Ecology faculty job ads sometimes say that they’re open to candidates in some broadly defined field, but that the hiring department is “particularly” interested in candidates from some narrower subfield. Another, similar sort of add will say that the department is interested in hiring in some broad area of ecology, “including but not limited to” narrow subfields X, Y, and Z. As an ecology faculty job seeker, how should you interpret and respond to these sorts of ads? Particularly if your own research doesn’t fall within any of the listed narrow subfields?
Unusually for me, I haven’t compiled systemic data relevant to this question. But I have sat on several search committees here at Calgary (a large, public Canadian research university), including pretty recently. And over the years I’ve spoken to numerous friends and colleagues who’ve sat on search committees at various sorts of colleges and universities across North America. So here’s my advice, which applies in N. America (I’m not sure about elsewhere). Don’t treat it as gospel, but do take it seriously. I’m not infallible, but I do speak from a decent amount of first- and second-hand experience.
tl;dr: interpreting these sorts of ads actually is quite straightforward; don’t overthink it.
Search committees write these sorts of ads–broad, but also listing some narrow subfields–for various reasons. Maybe the department would prefer to hire someone who can teach a specific course, but is prepared to cancel the course, or hire an adjunct to teach it, in order to hire a strong candidate from some other subfield. Maybe the department wants to maintain or build research strength in a specific subfield, but also wants to do other things too, and no one of those desiderata necessarily trumps any of the others. Maybe the department is split between people who want to hire within a narrow subfield, and people who’d prefer a broad search. Etc. There are many other possibilities, besides those I just listed. As an applicant, you generally won’t know exactly why the department wrote the ad as it did, and don’t need to know. So don’t sabotage yourself by making unwarranted assumptions about why the ad was written as it was.*
My main advice to applicants is don’t overthink it! (Easier said than done, I know.) Just take the ad at its word: working in the listed subfield(s) is a plus, but it’s not the only important consideration for the search committee. So if it’s a job you might take if offered, go ahead and apply, even if you don’t work in any of the listed subfields.
Here’s another piece of advice: If you can tailor your application so as to highlight work you’ve done, or plan to do, that falls in or near the named subfield(s), definitely do so. For instance, back when I was applying for faculty jobs, I applied for several microbial ecology jobs, plus a few ecology jobs that listed microbial ecology as a subfield of particular interest. I even got a campus interview for a microbial ecology job. Even though I’m definitely not what anyone thinks of when they think of a “microbial ecologist.” I merely use protist microcosms as a model system to do population and community ecology. But in my applications to microbial ecology jobs, and to jobs listing microbial ecology as a subfield of particular interest, I played up how the exciting trend in microbial ecology at the time was to apply ideas from community ecology to microbes, using then-new molecular tools. Basically, my applications said, “I don’t do traditional microbial ecology, but I have plans to push microbial ecology in new directions by working at the interface of microbial ecology and community ecology.” This wasn’t just spin. Had I been hired as a microbial ecologist, I really would’ve been sincerely interested in pursuing research at the interface of community ecology and microbial ecology. Of course, I wasn’t hired as a microbial ecologist, and I didn’t end up moving my research program in that direction. So we’ll never know if I could’ve pulled it off. The point is just to provide an example, from my own experience, of how to tailor your faculty job application to a position that might seem like a bit of a stretch.
Now, there are obvious limits to how much you can plausibly tailor your application. You’re not going to fool a search committee into thinking you’re something that you’re not, and you shouldn’t try. Better to try to get the search committee excited about who you are and what you do, rather than try to put on a false front. But if the ad names a subfield of particular interest, and you can link your work to that subfield in some cogent way that you sincerely believe in, by all means do so.
If you’re unsure if it would be worth your while to apply, you can always send an email and cv to the chair of the search committee, or chair of the department. Ask the chair whether you fit the position. If the chair responds by saying, yes, you look like you could be a good fit, please do apply, here’s how to interpret that.
Here’s what not to do. Don’t pass on applying for a job you want, just because you don’t work in the subfield that the hiring department is “particularly” interested in, or don’t work in any of the subfields that the department’s interests include “but aren’t limited to.” If the department really wasn’t open to hiring someone outside of subfield X, the department would’ve run a narrow search in subfield X. And don’t assume that the department is bound to get tons of great applicants in the subfield(s) named in the ad, so that it would be a waste of time for anyone outside those subfields to apply. Because that is not bound to happen! No, it’s not bound to happen even if the university is prestigious. No, it’s not bound to happen even if the named subfields are big subfields with lots of people working in them. Etc. You don’t know who else is going to apply, or what the hiring department will think of those other applicants compared to you. The hiring department doesn’t know those things either; that’s why they’re running a search! So if you want the job, and fit the broad parameters of the ad, but don’t work in the subfield the hiring department is “particularly” interested in, just apply and see what happens.
*For instance, don’t assume that the ad mentions a specific subfield because the department already has a preferred internal (or external) candidate in mind who works in that subfield. So that the search is mostly or entirely a sham, because it is unlikely or impossible to hire anyone but the preferred candidate. Hardly any ecology faculty job ads are written for a pre-identified preferred candidate, internal or otherwise, and you can’t tell which ones are just from reading the ad. Neither can ecoevojobs.net commenters, whose track record of sniffing out jobs that will be filled by internal candidates (never mind jobs intended for internal candidates) is hilariously terrible. The only thing you’re likely to accomplish by deciding not to apply to a job that you think was intended for a specific internal (or external) candidate is to miss out on a job you might’ve gotten if you’d applied.