Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Working with Visual Materials has been the longest academic project I’ve worked on. The first edition came out in 2001 and the fifth is now out from Sage. Three years ago I wasn’t planning to write another edition, but I decided that working on it largely from home during various lockdowns and post-lockdowns caution would be a really useful exercise for catching up on things I hadn’t read but should have done – though I long ago gave up trying to be comprehensive.
The new edition of the book is re-organised. It now starts with the chapter on how to use the book (with thanks to the reviewer who suggested that that would be kind of logical… only took me twenty years to come to the same conclusion).
It’s then divided into four main sections. The first, contexts, gives an overview of different theoretical approaches to understanding visual culture and develops the criteria for what I call a ‘critical visual methodology’. The second section is on designing a research project using visual materials, and covers topics like research ethics, locating images to research, and referencing the visual materials you work with. The third part is the section on methods – there are nine chapters each discussing one method in depth, as well as distinct discussions of other related visual research methods (a new feature in this edition). The fourth section has just one chapter, on using visual images to engage non-academic audiences with the findings of a research project.
There’s one entirely new chapter – on research design – and the chapters on digital methods, making images as research data and engaging non-academic audiences have been completely rewritten. Several of the other chapters have been heavily revised and the rest refreshed, while the chapter on pyschoanalytic methods has been moved to the book’s website.
I’d like to thank the folk who contributed generous endorsements of the new edition. I do hope the book continues to be useful, as they suggest it will. This one really will have to be the final edition though – not least because the archive from which I’ve sourced all the front covers doesn’t seem to have any more appropriate photographs for me to use…
One of the things that’s kept me from my blog in the past year or so – apart from moving jobs and cities and leading an eight-person research team – is that I’ve sat on half-a-dozen interview panels. The last one involved reading through a pdf of all the applications that was 1,100 pages long – just under 60 applications (I have heard of posts attracting nearly 100 applications). That’s an awful lot of blog posts.
Indeed, it’s an awful lot of anything. If you’re an applicant, it might almost make you pity the interview panellists. If you’re a panellist, it might also give you a lot of opinions on how to write – and how NOT to write – standout cvs and covering letters.
So, here is a blog post with some advice for you if you are writing up your cv and your covering letter for an academic job application. It’s a combination of things that have irritated me as I’ve read some applications, and things that I’ve appreciated as I’ve read others.
I should note that this advice is based on job applications in the UK and in the social sciences. Conventions do vary between countries and disciplines, so my very first piece of advice is: get a draft of both your cv and your letter read by someone who has sat on a lot of interview panels in both the country and the discipline you’re applying to, if you can.
- your cv lists information; your covering letter contextualises that information. So don’t repeat all the facts that are in your cv in your letter. Use your letter to explain what you have achieved and its significance, not to list what you have done.
- remember your reader may not be online when they are ploughing through applications, so don’t put crucial information on pages that are only accessible via links.
- don’t make the letter or cv too long. And no, I don’t know how long too long is, it depends on the job spec and what you’ve done. But I’d suggest three sides max for the letter.
- only send what you are asked to. I don’t want to have to wade through (or print out) pages of student feedback, book manuscripts, certificates or powerpoint presentations, unless they are a necessary part of the selection process.
- and remember, if I’ve got lots of applications to read for a competitive post, then at a certain point I’ll be looking (unfortunately) for reasons not to shortlist you – and if it’s not clear exactly what you’ve done, I will not be able to give you the benefit of the doubt. So be precise in both your letter and your cv.
- list things in date order.
- put most recent things first.
- put page numbers on all your publications. It’s important that I know whether a publication is four-pages or twenty-pages. Being clear is better than sowing seeds of doubt in the reader’s mind, even it is a four-pager.
- publications are either in print or online first (in which case, use the full citation [see above]), or they are ‘forthcoming’ (ie accepted for publication), or ‘accepted subject to major/minor revision’, or ‘under consideration’ (ie submitted but not yet reviewed). Other descriptions can be confusing – or seem evasive.
- don’t bother listing publications ‘in preparation’ – unless they’ve been invited by a book/journal editor. Others might disagree here, but for me, anyone can say they’re preparing anything. I’d rather go an on actual achievements when assessing applications.
- in your list of publications, separate out your books, papers, book chapters and ‘other’.
- in your list of talks, distinguish between invited talks and others.
- descriptions of grants should include the funder, the dates of the funding period, the amount of funding awarded, and your precise role in the project. Again, even if you only made the tea, I’d rather know that than have to guess or wonder if something is being glossed over. (And tea-making is important to teamwork…)
- do not mention the REF in relation to your publications. Currently, publications are not “REF eligible” in any sense other than they count as research – posts are eligible; and whatever stars your institution thinks your outputs are is irrelevant, it’s the REF panel that will decide. And in any case, the REF kind is only one kind of excellence. Don’t embed it in academic work any further than necessary.
- if you’re going to mention the ‘impact’ of your work, make sure you understand the difference between ‘impact’ and ‘dissemination’ (in REF-speak). Both are important (see the previous point) but if you don’t know the difference between them, that suggests that you’re not sufficiently informed about the REF. Which you should be, not to exaggerate its importance but to acknowledge its actual signficance.
- do mention any significant periods of leave you’ve had (parental, compassionate…).
- be careful when using metrics to describe what you’ve done. Quantity does not necessarily translate into quality.
- do not list absolutely everything you have ever done. Quantity does not necessarily translate into quality.
- once you’re going back more than 5 or 6 years, please be selective in what you list you’ve done.
- personally, I find a photograph of you as part of your cv unnecessary.
covering letter tips:
- the usual procedure in the UK is that each application is graded against the essential and desirable criteria in the job description. So, address each element of the essential and desirable characteristics of the post explicitly in your letter. Use subheadings to do this! – address each one systematically. Even if you don’t have a lot to say in one subsection, just a sentence will show that you’re paying attention.
- particularly if you’re applying to a research-intensive department, say something specificabout your intellectual contribution in your cover letter. What is distinctive about what you do?
- show that you know something about the department you’re applying to – at the very least, show that you’ve read the department’s website.
I hope some of that is useful. Good luck!