Get it Right

A few days ago I participated in exchange of views on the theme of careers for post-docs. The exchange was initiated by the distribution of a figure (1.6), originally from a Royal Society report, that shows, in a striking manner, the sharp funnel of talent from embarking on a doctorate to assuming an established academic post.

The disagreement between myself and the other participants in the exchange was as to whether the figure showed a 'problem'. I argued, that it did not. This is a position that I would maintain. I suspect however that like many such discussions the participants were actually 'agreeing furiously'. Before examining some territory where we might find this agreement let me summarise my position.

Not progressing from a doctorate to an academic research post is not to be regarded as problematic, on the contrary. People with the research and technical skills that a doctorate provides are required by industry. Not only in development roles but more generally in industrial leadership. This is a key route for knowledge transfer and provides a broad relationship between the 'knowledge base' in universities and those positioned to exploit it. Perhaps, in universities, we have failed fully to exploit this relationship but this does not deny the potential. We have certainly failed to prepare doctoral students adequately for careers outside academic research, the engineering (professional) doctorate is a step in the right direction, but even there we could do better. The underlying problem is the shortage of time in the UK doctorate: a 4 year programme is already, in my view, essential, at least for engineering, and if we are to include industrial internships, broader research portfolios and some exposure to entrepreneurship, we are looking at closer to 5 years.

I acknowledge that the drop-off of post-docs who have entered for some period a research post raises more questions. First, is it wasteful to provide advanced training to those who will not ultimately follow a career that demands those skills? Again, I am unconvinced that the transferrable skills are 'lost' and, in fact, a post-doc provides a more diverse experience, including greater independence than a doctorate, and that might in reality have wider applicability (I recognise that this is a stronger argument for engineers than some other disciplines). Second, and here I court controversy, we require a mechanism that selects for an academic career. Given that we can only afford a small proportion of 'core funded' career academics we need to thin the field somehow. What is the best mechanism?

The 'waste' or cost argument seems unpersuasive, given that the technical skills requirements in research are constantly changing. I do not accept that were students more aware of the odds against securing an academic position they would not start doctorates or subsequently take up post-doc roles. In fact, my experience is that the more selective the entrance to academic positions appears, the more the enthusiasm to follow this path. I have seen this used as a recruiting ploy by a graduate admissions tutor.

A cadre of permanent researchers displacing the constantly refreshing pool of post-docs appears, at least to me, neither to favour the talented doctoral 'entrant' nor to be the best way to provide a globally competitive academy. I am strongly convinced that recruiting a larger proportion of post-docs to a 'tenure track' and then denying them a continuing post after a further sharp selection, US-style, is undesirable. It might squeeze some extra productivity as 'tenure tension' sets in but is both unfair and the benefits may well be lost as the tension subsides. We must also take into account gender: a system that delays key career decisions into the period at which women might wish to have children, would likely yield further inequity. 'Stopping the clock' is an inadequate answer.

All this having been said, I firmly believe we could do (much) better than the existing system. The 'problem' is not the drop off from doctorate to 'tenured' academic but the manner in which we organise our funding and the way the system operates. Principally, because it is ineffective. Project funding for retaining post-docs is highly variable. Post-docs can be lost to the system not because of any lack of talent on their part but simply because their academic patron has a gap in funded support, has decided to change direction or has determined to move institution or role. Others are retained in support roles, surviving on a tenuous patchwork of funding that might, at any moment fall through. Career planning is the responsibility of the individual supervisor (or at best research group) and hence a matter of good fortune.

The system is also, for want of a better word, inhumane. It requires young people at a important point in their lives, as they establish personal relationships and perhaps families, to live with great uncertainty. I say this with feeling because I, in my time experienced it. Some universities now offer permanent contracts to post-doc researchers but this is, bluntly, a cruel sham. The jobs persist as long as the funding is there, redeployment is mostly a mirage, and the sole contribution is a stream of letters warning of imminent redundancy, contributing only to a greater sense of uncertainty, and ultimately a risible redundancy payment.

A big part of the problem is our collective fixation on the (predominantly 3-year) 'project' as a way of organising research. This is a personal theme that I would like to elaborate on at some future point. Suffice it to say that I would much prefer to see more stable and strategic funding with a greater proportion of research funding devolved to institutions better placed to deliver consistent research management. I do not however want this point to distract from my main theme.

So, what is the alternative? I would suggest (please bear in mind this is a tentative sketch) a scheme of 3-year individual fellowships awarded during the concluding phase of the doctorate. These might require both institutional commitment, continuing mentoring and supervision and a plan that would include integration into a research infrastructure, such as an established group, to ensure support and a breadth of experience. Towards the end of the 3-year period recipients of the fellowship could apply for a two-year extension. These extensions would come in two flavours 'research' or 'impact' (not the best terms). The research track would orient to an academic career, and would be mobile, moving with the awardee. The impact track would orient to an industry career. The impact track would require the fellow to engage with knowledge transfer, undertake industry internships, and broaden their portfolio of skills, while continuing to undertake some research or scholarship.

In this scheme, universities would look for recruits to academic posts during the extension period. The final year of a fellowship extension could be held concurrently with proleptic academic post and the holder could apply in their own right for independent funding. The 'norm' would be that universities would not then offer further temporary posts. If a research activity requires ongoing technical support universities should employ the people required on continuing research support contracts - with serious view to sustaining these positions but with no view to moving the employees on to academic positions. This proposal has the benefit of clarity, orientation to the needs of post-docs, and would not necessarily be more costly than the existing scheme - though it entails a move away from project funding. It also incentivises institutional management of valuable human resources. No doubt there are disadvantages too, not least that it implies two clearly distinguishable 'types' of post-doc and that it imposes a rather rigid timescale that may not always be optimal.

We need an open debate, with industry, students, post-docs and universities - informed by a real sense of what is possible and affordable. It should be possible to create a system that is efficient, humane and delivers a globally competitive pool of research and industrial talent.