A9/B9 Workshop summary and outcomes

Research staff strand

Recruiting, developing and retaining researchers - developing an HR strategy

Sarah Brant, Director of Human Resources, University College London and Dr Felicity Cooke, Head of Equality and Diversity, University of Oxford

Overview

In the light of the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers, how should institutions use HR strategies and related policy to develop the environment to appropriately reward, recognise and develop researcher staff? This session considered the role of HR strategy through presentation of good practice and examples from University College London (UCL) and University of Oxford.

Presentation summary

University College London HR strategy: Sarah Brant

Context

UCL has 2,200 researchers, research income of £230m per annum, and collaborates with institutions across the world. Its aim is ‘to recruit, develop and retain world class staff in all areas of our operation'. As a research-intensive institution - teaching is research led - UCL relies on a talent stream of outstanding researchers. UCL's researchers (from 90 nationalities) are a diverse group - the sex ratio (50:50) mirrors the university, but researchers are more diverse in terms of ethnic origin.

Concordat principles

UCL tries to be explicit about the knowledge that:

• not all UCL's early career researchers will have a career in research
• those who do have a career in research will not necessarily continue to work at UCL or in universities
• UCL wants to recruit and retain the best.

This underpinning thinking poses two related questions:

• how to recruit and then retain the best and those most suited to a career in academia?
• how to become the employer of choice?

Sarah commented that UCL's approach to the employment of researchers ‘is somewhat schizophrenic. In some respects we make sure that researchers are treated in exactly the same way as all other members of staff - regardless of fixed term funding - and in others we acknowledge fixed term funding as posing different challenges and we treat them differently.'

Infrastructure

Parity of treatment covers:

• historically, no use of a redundancy waiver
• pay underpinned by job evaluation (starting salaries for researchers increased by 24% in 2005; principles of equal pay for work of equal value underpin pay rates; market supplements payable to all types of staff including researchers)
• harmonised terms and conditions (same annual leave, maternity leave and other employment conditions as professors)
• routine use of open ended contracts (other than for cover for a fixed period of absence)
• revised redeployment procedures (recruiters must check internally before looking externally and UCL tries to get people to re-evaluate careers - some successful moves into professional support areas and industry)
• financial support for study
• monitoring of appraisal completion
• inclusion in corporate induction arrangements.

All UCL staff are expected to record their development activity. Training take up is a key performance indicator reported to Council.

Issues specific to researchers

These include:

• improved induction (aiming to give researchers more time when meeting HR to explain training target and Roberts agenda and commitment to Concordat)
• more challenging development target than other staff
• transferable skills including teaching skills (so if interested they can make that transition)
• research promotion stream (to professorial equivalent)
• bridging funds
• management development for principal investigators becoming mandatory
• Research Committee includes research staff representatives, considers researcher issues.

Areas for improvement

It is important to look at shortage areas, where failing to ‘grow our own'. Currently, it is possible to recruit from elsewhere, but that can quickly change - risk management must be addressed. It is also vital to explore further:

• are we losing the wrong people to competitors? (need to analyse UCL researchers' careers)
• why do researchers leave?
• do those from different groups/disciplines have different reasons?

UCL will be working to upgrade its Athena SWAN  charter award from bronze to silver (the charter recognises excellence in SET employment practices in HE, to ensure gender equality in science research careers).

Research shows that researchers with clear work plan and targets are more productive in terms of papers produced. Monitoring that meaningful appraisal is happening is crucial, (ensuring that 95% researchers are appraised in 2008) along with continued emphasis on principal investigator management development.

View Sarah Brant's presentation.

The Career Development Fellowship (CDF) scheme

CDFs at Oxford were established to provide a structure to develop promising early-career staff in Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) - both women and men - and to promote equality of opportunity by creating a more diverse pool of candidates for such posts.

In 1999 women had a better success rate than men in job applications but application rates from women were low. In 1999-2000 Oxford gained Athena project funding for a programme to encourage careers for women in SET. The subsequent CDF programme (funded by the university) offered 12 fellowships across the university, for highly talented people at the postdoctoral level, in order to retain talent with the Oxford system and attract ‘new blood'.

The first scheme (2002-2004) comprised two year posts of research and teaching, and individual training and development packages delivered through Oxford's Learning Institute. Other features were termly group review meetings and a departmental sponsor or mentor. Infrastructure costs were provided. There was a mixed applicant pool but all the female cohort were appointed.

15 CDFs were offered to a second cohort (2005-08). Fellowships expanded to three year posts (two years was seen as giving insufficient time for the development programme); programme components were unchanged. Recruitment was centralised, resulting in a large increase in applications. Male:female ratios were close to 50:50 in both recruitment and selection. The concept of the CDF has spread across the university; individual departments and colleges now offer them. However, there are perhaps issues of dilution: not all feature all components.

The 2002-04 cohort achieved nine lectureships (in the UK and Europe, two at Oxford) and two Junior Research Fellowships (Oxford).

View Dr Felicity Cooke's presentation.

Discussion outcomes

Key messages were:

• research staff need to be treated the same as all staff by HR, but also need incentives
• translating HR strategy into practice should include compulsory elements, including researcher development
• funding for initiatives such as HE institution-funded fellowships brings strategic benefits.

Participants then explored the benefits of researcher development strategies, including:

• Benefits to institutional status: The ‘loss' of Career Development Fellows to other HE institutions at the end of their CDF has counter-balancing gains: they spread good PR for Oxford which helps Oxford's recruitment
• Targeted individual career development: feedback from CDFs was that the range of activities available within the programme enhanced their CVs and left them feeling better placed to apply for academic posts

Wider impact within the HE institution: At UCL the Roberts training target led to the introduction of a development target for academic staff (three days per annum).

 

View the A9/B9 presentation slides for Sarah Brant
View the A9/B9 presentation slides for Dr Felicity Cooke