🎙️ Podcast Link 🎙️

Of all the advice that is dispensed in academia, one of the most varied is about whether you should focus narrowly and deeply, or diversify and broaden your repertoire.

The reason for this variety of suggested approach is of course, circumstance and the individual: the ecosystem you find yourself in, and your personal aspirations, risk appetite and other factors determine what is “best for you”.

So this video is definitely not to suggest what you should do: rather to raise awareness of some key factors that might affect your approach.

Some of these factors include:

💎 the combination of latency and low acceptance rates in many core activities – in academia being applying for grants and submitting publications – leading to volatility: one of the “management” strategies here is to do a lot more than you actually expect to get…

💎 your capacity for learning and improvement and hitting potential plateaus if focussing narrowly on just one thing – where you learn especially quickly but may eventually hit capacity / capability limits, versus doing a range of activities where you’re continually learning and seeing good improvements because you’re in an earlier part of the expertise spectrum

💎 having refuge activities to switch to if one of your activities is going badly, allowing you to recharge and come back to it later refreshed. Even if you work super hard and do everything right focusing on just-one-thing, it can go bad for all sorts of reasons beyond your control…

💎 the expectations of those who fund or resource you – sometimes they won’t be keen for you to hyperspecialize, preferring a range of contributory activities (e.g. a typical academics’ teaching, research and service split)

💎 personal preferences and attention span / comfort focusing deeply on one narrow thing versus lots of things

💎 diversity of activities, especially including *new* activities, provides you with the opportunity to discover new things that you are passionate about, and good at (ideally both together!)

💎 110% effort opportunities where, as long as you go in with eyes open, you commit fully to just one thing, in order to maximize chances of success – perhaps leaving academia to do a startup

Full Video Notes

One of the most significant challenges as a mentor and adviser in academia is managing the diverse, often contradictory, advice on how to plan and progress one’s career. This advice, while well-intentioned, can vary greatly depending on the context of your career goals, the country, and the academic system you are part of. What may be beneficial advice in one scenario can be detrimental in another. A common dilemma faced in academia is whether to focus narrowly on one’s career path or to diversify and engage in multiple activities simultaneously. The decision isn’t straightforward and largely depends on personal and professional circumstances.

Today, I want to explore this issue by discussing the factors you should consider when deciding whether to specialize or diversify your academic activities. This isn’t about prescribing a one-size-fits-all answer but encouraging a more deliberate consideration of your current strategy—whether you’re potentially overextending yourself or not engaging broadly enough.

Latency and Volatility in Academia: These two factors significantly influence academic behaviors, particularly around grant applications and publishing. The academic grant process can be lengthy, often taking months or even years to conclude, combined with generally low success rates. This uncertainty compels academics to apply for more grants than they can realistically manage, hoping to secure enough funding. The same principle applies to publishing, where the slow review process and competitive nature of prestigious journals encourage scholars to submit multiple papers, knowing that many will face rejection.

Factors to Consider:

1. Interest and Focus Ability: Some individuals thrive when they can deep-dive into a subject for years, while others perform better when they can switch between various tasks. Understanding what works best for you is crucial in deciding how narrowly or broadly you should spread your academic activities.
2. Capability Ceilings: Specializing in one area means you might rapidly improve initially but eventually hit a plateau. Diversifying your activities can keep the learning curve steady and fulfilling, as you’re consistently encountering new challenges.
3. Institutional Expectations: Most academic institutions require a balance of teaching, research, and service. Convincing your institution to allow a shift towards more specialized research can be challenging without clear benefits to the institution.
4. Exploration vs. Exploitation: Focusing deeply on one area allows for significant expertise development but can preclude the discovery of new interests or talents. Diversifying activities can lead to unexpected and potentially rewarding discoveries.
5. Resilience and Flexibility: Engaging in multiple activities can provide a buffer if one area doesn’t pan out as expected. It offers alternative paths to focus on, enhancing both professional resilience and personal satisfaction.

Strategic Considerations: It’s essential to continually assess and realign your focus based on your career phase, personal goals, and institutional demands. This approach ensures you don’t inadvertently find yourself overly committed to a path that doesn’t fulfill you or, conversely, spread so thinly that none of your endeavors reach their potential.

In conclusion, navigating an academic career requires a thoughtful balance between depth and breadth. By understanding and periodically reassessing your approach in light of your personal and professional circumstances, you can effectively manage the diverse advice and expectations in academia, aligning them with your own career aspirations and life situation. Remember, there is rarely “bad” advice in isolation; the key is to contextualize and apply it judiciously to your own unique situation.