Breadcrumbs
- Home
- Research staff
- Research staff blog
- Why researchers can't research
Why researchers can't research
23 July 2010
By Sarah Davies
A health warning: this is a rant, pure and simple, written at a particularly stressful moment and saved until I’d calmed down a bit. But I still think there’s a valid point in there…
I love research. I do. As I’ve written before, I find my work intensely pleasurable and I think that researchers are key to the creation of knowledge in the world. Research finds stuff out, gives scope for creativity, shapes government policy and personal actions. Research is good.
Which is why I’m increasingly frustrated at working within a system which forces me not to research; one which, even when you have a research job, actively militates against extended periods of productive work. All too often, research staff don’t research. This is why.
You have a job: great. But probably this is on a contract which is for, at the absolute maximum, three years. In fact, three year contracts are like gold dust in the arts, humanities and social sciences: something between three months and two years is more likely. So let’s take a two year contract as a kind of median: out of this you need to block off (at least) the first six months for all that starting up stuff – getting to know your colleagues, reading the literature, starting work on your project. By month 12 you’re pretty settled. But by then it’s time to think about what you’ll be doing next. Another contract job? A fellowship? A lectureship?
Here’s the thing: all of these things take serious amounts of time to prepare for. Maybe your work is going well and you decide, with your colleagues, to write a research proposal. Even for a small project (£250k or less, in the social sciences), this is thousands of words of tightly argued, persuasive text, ridiculously complex formatting requirements, and detailed budgeting. It’s a competitive world and you want to get it right: say goodbye to at least a month, I reckon, of your time. Or you apply for a fellowship at another university. Again, you’ll need to know exactly what you want to do and why; you’ll also need to know how that will fit in with that department’s interests and expertise. If you’re really lucky, you’ll get to fill in a long-winded application form which duplicates your CV and which asks for everything from your GCSE grades to your place of birth.
Of course, for most people most of these applications will fail, which will mean that you’re doing lots of them, all through your last year in your current job and in between trying to publish, improve your CV, and make yourself increasingly employable. At times you’ll get invited to an interview. You want to do your best, naturally. So spend two days preparing a presentation, and another reading up about the department (or project). Fly – if needs be – halfway around the world, and take anything up to a week off work. More time gone. More weeks spent catching up on emails rather than finishing that paper.
Perhaps even more than the time involved, there’s an emotional cost to interviews and applications. Selling yourself with regard to a position or project is best done by wholehearted engagement with it: in talking about why you’d be perfect for a post you convince yourself. You start to think about the practicalities. Where would I live? What papers would I publish? How would I get on with this set of colleagues? The uncertainty gets you down: if only I knew, you think, if I’ve got that job, I could plan my holiday. Or my finances. Or my child’s schooling. The net result is – often – a crushing sense of disappointment even for a position you were initially ambivalent about.
As I said, I love my work, and it has been my choice to continue in a career which brings with it these stresses. And I certainly don’t have any concrete suggestions for a better way of doing things (though others do). But surely it’s right to be frustrated – even angry – with a system which works to squander time, energy and talent – which ensures that too often we can’t be effective in the work we’re paid to do, and which means that researchers can’t research.
Simon Smith 23 July 2010 at 08:53 PM
permalink report this comment
I sense this is really a continuation of the discussion under the post 'I fought the law', as you've pinpointed the problem that instability and insecurity can have for research itself. I agree, which is why I'm always suspicious of the much-vaunted concept of 'researcher mobility' - new experiences can be enriching, of course, but constant mobility too often just distracts you from whatever has become your personal research agenda. I don't know if 'jobs for life' for researchers would be the answer - after all, there are plenty of other 'distracting' pressures on us, such as the pressure to publish (which is often a very poor indicator of genuine research productivity). However you do it, though, one of the most precious research skills is the knack of being able to slow down and make time for the very process of knowledge production that the naive observer might assume is the core of a researcher's job ;-)
Sarah Davies 26 July 2010 at 11:10 PM
permalink report this comment
It's a good point that there are many other pressures on us which stop us researching - the constant treadmill of applications and interviews has been on my mind recently, but mid-project I think I was just as frustrated at the admin that needed doing which also stopped me working on 'proper' research. This begs the question, of course, of what a research job really is - non-stop data analysis? Writing up? Organising focus groups? I also think you're right that it's a skill to be able to slow down and take time out to research. One colleague has just set aside (in consultation with his PI) a day a week, come what may, to read and write - this seems like a fantastic way of carving out time for research.
Simon Smith 27 July 2010 at 01:08 AM
permalink report this comment
I think I've cited it before on this blog, but I highly recommend this book on researcher roles and identities, and (in chapter 4) on the loss of what it calls "slow times for reflection and immersion". Felt, U. (ed.) (2009) Knowing and Living in Academic Research, Prague: AV ČR. Available for download at: http://www.knowing.soc.cas.cz/static/article/data191/files/knowing_and_living_in_academic_research.pdf.pdf
Elizabeth Dodson 27 July 2010 at 11:55 AM
permalink report this comment
Hi Sarah. You've neatly summed up the frustrations of many. It is a constant balancing act, trying to secure the next year of work while maintaining enough focus to get the job in hand done to the best of your abilities. Unfortunately it's a model that will be very difficult to change - especially in the current financial climate...
Matthew Salois 27 July 2010 at 05:15 PM
permalink report this comment
I too agree that the model of the research profession will be difficult to change, but now in the midst of a wavering economy is a great time for change. Corporations are restructuring, universities are reshaping, and the government is transitioning. Josef Schumpeter coined the phrase “creative destruction” (or maybe borrowed it from Karl Marx) to describe how the “old ways” in an economy are destroyed by creative processes and replaced with the “new ways”. Depressions, recessions, and general economic downturns are part of this creative process. The catalyst for change only needs to be harnessed. I hope that smarter men and women figure out how to change this profession for the better.
Simon Smith 29 July 2010 at 01:11 AM
permalink report this comment
Interesting parallel with another occupational sector where project-based work has become the norm. Here's former Chairman of the BBC Michael Grade explaining why it's important for the Beeb to maintain a stable in-house production team against the trend for outsourcing, freelancing and casualisation of employment in broadcasting: Casualisation is leading to derivative ideas. You give the commissioners what you think they want, not what you are passionately dying to make and believe in. Because you're desperate for the work. Somewhere in British broadcasting there has to be a bedrock of sustainable talent with time to think, to observe, to absorb what's going on in the world outside broadcasting and to turn that experience into programmes of challenge, ambition, quality and innovation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/bpv_grade.shtml Sound familiar to researchers?
Andy Humphrey 03 August 2010 at 01:24 PM
permalink report this comment
That's the first time I've heard much sense from the mouth of Mr. Grade... You're all right, of course. The researcher's life is blighted by the sort of short-termism which is inevitable when you get accountants and business managers, not academic specialists, running universities. And it's so well entrenched that I can't see it changing. UCU has been campaigning for years to change this culture, without succeeding. I think research jobs should be offered as permanent posts, just as most academic jobs are. This is the model that's used in the government research institutes. Unfortunately the accountants have their eye on the apparent inefficiencies of working like this, and over the last 10 years or so most of the government research centres in the UK have been either downsized, or closed altogether. I don't think there is an easy way to convince the bean-counters that adopting a similar model in the university sector will increase the efficiency of research, rather than decrease it. But perhaps this system COULD run efficiently if, rather than thinking of each university department as a self-enclosed entity, we were able to widen the networks so that different departments, even different institutions, could collaborate instead of competing. It might be possible for researchers to be redeployed, not just across a department, but across a whole region when one particular project grant comes to an end. There would have to be a critical mass of researchers and a sufficiently diverse pool of research activity in a given area, to ensure that researchers could be fitted to grants that were a good match for their skills and interests - and there'd have to be a mechanism of safeguarding the researcher's own scholarship so that they have the opportunity to make their own contribution to the network, as well as being hired help. It's not that far-fetched. Many public sector institutions (including some universities) are talking about "collaborative working" schemes where several different institutions share facilities, expertise, even redeployment pools. In most cases the driver is to save money and increase efficiency. It's a relatively small leap to think about a group of universities in a particular area (say Yorkshire, or London) forming a network in which researchers could be engaged on permanent contracts and used across the network wherever their skills could be best deployed. There will still be a need to apply for grants, but finding the right people to work on those grants could be much quicker and the benefits on researcher productivity could be enormous.
Simon Smith 06 August 2010 at 09:01 PM
permalink report this comment
Your suggestion might not please the accountants, Andy, but it could be argued that it's much better suited to the way that research is actually organised! Having read a lot of the responses to the REF consultation, it was striking how many university or subject associations made the point that research is often organised in joint research institutes (Guild HE), loose networks of excellence or communities of practice (Modern Universities Research Group), or organsed by sub-field rather than by institution (Media, Communication and Cultural Studies Association). Academic musicians went so far as to claim that this is the norm in their area (National Association for Music in Higher Education). They were all concerned that neither the RAE for the REF proposals took this into account, because they assume the 'unit' for evaluation purposes belongs to a single HEI. So there's another barrier to your suggestion! But if, God forbid, we were allowed to design the system purely from the perspective of researchers and the actual research, it would make perfect sense to enable people to move more freely within regional or subject-based networks.
Andy Humphrey 11 August 2010 at 01:03 PM
permalink report this comment
Thanks Simon. I wasn't aware of any of these existing networks, so it's fascinating to know that the type of structure I was thinking of already exists in some disciplines. Yes, the REF is bound to be a barrier. Let's face it, "assessment" exercises are a root cause of much that's going wrong in research - and they're really only there for the sake of the business managers and their accountants, not for the researchers. I think it quite unlikely that when the REF is finalised, there will be many research active staff who enthusiastically welcome it as a process that's in their best interests. So the campaign to re-imagine the structure of academic research will also require a fundamental re-imagining of the REF...