Nate W. wrote:
Right now, I am wrestling with how to present the extent of my expertise honestly if I didn't perform any experiments in a relevant research area but have gain the expertise through other means. Previously, I worked in a laboratory as a lab manager while I was a graduate student. I was given a significant amount of autonomy, often managing many different research projects. Also, I wrote portions of grant proposals and had a significant intellectual input on projects where I only advised people on projects. Thus, I have gained significant expertise in other fields that are not directly related to my dissertation but are related to a given position.
My question is if you did any of the following, how do you concisely and honestly state it (or do you leave it out if you did not do any experiments on an area):
1) Gained expertise in another field (within the life sciences) through your reading of the literature.
2) Gained expertise in another field (within the life sciences) through writing grant proposals
3) Gained expertise in another field (within the life sciences) through assisting other lab members with their experiments and your reading of the literature.
4) Gained expertise in another field (within the life sciences) through failed or unpublished experiments.
5) Gained expertise in another field (within the life sciences) when the focus of your research project and the laboratory overlaps significantly in another area: drugs targets, common pathways, common pharmaceutical compounds, relevant phenotypes.......which are of interest to a prospective employer. Yet you did no direct experiments in this area given the direction of the grant and what was required for publication.
Often, I find that people in alternative careers overstate the extent of their expertise for alternative careers. For example:
1) The reagent sales guy- who sells general molecular biology reagents, including sequencing tools, yet has no real expertise in Next Generation Sequencing (NGS). However, he lists NGS expertise (as a buzzword) on his resume (or LinkedIn profile) to compete for a position.
2) The PharmD MSL who has no clinical and scientific expertise in Neurology but has once advised physicians on a drug's off label use in the treatment of neurological disorders. Yet, he lists it on his resume as a core competency or portrays himself as an expert in the field.
Hi Nate,
I think the issue with the proposed questions and situations is the absence of the context in which those experiences were gained and the outcome of such experience. When I refer to outcome, I refer to hard deliverable or contribution to such.
Rich mentioned discussing the process. That's good to communicate, however, the context of which that is done and the linked deliverable should be mentioned.
For example you point number 1. I have read up on another area through literature, but that was in the context of a shadowing visit (rounds) with a Physcian and a deliverable being a report delivered to an Medical Communications Agency who was trying develop expertise in a Disease area for business advancement reasons.
You point number 2, I have writing a grant in another diseease area (completely out of my area of expertise), but that was in the context of helping a non-profit organization secure funding for an education event (which did receive the funding).
So if I choose to communicate the above, I can give the context and the outcome (but I don't, I have other examples now). In your first example, I would never say I read some papers and I am now an expert, there should be a bona-fide reason, linked to reason/deliverable/outcome or part of a process of a greater project. Think of it as communicating your ROI: Role, Opporunity, Impact.
Regarding positioning based on experience, nothing wrong with listing what you're exposed to. For example, I put "Cardiology" on my CV. Doesn't mean I know everything about Cardiology (I don't), but at least I can clarify and state where exactly I am an expert and then talk directly to what I have delivered to demonstrate that knowledge.
If that sales rep you cited wants to put a certain technique down, that's his or her burden to bear, it is possible they have been trained and it is possible they have a product in the area they can share. He or she can then clarify later the specifics of the knowledge.
Same would apply for the Neurology person. Its up to the person to defend it. And trust me, in an interview that person will have to defend it. Also, from an external view, once can't state another may not have expertise, you don't know that. After meeting me at a pool, one can say I swim like a sinking elephant in the water, without knowing I'm a certified open water Scuba diver.
On area that i've been exposed to very little is Oncology. I've been a presenting author on a clinical data set at a large Oncology congress (one of the largest). However, I would NEVER-EVER write Oncology on my CV. Why? because my subject area, though Oncology related, was more in the area of Supportive Care. Nothing to do with biologics, or diagnostics or molecular hoopla. So I can't talk to Oncology.
So, my point, be careful and don't over estimate one's experience, on the other hand don't assume that others arn't carrying expertise they can't talk to.
There is intense focus on the CV here, but as I said before, it should be simple, to the point, not dwell in the details but talk to the major buckets, deliverable, wins, etc all in top-level, targeted, and efficient manner (ROI focused).
Save the details for the interview and even then, unless you're interviewing for a X-ray crystallography spot, dumb down the science-talk, show you know it by not being afraid to be being top-level, and highlight your value. Let the interviewer decide how deep he or she wants to go.
DX
Statistics: Posted by D.X. — Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:22 am