more wikis
 

Minutes 22nd June

From Scratchpad

Minutes of the meeting to establish a National Postdoctoral/Research Staff Association 22nd June, 2006

If you need help with editing this page, try the User's guide.

Contents

[edit] Summary

On 22nd June 2006, 38 research staff and postdoctoral researchers, drawn from 30 institutes around the country, met at UCL to discuss the UK’s provisions for research staff career development. We reached a broad consensus that:

  1. Research staff in different disciplines and different institutions share many of the same aspirations,
  2. Existing provisions to help them achieve these aspirations are insufficient,
  3. We should, therefore, found a national research staff association to help provide a voice for the UK’s research staff and postdocs.

[edit] Background – the emergence of professional scientists

The notion of professional scientists is a relatively recent one[1]. 200 years ago science and technology were largely the preserve of ‘provincial manufacturers, professional men and gifted amateurs'[2]; James Watt on the £5 note, for example, was an industrial inventor and the £10 Charles Darwin had a private income. Neither ever held an academic post.

This lack of scientific infrastructure was first seriously challenged in the German Universities of the early 19th century, with calls for scientists to become ‘an organized army, labouring on behalf of the whole nation, and generally under its direction and at its expense.’ In response to these calls, Justus Liebig used his own funds to convert a former Army barracks at Giessen into a plant physiology lab, effectively founding the modern research laboratory in which junior scientists were trained and directed by seniors .

From these continental beginnings, the UK career ladder has evolved over the past hundred and forty years. Liebig’s original intention was for all ‘postdoctoral’ scientists to develop their own teaching programmes, management abilities and directions of research in preparation for a University post. But times have changed and University posts are now available for fewer than 20% of ‘postdoctoral’ researchers[3]. What, then, is today’s postdoc for?

[edit] The point of a postdoc

The bulk of the UK’s research population are employed on research contracts . The majority of these contracts, and the people employed on them, are in scientific or engineering disciplines, but a growing number are in the Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities. The research community is increasingly unsure of how to treat these research contract workers, or even of what to call them[4]. This uncertainty means that there are at least four answers to the question, ‘What is a postdoc for?’ and the shared aspirations, abilities and limitations which increasingly link most postdocs and research staff reflects the conflicting pulls of these four answers (BOX 1).

BOX 1 | WHAT ARE POSTDOCS FOR?

Answer 1. The PI asks ‘What are postdocs for?’ and the answer is ‘Whatever I tell them to do.’ Since Research Staff are technically employed to do the research specified in a grant, their primary function is, in Michael Faraday’s phrase, to ‘Work. Finish. Publish.’ However, Research Staff are also members of a group and a department, which place their own demands on them. The most common of these demands include training other members of the department, teaching students, providing technical expertise (such as operating a piece of machinery for collaborators), writing grants or reports and communicating their research to the public. The extent to which these activities are encouraged or remunerated varies widely between departments.

Answer 2. Funding bodies ask ‘What are postdocs for?’ and the answer is ‘Helping to advance the UK’s research imperative.’ The UK has traditionally been one of the major contributors to the World’s Science and Technology output, but if it is to stay internationally competitive a number of challenges will need to be overcome in the century ahead. Political changes have resulted in increased competition from countries in the developing World, such as India and China, social changes have prompted a reappraisal of the problems which societies must address, such as climate change and an ageing population, and technological changes have lead to global economies and workforces. In order to stay at the forefront of discovery in the face of these changes, the UK must maintain its supply of skilled researchers to academia and industry.

Answer 3. Potential employers ask ‘What are postdocs for?’ and the answer is ‘Gaining a certain set of skills which will help us in the future.’ For academic positions only one skill is required by the 2008 RAE, which is the ability to attract funds. Other positions require other skills.

And, finally, Answer 4. Potential research staff ask ‘What are postdocs for?’ and the answer is ‘To develop and establish myself as an independent researcher.’ A PhD should teach its candidate to direct their own research; a professional post should add the ability to manage other workers’ research.

[edit] The aspirations of Research Staff

In an ideal World, all four of the answers in Box 1 would coincide. The fact that they often do not means that Research Staff across different institutes and disciplines share more aspirations and problems than many of us realize (BOX 2)[5]. The old view that Research Staff are in training for Unversity posts no longer holds; in fact, the bulk of the UK’s Research Staff will not stay in research and they have no incentive to. However, Research Staff form an integral part of the research community and our high turnover matches a decline in the perceived standard of Science and Technology teaching at Universities and increasing doubts about the UK’s ability to maintain its traditional position in World research. ‘Compared with China, India, and South America, we are a small country. Unless we use wisely the abilities of all our people we will get left behind’[6].


BOX 2 | KEY PROBLEMS FACING RESEARCH STAFF

Problem 1. Working conditions are poor. The most obvious problem is the poorly paid, short-term nature of any research project and the consequent lack of job security. This is often cited as a reason for leaving research, especially since many Research Staff are starting families. At worst, short term contracts may be manipulated by Institutes keen to reduce costs.

Problem 2. There is little or no career development. Many Research Staff aspire to a University position, but there is a severe bottleneck. For every X lectureship position which is advertised, there are Y postdoctoral positions advertised. Research Staff do, of course, realize that a competitive job market is necessary to attract high quality researchers. However, we are worried that competition should be fair and farsighted. The current perception is that the job prospects of any member of Research Staff depend critically on the competence or incompetence of their PI, rather than on the merits of the Research Staff themselves. However, PIs have no incentive, no accountability and little training with which to encourage Research Staff career development and, together with the short-term nature of research grants, PIs are often rewarded for treating their Research Staff as temporary technicians, rather than as independent researchers.

This potential conflict of interest between PIs and Research Staff is exacerbated by the lip service paid by Institutes to teaching and public communication out of the unrecognized efforts of Research Staff.

For those members of Research Staff who leave academia, this failure to develop our careers leaves us relatively disavantaged in the job market. This imbalance is exacerbated by the ease with which PhD students can change careers relative to Research Staff. A Masters or PhD student has usually spent between 1 and 4 years gaining a transferable qualification; Research Staff have often spent 5 years or more failing to add to that qualification.

Problem 3. ‘Taxation without representation is tyranny’. While it is accepted that Research Staff face a nonsensical job market, we believe that a more fundamental problem is the disenfranchisement of Research Staff from the broader research community. We bear the largest financial and personal risk of any section of the research community (if a project is ended, Research Staff are made redundant, not PIs), yet we have no say in major funding, editorial, educational or policy decisions. As professional scientists who are the first name authors on the bulk of publications and from whom permanent staff are almost exclusively drawn, why does the research community not think us capable of exercising such responsibility?

[edit] Current Provisions

To their credit, a number of groups are already interested in Research Staff enfranchisement and career development, including Trade Unions (UCU), UK GRAD and human resource professionals (UK HERD). Taking their cue from the 2002 SET for Success report[7], chaired by Sir Gareth Roberts and popularly called ‘the Roberts Review’, these groups have called for increased provision of training to young researchers. This call has been answered by targeted funds from RCUK, but, although more money is now available for postgraduates, Research Staff training remains a key area for improvement (Ian Cameron, head of RCUK Research Careers and Diversity Unit, personal communication).

As a result of their efforts, a number of important changes have been made. The most important of these means that, as of July 10th 2006, any researcher working for more than 4 years at the same institute must be offered an open-ended contract. While the rights of an individual to stay in employment, particularly in the light of the July 10th move, are protected by the Trade Unions, members of the UK’s Research Staff community are practically defined by a desire to move out of their current jobs and this requires training and career development which is only patchily available .

At some Institutes, Research Staff have organized themselves into local associations and pressed for change at a local and regional level . The success of these local associations is extremely encouraging and gives hope that similar changes can be advocated at a national level. At the moment, however, there is no national group exclusively concerned with, or run by, Research Staff and the UK’s Research Staff community remains largely passive when it comes to determining and directing career structures and opportunities.

[edit] A national Research Staff network

Proposed.

We believe that the UK Research Staff community has more to offer itself than it is currently doing and that, as the next generation of UK researchers, we should challenge current perceptions of Research Staff limitations. Encouraged by the success of local Research Staff associations, we believe that these should be fostered at every Research Institute. We believe that these local associations should target Research Staff training and career development, not simply into academia, but into all branches of the UK research endeavour. Furthermore, we believe that these local associations should be connected, but not directed, by a national association which would provide a national voice for the UK’s Research Staff community. Finally, we believe that an online UK-wide network should be created to allow Research Staff to gather and exchange information relevant to their career development (see below).

The task of such a proposed national association would be to unify the Research Staff experience across institutions, improving UK research by creating a Research Staff community which allows greater opportunities for networking, learning and decision making. We would also aim to increase the control which Research Staff have over their own careers by gathering data on Research Staff conditions which will be used to improve career structures by advising and training other interested parties.

[edit] Proposed structure and specific aims of a national Research Staff association

How can a national network be organized? Research Staff are hard to engage, so the key is to make it easy, make it representative, and make it responsive. We’re aiming to provide a conduit to provide information to bodies whose job it is to deal with Research Staff, but we’re also trying to actually create a community. Although many issues are best dealt with at a local level, we think that the national issues should be:

  1. Attract funding for Research Staff associations.
  2. Encourage and support the creation/upkeep of local associations.
  3. Create an online Research Staff community.
  4. Advocate for Research Staff issues to National bodies.

1. Attract funding for Research Staff associations. Funding is a major concern and should be a priority. Given that we have a transient population and that none of us is (hopefully) going to be involved in five years time, we need to start applying for grants and fundraising to create a sustainable organization. How can we do this? We should:

  1. Apply for grants to bodies with a mandate to support this sort of thing. Our initial focus should simply be a pragmatic one and, since the largest number of Research Staff are in the biomedical sector, we should target Biomedical groups who have an interest in Research Staff careers, such as the Wellcome Trust.
  2. For interested, non-grant funding bodies, we need to identify potential ‘seedcorn’ sponsors. We must contact a core group of sponsors and discuss how we align with each sponsor’s priorities and how we will further their objectives. If we look at who funds most researchers or has interests that tie in, this group would include the Research Councils, AMRC, Leverhulme, Rowntree Trust, etc. The US NPA gets around £200 K per year from this sort of funding.
  3. Individual subscriptions are a possibility (the US NPA sets Individual costs of £20 per person). However, to start with it’s difficult for individuals to see any benefits or incentives, so this sort of income should be delayed until we really get up and running.
  4. In the long term, it might be possible to get Research Institutes to pay a ‘Head Tax’ out of their Roberts money. This would, however, be some way down the line.
  5. Finally, we need to think a little about the integration of local and national associations. Would we rather have the bulk of the fundraising done by local associations which then pay a tithe to support a national association (along the lines of the US NPA), would we rather see a national association which generates income to distribute to local associations (like a grant funding body), or would we rather keep local and national associations financially separate?

2. Encourage and support the creation/upkeep of local associations. Any National association must draw its strength and mandate from strong local associations and many issues are best addressed at a local level. We realize that a number of excellent local associations already exist, with those at Bristol[8], Dundee[9] and York[10] being particularly good examples (BOX 3). We therefore believe that every research institute should have a strong local association and we wish to encourage the creation of local associations. Specific aims are:

  1. We’re speaking at UK HERD and UK GRAD meetings about how to set up local associations,
  2. We’re aiming to create a ‘toolkit’ to help Research Staff at different Institutes to found and maintain their own associations.

BOX 3 | HOW TO CREATE A LOCAL ASSOCIATION

Local Research Staff associations lie at the heart of any national association.

  • A capable committee is essential, so enthusiastic people should be treasured
  • Local associations should start by simply making life more interesting for Research Staff, either socially or professionally
  • However, Research Staff are notoriously hard to engage, so creating a sense of community may involve tasks or bribes (surveys, free booze, etc.)
  • Associations should then aim to make a difference to Research Staff conditions
  • Examples could include arranging skills workshops, gathering information about career prospects, providing training opportunities, increasing awareness of self-worth (prizes, conferences etc.)
  • For any local association to succeed, management must be convinced of its benefits.

3. Create an online Research Staff community. Research Staff may be enfranchised in two way; in groups as local associations by a national association, or as individuals in a social network. We propose to set up such a network which will allow information to be gathered and exchanged about working conditions. We’re currently negotiating with the Nature Publishing Group to set up an online social network along the lines of the one shown to the right. It is hoped that this will allow Research Staff to consolidate and expand ‘real world’ interactions.

4. Advocate for Research Staff issues to National bodies. A number of stakeholders are, or should be, already interested in Research Staff careers. These include the Research Councils, the Trade Unions (UCU, AGCAS), Human Resource staff at research Institutes (UK HERD), Industry employers, the Government (Select Committee for Science and Technology, Council for Science and Technology), funding Charities (AMRC), the media (Nature, Science, The Scientist, Chemistry World (RSC)) and Professional Institutions (Royal Soc., BA, RSC, SEB, IEE etc.). Can we add more? We have already contacted a number of these and should aim to increase our representation at their tables. However, if we are to properly advocate for change at a national level, our arguments and suggestions must be based on solid information, so we must use any network we have to survey Research Staff and concentrate on key policy issues (BOX 4).

BOX 4 | SUGGESTED POLICY ISSUES

Our aim is to force a realization that the training of a competent and independent researcher is a greater research achievement than a paper. To this end, we call for:

Increased Research Staff representation at all levels of decision-making in the scientific hierarchy. As professional researchers, Research Staff should have more input into the direction which their field of research takes. The only way to do this is to increase their representation on decision making panels. These include grant funding and RAE boards, journal referee boards and Fellowship/Lecturer interview panels.

Increased feedback and more responsive evaluation of career progression. Research Staff should have a recognized career structure which gives them more control over their own career progression and which develops them as independent researchers. This requires knowing what opportunities are available, getting good advice on what career paths to take, having the opportunity to broaden skills and getting feedback on career applications.

To encourage PIs to take an interest in Research Staff careers, training should be given both to Research Staff and to PIs. Grant reports should include a brief assessment by Research Staff on the competence of their PIs and the track record of any PI should be taken into account when determining the allocation of future grants.

Research Staff should be encouraged to develop independent revenue streams, possibly by allowing them to ‘take over’ their PI’s grant after 2 years or by increasing the availability of short term (less than 1 year) beginners grants.

All job applicants should be provided with a review of their application.

Re-evaluation of measures of scientific productivity. If Research Staff are to compete for jobs, at least let it be on a level playing field. The 2008 RAE recognizes several kinds of research output (training, papers, public communication, grant income, etc.), so it should not be too difficult to bring in a similar multiparametric assessment of Research Staff accomplishments to allow many aspects of research productivity to be recognized and rewarded.

If publication rate continues to be the main meaure of research achievement, the contribution of Research Staff should be properly recognized. Abolishing the practice of Guest authorship should do the trick.

[edit] Participants

Kondo-Francois Aguey-Zinsou Queen Mary
Rebecca Allotey Queen Mary
Paul Andrews Dundee
Angela Barrett Institute of Cancer Research
Chris Blagden US NPA
John Bothwell Marine Biological Association
Éric Buchlin Imperial College
Amber Budden US NPA
Winnie Dhaliwal Queen Mary
Antony Dodd Cambridge
Jenny Gristock Sussex
Branwen Hide Oxford
Andrew Hollins Cardiff
Gemma Irvine Trinity College, Dublin
Sally Jacobs Manchester
Kornelius Kupczik York
Kathryn North John Innes Centre
Maria OcampoHafalla CRUK
Kate Reading RCUK
John Reece-Hoyes Leeds
Alison Ross Institute of Child Health
Amelia Rout Keele
Amy Spatz Queen Mary
Kaihsu Tai Oxford
Mhairi Towler Dundee
Paul Wicks IOP, KCL
Nicola Woodward Institute of Food Research

[edit] References

  1. ↑ The word itself was only coined in the early 19th C. ‘We need very much a name to describe a cultivator of science in general. I should incline to call him a Scientist.’ William Whewell, Philos. Induct. Sci. I. Introd. 113, 1840.
  2. ↑ Jenny Uglow, The Lunar Men, Faber and Faber, 2002.
  3. ↑ [1]
  4. ↑ On the 5th august 2006 the recruitment site jobs.ac.uk carried ads for 11x Research Associates, 8x Research Assistants, 7x Post Doctoral Research Associates, 7x Research Fellows, 5x Post Doctoral Fellows, 4x Postdoctoral Research Fellows, 3x Research Fellow/Research Associates, 1x Postdoc, 1x Postdoctoral Researcher, 1x Postdoctoral Research Assistant, 1x Postdoctoral Research Worker, 1x Research Associate/Project Coordinator, 1x Senior Research Fellow, 1x Associate Research Fellow, 1x Senior Research Officer or Research Officer, 1x Investigator Scientist, 1x Process Development Scientist (KTP Associate) and 5x other named fixed-term posts (Molecular Plant Pathologist, Physiologist, Krill Geneticist, Bioinformatics Officer, Bioinformatics Support Officer)
  5. ↑ [2]
  6. ↑ [3]
  7. ↑ SET for Success: The Supply of People with Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics skills. Report of Sir Gareth Roberts' Review 15/04/2002[4]
  8. ↑ Bristol Research Staff Association[5]
  9. ↑ [6]
  10. ↑ [7]

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Minutes_22nd_June"