# data[].attributes.body
Steve wrote this for someone else about a year ago and thought it would be useful for us

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Would I Improve This Workshop by Steve Hutchinson

# data[].attributes.body
Can we produce a short doc or a series of blog posts about how research staff are learning on the job? How do you develop if you are a rep? How do you develop by driving your research project forward? How do we help people reflect and improve their practice? What about action learning sets?

# data[].attributes.body
I co-wrote this blog with colleagues from Cambridge and Sheffield. It's in response to a blog from David Bogle (UCL) which is a trail to the review of the Concordat, which may say some helpful and bold things about development of research staff. For me, the crucial element is how do we better help both RS and their PIs to understand that development can and should be aligned with their work in such a way that it benefits their research now as well as their future employability. If this was well understood and undertaken then everyone would win and little encouragement would be needed... surely?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Written on behalf of Researchers14 by Dr Kay Guccione (University of Sheffield), Dr Steve Joy (University of Cambridge) and Dr Nigel Eady. (Kings College London). The views represented here do not necessarily represent those of all members of Researchers 14, or their employing institutions.

In a recent Naturejobs blog post Prof David Bogle, Pro-Vice-Provost of the Doctoral School at UCL commented that "Too often, research staff are recruited to deliver a specific project and spat out at the end without thought as to their future beyond having more papers to support an application for another postdoc position." As professionals dedicated to championing and developing this particular staff group, this observation resonates strongly with us. However, we find it jarring that David goes on to say, "Since most postdocs are heading for positions outside of academia, the postdoctoral period needs to be a time where scientists develop a deeper and more sophisticated set of skills than the doctorate", because it reflects a problematic way of thinking about personal and career development for early career staff as simply a matter of gaining 'skills'. It draws (as does the Industrial Strategy) on the old-fashioned employability-skills-deficit model, whereby universities should offer 'skills training' based on what industrial employers say they need.

Our argument is that, if it is well set-up and well supported, a Research Associate role can be a valuable learning experience in its own right. The skills needed to successfully complete a research contract are already highly valued - for example: specialist knowledge and technical skills, resilience and adaptability, creativity and critical judgement, responsibility and ethical understanding, teamwork and leadership, communication and intercultural awareness.

We recognise that Prof Bogle will be very familiar with the current tensions and debates that surround the development of early career researchers as more than 'paper-writing machines', and he articulates this well. As Chair of the Expert Review Panel, he has recently led a sector review of the UK's 'Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers'.

Synthesising his recent experiences, he suggests that we as a sector "...need to articulate a clear set of skills that every postdoc should develop during this stage in their careers", and the blog goes on to make a 13-point set of suggestions for how we might frame the development of research staff as business minded and profitable research leaders, who should be looking to fulfil society's future needs.

But we should be cautious about proposed sets of core skills. For one thing, we ought not to treat the UK's diverse research staff population as a monolithic entity, as if they had the same talents, needs, goals, etc. And we should take care not to impute a 'skills deficit' to our research staff either: setting out a list of what they 'should develop' is always going to slip too easily into a list of what they 'don't have' - and we are never going to support the contention that our highly skilled research staff are in some way deficient! Lastly, there is a serious practical flaw in trying to establish a core set of skills: the World Economic Forum estimates that, 'on average, by 2020, more than a third of the desired core skill sets of most occupations will be comprised of skills that are not yet considered crucial to the job today'. It stands to reason, then, that coming up with a clear set of skills which all research staff should develop will be out of date before it's even been agreed. Rather than universal sets of skills, we need to address in highly personalised ways the behaviours and meta-cognitive capabilities which enable researchers to be life-long learners and highly adaptive (something which - in the intensely mobile, unstable world of research contracts - we ought to remember that most of them have already demonstrated).

To support this reframing, there still needs to be a deep cultural shift in the attitudes towards early career research staff. Protected time for personal development and exploration is a very welcome proposal. Examining the role of the PI and other supportive colleagues is important. We advocate for a strong emphasis on personalised development for each individual, reflecting their needs, interests and values, and embedded within their day-to-day activities, rather than separated out or bolted on as 'skills training'. Rather than thinking about career development as being 'for future use', career development opportunities could add genuine value to the work early career staff do right now within their research associate roles.

These environmental and cultural factors are critical in achieving systemic change, because research staff don't often think of themselves as the business minded and profitable research leaders seeking industry jobs, that Prof. Bogle's blog describes them to be. We are still in a situation where many researchers are doing all they can to remain within the university research environment. And what keeps researchers in employment in a university research environment is garnering the support of their PI, being a safe pair of hands who will generate data, delivering a specific project, and yes, being paper writing machines. There is a systemic tension.

We completely agree with Prof Bogle that the needs, and the attitudes and behaviours of the PI, must be reconciled with the researcher's own best interests for their future. Building on this we suggest that the capabilities we want to flourish in our research staff should be aligned with the institutional framing and expectations for the postdoc role itself, and the responsibilities and opportunities that they are offered within that role.

What prevents the development of fixed-term contract staff is not just lack of dedicated time to attend development activity, nor a lack of creativity in the development opportunities we provide for our staff. It's simply that their roles are all too often viewed in the most simplistic terms, with performance measured against blunt metrics like the number of papers they have published. We need to think more creatively about what research staff can do. What advance in status could a research associate gain over and above that of a PhD researcher? What higher leadership or management expectations are already placed on them in their associate role, and could be better recognised and enhanced? What institutional responsibilities might they take on as a postdoc?

Adult learners seek learning when they recognise that they 'need to know' and can see an immediate application for that learning. Yet, many institutions are neither prepared or willing to offer career progression (i.e. promotion) opportunities to postdocs, nor to recognise the contribution of early career staff towards these advanced institutional responsibilities (e.g. supervision, consultancy, teaching). If we want to encourage growth, we need to embed these developmental experiences within the expectations of the postdoc role, to recognise the contribution they make, and importantly to incentivise postdocs to move towards the set of advanced behaviours and competencies that Prof Bogle suggests.

So, we want to offer some of our experienced thoughts to those within universities looking to enhance the postdoc experience. What is needed is a personalised approach to development that identifies what a particular researcher brings with them and how it can be valued and built upon across their day-to-day activities:

Value our postdocs as already highly skilled, tenacious, and adaptable people with the capacity to contribute greatly to the university environment as well as research outputs.

Think broader than 'skills' development - how can we help early career staff to develop their understanding of the structures and systems that govern research? How can we develop professional behaviours through real opportunities to apply skills in practice?

'Training' is not synonymous with development - most professional learning happens outside 'a course' through professional relationships e.g. networks, mentoring, committee work.

Who are the role models of early career researchers? How do PIs and other influential senior staff, model that professional development is part of academic life? Are we asking PIs to 'turn a blind eye' to staff 'taking time out' to do researcher development, or are we asking them to embed learning, and talk to their researchers about their development needs and opportunities?

Make mentoring meaningful. Frame mentoring activity as a specialist educational practice, and ensure mentors are helped to develop a repertoire beyond reliance on 'advice giving'. Draw on good practice models for mentoring early career staff and facilitate good matching with mentors.

Arts and Humanities-based researchers without the 'team' dynamic and funding sources, and often on casualised contracts, may require different approaches, to support their development (e.g. better contracts, conference funding); to manage teaching load; to access mentors, networks and research cultures that stimulate discussion, and support their writing.

How can we help departments to create research environments that amplify early career researcher development? How might they value and champion their researchers on a local scale? For example, putting them forward for awards, panels, conferences, committees, networks, including them in strategic conversations, teaching, writing bias-free references.

What are the policies and structures we need to develop, which enable, permit or require growth within early career researcher contracts? How can we align job descriptions, induction processes, probation systems, appraisal, promotion etc, to give a clear set of expectations for the role.

Let's recognise that part of what got Early Career Researchers to where they are is a highly sought-after capacity to be adaptable skills-acquirers. When we push for new opportunities to be given to them, let's change the conversation from a deficit assumption (i.e. without these development experiences they will struggle to get jobs) to a credit proposition - these energetic, creative, passionate leaders have a lot to offer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Improving the situation for postdoctoral researchers: recognising their value | res14

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Written on behalf of Researchers14 by Dr Kay Guccione (University of Sheffield), Dr Steve Joy (University of Cambridge) and Dr Nigel Eady. (Kings College London). The views represented here do not necessarily represent those of all members of Researchers 14, or their employing institutions.

# data[].attributes.headline
Creating case studies/highlighting  options

# data[].attributes.subject
Creating case studies/highlighting  options

# data[].attributes.body
Delivering Talent: Careers of Researchers Inside and Outside Academia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A podcast on professional development for researchers

Develop your skills and get professional development advice with our podcast series: 15 minutes to develop your career, designed especially for early career researchers.

Created with Vitae, the international program which champions professional development for researchers, the podcast features insights from a range of experts working inside and outside academia. Each episode focuses on important skills and topics, from getting published for the first time to understanding the different career paths researchers can take.

If you're a researcher, you'll get practical tips and career support that will boost your professional development.

Browse the series below, or scroll down to learn more about each episode.

LATEST

Episode 9: 4 skills for researchers of the future

There are so many useful skills you'll develop during your research - from critical thinking and being able to evaluate your work and that of others, to time management skills. But the research world has been, and is rapidly changing, so what skills can you develop now to make you ready for the future? In this podcast discover 4 key skills for researchers of the future, including advice on developing digital skills from Inger Mewburn, Managing Editor of the Thesis Whisperer blog.
Discover 4 skills for researchers of the future
Episode 8: Academic conference tips

Academic conferences are common in the research world, but how do you use conferences to develop your career? And what can you do to get the most out of them?

This episode guides you through the key aspects of conferences, including how to prepare for them, networking skills, and delivering a conference paper presentation. Interviewees include Pat Thomson - Professor of Education and creator of the popular 'Patter' blog, which is packed with advice for researchers at all stages.

Get more tips for academic conferences here.

Episode 7: Making your research open

"It allows us to really just double check the work that has been done" - Charlotte Tate, San Francisco State University

What is open research? What are the opportunities and challenges of adopting open research practices? How can conducting research openly benefit you as a researcher?

We share answers to these questions and provide practical advice on what you need to know about the open research landscape, including steps you can take to make your research more open.

Episode 6: The unspoken challenges of research life

"Some people experience fantastic support before, during and after a period of leave [...] some people feel that they have fallen through the cracks" - Dr. Anna G Slater, University of Liverpool

This episode explores the unspoken challenges of research life, tackling important issues that aren't always talked about openly.

We take a closer look at the challenges faced by researchers taking parental leave, as well as issues around gender and diversity in the research world.

Episode 5: Getting published for the first time

"It's easier to write the work first [...] and definitely the abstract last"- Professor David Bogle, University College London

We guide listeners through the essentials of getting published in a journal, from the question of why get published to what happens during peer review.

You'll also get to grips with how publishing works from the inside, with insights and advice from a journal editor.

Episode 4: Overcoming impostor syndrome

Impostor syndrome is the term used to describe feeling like an impostor or 'fraud', that you don't deserve your status, and that your successes are simply down to chance. It's normally attributed to highly qualified individuals (like researchers). So it may come as no surprise that the topic is becoming increasingly discussed in academia.

This episode tackles impostor syndrome head on, talking about what it is, how it emerges, and how you can overcome it.

You can also read researcher insights on impostor syndrome here.

Episode 3: Academic mentoring

How can mentoring boost your professional development? What are the different mentoring opportunities out there? And what can you do to get the most out of a mentoring relationship?

Hear advice from mentors and mentees including Dr Uzma Asghar from the Institute of Cancer Research and Maryanne Dever, Joint Editor-in-Chief of Australian Feminist Studies).

Episode 2: Stepping up, moving on and alternative career paths for researchers

What do researchers go on to do after their PhD? What are the different career options and academic jobs available? And how can you develop transferable skills as a researcher?

This episode guides you through the range of career paths researchers take, and also offers advice for choosing which path is right for you.

Get further tips on careers for PhDs here.

Episode 1: Public engagement in research

"It's how to tell the story of your research in a way that engages and hooks people in" - Dr Paul Spencer, University of Bristol

What does 'public engagement' mean? What can researchers gain from encouraging people outside of academia to read their work? And where should you begin?

Get answers to these questions and understand what you can do as a researcher to engage the public in your work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
15 minutes to develop your research career - Author Services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Develop your skills and get professional development advice with our podcast series: 15 minutes to develop your career, designed especially for early career researchers. Created with Vitae, the international program which champions professional development for researchers, the podcast features insights from a range of experts working inside and outside academia.

# data[].attributes.headline
How do you know when it's time to give up the postdoc?

# data[].attributes.subject
How do you know when it's time to give up the postdoc?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ever since I decided I wanted to be a scientist I've been going pretty steady. With hard work, great guidance and a good dash of luck, I am now a self-funded postdoctoral researcher at Stanford University.

As a consequence, everyone thinks I'm a "rising star". But instead of taking pride when people remark on this, a brief rush of positivity is usually followed by the persisting feeling that they will soon find out that I'm slowly turning into a falling star. My research is not progressing, my collaboration attempts have all failed and I only compare myself with the brilliant people who surround me here at Stanford. My hopes of ever becoming a "real" scientist are slowly sinking.

Everyone tells me your postdoc years are the most important of your career. Failure or bad luck at this stage will haunt you forever. Universities will consider you for a faculty position only if you publish something in a major journal. And because of the sheer number of job-seeking postdocs - many of them beloved colleagues whom I wholeheartedly want to have a great career - the expectations are becoming ever more stringent. That leaves more and more of us stacking up temporary position after temporary position, putting our lives in limbo.

So what should we do? How do you know when it's time to give up and move on to another career? I defer to the almighty internet. I read stories about professors who admit to having made it only because of their sheer perseverance, but I also find accounts from postdocs who got stuck in academia (so-called "permadocs") and regretted it. I read other people's accounts of the " academic blues " and what they are doing about it. All this only makes me more unsure about what I should do.

So I start exploring other, non-academic career options. I talk to people who left academia, and to people planning on doing so. I visit careers fairs and fill out personality questionnaires at Stanford's career development centre. But this only reinforces my conviction that I like being a scientist and I have the skills to be one. I would be happy in another job only if it requires as much creativity, variety and flexibility as science does. Great. Either I drastically change my expectations in life, or I am back at square one.

What makes devising an exit strategy so difficult is the fact that while publishing is all-important in science, the people who might interview you for a non-academic job are not interested in your publications. They only want to know about your skills and motivation. But these are not easy to build when you spend most of your time trying to get publishable results.

I think it is fair to say that we can roughly divide postdocs into three categories: the ones who have the skills, the best mentoring, and good data; the ones who have the skills and mentoring but don't get clear data; and the ones that lack either skills or good mentoring. With only a small proportion of postdocs making it to a faculty position, only the first group and perhaps a few lucky ones out of the second group will make it. This leaves a large share of good postdocs who miss the boat, mostly out of misfortune. But how do these unfortunates know exactly when their luck has run out and they should stop trying to climb the steep pyramid?

I recently put this question to a Harvard professor during a "careers in science" discussion. She couldn't really answer it, but kept reassuring me that everything would work out as long as I just hung in there. My peers were supportive, telling me it was brave to ask the question that haunted everyone but that no one dared to voice. The faculty were supportive as well, but they all agreed that if I just persevered I would never "fail" in academia. It made me wonder whether the older generation just does not understand the harsh realities, or whether we youngsters see a problem that's not there.

It would help if mentors were more honest about actual career chances, and stress the luck as well as the perseverance factor. But they also need to stop equating leaving academia with failure. In addition, it would take a huge weight off many postdocs' minds if more permanent staff scientists were created; I was among those who gave overwhelming support to this option in a poll linked to a recent Nature article on the "postdoc problem".

Even if such measures did not stop The Clash's Should I Stay or Should I Go? from playing on an endless mental loop, they would at least help turn down the volume - allowing postdocs, for once, to hear themselves think about their future research, instead of their future life.
The author is a European postdoctoral researcher working at Stanford University.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Postdoc blues: how do you know when it is time to give up?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ever since I decided I wanted to be a scientist I've been going pretty steady. With hard work, great guidance and a good dash of luck, I am now a self-funded postdoctoral researcher at Stanford University. As a consequence, everyone thinks I'm a "rising star".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You currently have JavaScript disabled in your web browser, please enable JavaScript to view our website as intended.
Here are the instructions of how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

Case studies

Dr Kenji Takeda

Dr Kenji Takeda has worked across multiple sectors, and the strands of his braided career in academia, industry and policy continue to complement one another.

Explore Kenji's career

Dr Maria Ocampo-Hafalla

As Lab Manager for Education & Science Educator at the Francis Crick Institute, Dr Maria Ocampo-Hafalla stresses the importance of mobility, adaptability and mentorship throughout her career.

Explore Maria's career

Dr Mark Richards

Dr Mark Richards has a track record of cutting across traditional academic boundaries to explore multidisciplinary research, education and outreach.

Explore Mark's career

Changing Expectations investigates the evolving relationship between the research community and the wider research system. It draws on experiences of our past, and present, and explores potential futures.

The career case studies are the first stage of the Changing Expectations project, and inspire researchers to think differently about what success looks like in the present, to challenge ideas about what skills and achievements should be valued.

Read more about the case studies in our blog.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
research culture changing expectations career case studies where will your career take you braided

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Where will your career take you? | Royal Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You currently have JavaScript disabled in your web browser, please enable JavaScript to view our website as intended. Here are the instructions of how to enable JavaScript in your browser. Dr Kenji Takeda has worked across multiple sectors, and the strands of his braided career in academia, industry and policy continue to complement one another.

# data[].attributes.headline
How best to steward research culture through a shifting research landscape

# data[].attributes.subject
How best to steward research culture through a shifting research landscape

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
changing expectations research culture careers future futures thinking museum of extraordinary objects speculative design integrity permeability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Changing expectations is the Royal Society's programme focused on research culture that aims to understand how best to steward research culture through a shifting research landscape.