researcher development – Meta Research

20 November 202220 November 2022

Researcher Wellbeing: what are we willing to change?

A study conducted in the mid 2010’s at Ghent University in Belgium provided some hard evidence (1) for what a fair few of us had suspected for many years. That the wellbeing and mental health of PhD students, and most probably all Early Career Researchers, is in a quite perilous state.

Researchers love to research so a series of subsequent surveys, questionnaires, interviews and reports were funded and actioned (2). The results suggested what we might have expected that the PhD students at Ghent were by no means an outlier but were quite typical. With larger surveys and reviews indicating around one in four research students disclosing issues with their mental health (3). A number that is far greater than other groups of a comparable age. What is probably most worrying within those statistics is the pressure not to disclose any issues due to the potential detrimental influence on a researcher’s career prospects is likely to mean many more researchers are keeping their problems to themselves.

Whilst correlates of mental health difficulties have been identified (4) the overall issue would appear to be a systemic and existential problem in what the doctorate and a subsequent research career looks like. When universities attempt to attract research students to enrol, there is little to no mention of the potential negatives that lie ahead.

Once doctoral students start their programmes the mixed messages will become apparent. The inductions from Graduate Schools, Doctoral Colleges or whatever larger structures will explain that their education is about their own professional development and to take time to engage in the many opportunities available. However, the day to day messaging they will receive from their supervisors, research associates, and senior PhD students may be quite different. The all consuming requirement for, data generated, high impact factor papers published and grants in, becomes a frenzied narrative of career dependence.

The sense of competition and requirement to spend more time researching to compete in the race to fulfil the REF (Research Excellence Framework (5)) requirements of the unit and institution quickly trickles down to a doctoral student just hoping to get to grips with their own project. Fundamentally if we really want to see a significant improvement in how researchers feel then there will need to be a radical shift in the way research is set up. (see another blog post https://blogs.ncl.ac.uk/richardhetherington/2021/02/07/2020-a-vision-for-portfolio-careers-in-academic-research/)

Whist we wait for the great leap forwards, the question remains what can we do about the individuals currently caught in the crossfire of expectations for research outputs and personal and professional development? The first thing is to draw no division between the support and guidance that is technical, and is primarily there to provide tools to help with research and, the support that is for the individual to cope well with the research experience. So, when wellbeing services do recognise that the needs of PhD students are very different to undergraduates (PhD students are much less likely to be homesick for instance). Then the support which is provided is clearly signposted without any potential for stigmatisation by making it clear that personal development and support dealing with challenging situations is normalised as is counselling.

Research students should be able to access Cognitive Behavioural Therapies (CBT), talking therapy based workshops, or mindfulness meditation sessions in the same way as they would guidance on academic writing or statistics. Far better we are able to help researchers before a crisis point than wait until they hit to rocks or are standing on the levy.

For those who are heading toward a crisis point because of complexity of their research or the many other factors that may play a part in making life difficult, there needs to be appropriate support and well directed guidance. This is where the support and guidance provided to supervisors is key. This most complex of working relationships needs the recognition of boundaries and knowledge of signposting to adequate and timely resources. Supervisors are often friends and mentors to their students but they are not mental health counsellors and if a student’s problems go beyond their research project they should be given appropriate support from trained professionals.

So what can institutions introduce that might help researchers keep a sense of perspective and avoid the worst of the situations that might cause problems for their mental health. Here is where I link to my somewhat cryptic image, the reason my phone charger (like many, I guess) has broken at this point is because I’m trying to use the device whist it’s on charge, or I’m quickly pulling at it to draw it back into use when it has been charging. Dedicated researchers are generally so engrossed in their work that they are naturally drawn away from their time recharging. When they are not at the desk, bench or PC they are still thinking about the work. There needs to be freedom to escape and recharge. The first thing is not to amplify further their engagement with the research by making external demands of them to do more. Their own pace for a PhD is almost always fast enough (6).

The other thing is to structure the opportunity for support. Mindfulness meditation might not be for everyone but for those it works for, it really does make a massive difference. It helps people to live in their current moment and frees them up for the worries of what has not gone to plan or challenges that might lie in the future. Having Mindfulness sessions available is a real tangible way to help researchers manage the challenges they face. For others, who are happiest when they get something done, they may need something that is achievable to satisfy the need for some instant gratification that can often be lacking in the very long term goals and outputs of research. For those students community activities such as organising events like the North East Postgraduate Conference NEPG (7) could be one option. For other more individual pursuits like gardening or origami (8) may prove to be a source of some satisfaction. The recognition that time for these recharging processes is key and supervisors should encourage students to build these activities into their day. Productivity comes from happiness and being at ease with requirements not the constant pressure of needing to generate more data or outputs.

Finally, whatever the Universities choose to put in place to support their research students, there must be adequate resource for such support to continue through development. Research on any intervention ought to be through practitioner based enquiry with iterative development of good practice. This should not be an opportunity for researchers to further their careers as they observe from afar, assessing the potential influence of one off projects or schemes. There is surely enough compelling evidence that comprehensive support is needed for researchers to manage the challenges of research and the academic world. The question is should not be what is the one answer but how does the sector keep helping those who will need help.

1.https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8613173/file/8613174.pdf

2.https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/student-wellbeing-and-protection/student-mental-health/catalyst-fund-supporting-mental-health-and-wellbeing-for-pgr-students/

3.https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-020-01443-1

4.http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/102260/1/UDOC%20Survey%20Predictors%20of%20PGR%20symptoms%20BJPsychOpen%20Accepted%2011.10.21.pdf

5. https://www.ref.ac.uk/

6. Berg, M., & Seeber, B. K. (2016). The slow professor: Challenging the culture of speed in the academy. University of Toronto Press.

7. https://ne-pg.co.uk/

8. https://www.vitae.ac.uk/events/past-events/vitae-researcher-development-international-conference-2017/Posters2017/Can%20mindfulness%20through%20meditation%20or%20Origami%20be%20used%20to%20support%20resilience%20and%20well%20being%20in%20researchers

6 May 20216 May 2021

Doctoral Training Partnerships & Centres and how they influence the formative development of researchers

By Oonagh McGee and Richy Hetherington

Over the last 10 years there has been a shift in the way the UK Government has funded doctoral research. The Research Councils, RCUK (now UKRI, UK Research and Innovation) started concentrating funding with Doctoral Training Centres at specific locations and building cohorts of research students working at places where there was a significant area of expertise. This model was developed further ensuring that funding for research students was dedicated to higher education institutions (HEIs) with a strong record in research. Doctoral Training Partnerships (DTPs) required institutions to have a research grant income above a certain threshold to apply. Only a select few universities could apply individually, most would be required to partner up in order to fund a cohort of students. Alongside the DTP model, universities were also able to apply for Centres for Doctoral Training, with significant funding offered by UKRI. The majority of this specifically concentrated on EPSRC priority areas, in comparison to other funding councils. The latest call (launched in 2018) saw a combined investment from EPSRC and external partners of £945M. (1) These targeted investments cover a wide range of topics although subjects can be disparate within each centre and each with their own operating models.

The concept that research students should learn their research skills together and develop as a cohort is intrinsically a very positive step. Everything that can be done to foster collaboration in research endeavours must be considered a positive. It could be argued that where students are co-located with their cohorts, or brought together for regular events and training, these centres could provide an antidote to the ‘lonely journey’ often reported by doctoral students.

In a study of doctoral centres in (2019-2020) students (n=209) and staff (n=6) reported on the less tangible benefits of doctoral centres (2) primarily relating to wellbeing and support but also the opportunity to share methods, skills, and work on problems collaboratively.

There are excellent training opportunities for students, in a variety of areas with individual DTPs arranging training in Science Communication, Enterprise & Innovation and Personal & Professional Development more generally. The BBSRC took a very defined focus on the employability of research students with their Professional Internships for PhD Students (PIPS) scheme. The requirement for three month internships away from the research was originally met with some scepticism from academic supervisors but the internships have proved popular with students. The opportunity to demonstrate and recognise research skills in other environments has proved to be a significant positive.

However, for the many benefits this concentration of funding with three and a half or four year fully funded studentships with numerous additional training opportunities included has increased the disparity in experience between research students depending on how they are being supported and their discipline.

Whilst feedback from students (n=209) was generally positive, students also highlighted issues of competition, comparison and, in some cases, extra activities as a distraction from their core research. Additionally, students highlighted that whilst working together could be beneficial in many areas, they felt a research group would have been a more appropriate environment.

One good example of how DTP funding has made an impact more broadly. Is the North East Postgraduate conference (NE-PG.CO.UK). By supporting a conference for their own students to present their work to the broader research student community, the DTPs can also promote an opportunity for all research students in the discipline to submit and share their work, practice their presentation skills and network. It has also proved an important opportunity for researchers to develop skills in organising such an event. Including a broad range of skills that stem from research, such as reviewing abstracts and providing critical but fair feedback. The Student led conference also allows researchers to develop organisational skills that are a quite tangential extension of those acquired through organising a research conference.

This opportunity to maximise and broaden the benefit that can come from the funding that comes with funded training centres and partnerships is a relative scarcity. The perspective of many of the academics involved in organising partnerships or centres seems to be a one of caution not to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. There have been notable cases where research intensive universities did not get the DTP they applied for or did not have their partnership renewed. A clear steer from UKRI that spreading and maximising the support would be greatly welcomed. Brexit and Covid19 are already greatly testing international research students’ desire to come to the UK. If the Universities are to continue to encourage a range of models for research students they need to ensure there is not a two tier (or many tier) system in doctoral education. Whilst the funded centre model has provided opportunities for students to work collaboratively across institutions, there is also the argument that some Centres for Doctoral Training (CDTs) & DTPs can lead to a two-tier system with funding, opportunities and support built around a specific cohort of students which are not afforded to those without this funding .

It has been recognised for some time that the Master and Apprentice model of PhD supervision is becoming outmoded with research being performed by larger interdisciplinary groups. There could be some consideration into the way in which doctorates are assessed. The individual monograph is not entirely in-keeping with modern research methods, nor does it accurately reflect how many students will go on to work within their chosen career . Industries outside of academia have embraced the effectiveness of cross-cutting teams and collaboration. It would appear there is increasing recognition that the complexity of the projects academics researchers face means that there will need to be greater openness collaboration and recognition for all parties involved, this is articulate very well by Professor Muzlifah Haniffa when speaking about how the research team they work in responded to Covid-19 (3). If universities and research councils are genuinely interested in developing individuals for their career post-doctorate a radical rethink may be required.

UKRI have continued to fund large-scale, multidisciplinary grants over the last decade, recognising that in order to solve grand challenges a new approach is required. If we hope to develop research culture away from the application of individual rewards to the lead or last author on papers, and the named individual on grant applications then it maybe be necessary to change the formative stages of building a research career to bring in greater recognition of the contribution that many individuals make together on a project. Is the portfolio PhD the way forward?

Recommendations from the report to the UKCGE Conference 2020 (2)

Could UKRI funding be allocated to enable engagement with non-funded students?
Could we have further funding distributed across institutions?
Ensure student feedback is incorporated into review process
Integrate student wellbeing and satisfaction scales and benchmark with PRES.

7 February 20218 February 2021

20:20 a vision for portfolio careers in academic research

Restricting the time individuals spend on their own research project to twenty hours a week might allow for greater equality and less burn-out.

There’s no such thing as a job for life anymore, has now become an old adage, we have moved on from that, to the point where a more common discussion is whether work-life balance is ‘a thing’ (1). However, much of what is sold to a new generation of academic researchers, starting out on a PhD is exactly that, the idea of a job for life. They are tacitly offered the prospect that they might follow in the footsteps of their academic mentors or supervisors. They are hijacked into thinking their doctorate, their academic papers, their conference presentations and their successful grant applications will lead to a permanent contract in academic research or higher education. The truth is, for some that will happen. It might mean working really long hours, facing countless rejections, reapplications and resubmissions but ultimately it is possible they will end up with a full time position at a University and never leave the academic world. For the majority though, the reality is they will leave academia and will have diverse and potentially more financially fruitful careers elsewhere. Arguments about what could be considered success we can leave to one side, but I am minded of the former PhD student who told me of their lucrative career in Management Consultancy and how the boss of the company had a Nature paper to their name, but had left academia of their own volition. What I really want to consider is how the careers of those who stay in academia develop . A study of Professors in the Netherlands indicated that their time conducting research was down to 17%, and this article suggests anyone who would like to continue in research should probably look outside of academia (2)

So how do we address the existential crisis in academic careers that seems to be at the route of problems in the research environment? Whether researchers have an open or fixed term contract they are always likely to call for more funding to resolve the issue. Whilst I wouldn’t argue with the idea of increasing funding for research, I’d be wary of suggesting this would be a panacea. More research funding is likely to mean more PhD students and more post doc positions, even if it did mean more open contracts they would quickly be filled and the issues of the promise of a career would not materialise for many.

The inequalities in research can be very obvious and policies to address those issues need to be firmly held up. However, some things relate to societal differences that affect people more broadly. Quite simply the 60+ hour working week many Early Career Researchers feel pressured to adhere to is a much more of a feasible option for someone without the caring responsibilities of children or elderly relatives. It’s also likely to be a good deal easier for those without physical disabilities or mental health issues. Simplistic legislation that demands equality will not be enough to deal with the complex issues that limit what people can do. Whilst some have recognised their own limits and realised that it is only possible to be truly productive for so long (3), there will still be many who are using presenteeism as a proxy for what it takes to be successful.

The answer to several of these issue maybe an acceptance that the development of new research ideas is improved by allowing academics more time to think and with a fairer distribution of the range of other administrative and teaching roles. Requiring a more nurturing environment for those learning from the academics means a greater contribution to research from everyone in the Higher Education system.

Here, I propose limiting the academic research of all research staff to a maximum of 20 hours per week . This might be an entire contract for a working parent. They could then avoid falling behind colleagues with who can devote more time to their research. Of course it would be up to institutions how the other 20 hours were made up. If this was included the support of undergraduate teaching, PhD supervision or technical support for other projects, that would all be good and could help with their own development in the broader sense of their careers. It could also be fairly allocated in order to that researchers could take a strategic approach to their applications for further research funding or to work as a reviewer or editor. As has been identified advancing in academic research tends to lead to growing out of it. Supporting and guiding researchers to longer careers in research with a broader role, encompassing their own development and the development of others, can only be to the long term advantage of the research environment. It may also help early career researchers recognise the importance of the broader aspects of a role in academia. Once more time is required to be devoted outside of the individual’s research project goals then a greater emphasis could be made in assessing their achievements in the broader environment.

With the academic role split more fairly for all on a full time contract covering administrative, teaching, outreach and development roles this could mean broader recognition of those activities. Success across all aspects of the role could then be considered when it came to. Perhaps, this may mean less promotion and fewer Professors, but ultimately if it provided more careers including research with passion and longevity this may create a flatter but happier pyramid of academic careers.

24 November 202024 November 2020

Support and Care in Academia is Female Dominated but Poorly Rewarded

Vitae, the umbrella organisation that considers the professional development of academic researchers in the UK, hosts an annual conference each year it attracts over a thousand delegates, well in a normal year, at least. While across academic disciplines male professors outnumber their female counterparts nearly three to one[i]. The professors that have presented at this event (n=55) were majority female (55%). What is more striking was considering all presenters (n=600), where 70% were female[ii], with the same proportions for those using Dr. as their salutation, this markedly differs from academia as a whole where differences in subject area balance out to a near fifty-fifty split in gender. It seems that the people who have dedicated their careers to supporting the development of researchers, or at least have a keen interest in researcher development are more likely to be female. This is no bad thing in itself but the role comes with less recognition than the academic researchers they are there to support. The majority of those professors presenting have achieved that position in another field and have taken a sideways step to consider the development of colleagues. If working in researcher development or at least being interested in the development of others is not adequately rewarded or considered a key aspect of an academics role then research will ultimately suffer.

Data from Universities in the Netherlands[iii] corroborates HESA data indicating female academics are more likely to have greater teaching responsibilities than their male counterparts, who are engaging more in research activities, I’m doubtful other parts of the world trend differently. It quite clearly isn’t an inability of women to conduct great research but a system that allows more structure and a marginally better work life balance in teaching roles. The freedom for men to work 12 hour days when the job requires is there in society and although most wouldn’t want a work-life balance so skewed, some will take it to make strides at an early point in their career. They can do this in the knowledge that in the future they can tell their PhD students and post-docs this is the way it has to be if they want to progress. The dichotomy between teaching and research does not help this situation. Giving more academics a broader role may help to promote a better transfer of the cutting edge of research to our undergraduate and master’s students but it would also ground the research focussed staff in the structure of the University and broaden the opportunities for a contribution to research.

Amongst PhD students the difference between the typical attitudes of men and women to their own development is palpable. At a recent Public Engagement competition (Three Minute Thesis) the female students out-numbered the male competitors fifteen to one. Had the numbers been reversed and a list of eight men was presented as the finalists it would have likely caused some significant consternation, it certainly would have been dropped as a data-point from any Athena Swan application. The prevalence of women in this competition is however symptomatic of the larger issue. Women do care that their research makes a broader impact, than the impact factor of the journal the work is published in. They are doing the research to make a difference in a world they care about. Their goals are less individually focussed and are more for the broader benefits the work could bring. Working hard to be a success in disseminating research findings more broadly is a ‘nice to have’ in any fellowship or tenure application. Until there is much greater recognition of the overall benefits research brings then we will struggle to see men taking the time to think about the depth of their personal development. Nor will we see women recognised for what they do to disseminate their work, progress their own development or consider the development of the researchers that work with them.

The problem lies in the short term objectives in academic research. Academics who are able to dedicate a significant proportion of their time to generating data, publishing papers and writing grant applications are routinely rewarded. Whilst all of these activities are critical aspects of research success they only take an incidental attitude toward the development of the research students and research staff who are being mentored by that academic. And so perpetuates a selfishness in the academic world. Collaboration and collegiate activity do occur but these symbiotic relationships tend to be ephemeral because ultimately the rewards are given to individuals. With societal structures as they are and the timing of significant moves in academic careers coinciding with a time when starting a family is likely, women are significantly disadvantaged by this system.

Current University fellowships make no formal account of the contribution a researcher has made to the supporting undergraduate, masters or PhD students. There is little consideration of whether this candidate will continue to help others develop. The bottom-line of prestigious publications and grant income far outweigh those longer term goals that may see a paradigm shift to a much broader pool of contributors to research.

[i] https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/23-01-2020/sb256-higher-education-staff-statistics

[ii] https://www.vitae.ac.uk/events/event-presenters

[iii] https://www.erasmusmagazine.nl/en/2019/03/12/female-academics-teach-more-lectures-and-conduct-less-research/