Breadcrumbs
- Home
- Research staff
- Research staff blog
- Research Staff Progression – is it really that hard to implement?
Research Staff Progression – is it really that hard to implement?
27 January 2010
By Elizabeth Dodson
I love my job because my research area continues to fascinate me, but at the same time there are days when I question whether I really do want to be a ‘career researcher’. I think there are 3 main issues, which are all intrinsically linked: insecurity, status and progression.
Insecurity is a particular issue at times of financial belt tightening. As discussions abound across the country of cuts and restructuring in HE, one can’t help but feel a little vulnerable. This links to status as I’m not sure how valued researchers actually are…?
There seems to be a pervasive belief that research is not a proper job, but merely a stepping stone on the way. This often forms part of the argument for the lack of career progression opportunities for researchers. People rarely seem to choose lecturing posts because they have a great desire to teach. The attraction is relative security and a clear progression structure – where if you meet specific criteria over time, you should be eligible for promotion.
The (perhaps naïve) question that I have, is why should it be so much harder to support structured career progression for research staff?
Having asked this question in a few different places I would like to respond here to the three main answers I was given:
-
It would be too expensive and we have no money to support such an initiative
-
We should be encouraging researchers to move into lecturing and therefore to share their knowledge
-
If we improve career progression for researchers then everyone will want to be one!
Ok – so 1) how about if the criteria for progression includes things like supervision of PhD students and grant-holding. We would need structures to support researchers to get this experience, but essentially if they personally bring money into their institution, then surely there has to be a level where this could subsidise individual promotions? It might mean that the progression criteria are quite hard to achieve, but at least there would be something to focus on and work towards – a financial points system of sorts.
With 2) – time for a bit of universal honesty – not everyone is cut out to teach. It’s very challenging to do it well and this requires both a different skill set and the motivation to be a great teacher. It can be incredibly rewarding and of course we should encourage researchers to consider it, but I would not want to be a student being taught by someone who clearly didn’t want to be there (i.e. researchers who begrudgingly changed career path to improve their job security and their prospects).
Besides which, lectureships do not grow on trees, and if we all aspired to lecture, many would be sadly disappointed. I would also argue that becoming a lecturer is not the only valid and worthwhile way to share knowledge.
Finally 3), which I think is actually the best argument for progression. We hear a lot of discussion of the ongoing “brain drain” where the “brightest and the best” apparently leave academia – or even the country – in search of better pay, better jobs and greater recognition. Surely we want to keep the “brightest and the best” and maybe even attract them from elsewhere?
Ok, so it might mean that we all face more competition for new posts, but its got to be good for the quality of research within our universities. It would also give weight to the argument that research can be a valuable long-term career choice.
So please feel free to tell me why I’m wrong, or to add some ideas/arguments of your own…
Chris Thomson 27 January 2010 at 11:34 AM
permalink report this comment
Hi, I certainly agree with point 1, if I make the effort to pull money into the institution then getting some recognition in terms of a career structure would be great. I'm not necessarily worried about a salary progression in this (although that would be great) but certainly some recognition in terms of enhanced security (i.e. the money I bring in is for me and not for a lazy PI -NB none of my PIs have been lazy, but I know this is a problem), and the back up of a "continuing contract" so I have the ability to apply personally for money, and importantly some recognition in job title and responsibility. Point 2: Yup, lectureships are hard to find so, this one is a non-starter. However I do feel that researchers should give guest lectures in their specialist areas as student do need to be exposed to current research, and perhaps the challenges faced. The odd thing about being a lecturer of course is that you often don't teach in your specialism, given that perhaps it lies within the topic of a single lecture on many courses. Point 3: Well yes, not a bad thing as those of us who quite like the idea of lecturing may get a look in...
Elizabeth Dodson 27 January 2010 at 11:48 AM
permalink report this comment
Hi Chris. I agree that progression isn't necessarily about salary, but about security (ie contractual terms and conditions), about the opportunities you will be given, the resources you will have access to and the ability to get your voice heard. Of course salary progression is also good - but for many not the main issue. It is more the idea that you can have a research post that will develop over time rather than having tightly defined boundaries.
Nick Dickens 27 January 2010 at 01:35 PM
permalink report this comment
I definitely agree with you on point 2 - the end point of a research career isn't necessarily a lectureship, what happened to becoming a PI, running a research group. Isn't that also a good way of sharing and passing on your knowledge and experience? Most of my research experience has been in research centres, not academic departments so I have been exposed to far fewer people with lectureships in my field than is perhaps normal. But most of my peers aspire to running a research group (or getting a permanent contract) than to getting lectureships. I definitely agree that not everyone is cut out for teaching.
Tennie Videler Edited: 28 January 2010 at 09:43 AM
permalink report this comment
Hi, There is a commitment in the Concordat to support the career development of researchers to make research a career one can progress in, eg: principle 2.6. Researchers need to be offered opportunities to develop their own careers as well as having access to additional pay progression. Promotion opportunities should be transparent, effectively communicated and open to all staff. It is helpful if clear career frameworks for early stage researchers are outlined in organisational HR strategies. All universities are signed up to the Concordat, so it will be really interesting to see what institutions are doing about their commitment! But I think this post goes to the heart of a lot of issues research staff face. Status I think is a difficult one- there is a huge difference between internal (where you may feel compared with lecturers) and external (where people just see you as an academic) status. your point 3 is my favourite: surely competition on merit is a good thing? In a way it would link back to then making it a 'respectable' career path rather than a phase you go through before settling down in a real job. Being selected on the basis of being good at your job rather than on your ability to stand the insecurity seems quite sensible to me. Liz- so many issues to answer in one post!! Great food for thought.
Elizabeth Dodson 27 January 2010 at 03:47 PM
permalink report this comment
Hi Tennie. It would be very interesting to independently review how different institutions have interpreted the Concordat and whether there are any common barriers to the implentation of specific principles. Are there any current plans for such a review?
Elizabeth Dodson 27 January 2010 at 03:51 PM
permalink report this comment
*implementation (I wish we could directly edit our comments!)
Lucy Rackliff 27 January 2010 at 04:17 PM
permalink report this comment
I do know of someone who is trying to pull together an audit of what different universities are doing to build a structure for researcher career progression, but I'm not entirely sure what (if anything) will come of it. One of the problems is that institutions can make fine statements about what they're doing, but getting someone to objectively assess what they actually mean in practice is much harder. A promise to try to safeguard researchers' jobs could mean "we will leave no stone unturned in the search for funding to keep them" or it could mean "in a perfect world we'd prefer not to let them go, but as soon as the money runs out we'll have no choice" You can't really rely on the researchers themselves to give you that objective assessment because experiences vary from department to department. Also, I believe from looking at some of the CROS responses that researchers aren't always able to be objective about their situation - hardly surprisingly really. I see lots of very good things going on in my own university (& indeed, I had a fine free lunch today, over which we discussed what help & support the university has put in place for researchers), but I did have to laugh at the idea that "Promotion opportunities should be transparent, effectively communicated and open to all staff. " I suspect there are very many people in my department who have no idea the university has signed up to that particular ideal. Certainly don't think I've seen that put into practice yet.
Tennie Videler 28 January 2010 at 10:05 AM
permalink report this comment
The Concordat implementation coordinator has sent out a survey to see how institutions have been addressing the issue of research staff career development: http://www.survey.bris.ac.uk/epsrc/hei_strategies This survey seeks to review the policies and procedures of institutions and the strategic approach from the top levels of management. The survey does not attempt to measure the impact that policies are having or to capture progress on the ground. This is self-assesment, but I'd be very interested to hear about the study you mention, Lucy- send me an email about it!
Sarah Davies 28 January 2010 at 04:36 PM
permalink report this comment
Thanks for a fantastic post, Liz - I really think you've hit the nail on the head. Unless universities take researcher career progression *seriously* - which I think has to mean permanent or long term contracts, rather than merely pay progression or 'development opportunities' in the 3 months-3 years that a researcher might have funding for - more and more people are going to get fed up and abandon research altogether. We seem to live in a weird bubble in which lecturers who do good research are highly valued, but researchers who do good research aren't...
Esther Haines Edited: 05 February 2010 at 10:10 PM
permalink report this comment
Research Staff Progression is a difficult problem. The Research Careers Initiative beavered away for five years without coming-up with a solution. One often sees statements along the lines of 'If only universities took this more seriously...' or 'If only senior management were more committed...' In fact, it doesn't matter whether senior management are committed or not since there is little they can do about it anyway. The question is one of money. Not so much whether there is enough of it, though that is pertinent, but how it is controlled. Most research is paid for from grants that are applied for and managed by a PI who hires the post-docs on the grant. There is little that university managers can do to influence how PIs behave other than to exhort them to follow good practice. Sometimes an institution will advertise for principal investigators. Typically, though, if you want to be a PI you raise the money and find a department to host you - or obtain a lectureship, in which case you will still have to raise the money but at least you will already have a department to work in and you won't have to find your own salary. The result of Ball vs the University of Aberdeen (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=402284) has stimulated universities to move contract researchers with more than four years service onto open-ended contracts, which should make it easier for them to apply for their own money, though there won't be any extra money for them to apply for. However, each PI generates more Ph.D.s and post-docs. A PI with a fairly modest group of one post-doc and four Ph.D. students (1 post-doc every three years and 1 student each year) generates ten post-docs and 30 Ph.D. students over an academic career of thirty years. Unless the system, and the funding, is expanding exponentially, most of those post-docs and Ph.D. students will have to leave academic science. In principle, it would be possible to have some 'Research Officer' positions, which could, for example, be used to retain people with specific skills that were relevant to more than one group in a department, much like technicians but at the research level. This would give the holders job security and some status, but how could such positions be funded? When I worked for Industrial Research Limited in New Zealand, I was employed as a Research Scientist. Each team was funded by external grants but it was assumed that sufficient money would come in to give people permanent contracts. I had a say in what I worked on, within the constraints of what the team was seeking funding for, without having to apply for my own individual funding. If the UK seriously wants to develop research careers in universities then it has to examine the funding models and it has to ask if the only progression has to be to a PI with his or her own funding or equivalent such as research co-investigator.
Simon Smith 08 February 2010 at 04:25 PM
permalink report this comment
Only just registered this discussion, which raises some of the central issues facing researchers. I had already noted that commitment in the Concordat (and like Lucy, I had to smile). Tennie's point about status is very pertinent, and it links to Liz's argument that lecturing is not the only way to share knowledge. Is it 'internal' or 'external' status that matter most to us? If an academic, instead of teaching, leans towards external status and knowledge-sharing (for example, doing lots of media appearances, consultancies or policy advice) how are they regarded by their colleagues in the department? And how does it actually affect their research career / promotion opportunities? I also agree with Esther that Britain could learn from lots of other countries, where a lot more research is conducted outside universities, and I don't mean the private sector, I mean state-funded research institutes, which obviously does open up the possibility of a purely research career (although they too are under increasingly pressure to produce research with 'impact', but that's another debate...)
Simon Smith 08 February 2010 at 04:33 PM
permalink report this comment
Maybe Nottingham's the place to be! The Financial & Business Services Department there is appointing a Researcher Development Manager, whose duties will include: - developing, co-ordinating and managing activities to support the training and development of postgraduate research students and early career researchers; - promoting the value of public policy and business engagement for researchers; - ensuring that these activities address institutional and national agendas for researcher development http://jobs.nottingham.ac.uk/VacancySearch.aspx?txtSearch=researcher+development
Andy Humphrey 18 May 2010 at 01:57 PM
permalink report this comment
Thanks Liz, and all who've commented - this is a fascinating discussion with a lot of relevance. I too have despaired of this assumption that research staff are just "lecturers-in-training" and that those of us who are STILL research staff after a few years are effectively failed academics. But it's clear from some of the responses to my earlier post on career progression for researchers that plenty of people (including contributors to this blog) still hold that opinion. There's even one academic at my current institution who has been known to refer to "postdoctoral students"... I'd love to see universities engaging properly with the notion of "Research Officers" as Esther suggests. As well as the academic sector, I've worked in a government research institute in the UK and this is considered the norm. Senior management will always bleat about not having the finances to make these things work, but finances are not the issue - it's a cultural change that is needed, and managers and senior PIs are generally resistant to change.