Science is Vital report on science careers

Comments Subscribe by RSS

1. Simon Smith08 October 2011 at 06:14 PM

   permalinkreport this comment

   It's a very powerful report, full of personal testimonies that convey a great sense of commitment to science, accompanied by frustration at the injustice and wastefulness of the system as currently structured. It will be interesting to see how Willetts responds, if he requested it!

   The interesting thing was to find PIs also complaining that the current career structure doesn't even meet their needs, because they have no way of employing valued assistants/colleagues on anything but a short-term basis. That makes me more confident it may be possible to build a coalition for reform.

2. Chris Thomson14 October 2011 at 11:54 AM

   permalinkreport this comment

   I’ve just got around to reading the report and it shows just how passionate we all are about research, science and our careers. 

    

   The 700 or so responses is certainly promising (and not unexpected if it may lead to better T+C), although it is a little disappointing to see only a few represented and little comment on how these were selected, although I presume they are representative. Equally I wasn’t sure how the recommended ideas were selected, and for me at least they certainly hold their own challenges. Indeed I hope science is vital is able to release a longer report for us all to digest in due course.

    

   Before we get to that the (intentionally brief) report doesn’t mention the big changes that have been made since the 2002 Set for Success report by Roberts et al. I do think it is important to acknowledge the progress made by universities, the research councils, HEFCE and of course Vitae in bringing this about. One of the points made back in 2002 was that there was real problems recruiting suitable staff to academic posts, oh how times have changed! We have also seen a significant improvement in training provision, support for research staff and increased salaries, indeed in many respects research staff now find themselves in the enviable position of having been integrated into the general academic T+C, something that is not available in many countries... That said progress towards a recognizable career structure has been slow. What we have seen is the introduction of open ended contracts, although this has not delivered the kind of job security most would have wished for (see: Researchers, fixed-term contracts and universities: understanding law in context). UKRSA is currently undertaking research to identify promising (best practice) models in funding and practice that may help to overcome this.

    

   I don’t think any research would disagree with the recommendations in the report, we would all like to see more permanent research posts and funding in early careers, what is unclear is how one would go about doing this. Based on the discussion I raise a few points below, given the realities of the funding climate I suggest the following points are considered on the basis that no new funding is available.

    

   The report talks a lot about ‘young’ researchers. Its unclear if this is intentional, but something to consider is how ‘mature’ new researchers could be or are effected. They certainly bring a lot of experience to research and they should not be over looked. 

    

   The report suggests that the lack of a career may put off new researchers, and the current climate is endangering the profession. I’m not convinced that this point was proven, and indeed there seems to be plenty of people willing to enter the gauntlet. There is evidence that some good people a not finding positions, but it is unclear as to the status of those who remain (maybe they are better!). Is it perhaps that a scientific career is too popular? are the alternative careers unpopular or unavailable? I would suggest the latter as most recent phd graduates always say they are ‘open to offers’. 

    

   One of the comments suggests that the only value to taxpayers in training researchers is for them to remain in academic research. I’m not so sure that this is true. There is value in research skills outside academia, and in some fields opportunities to transfer this to industry. Some further thought led me to, are industrial jobs attractive to research staff? Is it government policy to attract hi-tech companies with such jobs to the UK? Is it necessary to provide a workforce to attract them, or should they be expected to train there own staff? I guess my view is obvious, whilst other countries can deliver highly skilled staff, the companies will go there, not here. The important think for tax payers is a return on investment, through perhaps, increased levels of corporation tax. Employers however may wish to be more involved in academia to ensure employees have the correct skills - but would we accept this erosion of academic freedom in the PhD? (and yes the Robert;s report gave this as an option...)

    

   If we look to have more scientists (and indeed more researchers in the Arts, Humantites and Social Sciences) in the UK, and more positions, then we may ask how many do we need as a country to be more competitive (that is what is at stake here, not how much we spend). Indeed if there are more permeant research posts how would these be managed in institutions over the medium term when research priorities, skills and disciplines, change? And in reality how does this differ to the current provision?

    

   An important point made is the levels of inefficiency in the system, especially the grant application process, where so many are rejected (so much wasted work). But to change this, would it lower the level of competition? Would it reduce standards as result? Efficiency as we all know can only be calculated by looking at the whole system, it is too simplistic to look at any one factor. Can we say that per £ invested, reducing competition in the grant application process would increase the number of 4* Journal papers from the UK?

    

   Lastly the recommendation about advice on the availability of careers is essential, but one thing we should note: Getting into industry should not be seen as failing at academia, indeed, it is the very reason the UK research budget exists.

    

   These are certainly tough questions, and I guess ones that those outside academia may also raise. It is therefore important that Science is Vital, Vitae and of course UKRSA can gather further evidence and experience to address these if we are to tackle the issue, and ultimately see high quality changes made to the system.

    

   I would suggest that it is our challenge, if we are to make a academic research career viable, to perform the same miracle as has happened in the competition for academic posts, to make the competition top level non-academic posts highly competitive with researchers leading the charge!

3. Tennie Videler14 October 2011 at 02:35 PM

   permalinkreport this comment

   I think this report only considers research careers in HE, while, as Chris says there are plenty of opportunities outside.  It is also important to remember that the UK HEI system has a high international element to it, with about 20% of research staff of non-UK nationality.

    

   I want to give some CROS data from this year. CROS is the Careers in Research Online Survey, which was answered by 7000 research staff respondents (of which 5585 complete), compared with the report’s 700 responses. I’ve been meaning to post about this and will do so soon! Here is what may be pertinent to the Science is Vital report:

    

   Do we know  “most researchers who carry on as a postdoc do so because they desire a lifelong career in research”? CROS asks about 5-year aspirations: 40% say they are seeking a career primarily in research, with 75% are seeking a career in HE overall and 15% not in research at all.

    

   70% of research staff report being happy with their work/life balance in CROS, which is hard to marry with reported low morale.

    

   On availability of careers advice: 31% of CROS respondents had consulted/ would consult with a careers advisor on long-term career planning and 23% on training and development. Are research staff not taking up the opportunities, rather than that the advice is not available?

    

   Studies (Vitae’s, and PRES) show that only about half of current doctoral researchers aspire to a career in HE – and a substantial number want a research career outside HE.  Are doctoral students are being put off?   particularly at a time of stark reports of increasing difficulty in obtaining graduate jobs generally?