed as an administrator with tenure). If not, I will likely stay in the nonprofit or foundation world or perhaps stay at Princeton working with our Center.
I would be happy to answer any questions or talk (write) more about my perspectives on university administration, running a research center or working with a foundation.
Nigel Rothfels
Director of The Edison Initiative at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
I was in the midst of a five- or six-week "alternative careers" workshop when I came to the realization that even if I wanted -- or needed -- to have an alternative career, it would probably be at a university. It was about 1992 and my partner and I were nearing the end of our respective Ph.D. programs while looking ahead to a gloomy academic market. We were both at Harvard: I was working in modern European history and my wife was writing about American lit in the in the interdisciplinary History of American Civilization Program. The idea that we would both find academic positions at universities relatively near each other seemed remote, so we decided to approach the market a little differently. We went at the whole thing as a team figuring that by being together our chances of getting one good job were actually improved. We concluded that if she got the better offer, we'd take her job; if I got the better offer, we'd take my job. The other person, then, would have to try to find something else to do. At just about that time, the Office of Career Services connected to the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences was just then piloting an "Alternative Careers Workshop" for Ph.D. candidates. We signed up.
Over the next few weeks a group of about eight or so people from different fields met and talked about how we might go about pursuing non-academic careers. There were some practical issues to discuss. For example, we looked at resumes and talked about how they were different from cv's (I remember being struck that the former had a usually fairly obviously insincere "objective" at the top). Beyond all that, though, we spent quite a bit of time just trying to think ourselves into new lives. For most of us, this was not an easy task -- we had, after all, spent a great many years working toward a fairly specific career path. There was one "right-brain" exercise I remember which had to do with imagining your ideal day five years hence. What would you do first thing in the morning? Where would you go? Would there be kids around, or a dog or two? If you went someplace, what would you do when you got there? You get the idea. It turned out that my ideal day had to do with heading off to someplace I called "the Center" where I would sit down with some coffee, check my mail, talk with some students, and settle down to do some writing. There would be a walk at some point, then more work, then home, then a walk with the dogs, then a pleasant evening. After further more realistic exercises, the group concluded that only place I could ever really be happy would be in a university. Uh oh.
The fortunate thing was that my wife was full of ideas for her alternative careers and clearly excited about the prospects. So, things were looking OK there for a bit. At the end of the market season, though, my wife had more than a handful of job offers and I, despite being a finalist for several positions, had none. Back to "uh oh." Partly because we felt that my chances of finding something interesting to do were better there than elsewhere, my wife accepted a position in the English Department at Marquette University in Milwaukee to begin in the fall of 1994. We were going to move in June and for a couple of Sundays before the move, we picked up the Milwaukee Journal (the main local paper at the time) at the out-of-town news stand in Cambridge so that I could get a sense for job prospects in Milwaukee. This was a thoroughly depressing task as I circled possibilities. Anyway, two jobs stood out -- one as a field worker for the Wisconsin Humanities Council where one could travel all over the state working with local communities writing grants to the Council; the other as an Assistant Editor at the Center for Twentieth Century Studies (now Center for 21st Century Studies) at the Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM). The person was to work on the Center's journal, Discourse: Journal of Theoretical Studies in Media and Culture; and the book series Theories of Contemporary Culture with Indiana UP. Beyond editorial work, the Center wanted someone who knew about hard- and software support and page layout and graphics applications. I wrote and said I could do all those things. I was interviewed the day after I arrived in Milwaukee and started working a couple of days later.
One of the concerns of the Director (Kathleen Woodward) and Associate Director (Carol Tennessen) in our initial conversations, was whether I felt I could be happy doing the often basic secretarial work that would be required in the job. Of course, I said I would be and that what I really wanted was to be working in the sort of exciting academic setting the Center appeared to be. I was bluffing a bit, and we probably all knew it. I needed a job, I wanted to work at a university, and the Center seemed like a pretty congenial place to be. To be completely honest, the transition was very difficult for me. Spending forty hours-a-week in a job dedicated to developing the scholarship of others was often a hard pill to swallow -- especially at those times (which were fortunately not that frequent) when I had to work on materials I couldn't respect. At the same time, there were some clear advantages to having a "real" job, not the least of which was having the evenings and weekends completely to myself (no grading, etc.).
So what does our Center do? It is a research unit within the College of Letters and Science (with additional support from the Graduate School) that got started in the 1960s. Typically the Center designates a yearly theme for its research and UWM faculty apply to be fellows. If accepted, they get a buyout of a portion of their teaching and then move into an office at the Center. The Fellows meet in weekly colloquia, outside speakers are brought in every few weeks, and, usually, a large conference is planned around the theme. The Center exists to support UWM faculty and enrich the university and broader Milwaukee community by sponsoring outside speakers and participating in the cultural life of the city. Sounds pretty good, and it is. The Center -- and places like it -- is also an ideal home for people with Ph.D.s looking for an alternative career. This point became even more clear when, in 1995, the Center became the business office of the Consortium of Humanities Centers and Institutes (CHCI) -- www.chcinetwork.org . Through the CHCI, I became acquainted with quite a few other recent Ph.D.'s (including Margit Dementi and Susan Dunn who are participating in this discussion) who had found administrative work at a humanities center.
So here's my quick list of advantages and disadvantages of working at an academic research center for recent Ph.D's.
Some Advantages:
- the work can often be quite stimulating
- entering the job, we tend to be already familiar with and successful in similar environments
- if you continue to research and publish, your work will be noticed (even if it does not play a role in merit increases)
- both the environment and work tend to be dynamic and changing and you don't find yourself doing the same thing every day
- after a period, you might be able to argue effectively for unpaid release time to pursue your own research and writing (I was able to take a semester away to be a fellow at the Shelby Cullom Davis Center at Princeton, for example)
- you maintain a quasi-academic status. I have worked hard to consistently publish; I have a book coming out with Johns Hopkins next fall; I have edited a collection of essays stemming from a conference and research theme at the Center that I proposed and organized during my last year at the Center (I left in August 2000); I have continued to be successful in applying for other research grants and was a fellow this last summer at the Australian National University's Humanities Research Centre. I'm certain that part of my success in all of this is owing to my being affiliated with the Center for Twentieth Century Studies
- like working in any other mid-size corporation, working at a Center gives you a "foot in the door" and you then become eligible and desirable for other positions at the university
- if teaching is important to you, it might be possible (it has been for me) to obtain adjunct status in a department and teach occasionally -- this is likely to be on your time, however
- it's a job, and most of us need one of those
Some Disadvantages:
- my sense is that most Ph.D. types like to work independently -- being an employee and doing someone what you might often perceive as someone else's work can be difficult, tiring, and frustrating
- if you are committed to your own development as a scholar, you have to guard against some frustration that however much scholarly work you produce, the unit is designed to support faculty, not staff
- while it seems reasonable that in the first year or two of such a position, the job might be seen as a reasonable holding space while you continue to apply yourself to the academic market, one needs to recognize that the longer one stays in such a position, the more likely it is that one will continue in administrative tracks
- since the senior administrative staff of most universities is made up of full-faculty who have moved into administration, there are clear limits to how far you can climb in the corporation because you do not have faculty status
- look around and see how the administrative staff at your current university are perceived by the faculty -- recognize that you will have to deal with that
Looking at these lists, I see a few more advantages than I do disadvantages which is probably why I stuck with it for six years. I took a new job last fall, however. I am now the director of a unit on our campus called the Edison Initiative which provides a series of programs intended to improve the undergraduate experience at the university (right now, primarily freshman seminars, a peer mentoring program, and an undergraduate research program). I was a good fit for the job because they needed someone with a Ph.D. (and as a 100% position, a faculty member wouldn't want it), who knew how the university worked, who knew a bit about teaching and technology, and who had connections across the campus -- something I had gained while working at the Center. My new position solves some of the disadvantages of working at the Center, but it brings up a series of new challenges. When I think about why I moved, my best answer, I think, is that "it was time."
Enough, if you have questions, please just go ahead and write.
Margit Dimenti
Associate Director of the Simpson Center for the Humanities at the University of Washington
Hello everyone. I'm Margit Dementi, the Associate Director of the Simpson Center for the Humanities at the University of Washington. Please excuse the delay in posting my introduction. In the wake of last week's tragic events, I was delayed on the East Coast and have only just returned to Seattle. I'll do my best to respond as quickly as possible to your comments, but thank you in advance for your patience as I work to catch up.
I have a Ph.D. in Comparative Literature from Princeton, and I made use of that Ph.D. and those skills, first, to move out of the academy, and then to move back in when I found a job that was appealing and would allow me to straddle both academic and administrative, scholarly and public activities. I'm pleased to be a guest speaker on this listserv and to share my experience of leaving and then finding my way back into an academic setting.
I adore literature and the study of it. I adore teaching. I think I'm pretty good at both, and received significant recognition in both areas, so I was comfortable as a student and lecturer and looking forward to entering the professoriate. I was not, however, comfortable with the conditions of work in academia. When I stared my degree, there were optimistic predictions that there would be jobs at the end of the rainbow, but by the time I was in my final years of my program, I was watching brilliant friends a bit ahead of me fail to get good jobs, bad jobs, any jobs. People desperately took anything, anywhere. I had no desire to do that. I loved teaching and my research, but simply wasn't willing to take a job I didn't want in a place I didn't want to live just because it was an academic job and I was somehow supposed to feel desperately grateful for that scrap. There were basically two or three tenure-track jobs in the country for two years running in my area. Unfortunately, I didn't get any of them.
Nevertheless, I thought I had skills and talents that I could use just about anywhere, and I decided that if I wasn't going to be a professor, I would like to make money. I started looking for management consulting jobs and exploring other kinds of careers to see what was out there. While networking (I was dutiful about informational interviews--it's actually a great thing to do: you meet a lot of interesting people who do a variety of different things and have fascinating stories, and you'd be surprised how many of those contacts often show up later in different contexts), I found a completely different job through a series of personal connections and on the strength of some random things I had done on the side that showed initiative outside my area of expertise (organizing a major international conference in physics, leading AI training workshops, etc.).
The job I took was at JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization that the Mellon Foundation had just created to develop an electronic database of back issues of scholarly journals in the humanities and social sciences. I was hired to run the PR and marketing efforts of this new initiative. Although it didn't come with the salary of a management consultant, it was a great project. I could make use of my academic background and develop new skills. It was a fascinating area, and I learned an enormous amount about digital archives, databases, libraries, and intellectual property issues.
Although I thought the JSTOR project was great, after about a year there were a number of things that made it clear the job itself was not for me. By that time, however, I had developed a great deal of new experience managing staff, coordinating public relations efforts, selling a product. I started looking again--more informational interviews, job interviews, letters, resumes...and then I found I job description in the Chronicle of Higher Education that looked like it had been written for me--back at a university. I had mixed feelings about going back--after all I had successfully transitioned *out*--but the job seemed perfect (or close to it), so despite the fact that I had to move entirely across the country and start again in a new place I took it. And I'm quite happy.
The Simpson Center is the hub of an enormous amount of intellectual activity, and I find that very stimulating. We support research and interdisciplinary curricular initiatives. We sponsor a Society of Scholars, collaborative research groups, lectures, symposia, conferences, speakers, arts initiatives and publications. We also have a major public mission, and I am responsible for generating significant cultural programs both on an off campus. Because our activities involve so many scholars, I know more faculty in the humanities than I would ever meet as a junior (or senior) faculty member; I also work closely with the heads of the major cultural organizations in Seattle, which had enabled me to feel integrally connected to the city and the community; in addition, I interact with heads of humanities centers all over the country and the world, which inevitably provides new and stimulating ideas and contacts.
The down side: I do way too much email (100s a day), a fair amount of tedious organizational and detail work (following up on publicity for this event--how many posters to print, costs; room availability or dates for that), and there is rarely if ever much down time during the academic year. I could go to an event every night of the week, and frequently have to go to at least two or three. So far, I have almost no time to do my own research, although I refuse to give up hope. I have not yet been able to teach, but will be able to fit that in soon. I find the exposure to so many different areas of scholarship and so many interesting people to best reward of my job. The thing I miss most is time because even though I'm on a university campus, I'm in an administrative role and on a 12-month calendar, which leaves less room and time for research.
I'd be happy to answer any questions about my job or transitions, and I'll look forward to hearing your comments.
Question for Steven:
Does your very interesting center issue a report that summarizes its activities and publications?
MB
Steven's response to MB:
Anyone interested in the Center for Arts and Cultural Policy studies can find information on our website (soon to be updated). Send me an address if you would like to be added to our permanent mailing list.
Question for Steven:
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. I find the mix of job responsibilities you describe -- the combination of administration, research, and evaluation -- very interesting, and quite likely the type of position that would suit me as well. My interests, broadly speaking, are in the domain of public health/policy with a focus on community-based health and housing issues.
I'd like your take on how and where to approach applying for jobs with a diverse educational and work background. I've got an MEd in counseling from the early '80s, worked for about 10 years running community-based programs providing home-based social services and also doing some therapy; then did something fairly unrelated to that for a few years; then went back to school in the mid-'90s and should have a doctorate in speech-language pathology and an MPH by the end of the next calendar year. Clearly, I've had a hard time deciding what to be when I grow up ... but (to the great disappointment of my thesis advisor) I know it's not a full-time, tenure-track professor/researcher. Though my dissertation employs pretty rigorous quantitative methods, my interests go well beyond that toward incorporating qualitative/ethnographic approaches. In addition to doing some treatment research, I've had the opportunity to be responsible for several research projects involving stroke-related outcomes, quality of life issues, etc.
I'm planning on attending the American Public Health Assn conference next month, primarily for job hunting purposes. Any suggestions on who to approach, how to package myself, where else to look, etc? I have the feeling that the jobs I want are not necessarily published in the Sunday paper.
Thanks very much,
KW
Steven's response to KW:
Who to approach? How to package? Where else to look?
I think the combination of 10 years of community work and a Ph.D. with strong quantitative skills makes you a pretty strong candidate for a number of positions. One obvious possibility would be to talk to program officers at foundations who have a strong interest in public health. If you are not interested working in a foundation, then use these meetings as a way to learn more about the landscape of research centers and nonprofits that are involved in health policy. Most foundation officers have a pretty good idea of the relevant organizations and centers, and have probably worked with many of them. You could also identify the 10 to 20 of the biggest foundations that give to health-related enterprises and then look at their annual reports to see who their grantees are (this would probably be a good list of potential employers).
It's hard to know how to package yourself without a better idea of what the job is that you are seeking. I don't know the public health field very well, but I imagine their are some very good Web sites that list relevant employment. Certainly there are some interesting jobs listed on the Chronicle of Higher Education Web site under the non-academic categories. You may also find that the national service organizations have interesting jobs (some have research departments). In my field, arts and culture, there are more than 1,200 national service organizations. That's a pretty huge job market (some better paying than others). There are likely a comparable number in most other policy fields.
Question for the speakers:
Your introductions contain a couple of words that I have always been curious about and never fully understood. Please educate me--and Eric, do chime in, 'cause you seem to know. What is "evaluation"? And (at the risk of looking dumb), what exactly is "policy"?
Eager for enlightenment,
Paula Foster
Eric's response to Paula:
Of course there are libraries full of books on evaluation each of which has an introductory chapter titled "What is Evaluation" but in one sentence (may be two) evaluation is the process through which an organization assesses the effectiveness of its programs.
Evaluations may be diagnostic or simply answer a 'does it work or not work' question. They may attempt to find out why a program works or doesn't work (the underlying theory of the program, the reason it is supposed to work, may be sound but the program may fail to meet its goals for other reason, or it may be flawed and nonetheless still meet its goals). Evaluations may also aim to find out whether or not a program has any other outcomes (desirable or not desirable). Evaluations may be done totally by outside consultants who function as (non-financial) auditors, they may be done with program staff or, the evaluator may come in to train staff in how to do their own assessments. This later approach has some ascendancy right now as it is supposed to build the kind of mind set that enables staff to be self-reflective.
Policy I won't touch. I've already exceeded by two sentence limit.
Subscriber response to Paula:
Policy is the illusion that a program goal or standard can be clearly defined and implemented consistently and effectively over a span of time.
MB
Question for the speakers:
Thanks for some fascinating introductions. Margit, something you wrote caught my attention:
>The down side: I do way too much email (100s a day), a fair amount of
>tedious organizational and detail work (following up on publicity for this
>event--how many posters to print, costs; room availability or dates for
>that), and there is rarely if ever much down time during the academic year.
Hundreds of emails add up to hundreds of decisions per day to make and take care of, and my experience with graduate school and academe is that a hundred decisions a week involving other people would be a lot. Could you and the other speakers write about how smooth the transition was for you from full-time academic research to your jobs in the center? Specifically, did taking care of all that business take some getting used to? How did your previous work prepare you for that aspect of work in the center?
Thanks very much---CO
Nigel's response to CO:
I think both Steven and Margit have had much more administrative responsibility at their Centers than I did. I was sort of third-in-command and most real day-to-day decisions were made by our Associate Director. More difficult parts for me were the expectation that I would be at my desk all day every day, and that decisions about what to do and not to do were actually not mine to make. As a grad. student, I think I had remarkable control over my daily schedule and activities; this was lost when I beacme a middle administrator in a university setting.
In fact, the desire to take more control over my life was, in large measure, responsible for my decision to leave the Center for 21st Century Studies and become a director of another unit.
Margit's response to CO:
You're right--and that is indeed the positive way to describe the skills one uses and develops in a job like this. Thanks for the question. Virtually every moment involves a decision of some sort. While I didn't find it exceedingly difficult--or even that much of a transition (I think that teaching, research and writing all involve prioritizing and innumerable decisions and distinctions)--the hardest aspect was perhaps what Nigel mentioned: making those decisions depending on someone else's schedule, often multiple people's schedules. Even though many of the decisions are mine to make, I have to take into account many other factors and people than I did when I was pursuing my own work. I personally find it stimulating and take satisfaction from (re)solving problems.
Several of the "extracurricular" activities I pursued helped in some way to prepare me. One was organizing a major international conference, which involved making decisions about a lot of small details. Of course I wanted it to be flawless, so I worked backwards from a clear idea of the outcome I wanted through every detail it would take to achieve it, including contingency plans. If someone is interested in administrative work, it's helpful to undertake projects that have organizational, structural, and decision-making components. You'll know if you like it: if it gives you satisfaction or merely frustrates you.
Question for speakers:
When applying for academic administrative positions do you submit a CV or resume? If a resume would you list any publications?
SU
Nigel's response to SU:
This is a really great question and one I have wrestled with repeatedly. The way to think about this, I believe, is to imagine the audience. If the members of the review committee for the position have an academic background and are familiar with the cv approach, I go that way. Most recently, I did a sort of mix where I kept education at the top, then went straight to an "employment history" (beginning each entry with inclusive dates), followed by two sections on "administrative expererience" and "teaching experience." All that was followed by research fellowships and awards and then publications. In short I downplayed the scholarly in favor of the administrative and teaching experience. In format though, the thing looked more like a cv than a resume. I guess I think that if the committee is composed of faculty, the standard one-page resume would not really make sense to them -- they don't think that way -- and when I first applied to the Center for Twentieth Century Studies, I sent a very standard cv (albeit with a computer skills section at the end).
Margit's response to SU:
Submitting a resume or cv depends on the job listing and if there is research/teaching involved. Basically, you want to adapt whatever you send to best reflect your strengths and aptitude for the job, as well as to appeal to your particular audience. If you have an academic audience, they'll probably be interested in your record, but if the job is not primarily for academic work, you'll still definitely want to craft something that demonstrates that you have the necessary skills and understand the job description. I have something that looks rather like a hybrid resume/cv; although it primarily takes the format of a resume (which provides more and better information about my non-academic activities), I also listed teaching interests, fellowships, talks and publications since the job description included an academic component.
Question for Steven:
It looks to me like you have a great job. Kudos to Paula for finding you.
I am interested in a small piece of what you indicated you do-- evaluation consulting for the Pew Charitable Trust. I've been doing evaluation for a mental health agency since defending in psychology/sociology three years ago. I know of a number of people who work on a consulting basis doing evaluation for grantors and was wondering whether or not you thought it was possible, after a few years, to pull in a good salary (60K-70K) doing this alone. I've been lead to believe that there is a big demand for this but then that's what they said a decade ago about academic employment. What would it take to get going on such a practice?
You mentioned possibly working for a firm that consults to non-profits. I haven't encountered any except some that do development. Any ideas on that front?
Thanks
GR
Steven's response to GR:
Regarding evaluation work and job opportunities -- I do think there is a good market for people who do program/project evaluation. Most foundations now have several people on staff who do this. It is interesting work because if done well the evaluator is part of the early discussions about project design. In recent years, a new professional field of "program evaluation" has been developing -- it might be worth checking out the American Evaluation Association to get a better idea of the job market. I think 60K to 70K does not seem out of the question as a salary range (especially if you are director of evaluation for a foundation).
In terms of organizations that do consulting for nonprofits -- there are several in my field (art and culture) such as AMS Planning and Research and Arts Inc. (based in L.A.). There is a company called the Conservation Company that does broad based consulting (Arthur Andersen type work) for nonprofits. They are based in New York and Philadelphia. A good way to see who is in the business is to peruse the attendee list for national conferences -- such as the annual meeting of the Independent Sector.
Question for Steven:
Steven, can you tell us more about this "annual meeting of the independent sector"? When does it take place, how many people attend, and what exactly is the independent sector?
Paula Foster
Steven's response to Paula:
Rather than giving you my second hand impression of the Independent Sector, you may want to visit their website.
Here's a stab at policy--
Decisions made by either public or private entities on how best to distribute scarce resources for public purposes. It is important to recognize that "policy" has been enlarged, as a concept, to include not only decisions made by governments but also decisions made by foundations, nonprofits and the "third sector" more generally. In any particular field, policy tends to be those decisions that "shape the environment" in which organizations and individuals operate.
I think more nonprofits increasingly see themselves as involved in "policy" work -- and many jobs within nonprofits have been added/reconfigured to include some policy analysis and planning.
Question for Steven:
Wow, Steve, your definition of policy is just fascinating to me. Do you feel, then, that your work really has an impact on the world?
Paula
Steven's response to Paula:
Great question. Very rarely does research have a direct impact on the world. However, research can help contribute to policy ideas that get floated for consideration -- often called the "policy soup." Whether or not a particular idea rises on the public agenda depends in large measure on politics, not on the quality of the idea itself. But, being in the soup increases your odds.
I think research does influence how organizations operate. Through new information on trends and patterns in a particular field, organizations slowly begin to readjust their missions, programs and strategies for reaching audiences and constituents.
But, I certainly would not say that working in an academic policy center makes me feel like I have an influence on the world. For that, I would need to go to Capitol Hill or work directly for a large NGO or advocacy group that has substantial influence over policy makers, the media and the public agenda.
Question for speakers:
For the guest speakers, how important do you think it is that people have quantitative skills in order to find work in foundations? I realize that the answer here would vary depending on the position, but as I read the messages about evaluation and program administration this week, I can see where managing budgets and being able to work with quantitative (not just qualitative) evidence is pretty crucial. For many of us coming out of Humanities disciplines--I include myself here--our strong points are likely organizational and communication skills, with limited hands-on fiscal experience (apart from juggling our own personal finances).
Given the number of opportunities in (nonprofit) development and the continual need to watch bottom lines for nonprofit and educational institutions, would you recommend seeking out some opportunities to develop budget and number-crunching skills, or is it just as effective to stress a desire to learn on the job?
BTW, thank you, Steven, for defining policy (and thanks, Paula, for asking!). I know it's a broad, slippery term, but your basic outline is very helpful.
HL
Steven's response to HL:
I don't think quantitative skills are that important for foundation work. Most program officers do not deal directly with finances -- they work through a grants administrator at the foundation (the accounting person). And, most program officers contract out the evaluation work (or it is done in house). I think if you were applying for specific evaluation positions, quantitative skills would be more helpful.
In the nonprofit world, basic fund raising and management skills are more important than quantitative skills. Being able to communicate well is key also. I suppose I would also stress the analytical component of any Ph.D. work (whether it is in the humanities or social sciences). Being able to identify a problem, analyze existing information, determine different routes to answer a particular question, critical thinking, etc. are important skills for any management post.
Margit's response to HL:
Good question. Although it is helpful to have some financial acumen (or perhaps just good sense and no fear of spreadsheets), I wouldn't categorize what I do as serious number crunching. The Simpson Center has a Fiscal Specialist who does the accounting. That said, I am in charge of a very substantial annual budget and monitor it closely. We give away and administer over a quarter million dollars a year in grants; our own program budget is even larger than that, and in addition, we periodically receive external grants that also need to be monitored. The skills involved are essentially close-reading and analytical skills along with some basic math.
Thinking creatively about how to control costs and best leverage resources is also important, especially within a University system where both faculty and staff can be somewhat removed from a sense of fiscal responsibility on a programmatic level. For example, I often work closely on budgets with faculty who are developing proposals, giving them a sense of what is realistic and what resources it would take to realize a large collaborative research project with public programs involved. In addition, in developing external programs I have generally tried to adopt something like a non-profit business plan, making them self-sustaining so that we can continue to offer them on a long-term basis without draining important research resources. In this case, the skills Steven identified-- being able to analyze existing information and determine different routes/resources to answer a particular question--are key. Some basic quantitative skills are involved, but a fair amount is common sense and experience. Much of the particular knowledge needed can be developed on the job. I certainly had to learn about the particular University system and environment--how much it costs to replace a faculty for one quarter of research leave, for example, or what a reasonable fee would be for a public program. If you could demonstrate some experience in managing a budget, it might make you an attractive candidate for a job that requires those skills. There are still quite a number of jobs at academic centers (or foundations or non-profits) that are more organizational and programmatic in nature and don't have much of a fiscal component.
Paula did a good job of defining some broad differences between academic centers, foundations and non-profits. In my particular case, the Simpson Center functions a bit like all three--we give grants and fund research, but we also run our own programs--some internal that we sustain from our budget, and some that we try to make self-sustaining on the model of non-profit organizations. In addition, we seek additional funding from foundations and/or state or federal agencies for other programmatic goals. There are a number of academic centers in the country (probably the majority) that focus primarily on funding research; they generally receive funding from their university for this programmatic goal, but they often also seek external funding from foundations, agencies and private donors.
Question for speakers:
Let me take a moment to clarify something and invite our speakers to clarify it still further. This is a discussion of "academic centers"---which are not the same as "nonprofit organizations"---which are not the same as "foundations." (Our next Guest Speaker Discussion, BTW, is on the topic of "Foundations" and it takes place in October, just a month from now.)
Though there may be some overlap between the three terms, my sense is that they are not interchangeable. Speakers, correct me if I'm wrong: "academic center" is a smaller category than either of the other two. An academic center could be seen, perhaps, as a specific *type* of nonprofit organization--yes?--but probably not as a foundation. Right? Proceeding on those assumptions, I've written the following definitions. What do you think of them?
Foundation: an organization that is dedicated to supporting research or other work on a particular subject or problem, but which is funded primarily by a big pile of money with which it has been 'endowed'. Foundations are generally grant-makers, not grant-seekers, because they have those big piles of money, and their job is basically to distribute it.
Nonprofit organization: an organization that is also dedicated to dedicated to supporting research or other work on a particular subject or problem, but which is funded primarily by grants and donations, because it does not have a big pile of money all its own. Nonprofits are usually grant-seekers rather than grant-makers, although sometimes they do pass funds along to smaller groups.
Academic center: yet another type of organization that is also dedicated to supporting research or other work on a particular subject or problem area, but which is a non-departmental unit located within university settings. Academic centers are funded by---
what? How are academic centers funded? Do they get "hard money" from the university where they are located, or are they funded by grants and other forms of "soft money"? And is that the right question to be asking?
Nigel, Steve, Margit, help me out here: how do you see the differences between academic centers, nonprofits, and foundations?
Steven's response to Paula:
The conversation has wandered a bit toward other types of jobs and job-seeking strategies -- which has been useful -- but you are right to point out that academic centers are very different than nonprofits and foundations. Your definitions seem fine to me. Research need not be a part of either of the first two categories (some Foundations don't support research at all; and most nonprofits probably don't engage in research).
In any particular area, a foundation officer is probably a good contact for information about the other two areas -- academic center and nonprofits. They tend to be nodes in the organizational network.
In terms of the labor market, academic centers are probably the most difficult to track -- it's hard to find out where the jobs are and when they become available. As there are many more nonprofits than foundations or academic centers, the labor market is more advanced and there are more sites for finding jobs and more places to look for jobs. There is a fair amount of turnover in foundations and the best place to look is probably on their Web sites for job openings.
Thanks for clarifying.
Nigel's response to Paula and Steven:
Yeh Paula, I think you've hit some of the main differences. Let me take up the funding issue. My guess is that at many universities (not all), academic centers were originally imagined as faculty retention tools (at a time when it was harder to retain faculty). The centers encourage faculty research and contribute to the research mission of the university while also, if less consistently, contributing to graduate and undergradtuate education. With this said, there are academic centers that are truly independent of specific universities -- for example, The Institute for the Humanities at Salado (http://www.salado-institute.org/ ) in Texas or the National Humanities Center in North Carolina (http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/ ). Typically, though, most of the academic centers are funded through "hard money" in universities but are expected to be active in getting grants, etc.
By the way, it might help people to look through the Consortium of Humanities Centers and Institutes website at http://www.chcinetwork.org/. Go to the directory search page, use the second search dialog, select a state or country, then click on a few institutes to see what they do. Once you click, you get this little card-like page with links to the actual institutes. Very helpful.
Question for speakers:
I'm wondering about our panelists' experiences with negotiating their job duties at their respective centers, either in the process of being hired by the center or after having been at the center for a while. Have you assumed the roles required by a long-standing job description, or have you actively sought slightly different duties that are more consistent with your interests and strengths? Could you offer any hints on negotiating job responsibilities within an academic center? Does the ability to shape your job (to some extent) make up for issues such as limited opportunity for advancement within the center, or sacrificing your own research interests in favor of those of others?
Thanks,
IN
Nigel's response to IN:
I, and I suspect most graduate students looking at a "real" job instead of an academic one, was woefully prepared to consider negotiating job duties. I was so grateful that someone gave me a job, I didn't look to closely at anything (I also was completely unprepared for the discussion of benefits with the Human Resources people, but that is another matter).
After being on the job for a while, though, I was able to slowly change things. Most importantly, I found the administration of the Center (and, indeed, the College) quite receptive to my requests. They understood them, I think, because they understood why I wanted the changes I wanted (more intellectually stimulating work, opportunities to pursue teaching, research, etc.). One thing I learned was to understand that an improvement in a position might not necessarily have to do with money. Often I found that money issues were in fact off the table, but that wouldn't necessarily mean that we couldn't come up with some other creative options (more flexible schedule, etc.). I guess many negotiations are a dance around who needs whom more, but having good will on both sides helps and I always found that kind of will.
Underlying all of this, I think it is important that we all realize that we bring amazing strengths to a non-academic work place. We have demonstrated abilities to conceive, persevere in, and complete extensive original projects; we are able to work independently and yet most often have the ability to work with groups as well; we are often proven instructors; we are able to argue effectively for specific issues; and we are able to write clearly and well (this message notwithstanding). In short, we are highly desirable employees. With this in mind, and recognizing that we are an increasingly important part of the non-academic workforce, I think there is a great deal of room for us to shape our own jobs.
Question for speakers:
Thanks Nigel and Steven for discussing the money flow in academic centers. Nigel, you just wrote that "Typically, though, most of the academic centers are funded through "hard money" in universities but are expected to be active in getting grants, etc."
Could the panelists discuss their sense of whether academic centers are designed on any level to be money-making entities for a university? In essence, are centers supposed to engage in money-making activities (such as conferences or publishing ventures) to match the line item in the university budget? Or is profitability secondary or tertiary to other purposes (such as research and faculty retention)?
Thanks very much! ---CO
Nigel's response to CO:
I can imagine a few settings in which an academic center might contribute to the bottom line of a university -- such a unit might have a specific connection to area business, research, or political interests that would be willing to pay for certain types of service (conferences, certain kinds of applied technology, etc.), but certainly most of the units I am familiar with (and especially in the humanities) are not connected in any way to the profit stream of the university. What money comes in (say through conference fees or perhaps royalties) seems to be typically redirected back into programming.
Subscriber response:
I can reply for a FACT that research groups affect policy thru the soup factor - and there are lots of letters in that soup. In my past year working as a legisl fellow for NJ Congressman Bill Pascrell, access to research from enviro groups AND direct contact addressed to me personally from one institute (Rutgers's US Geological Survey-supported Institute for Water Resources Research) impelled me to check the Bush/Gale Nortoin FY02 budget #s - sure enough they were decimating the water science (USGS is only civilian data supplier) that is nec to underlie good decisions by local/state/regional folks on toxics in aquifers etc etc. (presumably the private sector would then control what kinds of science and what data would be collected for EPA enforcement when no good gov't science available)
That info spurred a 2-month project w/me haranguing House Members on both sides of aisle for Dear Colleague ltr to Approps that successfully saved USGS's 90 million budget cuts (40 million were in water priojects). We can now only hope those remain in light of what's happened - but the trail of how things happen was clear. And I am not the exception - the legisl staff itself has little time to read tonis - but Fellows from Brookings and othr groups such as the one supporting me are there *specifically* for that purpose - and the connection between non-profits and policy *does* get made.
CA
Steven's response:
I think there are probably very few academic centers that make money. As Nigel suggested, most are simply set up as an armature for a particular research agenda or a particular scholar or set of scholars. I would venture to say that many, if not the majority, are set up by a faculty member to help raise money for his/her research (it is easier to apply for grants as a center than as an individual). Off hand, I know of no centers that actually make money (unless you consider bringing in "overhead" as making money for a university).
CA's response to Paula:
Paula, just a note to muddy the water a bit :)
Some Academic Centers may not be 'non-departmental units' but (and here I'm recalling one at Penn where I used to work, and the Rutgers Water Resources Research Institute that contacted me in DC), they might also be integrally linked within their University Departments - students & faculty -as well as having separate staff in research, administration and sometimes specialists hred as researchers & editors etc who are outside consultants.
Plus, many non-profits such as a couple I recall (names escape me) were completely integrated with these university research centers on several specific projects and were intimately involved in research. The funding (into *and* out of the Academic Ctr I'm thinking of here) must have been Byzantine on all of this - but that is another topic entirely.
Besides requiring Depts to self-fund thru grants, Penn takes an *enormous* cut off of TOP of every grant dollar that arrives to its acad centers BTW. One of many ways they stay so rich.
Question for CA:
I am currently looking for policy research positions in Washington, DC and I was wondering if you could talk a little about how you got your position working for Congressman Pascrell.
Thanks!
PD
CA's response to PD:
sure - I heard of the fellowship from Penn's grad student/career svc office, in reading Emails I signed up for. This particular fellowship, from WREI - Wmn's Research and Educ Institute, has a May 15 (June 15?) deadline, but don't know whether Brookings, others are year-round or have specific dates.
The grad school at Rutgers (where I am now) also recently sent out info about some fellowships that looked interesting though (sorry) - deleted it & few specifics come to mind. I think it was law-based, but maybe not as I seem to remember possibilities for all grad students - oh yeah it was for those interested in public sector and was labor related I think.
But the point is that you might try going thru yr alma mater grad school; use a wide net in keyword searches if yr school's stuff is online; otherwise spend some time at their office - I'll bet they all mostly get the same info...
Good luck!
Closing from Paula:
Dear WRK4US subscribers,
Well, it's Friday, and we've had a very informative week. On behalf of all WRK4US subscribers, I'd like to extend a hearty collective "THANK YOU" to our four Guest Speakers--Margit Dementi, Steven Tepper and Nigel Rothfels. Margit, Steven and Nigel came on board despite the special circumstances under which we are all laboring right now. They gave of their time and consideration to share some great information with us. We are in their debt.
Thanks as well to those subscribers who contributed by asking questions, and even to those who just listened. It's hard enough to concentrate on anything these days, so I think we all deserve high praise for making this discussion happen.
If anyone has further questions about Academic Centers, feel free to ask them directly of the speakers, who may elect to leave the list now that the official portion of the discussion is over.
The next discussion will focus on "Careers in Foundations" and will take place sometime next month--possibly starting October 18, but that date has not been absolutely confirmed yet. I will let you know as soon it gels one way or another.
Take care, everyone, and once again, high praise to us all for making this discussion happen at this challenging time in our lives.
Paula Foster
WRK4US list manager