Heffernan, T. (2020). Academic networks and career trajectory: ‘There’s no career in academia without networks.’ Higher Education Research & Developme

Abstract

• Examines how academic networks influence career trajectory, including employment opportunities, publication openings, and alerting academics to unadvertised opportunities. Aligns with Bourdieu’s notion that social capital within a field can raise an individual’s position through their network’s resources.
• Based on qualitative data from a survey of academic staff, emphasizing lived experiences of network building and its perceived benefits and drawbacks.
• Highlights that networks can benefit merit-based outcomes but may also subvert meritocracy; explores how networks function across disciplines, locations, and genders.
• Key finding: there are tangible career benefits from networks (direct employment, career advancements, publication opportunities, etc.) but benefits are uneven and can be constrained by structural factors such as gender and family responsibilities.

Introduction

• Academic networks are linked to career outcomes (employment, promotions, prestige, salaries).
• Networks can consist of in-field colleagues or cross-disciplinary collaborators, and can include non-academic actors (industry, not-for-profit organizations, private sector).
• The literature shows networks can elevate status, influence, and salaries, but data on the personal, lived experiences behind these patterns are limited.
• This article uses qualitative data to explore what academics themselves say about networks, aiming to understand the human element behind statistical patterns.
• The study does not seek to prove that networks exist or to quantify their effects; instead, it describes how academics perceive and experience networks and their implications for career decisions.
• Theoretical lens draws on Bourdieusian concepts: capital (economic, social, cultural), field, and doxa (taken-for-granted beliefs about meritocracy).

Current literature

• Networks influence hiring practices and promotions, sometimes overriding explicit merit criteria such as publication records or graduate-program prestige.
• Similar patterns observed beyond academia, e.g., in corporate settings where network-connected applicants gain hiring advantages.
• Networks are described as benefits (conference invitations, editorial opportunities, co-authorship, research collaborations) and as potential sources of bias and inefficiency (merit may be undervalued).
• Inequalities exist in networks by race, gender, age, and social class; men are often found to access higher-status, more strategic networks than women.
• Calls for more qualitative studies to illuminate human elements, motivations, and experiences behind network activity (beyond statistic-focused analyses).
• The literature frequently treats networks as a given, but this article investigates how academics themselves interpret and navigate networks within policy and governance contexts.

Theoretical framework

• Bourdieuan concepts used: capital (economic, social, cultural), field, and doxa.
• Academic networks can augment an individual’s capital by leveraging collective resources and influence of the network within the field.
• Merit-based achievement is not always the sole determinant of success; networks can create advantages that resemble merit, while also shaping perceptions of merit within the field.
• Doxa in education suggests merit is the norm, but the field’s structure often makes networks a decisive factor in career outcomes.

Methodology

• Research approach: qualitative study funded by institutional ethics approval; aims to understand the human element of academic networking.
• Data collection: open calls for participation via the researcher’s social media, followed by snowball sampling.
• Survey design: seven short-answer demographic questions and thirteen mid-length open-ended questions (up to ~300 words each)—e.g., “How do academic networks influence your career?”
• Data volume: over $82{,}000$ words of raw data.
• Sample and response: from an initial pool of about $186$ participants, $109$ met criteria (currently employed as academics) and were included in the analysis.
• Geography and disciplines: participants from Australia, the United States, Great Britain and Ireland, New Zealand; across Social Sciences, Humanities, and Natural Sciences.
• Ethical and methodological notes: acknowledges potential issues with online recruitment but argues benefits include diverse, hard-to-reach participant pools.
• Analysis: Braun & Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis, multi-stage approach to identify patterns and themes; coding began with responses about networks being unhelpful, neutral, or beneficial; subsequent rounds refined themes.
• Participant demographics (sample details): $109$ participants; $69$ identifying as Female, $35$ as Male, $5$ as Other/unspecified.
• Tables referenced: Table 1 – Participant locations; Table 2 – Participant disciplinary areas; Table 3 – Participant gender identification.
• Limitations acknowledged: cross-country differences in employment systems (e.g., tenure in North America vs. full-time-continuing in UK/Ireland/NZ/Australia) may affect network outcomes; results emphasize lived experiences rather than cross-disciplinary generalizations.

Theoretical framing in practice

• Capital, field, and doxa applied to interpret findings:
  • Networks can augment capital by linking individuals to opportunities (publications, grants, positions) and by embedding them in prestigious circles.
  • The field (higher education) is competitive; actors seek to maximize position via access to networks.
  • Doxa shapes participants’ beliefs about merit; while they acknowledge networks matter, many still perceive merit as central, even when networks influence outcomes.

Findings

• Actual resources: employment opportunities
  • Direct employment gained via networks: $13$ participants (directly tied to the network in securing a job).
  • Career advancements attributed to networks: $38$ participants reported that networks contributed to career progression (e.g., promotions, additional responsibilities, or opportunities).
  • Some benefit yet to come: $9$ participants indicated networks may assist in the future but hadn’t yet benefited.
  • Quotes illustrate impact: e.g., one participant noted graduate-school networks helped with multiple appointments; another described future-oriented support from their network.
  • Acknowledgement that networks can create exclusion (not having a network can place individuals at a disadvantage).
• Publication and conference opportunities
  • Publication opportunities linked to networks: $42$ participants cited co-authorships, invitations to special issues, editorial boards, and other publication-related benefits.
  • Cross-disciplinary spread of benefits; scientists particularly report collaboration-facilitated publications; humanities users emphasize conference invitations due to single or smaller-scale collaboration modes.
  • Networks also enable broader dissemination via conference participation and journal involvement.
• Virtual resources: information and motivation
  • Humans within networks gain timely access to information (data, findings) as networks share insights and avoid delays typical of formal channels.
  • A sense of motivation and reassurance for continuing in academia is tied to networks (quotes like “There is no career in academia without networks”).
  • Networks provide exposure to developments and new avenues for research and work beyond traditional tracks.
• Opportunities beyond the traditional academic trajectory
  • Some respondents used networks to explore non-academic opportunities (industry, not-for-profits, community organizations).
  • A subset considered leaving academia due to network-connected opportunities, while others were motivated to stay in academia thanks to the network advantages.
  • Example: one participant indicated their network extended to industry partners, opening potential for enterprise/consulting roles in the longer term; another suggested industry value from non-academic collaboration.
• How networks operate across disciplines and contexts
  • Networks function similarly across locations and disciplines in providing access to opportunities, but the type and value of opportunities can differ by field (e.g., conference invites in humanities vs. grant opportunities in sciences).
  • Networks can enrich a university’s reputation by connecting with prestigious scholars and journals, thereby benefiting the affiliated institution.
• Gender differences and family responsibilities
  • Gender distribution among respondents: $69$ Female, $35$ Male, $5$ Other/unspecified.
  • Direct employment through networks: among $13$, $8$ were Female, $5$ Male.
  • Overall career benefits from networks: among $90$ participants who reported benefits, $51$ Male and $39$ Female, indicating men more often report benefiting from networks in this sample.
  • Opportunities away from academia via networks: 7 participants (5 Male, 2 Female) reported job opportunities outside academia through networks.
  • Family responsibilities as a constraint: $23$ participants mentioned family obligations limiting opportunities accessed via networks; of these, $17$ were Female.
  • Comparative pattern: men more likely to leverage networks for high-status or strategic opportunities; women more likely to experience constraints due to caregiving responsibilities, impacting their ability to engage fully with networks.
  • Examples illustrate disparities: one male participant declined an opportunity after relocating with family; several female participants reported missing large opportunities due to family duties.
  • Overall implication: gender shapes both access to networks and the ability to capitalize on opportunities from networks, with family responsibilities contributing to unequal outcomes.

Discussion and interpretation

• Networks provide direct and indirect career benefits, including faster access to positions, promotions, and publication collaborations, as well as broader awareness of opportunities beyond one’s immediate circle.
• Yet networks can undermine merit-based processes when hiring or promotion decisions over-rely on network ties, potentially bypassing stronger merit-based candidates.
• The study reinforces existing literature on social capital and career outcomes, while foregrounding the human experience—how academics perceive and navigate networks in real-life contexts.
• A key contribution is the emphasis on the lived experiences of network participants, the asymmetries in access (notably by gender and family responsibilities), and the potential for networks to steer scholars toward non-academic careers or toward staying within academia thanks to network support.

Implications for policy and practice

• Policy and administration should recognize networks as influential factors in career progression and consider equity-focused interventions to ensure merit-based opportunities are not unduly overshadowed by networks.
• Support mechanisms could include:
  • Transparent, merit-focused recruitment and promotion processes with explicit safeguards against network-based bias.
  • Flexible work arrangements and family-supportive policies to reduce the constraint of caregiving on engagement with networking activities.
  • Structured mentoring and networking opportunities that provide equal access across genders and disciplines.
• Further qualitative research is needed to explore how networks form, how gatekeepers influence access, and how to design equitable structures that maintain the positive aspects of networking while mitigating inequities.

Limitations and future research

• Cross-country and disciplinary differences in academic career structures (e.g., tenure systems) may limit generalizability; results reflect a mixed sample across several countries and fields.
• The study relies on self-reported perceptions of networks, which may be influenced by personal biases or recollection.
• Future work could incorporate longitudinal designs to track how network effects evolve over time and how policy changes impact network-based outcomes.
• Additional research should investigate intersectionality (race, ethnicity, disability, socio-economic background) and their interactions with gender and family responsibilities in shaping network dynamics.

Key takeaways

• There is a real, observable link between academic networks and career outcomes, including direct employment, promotions, and publication opportunities, as well as non-traditional paths outside academia.
• Networks can also reproduce or amplify inequalities within the academy, particularly related to gender and caregiving responsibilities.
• A nuanced understanding of networks requires qualitative inquiry into lived experiences, not just quantitative metrics; this helps policymakers and administrators design more equitable academic environments.
• The study supports a Bourdieusian view where capital embedded in networks can substantially influence position within the academic field, even as doxa around merit persists among academics.

References (selected, as context for framing)

• Key works cited include Bourdieiu on capital, field, and doxa; studies on network effects in hiring and promotion; and literature on gender and social capital in academia. See: Bourdieu (1984/1988, 1989, 1996, 2000, 2006), Burt (1998, 2005), Ibarra (1992, 1993, 2005), Goel & Grimpe (2013), Brink & Benschop (2014), Seidel et al. (2000), and related methodological references (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Creswell, 2013; Miles et al., 2013).