I'm preparing a job talk for a clinical R2 and need some advice.
I have a wide body of work (Looking for a move from my current academic position) and I'm unsure if I should give a talk that is more breadth (here are 3 areas of interest in my work, here's slightly more detail on one study, here are my future plans) or if I should stick to the more customary approach, describing one study in great detail. Are search committees more interested in your path and future or your demonstration of your scientific rigor?
My dilemma is further complicated by the fact that my study that is the best "fit" with this dept is pretty lacking in interesting/ impressive methodology or theory. (An example might be piloting a small intervention…the intervention is interesting but the methodology is not). I am worried that this study won't sufficiently show me off as a "scientist."
So which is more important - discussing a study that is a good fit and most aligned with my future research goals or discussing a study with more impressive science?
Finally, do I ask the search chair for advice on what to present (breadth vs depth, which study, etc.)?