Riding higher waves

At the risk of boring you all with my frequent thoughts on better teaching, I wanted to give you another metaphor on good teaching, inspired by a surfing class I took. To sum it all up, surfing was great fun. But this year, I was a bit unfortunate to get teachers who were a lot worse than the ones I’d had previously. The high waves and the shallow water make for good metaphors for the basics and the advanced topcis I frequently drone on about in my philosophy of teaching well. So, there you go.

The shallows and the high waves

The teachers were over-protective of us in the shallow waters. They helped more than we would have needed help and thereby, didn’t teach us to act independently. I wanted to do so, but it was not encouraged and we weren’t given any instructions on how to catch a wave on our own. They wouldn’t even let us paddle onto the wave ourselves, but rather pushed the board for us. This might seem very nice and thoughtful. At least, that’s how I felt at first.

But then, once we got to the higher waves – waves high enough for me to find them somewhat scary and thus, distract me quite a bit – they hardly helped at all! But since they had been so overprotective with the basics, doing everything for us, I didn’t have a feeling for how to catch a wave on my own. And this doesn’t exactly get any easier when you are panicked by the high waves. The more difficult situation we got thrown into all of a sudden made it difficult to think clearly, let alone grasp a skill on my own which no one had explained to me beforehand. The deep water is not a place to learn the basics. They should have told us those in shallow water. I think this is a very good analogy for teaching since this is exactly what happens in many classes as well. And then the teachers act like you’re an idiot for not being able to figure out the difficult stuff on your own. Because “that’s just what you do and we all had to learn it the hard way”. But really, this means that the teachers are not doing their jobs and there’s no excuse for that. Don’t blame your failings as a teacher on your students! Don’t turn your lack of teaching competence into a ‘character building’ opportunity for your students. This will not make them better people. It makes you a worse person. And a teacher I would fire on the spot if I were in the position to do so.

Don’t excuse your bad teaching as being a ‘character building’ opportunity

This is very apparent in technology classes at technical universities. In the class, you get this ridiculously simple mini example which is so easy that everybody understands it rightaway. Subsequently, teachers go on to over-explain this for 10 minutes. All students, by now, are lured into a false sense of security because the example was easy. Then they set the task for the assigment and it’s 500% more difficult than the example. This, they pretend, is a learning progression. Hint from someone who actually is a qualified teacher and has experience with training with a systematic progression in sports: No, don’t be ridiculous. This is not a progression. A progression challenges you but doesn’t set tasks which are practically impossible to achieve with the basics training provided beforehand. A progressions means setting a challenging, but doable task – not a sink or swim experience. In these programming classes, usually only those survive who had more knowledge beforehand, came from schools where they’d had years of programming practice, or else, they had more advanced friends or relatives who agreed to help them.

This creates the illusion for teachers that the class is actually doable if you’re willing to put in the work. This is a joke. If you pretend to be a teacher whatsoever, your class should be understandable without help from relatives who are experienced programmers! In some of the classes, I even read all the suggested introductory books and 2-3 more but the class was still difficult because you had to look up hundreds of programming libraries and so on. I managed because I worked hard and had some emergency help from more experienced friends. Having to look up stuff is normal in programming, of course. But as a seasoned programmer, you already know what to search for and know where the new information fits into your previous knowledge. A newbie can’t – I repeat – can’t know that. Don’t blame them for your lack of understanding of how learning works!

Maybe it’s a mistake so many people teach at universities who have never gone through teacher’s training. That is not to say that teacher’s training only produces great teachers. We all know that, sadly, it doesn’t. But at least people necessarily have heard about how learning is supposed to work in theory. Having teachers who do not know nor care how learning and teaching is supposed to work should not be allowed. Yet this is the norm at universities. Students are lucky to come across a natural every once in a while. But it is no coincidence self-help gurus stress the importance of mentors: Not to say that you couldn’t learn it on your own. But your results are just going to be a million times better and faster if you happen to come across a good teacher.

Clear instructions for the ‘danger zones’

Danger zones provide excellent opportunities for accelerated learning progress. But especially before being thrown into ‘dangerous situations’ the students are barely qualified to handle at their stage, giving out clear instructions is crucial. With the guidance of a good teacher and very, very clear instructions of what they should or shouldn’t do, treating students to  a difficult challenge will greatly speed up the learning process. If not done well, however, it will be a nightmarish experience which might even end up deterring students from going on with their studies!

Having something like a life line or a safeboat might be enough to circumvent this. Or having more time or trainers to guide students as much as needed. Don’t rush into these situations without carefully planning them. Students need thoughtful teachers who are there to help students when they need it. Maybe even teachers who anticipate pitfalls students are running into because they can’t know themselves due to lack of experience. If you don’t have a lot of means to make this experience as good as possible, use the one most important element: very clear instructions and some abundant background information before you start. It is also important that students understand why certain rules or behaviours are imposed on them or why certain actions might be dangerous. You can always limit the scariness scope of an overly taxing situations by limiting choices and options through clear instructions and rules. Reduce the scope of a problem and you’ll make success much more achieveable.

Another experience from surfing was on this utmost importance of clear instructions, especially with difficult tasks. On a side note, to avoid any confusion: Surfing was a lot of fun overall, not to give a misleading impression, I just wanted to use the opportunity to point out some interesting observations on teaching. Anyway. In the high waves, the teachers hardly took any notice of me at all. As a novice, I had a hard time paddling against the force of the high waves and was constantly being carried away by the current. I was busy remembering where I was and keeping a vague orientation by looking for where the teachers were. Now was the time when I would have needed their help they had so over-abundantly and unnecessarily given to me in the shallows. I didn’t know whether I should just take the next wave I deemed ok (how the hell should I know which wave is ok? But anyway…) or if I should wait for the teacher to make that choice for me, which they had previously done most of the time.

In this difficult situation, however, they made no clear announcement of what I should do and when they took notice of me after I had spent almost 10 minutes paddling against the waves and waiting around for directions from them, both teachers gave me conflicting instructions. They told me to come over to them but my arms were so weak from paddling and the waves had gotten pretty violent, so it wasn’t easy for me to get to them. Then they decided I had drifted off too much and should just carefully get out of the water. I was shocked. Had I just wasted so much of my energy and didn’t even get one wave to ride? The situation had not only drained the physical energy of my arms and the heat out of my body, it had also drained me emotionally since there was no reward for putting in the effort. Afterwards, I sat on the beach resting a little bit and felt that I didn’t really want to get back in at all. I had lost my trust in the teachers. What if they’d let me rot out there in the waves again? I already didn’t have much energy left. Also I didn’t want the emotional blow of having to get back out again without getting one single wave. Maybe I was just tired, cold and stressing about the situation too much. But then again, I think this is exactly how most students feel when taught difficult subjects. They are left alone at sea in conditions nobody prepared them for. 

Just a thought for now 😉

Best,
the Ninja

PS: Oh, and my experience would probably be a starting point of discussion on multiple teachers who are teaching overlapping topics in parallel but contradict themselves. But that’s a topic for another time…

 

Buy me coffee!

If my content has helped you, donate 3€ to buy me coffee. Thanks a lot, I appreciate it!

€3.00

Advertisements

Should I start doing DH?

My non-DH colleagues and friends ask me more and more often if I think they should start doing Digital Humanities and if yes, where to start? Since this seems to be an interesting topic for many, I thought I’d quickly elaborate on it.

Disclaimer: Even though I’ll  put on my “career advisor” hat right now, I want to remind you that I am in no way qualified to advise you on your career. So if it all goes downwards from now, I am not the one to blame. All opinions are my own and should be treated as such.

So, now we got the legal part over with (essentially: don’t sue me), let’s get to my opinion on the topic. I think it is out of the question whether you should start doing DH. In my prognosis, almost all Humanities research is going to be at least part DH in the near future. If you ask me. And you did.

So, the point is: if everybody is going to do DH anyway, so should you. You don’t want to fall behind. This is good – and bad. If everybody is going to do DH in the future, there is no way around the extra work for you to learn it. But then again, hey, you’re already at the right site for getting awesome DH help – so I’m not too worried for you.

Doing DH is going to be normal soon enough

In fact, I think we’re almost at the point where it already is. So for one thing, if you don’t learn the basics and do at least some DH, you will be sub-standard and below average. If you learn and do  some DH however, it won’t be a door opener either because everybody starts doing DH now, ergo it won’t be special anymore in 5 years.

So yes, you should do DH, already so you don’t fall behind. But also don’t expect it to get you very far. Learning what you can now is merely the entrance barrier. If you want your DH affiliation to count in the years to come, this will only be possible if your approach is super innovative or you’re really good at technical stuff. And technical probably way beyond what is common now (XSLT and stuff). It is my opinion that if you want to make a career in the DH in a few years to come, XSLT and web developemnt might not be enough anymore. Maybe if you get lucky. At least, those now-standard DH basics technologies will be the very foundation everybody is expected to have. Alongside the 500 other skills on top of that.

“Label-DH”

If you are a Normal Humanist now, you might not want to completely change course and become a very tec-savvy Digital Humanist unless you already have the programming foundations. You might just want to add a pinch of DH to spice up your regular Humanities research or be eligible for certain grants. Then you are what some call “label DH”.

First of all, I have to add that I am a bit biased when it comes to so-called “label DH”. “Label DH” are people who label themselves  as “DH” but don’t really do DH or are ‘only’ the Humanist part in a DH project or affiliated to a DH project or else. Essentially they have no legitimate DH skills whatsoever but aggressively label themselves as DH for the advantages of it. If you’re only in for the benefits but not ready to put in the work, obviously everybody is going to hate you and you might or might not get lucky with this approach. I wouldn’t recommend it. I think that not so many people are successful with it now. Never overstate your DH abilities, especially if you have none. People will know and you’ll basically be out of the race. I don’t like label DH. Some great DH thinkers, like Patrick Sahle from what I gathered from a talk of his, believe that label DH is just as important for DH as a discipline as is “hardcore DH”. Because it popularizes the discipline more widely. Maybe it is. I’m not particularly fond of it anyway.

Well, I’m a hardliner. I believe that “real DH” would mean to be just as hardcore at programming as you are at your Humanities research. All while not losing touch with your Humanities research, for then, you would turn to a “mere programmer” (not meant in a pejorative way). Because the whole point of DH is that you’re not either a programmer XOR a Humanities scholar. It’s the combination of both. Most people see that combination as some sort of 30/70 or 40/60 kind of thing. I think it has to be 100/100. And yes, that means you’ll have to be a freak with a 200% workload. I’m pretty alone with this opinion, however, so don’t panic. Most people don’t see it like that at all.  I’m generally a bit of an eccentric and maybe some might perceive my opinion to be extreme. Well, sorry, but I like extreme. I think that “real DH” should mean 200%, or even better: 300%. 150% programmer and 150% Humanities. Be hardcore at both. At least that’s my personal goal.

Half-assed just probably won’t do the trick anymore

Like I said, I’m no expert. But my view of the field is that already now there is a lot of half-assed stuff. A lot of people do DH and not all of it is good. So far, the field has been pretty chill but I’m not so sure it’s going to stay that way. Competition will get harder and harder. In fact, it already is harder than it used to be and the boom is extreme. DH used to be marginalized but now, it has become mainstream. I can’t even imagine the masses of people starting to do DH from all over the Humanities. And then, there is formal  education in the DH now which booms, so we soon will be “flooded” with certified Digital Humanists. I put “flooded” in quotes, because of course, there is more work than ever. Seeing as everyone everywhere is going to do at least some DH from now on, the demand is high too. But still, as a non-DH-certified Humanities scholar you will probably have  a harder time benefitting from the DH without going all-in in the near future. 

I can’t really judge if this will cease, as it was feared a few years back when people thought the DH were yet another hype, to pass as quickly as it had come. They were wrong about that. The DH have come to stay. And they are the cool kids in school now. The Geeks get the girls or whatever. (In case anybody noticed, this is an American Hi-Fi reference but you probably have to Google to find out what that is).

People around me think the demand is not going to sink in the next few years and probably not in the next decades either. Digitization is everywhere and it gets ever more extensive. So no, the demand is probably not going to cease. But new generations of scholars might soon start to learn the DH basics you lack as part of their normal curriculum. So yes, I very much believe you might be at risk to get left behind. Not unless you’re revolutionarily good at your Humanities stuff. Like “excellent” or whatever they call it. So, as a guideline, you probably will need to learn DH. Applying for grants will also require you to have at least a basic overview of what’s going on in the DH. You don’t want to be left behind. For the normal scholar, going your way around the DH basics will be a prerequisite for “excellence”, not the easy way to an excellence award.

What I think you really should learn as fast as you can

Annotation in XML and at least one XML-standard relevant to your research

Learn annotation in XML now because it is easy. Like I said before, this won’t get you very far anymore but it is the foundation on which you can build and will be a gatekeeper. If you don’t even have this basic building block, no more doors will be open to you, even in label-DH projects. I see this starting to become reality now already for everyone who is not an important Humanities professor or otherwise super-important. Also, if you ask for cooperation and possess a basic knowledge of these basics, DH people will be a lot more willing to talk to you because it shows that you did your homework. DH centres can’t accept all projects. This is a way you can stand out from competitors.

How can I start?

Formal education

  • Get a certificate (from a summer school up to a year’s worth of classes).
  • Do a DH master

Teach yourself

Well, of course there is your favourite go-to resource for everything DH (and LaTeX): The LaTeX Ninja – yaaaay! 😉 With many more tutorials to come (soon, hopefully).

Pause to think whether you’re already doing DH

You would have noticed, you think? Well, DH is not only XML and annotation. There are many aspects to it and maybe you have already done something digitally that doesn’t strike you as DH or doesn’t come to mind rightaway.

Learning DH will only really work for you, if it fits your research. So, find a way of going digital which is compatible with what you already do (like a “digital update” of your current work) rather than trying to force yourself to do DH in ways which don’t immediately make sense to you. Take some time to brainstorm this, however. The good ideas might not come to mind  straightaway. Google digital projects from your field. What are they doing? Who does the digital serve their research purposes? What can you take away from that for your own research? If it doesn’t fit between DH and you, people will know. You have to find something you like. If you hate what you do, you’ll never get good. If you like what you do, learning something new will be fun.

Learn something new

I have an extreme drive to always learn and do new things. People usually comment they can’t really understand that. They don’t get me. I think it’s all a question of perspective. If you feel like you have to learn something new, it will be “hard work”. If you want to, it can be an adventure and a nice challenge. Rise to the challenge.

The power plant doesn’t have energy; it transforms one form to another. It generates energy and transmits it. We are the same. (Brendon Burchard)

Life-long learning sounds like a burden to many, but somewhere deep down, past the coziness of our comfort zone, we do have a natural child-like curiosity for learning new things. Try to reacitvate that if you’ve lost it. Use the DH as your trial project.

Cheers,

the LaTeX Ninja

Improve Your Teaching – 10 Simple Tricks

As you might know, good teaching is important to me, so I wanted to share ten simple tricks which I think can improve your teaching. Most of them are about making sure people get the basics which, in my opinion, is one of the biggest mistakes people make in teaching. Let’s get straight at it.

1) Make sure the preliminaries are clear before starting an explanation.

If they are not, don’t even bother starting on the explanation, it will be a complete waste of time. Even if this means that you will spend the whole lesson bringing them up-to-date with the preliminaries and you won’t be able to start on the actual topic at all. Make time for this prep work or risk that all of your subsequent explanations will not get through. To find out if the preliminaries and basics are not clear, you might have to plan testing your students regularly (at the start of each block), like with the basics (see nr. 3).

2) Don’t just “get through with the material”.

Teaching is not about you doing what you had planned, but about students learning something. If you misjudged their previous knowledge, change your plan. Bring them up-to-date. That way, they will have learned something (and thus you have reached to goal of teaching), even if you end up not even being able to start on your actual topic at all. Would you rather be “done” with everything you had planned but nobody understood anything or rather do 1/3 of what you had planned to do but be sure that students really master it? I would much rather go with the latter. Or the result will be that your class will not have made any lasting impression on the students at all. Don’t let them leave the way they came!

3) Nothing is more important than absolute mastery of the basics.

Nothing. I repeat: Nothing.

I often find teachers go over the basics way too fast without ever checking if the students got it, because they think it obvious. Students also often don’t even realize their lacking understanding of the basics because they seem so simple. But really, what is the difference between an amateur and a professional musician? It’s not that the professional plays more advanced pieces, since the amateur can do that too after some time. But they are still no a professional, right? – That’s because mastery lies in perfecting the basics and total immerson, not skimming as much advanced stuff as possible without ever mastering anything. A professional musician spends more time doing drills on the basics – and you hear the difference immediately. Once you’re good, you can always learn more complicated advanced stuff and go on studying independently. But you will have a hard time improving on your own if you’ve never even mastered the basics. 

No matter how friendly you are, they are unlikely to tell you what they don’t understand, especially admit to not having understood the material you have spent the last three weeks talking about. You can, of course, scream at them for being lazy or stupid. But no matter how you react, this will not change the fact that they did not get the basics, so any further teaching of more difficult matters or, in fact, anything which forms a progression building on these basics, is going to be time lost and nothing else. Yes, the good ones will make it. But please, don’t just settle for that.

Put a crazy dedication to everyone getting the basics, so at least you can tell yourself “at least they all have the basics now” after the class. You don’t want to overhear your colleagues going on about what horrible teacher your students had last year and have to admit it was you who couldn’t even teach them the basics. Apart from that, test because it has been proven to be the most effective method for learning and also, your students might not even realize they don’t master the basics and therefore, can’t give you a truthful answer when you ask whether they already have the basics. Ultimately, only testing can tell. Hand them a worksheet for “repetition” of the basics with multiple tasks of progressing difficulty to work on on their own. Then walk around and help everyone. Most effective method to check up on your teaching success by far, in my experience.

(When doing this, act like a coach. Don’t give the impression of testing anyone and don’t grade this or they probably can’t enjoy it in the future. I don’t want that sort of pressure in my classes. Grading is for the final portfolio they hand in, not the learning process where we want them to make as many mistakes as possible! I sometimes use anonymous Google Forms so I can see whether the class overall has a good grasp on concepts but they are sure not to be graded since it’s anonymous. Also a great method of getting feedback throughout the semester, not just at the end.)

Also, I suggest you encourage students to go over the basics again every once in a while and with every stage of their progress. You see them differently each time and taking the time to repeat them is always worth it, especially if you want to really master something.

4) Test. Don’t assume learners learned anything before you’ve ascertained it through multiple tests.

This is not meant in a condescending way. Testing is proven to be the most effective learning technique (“learning types” are not scientifically valid – see the audiobook The Great Courses / The Learning Brain for details). Only once you’ve tested you really know what students already know. Often you realize that you already lost them before your first word because you stepped in too late. They might not even have reached the starting point of your explanation. These problems, however, are difficult to spot since usually in these cases, students don’t even know what they didn’t understand and cannot verbalize it when you ask.

5) Avoid confusing naming in programming.

This is not as trivial as it sounds. It might even be pretty difficult to put yourself in a learner’s position and choose a name which is not confusing or misleading. But all the more crucial to take the time to think about it.

For a student who doesn’t fully grasp the concept of how variables  work, what types and instances are, or classes and objects, this can be very detrimental and make learning so much more difficult. In failed teaching attempts in programming, bad naming is mostly the major culprit. Right after that comes the failure to reduce complexity and purge unnecessary detail. Choose names wisely. They make or break you explanation.

6)  Make sure you always only teach one new concept at once.

It happens far too easily that you explain three things at once without realizing. This also happens when you include unnessary detail which might contain concepts students are unfamilar with and end up confusing them, even though this wasn’t even what you were trying to explain.

7) When explaining something, remove the unnecessary.

Putting didactical reduction into practice means get rid of every detail which is not absolutely crucial to understanding the point or students will get confused by the multiple concepts and not see the point at all.

Also, try to eliminate all sorts of examples which might build on extra knowledge your students might not have (like in 6, be sure you really only teach one new concept). So, you might want to use an example of a historical situation which is completely familiar to you (in your crazy scientific surroundings). But are you sure your students are familiar with it? When explaining something new, not only reduce what’s new but also make sure to keep other potentially confusing artefacts out of the explanation. Maybe it wasn’t even that they didn’t understand the new concept – they already got hung up on the ingenious illustrative example you assumed would be totally logical to them. Don’t assume previous knowledge. At least reduce to a bare minimum. Just in case.

8) Always repeat what is important.

While this might be clear to you, for a student “everything” seems important. And all is new. They cannot tell what is important yet. It is your job to triage here! That’s why I really miss handout culture. There, you had the summary of the gist of a lesson. Now it’s just slides, but the slides usually don’t give you much of a clue about what is essential and what can be discarded. If students have to do the guesswork on their own here, they will waste a lot of time and maybe fail altogether. It’s definitely part of your job to help them out here. Take the time to make a summary for them for later reference. Don’t assume they can do that themselves or else they are lazy. Appreciate that you already know what’s important and therefore, have it easy to sum it all up. After all, you planned this lesson and you know what’s most important to you that they should take away from it, right? Just write it down and they can use the additional time to memorize. (Yeah, of course, they might also just not pay attention to anything else anymore. Find a way of doing this without self-sabotaging your classes.

9) Help them help themselves.

Often teachers get annoyed that students are very dependant and don’t know how to find out something by themselves. But ask yourself, did you ever explain them how to do it? Ironically, students depend on you to teach them how to be independent.

10) Nothing is obvious.

Rule of thumb: It’s highly likely you lost your students about 3 steps earlier than you think where you lost them.

That’s it. Hope it helps!

Have a great Sunday!

Buy me coffee!

If my content has helped you, donate 3€ to buy me coffee. Thanks a lot, I appreciate it!

€3.00

How do I get to do task XY for the first time at the job

Today I want to talk about how you convince others to let you do XY for the first time as an official job responsibility, even though you might not have experience or any formal training doing so. And also, why you have probably come across a situation where one of your colleagues has been chosen to do task XY and not you. Even though you are both equally qualification-less. Now you feel left out. New tasks are opportunities for growth you probably really need if you want to stay in academia. It is all the more detrimental that bosses often don’t take the personal/CV growth of their young colleagues into account and hardly ever give out those tasks strategically. You can end up the lucky one – or you end up left out.

 

Disclaimer: Again, as always, these are my personal opinions and they might not apply to your situation. Use your brain.

 

New skills are always needed in your institution

Especially in the Digital Humanities it can happen a lot that there suddenly is a demand for a certain skill at your institution that nobody has yet acquired. Then somebody gets chosen to do it, often basically by chance and after they have done so, they are the expert on the topic. Which is good if you were the lucky one chosen (teaching yourself probably was quite the struggle so you’d deserve it). But if you aren’t – congratulations, the possibility of you ever going to be able to do this same thing (like programming in a certain language, teaching, shouldering a certain responsbility) might have just shrunk to zero. Often, DH centres are not big enough to need more than one person for a  less-mainstream specialty skill. It will from now on be incredibly hard for you to prove yourself in that area although you might be just as qualified. You have officially become invisible and somebody else has officially become the guy who does XY. I have experience on both sides. I have both had a responsibility thrust upon me, not really freewillingly or because I would have wanted to. But because there was just a demand and nobody there who was actually qualified to do the task.

 

If you were chosen

You’ll have to teach yourself and might end up with patchy skills

Meaning you will probably end up with a pretty stiched together knowledge and might have to relearn the skill in a more systematic way after the project is done if you really want to go on doing what you were asked to do in a professional way. Projects are often time-sensitive and deadline-driven, so you won’t have the time to really learn the skill in a systematic way. Unlearning bad practices acquired like this can be really hard  afterwards.

You are now officially the default person for the task

You might not exactly be more qualified than your colleagues but you are still going to be the default option to do the task. If you want it or not. So be careful accepting these jobs if it’s a task you genuinely dislike or consider out of line with your own personal development goals. For me, personally, I want to become something of a ‘real programmer’ in the Digital Humanities. I am a girl, but I don’t want to end up being the web designer. Not that web design is bad, inferior to ‘real programming’ or anything. I just prefer ‘real programming’ but since I am a girl, people tend to hand me the ‘soft bits’ and give the ‘hardcore programming’ to a man. Which the man might not even want. Sadly, unconscious gender stereotypes are still very effective in workplaces. Woman often get discriminated againt by ‘non-events’, i.e. not being asked to take up a challenge while male colleagues are etc. which ends up harming their success in the long term. If you want the challenge, you might just have to take it up in your private life or compete hard with your male colleagues. If you accept a specialty you don’t really want, you might seriously harm your ability to start something else afterwards. You will end up with that label. So be careful which label you choose. Also, your time resources for personal development will go into this task completely. If you were planning on learning something else, that’ll have to wait for a long time. Choose wisely and turn it down if you have to and can.

You probably can’t say no

In many situations when you’re asked to do this daunting task nobody else has ever done before, it is probably because you are not be most important member of your organization. You are probably young or new and are deemed to be a hard worker and able to learn. These are good things. But it might still not be something you do freewillingly. But do accept the task. If you don’t you might come across as though you’re unwilling to take up new challenges or learn new skills. Not an impression you want to leave for further job openings and ending contracts – which are never very far away in academia. Also, this new skill your institution is trying to acquire through you might be a reason they hold onto you later or or the base for a new grant proposal, etc. So this might just be a golden ticket, even though you had always imagined those would look more glamorous. Also, it might just be that you are the only idiot they dared to hand this stupid task to. You never know.

 

If you were not chosen but would have been interested

This is really stupid and happens a lot because these informal decisions are not discussed with everyone on the team (which they probably should be and bosses should be aware of this once they have read this post.) But the sad truth is that this decision will probably be made by the bosses in a back room in a discussion you are not allowed to join.

So even if you knew it was about to happen, there isn’t much you can do except maybe inform people beforehand that you would be interested. This by no means guarantees your success but since these decisions can be very spontaneous, maybe it even will get you the job. Definitely try it if you get the chance or overhear a discusssion. Butting in on other people’s discussion is rude but it is also rude of bosses making seemingly inconsequential decisions in private which actually are very consequential to their young employees and can make or break a career in the long term. In this case I would say, better sore than sorry.

But what if it’s already too late? It might even have happened to you that somebody else was chosen as a “new expert” for a job (in a backroom decision) which they are not qualified for – but for which you, in fact, are qualified for. Of course you can tell people that you think you would have been more qualified or at least wished you had been asked. But once the job is already given out, it’s unlikely they’ll take it back. Unless the other “chosen one” has expressed that they will only do it if nobody else is found but rather wouldn’t do it if they didn’t have to. Probably try and say something anyway.

Official responsibilities make you more trustworthy than actual skills

This is an especially stupid situation for you because it undermines your skill and legitimates the other person who actually didn’t have any legitimate skill up to now. If you already have some experience in these matters, you will probably know that often, experts are not made by skill. They are made by decisions of their superiors. In the end, your skill doesn’t count. What counts is solely the fact that your bosses trust you to do a job. This can lead to major unfairness, of course. And you are virtually powerless once it does. The only thing you really can do is show your experience and skill elsewhere. Join an expert society. You will need very bold action and extremely solid credentials if you ever want to make up for this misguided decision again. Also remember that bosses hardly think about this. They are probably completely unaware of the detrimental effect this will have on your career.

Boost your CV, exaggerate your skills a little bit and be over-confident of yourself (because, sadly, everybody else is and you will be left out otherwise)

So show off your skills as much as you can. Drop your knowledge whenever appropriate. Especially if you are a girl or shy, this is not like you. But you will notice how (even misguided) self-confidence goes a long way. Men tend to be much more bold in their statements in the workplace and also in what they write in their CV. If have seen a CV where someone said they were a C1 or C2 in English when they really were so bad that they made tons of typos in basic programing commands. And programming language English is hardly the real deal. If they already can’t spell ‘length’ properly, how can they have a C2 level? It was not a one time typo and by no means the only type of error I observed in the very short time span I paid attention to this either. In their defense, they probably didn’t even know what C2 meant. It is still a bold claim. What I have learned from this is that the impression you convey is all that counts. Be a bit more self-confident than you really are. Pretend you have some more skill than you do. By this, I don’t mean overly exaggerate. But ask yourself whether you could learn a certain skill (in basics) in a week or weekend. Then you probably are good to state it in your CV. (Then go on and actually learn the requested skill since people will probably test this by asking some general questions on the topic. And, of course, this only goes for minor skills but many DH skill requirements are actually quite basic).

 

You have to have done it once

If you actively seek to try it out new things or want to be challenged in your job but were not chosen, you are out of luck. Since somebody else is the default option now, you are going to have an incredibly hard time getting yourself seen or heard from now on. Even if you do everything you can to learn the skill along with your colleague, they are always going to be the one who has the practical experience. Even if you should also manage to get some practical experience, they are going to be the one who won your institution’s trust and showed results on a concrete job-related project. Unless there is a great need for the skill, you might never be able to do this at your job. Sorry, but it’s the truth. 😦 The only thing you can do now is to get real job experience with the task outside of your instituation or going freelance (if your job allows that at the side). Or create a truly mind-blowing hobby project and share it online.

This is partly one of the reasons why I have this blog. I don’t really like the idea of sharing my life with strangers but at the same time, I still want my private technology- and teaching-related activities to be visible. People will only trust you once you’ve “done it once” because it is seen as proof that you can do it. That’s why people often say that you should teach exactly one class in your PhD time – takes up the least possible amount of time and energy possible but from now on, once you apply for a position which includes teaching, you are credible when you say that you can do it. If you haven’t – well, good luck to you. It is highly unlikely someone who doesn’t know you will take the risk. Especially since they probably have 50 other applications from people who did get that chance. So you kind of depend on getting the experience from your own institution. If they have chosen to ask somebody else, all you can do is be annoying or follow that default person along. Tag along and offer to help as much as you can. Drop knowledge you have whenever appropriate. This is by no means guaranteed to help – you might just get ignored. But then you can say you have at least tried to get people’s attention. And maybe it will turn out for the better at some point. Maybe they will remember you the day they need a lab rat for a new task nobody is qualified to do.

 

Conclusion: On the importance of learning from new responsibilities for your CV

“So grow your own CV and decorate your own skills, instead of waiting for someone to bring you opportunities for personal growth.” – based on a quote by J. L. Borges

So, as we have seen, this informal way of giving out new tasks to people can be a great opportunity if you are chosen. But it can also be a way of preventing eager people from taking up new tasks. Once somebody did it, they are the default person and probably nobody else is needed. So nobody else will be given this opportunity of personal development. This can be a real problem in academia where you are expected to constantly grow your CV and tend to your skills. Some people even say that you should add one line to your CV every month if you want to be successful in Academia. What line have you added last month? What will you add next month? Plan this strategically!

I hope that maybe some bosses read this post and become aware of the problem. Maybe people get inspired to hand out these opportunities more strategically and more consciously. It also often happens that it’s always the same people who get the opportunities (because they have already proven their potential to rise to the challenge) and others continuously get left out. This is bad for the ones left out and can lead to overwork in the others. If you are responsible for early career scholars, please make conscious choices with anything which could affect their careers. If you are affected, my consolations. Try to prove your skills in a side project or join a society.

 

Hope this helps someone,

best,

the Ninja

Buy me coffee!

If my content has helped you, donate 3€ to buy me coffee. Thanks a lot, I appreciate it!

€3.00