Doing a project per career stage versus executing multiple projects: Pros, cons and my own experience

Should you do a single project for each of your career stages or should you execute multiple projects? I have reflected on this particular element of academic life for a very long time, ever since I started writing my doctoral dissertation. Should I have stayed in the same research area, broadly speaking, or was I supposed to branch out? The first time I thought about this was when I went to Berlin for a conference where I presented a paper on transnational environmental NGOs and domestic policy change. This conference presentation had absolutely nothing to do with my PhD dissertation, so I felt bad that I had branched out instead of presenting something related to my actual PhD research. Suffice to say, I continued branching out and doing stuff that was unrelated to my PhD thesis. I do NOT advise doing this!

The second time I thought about the diversification vs. focus topic deeply and seriously was as I was finishing my doctoral dissertation. It took me longer than I wanted and expected, but in the end, I was able to complete the dissertation.

I had completed a book-style, manuscript-based thesis, despite having a PhD advisor who was extremely in favour of papers-based theses. I found it hard to write such a style of dissertation (book-based) when my advisor explicitly told me he expected three (3) distinct, clearly unique contributions to the literature within my PhD thesis. But in the end, I was able to discern where my three contributions were located, and what was it that I was contributing to the literature.

Still, by the time I had finished my PhD, I had published several articles on various areas of scholarship that were not even remotely close to my PhD dissertation research. There was no going back. And I had to decide what to do after my PhD: would I stay within the same research area that I did my PhD in (economic geography, public policy, industrial decline), or would I return to other topics?

To be perfectly frank, I was so exhausted after finishing my PhD dissertation that I did not think about returning to my doctoral research work and publish it as a single-author monograph. I did get one publication out of my PhD research, but come to think about it, I never really exploited the results of what I had already done. Nevertheless, now that I am a Full Professor, I am returning to my PhD dissertation and turning it into a book, along with additional fieldwork, archival work and interviews I conducted over the past few years.

In previous posts, I’ve discussed whether PhD candidates/students should branch out or focus on their dissertation (my suggestion remains: FOCUS), and at some point in my early career (when I was on the tenure-track as an assistant professor), I also wrote about diversification vs. focus. After a few years as a Full Professor, and having conducted multiple solo and team projects, I can still say that I probably would still recommend FOCUS ON ONE PROJECT.

Historians do this. Sociologists do this. Many political scientists and human geographers do this, too. They start with a book that comes out of their PhD dissertation, then start a new project while on the tenure track, and then when they get tenure (perhaps with the second book, or the second one is for their transition to full professor), they pivot to a different (but perhaps often related) research project. Let me illustrate with a case I know relatively well.

Every time I get asked this question (“should I focus on one project or should I work on multiple projects?”), I direct folks to the work of Dr. Ashley Mears (now a Full Professor at University of Amsterdam). My reading of her work trajectory was that Mears’ tenure book (her PhD dissertation turned into a book) was “Pricing Beauty: The Making of a Fashion Model”, and that her second book was “Very Important People: Status and Beauty in the Global Party Circuit”. Both deep ethnographic engagements. She’s now writing about content creators (and doing ethnography!) – so maybe that will be her third book.

This type of somewhat linear career is often what is suggested by mentors in academia: “get your first book out during your tenure, and start your second one”. Ashley did not just publish her books, but her journal articles were associated with the materials of each book.

I think historians tend to do this, and from my read of *some* sociologists’ careers, they do too (as do some anthropologists). I’ve seen some political scientists in book-based departments do the same (book, with articles using related material), and some human geographers too.

If I had done this, I would have published my PhD dissertation as a book for my tenure book, and then my bottled water book (forthcoming) and after gaining full professorship I’d probably have gone with my informal waste pickers book (the one I am working on right now).

BUT… I did not take this approach AT ALL. I suppose that there are advantages and disadvantages to each approach (diversify vs. focus), but I am guessing it all comes down to the type of department you are in or you are targeting.

I think one advantage of doing one book project first, then the next one, then the next one is that you can just focus your energies in ONE project at a time. Even if you write and publish articles with material from the same project, it still does not deviate you from your main goal and does not dilute your attention.

Bottom line: I think each researcher should make their own decisions, but if I were able to do my PhD and re-start all over again, I probably would have done one project per career stage, and all publications I got out during my PhD would have come out of my dissertation research.

You can share this blog post on the following social networks by clicking on their icon.