Faculty interview: how to develop yourself into a national or international research leader I was recently interviewed for a TT position, and was asked a question "how to develop yourself into a national or international research leader". It looks quite a big question. I stumbled on it, and so want to seek some ideas or inspiring thoughts to answer this questions effectively.
Both my wife and I (in different very fields) have both bumbled around doing our best to achieve this, as well as been guilty in posing the question during recruiting.

The question operates on 2 levels.

First, how do you actually do it. This involves multiple elements:


Tailoring your research area(s)/question(s) to have national/international interest. There are many ways to do this, and the goal is not to trade off your research independence for reputational accolades. However, you do need to be focused in the right areas at the right time, and adjust the messaging of your research (at least) for what are topics of live interest. You can cynically call this "fads in academia", but it is real.
Actively collaborating. Too many junior academics treat others as either immediate-term team members/collaborators, or otherwise as competitors. You need to form a looser circle of collaborative relationships with others who work in your and related fields, where you can spark ideas, not just co-write papers. These then become the people who invite you to give talks, to write chapters for their edited books, refer students to you, etc., and thus your national/international research reputation follows.
Publish and present tactically. Too many of us choose where to submit papers based only on prestige/impact factor (or likelihood of acceptance, hassle factor, and peer review delays...) and attractiveness of the conference location. While these are important, as you mature as an academic, you need to begin to have a portfolio of publications/presentations, which cover top-level research prestige, broader dissemination, outreach to related fields, and (in some fields) public engagement. There are many ways of doing this, but don't just stumble through one paper at a time.
Get grants. Enough said -- though worth mentioning that while the process to apply is often byzantine, random, and can be demoralizing, getting funding liberates your time to be able to do more of the above, and is a good litmus test/forcing device to keep on top of the above -- as enabler -- too. In particular, any time I've reframed my research (item 1 above), it's generally been under the pressure of having to submit a grant proposal!


Second, during recruiting, the posing of this question to you is a bit of a signal and litmus test. It's a signal that we the hiring committee want applicants who will do more than publish x papers per year and fulfill departmental teaching and service requirements. And it's a test not as much of are you there yet -- your CV and letters will indicate that -- but have you started thinking about these issues in a way in line or ahead of your academic cohort.

Therefore, when faced with the question, a good answer would include:

a) A positioning of your research within your field, nationally and globally. Can you articulate how this relates to topics of interest by others? (viz 1)

b) Some evidence of having a research plan for the future. What would you like to do and why? Why is it exciting to other people than just you?

c) Especially if you're too academically young to "have a lab" or equivalent, can you show how networked you are with national and international leaders in your field? Can you show any evidence of developing a followership of juniors (and/or peers)?

And, of course, artfully point to badges of excellence in your research, and of awards/achievements/leading publications you have scored. Not as boasting of your accomplishments, but as demonstrating that you have the platform/runway on which to build -- if you're hired.

Good luck!