07 November 2009
By Elizabeth Dodson
They say a change is as good as a holiday. Well on Thursday, I abandoned my data crunching to spend a day at the Vitae Research Staff Conference and it was a truly enjoyable and refreshing experience. It was great to be surrounded by like-minded people who feel it is important to be proactive about researcher development. I felt privileged to be asked to speak about this blog within the workshop on Online Communities. As a group we talked about the issues that researchers face and I was surprised that the most commonly mentioned problem was isolation. Perhaps working within a research institute I am cushioned from this somewhat, but it seems there is a real need to develop a more cohesive researcher community.
The question is how to engage researchers and make it as easy as possible to share experiences, frustrations, successes, knowledge, and ideas. The comment was made that we should not endeavour to reinvent the wheel, but perhaps build on an existing online community. Facebook was suggested as an appropriate medium, but creating a bridge between personal and professional lives is not always desirable. Perhaps then, this multi-author blog is a good place to start? The first step is to get people present, the next is to get them involved. I hope everyone who reads this will share the link to the vitae blog with at least 1 researcher. I’d like to see a diverse mix of grades, disciplines and institutions represented within this group. The current blog structure might not meet all the needs of an online research community, but it could be considered a useful meeting place where we can work things out...
So who out there would be interested in being part of a much larger research community, with all the potential benefits that can bring? If you have ideas on where and how it should operate or the remit it should cover, then get commenting – and ask your colleagues to comment too! I would love to see some lively debate on this matter and who knows, it might lead to something big...
Sarah Davies09 November 2009 at 09:26 AM
permalinkreport this comment
Hi Liz - glad you enjoyed your day away! It sounds like the conversation was fascinating. I think the idea of some kind of semi-formalised community is a great one - even for those of us in institutions where there are lots of researchers, it would be great to know about others' experiences and about how research staff are treated in different places. I also have a sense that there's a lot of expertise out there which it would be great to share - for example on the training opportunities and national support structures that do exist. For example, I have a question which you'll probably know the answer to after having been at the conference. Other than UCU and Vitae, is there any kind of national representative or lobbying body for researchers?
Matthew Salois09 November 2009 at 06:07 PM
permalinkreport this comment
I decided to attend the local research staff conference being hosted at my university the day before the national one in London. Something that came up at the conference in Reading was pay appraisal and salary increases for researchers on multi-year contracts. I am curious if this topic came up at the London conference and what the consensus was. Are post-docs and other fixed-term contract positions open to pay raises? I always assumed that the salary was fixed through-out the length of the contract and the only hope of increasing salary was through obtaining another, higher paid, contract. Does anyone have experience with this issue?
David Proctor10 November 2009 at 02:04 PM
permalinkreport this comment
I'm open to a pay raise :) I don't know if your question was addressed in other sessions, Matthew, but it wasn't something that I heard discussed. It's a good question; I'm not entirely clear on Dundee's policy, but I know that I've definitely received pay increases while on a fixed-term contract. Some of these were the result of union actions on behalf of staff across the university. What I'm not sure about is whether our pay increases yearly as our experience increases, or if we're assigned to a pay scale based on experience only upon beginning the job. A good question.
Hannah Dee10 November 2009 at 02:24 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Matthew, David - On both of the fixed-term postdocs I had in the UK, pay went up a scale point each year (usually dependent upon successful completion of probation). This should be in your contract. If it is not, contact your local UCU branch. You are members, right? :-)
Elizabeth Dodson10 November 2009 at 02:26 PM
permalinkreport this comment
@ Sarah - you could check out the National Research Staff Association: http://network.nature.com/groups/postdocs/forum/topics
Elizabeth Dodson10 November 2009 at 02:51 PM
permalinkreport this comment
@ Matthew & David. I know that within my immediate group, whenever we make funding applications, we factor in expected annual pay progression for all staff. My understanding (in relation to my institution) is that fixed term staff have the same rights to progression as those with open ended contracts. However this is always pay progression within the grade to which you are appointed. Re-grading is an entirely different matter and does tend to rely on being appointed to a new post. You might want to look at the official JNCHES guidance on pay progression: http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/4/d/jnches_payprogressionguidance_jan05rev_1.pdf This states on Page 5: There are three forms of pay progression: o Progression up to the contribution threshold for each grade, reflecting the growing experience and skill of the job holder. Staff will have a normal expectation that progression from point to point up to this threshold will take place on an annual basis, subject exceptionally to existing procedures for dealing with performance problems. o Accelerated incremental progression, reflecting substantially greater than normal application of skill and experience by the job holder. o Discretionary progression beyond the agreed contribution threshold.
David Proctor10 November 2009 at 08:04 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Thanks for that, Liz & Hannah! Sarah, there have been efforts to organize researchers at various levels: regionally, nationally and internationally. In the UK, the National Research Staff Association was first organized in 2006, and it was meant to become a lobbying body for researchers; Liz shared the link already. Similar efforts to organize regionally and internationally are underway. Unfortunately, none have succeeded in creating a sustainable collective voice in the UK thus far. I'm very interested in seeing research associations develop at all levels, and enjoyed the Vitae conference presentation by Liz and Emma on research communities online. One thing that I took away from the presentation is the enormous variety of tools that are available online, including many that were new to me. Creating an online research community is definitely the best way forward in my view: for regional and national interactions this is the most efficient and practical way to share information, and coupled with regular meetings it should prove sufficient for nurturing a collective voice. With the support of Vitae we can be assured of some constancy and avoid creating an organization that is reliant upon a limited number of individuals or institutions; funding would also be less of an issue. I have a question, however. Liz, you suggest we could perhaps start using this blog as a place to create community. This is a great idea as a starting point, but I worry that not everyone will participate and that the interface is limited to comments. Facebook was a good suggestion because it's much more versatile than a blog, but as you stated there are concerns about mixing public and private personas. Could we discuss another tool to use instead? Perhaps one that could incorporate multiple communities since so many already exist online? I know that Vitae uses Basecamp for some projects, but I don't think this is the right tool for creating an online research community since it's more for project collaboration. David Bradley has an interesting article on this topic on his sciencebase website http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/gen-f-scientists-ignoring-social-networking.html
Elizabeth Dodson10 November 2009 at 09:12 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Thanks for the link David - it makes interesting reading. I totally agree that a straightforward blog does not offer enough flexibility to fully develop a cohesive online community but it's certainly a great place to start discussing what we do need. The article you suggested refers to the fact that a lot of scientists do not actively engage with social networking - and the need for a 'killer app' to attract people. This makes me think that we need something that both takes minimal effort to engage with and that offers something uniquely valuable to researchers. So throwing the question back to you David (and anyone else reading) - imagine that we had limitless resources and expertise - what would your ideal online community look like? What tools and functionality would it include? And would it piggyback off a large existing community, or work to create a critical mass of its own with an entirely fresh agenda?
David Proctor11 November 2009 at 06:10 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Liz, you're absolutely right: a simple site design is more likely to foster interaction, and we definitely want to provide up-to-date, permanent resources that are easy to retrieve. On site design, I have some ideas that are practical and some that are pie-in-the-sky (I'll spare you those). Practically, it's probably best to create a site that offers people the opportunity to interact (as we're doing here) by signing up, providing an identity, etc. However, I don't think it's a good idea to require a sign-up in order to access the content. I don't know what percentage of internet users are "lurkers" that passively consume content, but I suspect they are a majority (hi lurkers). We will also want to provide resources such as news, blogs, events, file sharing, etc. in a central location. This is difficult, and requires good web design; one of the problems I've encountered with the CLSPA website is that our interface makes it difficult to access all of the content that is available, and this makes it hard to find what you want. I have ideas on how to solve this sort of problem, but I also have a job that demands my attention for a few hours each week.
What would an ideal online community for researchers look like? What tools and functionality would it include? And would it piggyback off a large existing community, or work to create a critical mass of its own with an entirely fresh agenda?
Very good (and hard) questions. I'll answer after I've collected and condensed my thoughts.
Chris Thomson12 November 2009 at 08:42 AM
permalinkreport this comment
Another thought, I wondered if it would be possible to aggregate results to and from a number of social networking tools that people already use. A hunt around suggests that there are tools (like friendfeed.com) that individuals can use to do this, but nothing that appears to setup a "portal" that individuals can register with to share their feed/profile with a group. Given the discussion we had at the conference and the article David linked to I guess this could be the best solution. But it would cost money as nothing currently exists. (that I could find)
David Proctor12 November 2009 at 09:33 PM
permalinkreport this comment
That's a good thought, Chris. It's not difficult to do this if the site is set up as an RSS feed (e.g. twitter). In fact, I think one can subscribe to this blog via RSS, right? There is a lot of code on the internet for doing this sort of thing. Yesterday I wrote a long email in response to some of Liz's questions (from the 10 November 2009 at 09:12 comment); I'll include some of this email here. Here are a couple of things that I think an ideal online community should have, and why they're important: BLOG - I don't need to explain the benefits of a blog to you since many of you have your own. Examples include Vitae's Research staff blog
and the National Research Staff Association of the UK forum on the
nature network
WIKI - The contents of an ideal online community should be developed
collaboratively. This is ideal because it automatically creates a
broad, consensus perspective for a collective voice, and any
differences in perspective can be discussed openly and resolved
quickly. In addition, the task of developing and maintaining a wiki
is shared among the participants, while individuals that want to
passively consume content are not excluded.
TAGS - An online community for the national research staff association
will incorporate an enormous variety of locations, institutions,
disciplines, and other categories. We will need to provide a means to
effectively navigate and search all of the content available; tags and
filters would facilitate this. For example, a Chinese economist in
Cambridge may search for information on issues that are common to many
researchers, independent of location or discipline, such as how to
obtain a bank account or obtain renewed leave to remain; tags such as
'international', 'banking', and 'visas' should facilitate a search for
help. Alternatively, a British lawyer in Liverpool may want to search
for information on grants for conference travel; tags such as
'conferences', 'funding', and 'law' should help.
FEEDS - There are a lot of resources already online, such as blogs and
twitter feeds. It would be a shame to (a) compete with them or (b)
ignore them. If we could incorporate them into an online community
using feeds, it would be a win-win situation.
Elizabeth Dodson30 November 2009 at 11:27 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Thanks for the helpful ideas David & Chris. I think we need to look at what resources are available to bring these things together on one site... and we either need to find independent funding or work through an existing organisation that would be willing to support a proactive group of interested researchers...
Tennie Videler06 December 2009 at 09:47 PM
permalinkreport this comment
bit late on the uptake but: Say more, Liz, I am listening- hope to speak soon!
Elizabeth Dodson08 December 2009 at 12:19 AM
permalinkreport this comment
Well I'm not in a position to speak for everyone else, but personally I would be interested to know what support Vitae could offer - so that we understand our choices better. So this could be either in providing flexible webspace that a group of researchers could manage, with some (direct?) access to expert IT support... or... help to source funding to do something more independently. Of course having said this, I think we still need to do more as a group to explore networks that are already out there, looking at how well they serve existing needs and their potential (or not) to be developed... Perhaps Vitae could even be involved in this initial exploratory work?
Sarah Davies08 December 2009 at 03:15 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Hey - just to say that I think scoping out the status of existing groups and networks would be useful. Having checked out the National Research Staff Association link above, my sense is that it's not exactly buzzing (though they do have a post on the 'horribleness' of the word post-doc - yay for that!). But this might be an opportunity to see what's out there - and then to maybe get together.
Tennie Videler08 December 2009 at 10:36 PM
permalinkreport this comment
I have put together research staff associationsI have found so far on www.vitae.ac.uk/rscommunities Please let me know of any others you know of, and whether this is useful.
Tennie Videler28 December 2009 at 10:36 AM
permalinkreport this comment
Hi, I thought Tristram's blog post on using web 2.0 and especially all the discussion it generated might be of interest to people following this thread: http://adventuresincareerdevelopment.posterous.com/why-people-dont-use-web-20-thoughts-prompted