Whatever happened to meritocracy?

Comments Subscribe by RSS

1. Hannah Dee10 March 2010 at 09:53 AM

   permalinkreport this comment

   In my experience - which is limited - often "Named Researchers" have had some input into the grant writing process. As a post-doc it's very hard to get grant writing experience as you're not allowed to be a PI on a fixed-term contract; co-authoring a proposal with someone permanent (or writing a proposal and getting a permanent member of staff to put their name on it) is one way around this. In such situations, I think being "Named Researcher" is a reasonable pay-off for the grant writing effort. The other times I have heard of this kind of thing happening is with very short contracts (6 months, for example), where the PI wants to have someone who can hit the ground running. I think it is much less excusable in these types of situations. The third type of situation is one that crops up in just a few UK Universities. One of the big problems we hear a lot about on this blog is that of fixed-term contracts and having to move repeatedly, and a few institutions have addressed this in a novel way by appointing researchers to permanent contracts where possible, and moving them between projects. Whilst this is a pain for those of us trying to break into appointments, personally I see it as a good thing in general, and think that if everyone adopted such a policy the life of a researcher would be much much better! Bristol is one example - you can read their policy here: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/personnel/ftc/ Outside of these three cases, I agree with you and think it's a terrible thing. However the problem is that as an outsider it's hard to tell if any of these apply (apart from the "really-short-term" thing, which is easy - if it lasts less than 6 months, expect to be trumped by someone who knows the project).

2. George Whale10 March 2010 at 10:53 AM

   permalinkreport this comment

   Hannah, thanks very much for your thoughtful response, which raises some aspects I hadn't considered, and reminds me that these issues are rarely clear-cut. I know from personal experience (mainly abroad) that grant writing is difficult and time consuming, therefore I certainly agree with you that it should be rewarded. But I disagree that "being 'Named Researcher' is a reasonable pay-off for the grant writing effort" - rather, I think a good pay cheque rewarding the expert input of the co-writer would be appropriate. I can't be too preachy about this, because many years ago I was actually in that position myself and (had the application been successful) would have benefitted as a named researcher. However, in the intervening years I have come to the view that it is not the fairest way of appointing staff. The problem with named research posts is that by definition they exclude every other researcher who might be interested in, and qualified for the roles. One can imagine how galling it might be for, say, an unemployed Ph.D. to see a less qualified candidate being appointed to a senior role that s/he would have wanted. For me, the very short-term contracts are less problematic, because few researchers want to apply for jobs lasting 6 months or less, unless those jobs happen to be right on their doorstep. The third scenario you describe, where an institution repeatedly redeploys a researcher in order to give continuity of employment is less straightforward, but I think I agree with you that it is a positive thing, because in most cases the individual concerned would have gone through some competitive, open selection process to secure their first position with the institution. I'm impressed by Bristol's attitude, and hope other institutions will follow suit.

3. Blanka Sengerová10 March 2010 at 07:17 PM

   permalinkreport this comment

   >>>The other times I have heard of this kind of thing happening is with very short contracts (6 months, for example), [...] much less excusable in these types of situations. Surely, it is these kinds of situations that there wouldn't be a problem with taking an internal candidate who knows their way around as both they and the PI will probably get more benefit from the 6 month contract? In general though, I don't really have a problem with internal candidates being treated preferentially in the first stages of the process, i.e. being the first ones to be offered the position before it is even advertised. What I do think is an issue is the fact that Universities have to advertise these positions even though they fully well know that the place is going to be filled internally. Surely, it would be best not to force them to advertise the position and therefore not waste their time and the time of the potential candidates?

4. Oliver Harris10 March 2010 at 09:51 PM

   permalinkreport this comment

   I have to say, the 'named researcher' thing is one of my personal dislikes. It astonishes me, given the wider public sector requirement for appointments to be put out to open competition, and given the way that universities in particular bend over backwards to present themselves as beacons of open-minded meritocracy, that 'jobs for the boys' arrangements of this sort can not merely still exist, but be formally institutionalised. My understanding is that, with some funding bodies at least, a grant application's chances of success are significantly improved by the inclusion of a named researcher - the rationale being that, if the position has been to some extent designed around the talents and interests of a particular individual, it has a greater chance of being brought to a successful conclusion. In view of what I've said above, it may surprise you to learn that, in the application for my present post (a 5-year contract) I was, in fact, the named researcher. My PI wanted me because I was a known quantity, and because he's previously had his fingers burned when employing well-qualified outsiders, who appeared to be in tune with the strategic aims of the project, but who turned out to have little patience for its day-to-day detail. Unfortunately, I'm in the reverse position: I'm competent to do the work, but it's not really my field, and I have little interest in or sympathy for the project's wider goals. So to my general dissatisfaction with the job is added a sense of guilt at blocking it for somebody who'd really take to it. And I have this idea that, somewhere out there, some unhappy soul is occupying my dream job in much the same way ...

5. George Whale11 March 2010 at 09:59 AM

   permalinkreport this comment

   "And I have this idea that, somewhere out there, some unhappy soul is occupying my dream job in much the same way ... " Quite possibly, Oliver, but the chances are you might never get to know about it. I'm sure if I were in the same position as you, I would also take a job as named researcher - after all, jobs are hard to come by, and as you say this way of doing things is widely accepted, whether we like it or not. I too have heard PIs talking about the risks of taking on people they don't know, but I don't think it's a good enough reason for excluding good people from the selection process. I'm not sure what the solution is, because even if all posts do have to be advertised, it is always possible to make the selection criteria so detailed and specific that almost nobody can fulfil them. But I'm glad at least that we are able to raise and discuss this issue here on the blog - thanks for your interesting comments.

6. Simon Smith12 March 2010 at 04:37 PM

   permalinkreport this comment

   If a senior and a junior researcher have written a research proposal together, and they want to do the research together, then often the rules of the competition will make it simplest to name the forner as PI and the latter as 'named researcher'. I don't have any problem with that in terms of ethics. It would, however, be preferrable if the junior researcher could be named as co-investigator or even PI (if they have had the major input). But often that's difficult due to faculty rules (e.g. if the junior researcher does not have a permanent appointment).

7. Matthew Salois17 March 2010 at 08:42 PM

   permalinkreport this comment

   Once again, I find myself in the position of realising just how ignorant I am of how things really work in the university. I am also seeing just how grey this topic is, meaning what initially seems as a clear cut issue of being wrong actually has some instances where it makes sense. My naive view is that when this "named researcher" business pops up, it likely does not occur with any malicious intent but rather with some justified view of getting the right person for the job (e.g. the "known quantity") or for meeting tight constraints (e.g. the 6 month contract). I would like to believe that if the individuals in charge of the hiring process realised that they were cutting out the career options of other highly qualified and talented people that they would rethink their decision. But like I said, this my naive view.

8. Anthony Beck30 March 2010 at 01:57 PM

   permalinkreport this comment

   Just to throw in my view. From Thursday I will be starting as a named researcher on a 3 year project. However, this is a project that I instituted, recruited partners for, led the writing process and then beat 166 other projects to be one of the 6 successful applications (I'm still feeling very happy about this!). The worst bit of the grant writing process was when the funding council sent back the application saying that one of the co-investigators was not eligible to be a co-investigator as they were a "temporary" member of staff. I then spent an unedifying period of time removing myself from the grant and creating the position of "named researcher" for myself. If the whole process is about merit then this is obviously wrong. I had no desire to be the PI of the project because it is a large project and requires someone with better project management skills and experience. However, as the creative drive behind the grant, I naively expected to achieve investigator status. Universities and funding councils need to change this whole process, or at least make it more transparent. Researchers are more than capable of writing grant applications and should be encouraged to lead. Having tenure does not, in itself, make you a better or more appropriate researcher. If a "named researcher" is named because they have creatively contributed to a grant proposal then that is appropriate. If it is a short term project and the individual needs to gel with an established team then the inclusion of a named research is understandable but arguably less justifiable. I don't think the current system is transparent or works very well. I'd like to see universities and research councils change the ways that they deal with researchers. To institute frameworks whereby researchers can have a clear career path without taking the lecturer route. This is even more important when the Department of Business Innovation and Skills is advocating more inter-disciplinary projects. Although I laud this approach as being of benefit to science it can result in researchers siloed in departments where they may not be able to teach and therefore narrowing their career opportunities.

9. George Whale30 March 2010 at 02:43 PM

   permalinkreport this comment

   Anthony, congratulations on your successful application against such stiff competition! I agree with you completely that there needs to be a review of contract researchers' possible roles in the creation and establishment of new projects. Many of us have sufficient experience to take on senior or PI roles, but these usually go to established academics for no better reason (as far as I can see) than that that is the way it has always been done. Elizabeth Dodson has suggested that the UKRSA might play a role in representing researchers' concerns to the powers that be. This issue seems to be a central one, perhaps worth raising with Eliabeth/UKRSA.