Send message to Author

Short abstract

Years ago, a mentor challenged me to discern among STS theoretical problems and consider which would shape my PhD book. In times when STS is grappling with its publishing culture, I reflect on this formative moment and discuss it in relation to prevalent academic incentives & conventional advice.

Long abstract

One year into my PhD and upon return from fieldwork, I received the gift of instruction into STS monograph development. My mentor outlined the rough contour of a guiding principle for identifying the theoretical and analytical priorities I would ultimately pursue, and suggested ways to embed them within a coherent structure supported by compelling narrative development. This came in response to my excitement over stories from the field and material collection as candidate topics for different publications. In turn, he asked: how are these different from one another? How do you know that they are not speaking to the same theoretical problem, and therefore belong in the same chapter, or that an either/or choice must be made between them? I did not know. This moment set me on a path of learning to discern among theoretical problems in STS, something that shaped my intellectual development since.

The dominant orientation facing researchers today is one in which the expectation is to publish articles early and often. The instruction I received instead assumed the monograph as a central intellectual form and treated the PhD as a period for learning to identify, differentiate, and innovate STS theoretical problems. In this contribution, I start from this moment of Heterodox Career Advice and consider what it meant to follow it and what it meant to defend it. Are there conditions under which such forms of guidance, running counter to prevalent academic incentives, and the resulting intellectual formations, become available and viable options within STS training?