Tag: researcher

  • Supporting the Student Researcher: Effective Teaching, Learning, and Engagement Strategies – Faculty Focus

    Supporting the Student Researcher: Effective Teaching, Learning, and Engagement Strategies – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Octopus researcher Meg Mindlin on science art and video for social media

    Octopus researcher Meg Mindlin on science art and video for social media

    What’s it like to be an artist and scientist? Meg Mindlin studies octopuses, shares videos for Instagram Reels and TikTok. And, she’s a talented artist who helps people communicate science in engaging way. I felt lucky to attend her thesis defense live on YouTube.

    In this conversation, we talk about her research, dealing with the political spectrum when speaking up on social media, and sharing her art online.

    Bio

    Meg Mindlin (@invertebabe) is a molecular biologist and science communicator. She combines her background in art with an ability to communicate complex science in an engaging manner. She received her Masters in Biology studying octopuses and how ocean acidification effects a molecular process known as RNA editing.

    Meg Mindlin sits on a desk at the front of a lecture hall. She's just defended her master's thesis, titled Tickled Zinc. On the screen behind her is a beautiful title slide for her research presentation which features original art.

    Source link

  • 3 Questions for Higher Ed Market Researcher Scott Jeffe

    3 Questions for Higher Ed Market Researcher Scott Jeffe

    We have a long history of working with Scott Jeffe during his time as the VP of research at RNL. Recently, Scott moved on from RNL to begin working as an independent higher ed market research consultant and adviser to universities. To learn more about the work that Scott does and to hopefully gain some insight into where things may be going with online and graduate programs, we asked Scott the following questions.

    Q: Tell us about what it means to be an independent higher ed market researcher. What sort of projects do you work on? How does what you do for universities differ from the services available from traditional consulting firms?

    A: In higher education, the best market research means more than just gathering data—it means showing up as a consultant. That’s something I’ve really learned throughout my career. Too often, I see research reports that are, frankly, hard to interpret or apply. The data might be sound, but it’s overly complex, the visualizations are unclear or the recommendations are disconnected from the realities of how colleges and universities actually operate.

    I’ve had those moments—looking at a data visualization and spending several minutes just trying to figure out what it’s supposed to say. And I know that no dean, provost or president has the time to do that. I’ve also read plenty of conclusions that are technically accurate but completely impractical in the real-world context of higher ed. That’s the kind of disconnect that leads campus leaders to quietly shelve the report, walk away and think, “Well, that was a waste of money.”

    That is exactly what my work today seeks to avoid. My research and consulting prioritize being more direct, actionable and grounded in higher ed’s current challenges. My work now spans both institutional consulting and national research, and I think that balance is part of what makes my approach effective. For example, I’ve recently completed national studies on graduate student expectations and mentorship, which give me insight into broader trends that I can then bring into highly tailored campus-level work.

    Over the past six months, I’ve developed four core services designed specifically for this moment in higher ed—politically, economically and culturally. They’re affordable, practical and fast to implement. I don’t believe in one-size-fits-all solutions, but I do believe institutions deserve work that respects their time, their context and their need to move quickly on what matters.

    That’s ultimately the difference between what I offer and what many vendors often provide. I’m not just delivering a report—I’m helping institutions make real decisions, grounded in both the data and the dynamics of higher ed today.

    Q: What are the most significant challenges and opportunities for universities wanting to grow graduate and/or online enrollment today?

    A: At the graduate level, one of the biggest looming challenges is the likely decline in international enrollment, which has quietly propped up graduate enrollment growth for the past several years. Under the Biden administration, we saw international graduate enrollment rise by more than 117,000 students—reaching over 500,000 total. Just last year, international students made up a full one-third of new graduate enrollments in the U.S., and over 200 institutions reported that international students represented more than 30 percent of their total graduate population.

    But we have to be clear-eyed: Not only is that level of growth not sustainable, but decline is coming. Whether due to shifting geopolitics, visa policy changes or growing global competition, institutions will need to refocus their efforts on the domestic graduate market—and fast.

    That said, there’s opportunity in the challenge. In fact, the current job market will likely nudge more adults to consider graduate study as a buffer or springboard during economic uncertainty. The catch? Institutions are now facing unprecedented competition. By some counts, we’re adding 800 new master’s programs each year. To grow—or even maintain—enrollment, institutions must have an acute understanding of what today’s graduate students expect. That means building a blueprint rooted in student preferences and behaviors and then aligning everything—program design, marketing, recruitment and support—around those insights.

    That’s where much of my work comes in. Over the last two decades, I’ve helped institutions do exactly this through tools like my Scorecard and Playbook and the Audience Alignment Study, which zero in on how to position programs for today’s increasingly selective learners.

    Now, on the online education side, the landscape is a bit more favorable at the moment—particularly due to the regulatory environment calming down. The Biden administration’s push to more heavily regulate online programs—particularly around OPMs and state reciprocity—has largely been shelved. That’s good news for smaller institutions, where online offerings often represent the best path to enrollment stability or growth. Interestingly, one of the unintended effects of that regulatory scrutiny is that OPM contract terms are now much more favorable than they were a few years ago. Institutions have more leverage.

    In terms of opportunity, there are two major areas I’m watching closely. First, the long-discussed but rarely well-executed effort to serve the 30 to 40 million U.S. adults with some college and no credential is almost entirely an online opportunity. However, most institutions struggle to fully serve this group. The barriers tend to fall into three key areas: restrictive credit transfer policies, pricing models that remain out of reach and a misplaced assumption that these students will return to campus for their courses. Institutions that succeed here build fully online programs with wraparound support—advising, tech help, financial aid guidance—specifically designed for students who haven’t set foot on a campus in years. And when they do that, it doesn’t just help this population—it improves online education quality for everyone.

    The second opportunity is more subtle but just as important: the increased demand from traditional undergraduates for access to online courses. While this isn’t online program growth in the classic sense, it presents a major advantage. A robust online course infrastructure doesn’t just support distance learners—it makes the entire campus experience more flexible, more attractive and more resilient. For institutions, that’s a strategic win across multiple audiences.

    Q: How can universities better choose which programs to start and invest in and then grow enrollments to financially sustainable numbers?

    A: At all levels, I think most institutions are doing a much better job now of integrating market data into their program decision-making. There’s a pretty direct line between the era when those insights were missing and the wave of program cuts we’re seeing now. For instance, Inside Higher Ed recently reported that Indiana’s public institutions have combined or eliminated over 400 programs that weren’t meeting fairly modest graduation thresholds. That’s a clear example of the consequences of earlier decisions made without solid market alignment.

    When I work with institutions on program strategy, my role is really to facilitate a conversation that balances market data and institutional strengths. I bring the external perspective—labor market demand, competitor analysis, growth trends—and they bring the internal knowledge of what they’re truly good at. The goal isn’t just to chase hot programs, but to find areas where there’s strong or emerging market demand and where the institution already has expertise, capacity and visibility. That combination is where real opportunity lives.

    Why take that approach? Because institutions need quick wins. We’re often working with limited time and resources and pressure to show results. If you can build momentum by improving or reconfiguring an existing program—something that already has a foundation—you get to impact faster and more cost-effectively. In fact, across dozens of program prioritization studies I’ve been involved in, I’ve rarely seen a proposed new program with more short- or midterm market potential than several underperforming existing ones. That’s why I usually recommend a 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 investment ratio favoring existing programs over net-new launches.

    Once we identify the right programs to focus on, differentiation becomes key—especially in the online space, where commodification is a real concern. Institutions need detailed competitor intelligence, not just high-level benchmarking. We’re looking at how programs are positioned, how they’re structured and what messages they’re putting in front of students. That kind of granularity allows us to develop a true blueprint for differentiation—one that goes beyond clichés like “small class sizes” or “personalized attention” and speaks to what really sets a program apart.

    And finally, with federal regulations increasingly focused on graduate outcomes and return on investment, it’s more important than ever to bake those metrics—job openings, wage growth, projected earnings—into the program planning process from the beginning. We’re entering a new phase where programs will be judged not just on academic merit or enrollment numbers, but on how they impact students’ long-term economic success.

    So to me, the smartest institutions are those that align their strengths with market needs, invest in what they already do well and differentiate with purpose—grounded in real data.

    Source link

  • Judge Releases Harvard Researcher After Four-Month Detention

    Judge Releases Harvard Researcher After Four-Month Detention

    A judge released a Harvard Medical School research associate and Russian native Thursday. She had been held in federal detention for nearly four months after she tried to re-enter the U.S.

    Kseniia Petrova still faces a criminal charge for allegedly trying to smuggle frog embryos into the country through Boston’s Logan International Airport, where Customs and Border Protection detained her, but she’s been freed for now.

    “I hear it’s sunny. Goodbye,” U.S. magistrate judge Judith G. Dein said after approving Petrova’s release, the Associated Press reported.

    The AP wrote that Petrova, standing outside the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse in Boston, thanked her supporters, saying, “I never really felt alone any minute when I was in custody, and it’s really helped me very much.”

    The court set a probable cause hearing in the case for next Wednesday.

    Despite being detained Feb. 16 and transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody in Louisiana, it wasn’t until mid-May that prosecutors announced the smuggling charge. One of her lawyers, Gregory Romanovsky, has said that Petrova “was suddenly transferred from ICE to criminal custody” less than two hours after a judge set a hearing on her release.

    On May 28, a U.S. District Court of Vermont judge said that Petrova’s immigration detention was unjustified and granted bail, but that didn’t immediately lead to her release, NBC News reported.

    “It’s difficult to understand why someone like Kseniia needed to be jailed for four months,” Romanovsky said. “She poses no danger and has deep ties to her community. Her case is a reminder that immigration enforcement should be guided by law and common sense—and not deportation quotas.”

    Source link

  • Action on researcher career development must go beyond surface-level fixes

    Action on researcher career development must go beyond surface-level fixes

    The Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers was designed to drive culture change, not compliance. However, many institutional action plans suggest institutions are meeting the letter rather than the spirit of its commitments.

    Financial constraints and the evolving REF 2029 people, culture and environment (PCE) guidance are shaping how institutions support research staff, and universities face a choice: stick with the easy, surface-level interventions that look good on paper, or commit to the tougher, long-term changes that could truly improve research careers.

    The latter is difficult, resource-intensive, and politically fraught – but it is the only route to a research culture that is genuinely sustainable.

    Progress and pressures

    There has been real progress in embedding researcher development in UK higher education. The 2019 review of the concordat highlighted expanded training opportunities, strengthened mentoring schemes, and, crucially, the integration of researcher development into institutional strategies and governance. Many institutions have since used its principles to shape research culture action plans and strategies.

    This progress has been uneven, however. Access to high-quality training and development opportunities varies across the sector, particularly for researchers in smaller, less well-resourced institutions. In addition, new initiatives frequently lack long-term sustainability beyond initial funding.

    Institutional action plans tend to emphasise soft politics – awards, charters and resource hubs – which, while useful, may function as reputational signals more than mechanisms for change. Meanwhile, the concordat’s more challenging commitments, like improving job security, workload management, and the visibility of career pathways across sectors, receive less attention.

    Financial constraints and shifting priorities

    Universities are operating in an era of financial constraint forcing difficult decisions about what can be sustained and what must be scaled back. These financial pressures are already reshaping researcher development and career pathways, with potentially lasting consequences:

    Shift toward low-cost interventions: Institutions may prioritise training, mentoring, and “off the shelf” development workshops as the most financially viable options, while more complex reforms – such as improving career pathways, addressing workload pressures, and ensuring meaningful career learning – are pushed aside.

    Growing precarity and inequity in research careers: With the risk of non-renewal of fixed-term contracts and rising redundancies, instability may increase. The effects will likely be unequal – early-career researchers, those with caring responsibilities, and underrepresented groups are usually most affected in such situations, with workload pressures further widening existing inequities in career progression and retention.

    Shifts in career trajectories: Financial pressures will push more researchers to seek opportunities beyond academia, not always by choice but due to diminishing prospects within universities. This is not in itself a bad thing, but the absence of robust career tracking data, limited engagement with non-academic sectors, and a lack of structured support for diverse pathways mean that institutions risk making decisions in a vacuum.

    Without a clear understanding of where researchers go and what they need to thrive, researcher development may become misaligned with market realities – undermining both retention and outcomes. Initiatives like CRAC-Vitae’s new UK research career tracking initiative aim to close this critical evidence gap.

    What makes researcher development sustainable?

    What will actually make researcher development sustainable? The answer isn’t simply more initiatives, or cheaper ones – it’s about embedding development in institutional culture and building on evidence of what works. That means making time for development activities, creating space for strategic reflection, and encouraging researchers to learn from one another – not just offering mentoring or reciprocal schemes in isolation. Vitae’s refreshed Researcher Development Framework sets out the full breadth of what this encompasses.

    Researcher development doesn’t necessarily require large budgets. Much of it comes down to embedding development in the culture: time to pursue meaningful opportunities, support from line managers and supervisors to do so, and the ability to learn in community with others. Yet in times of crisis, workloads tend to rise – and it’s often this development time that’s seen as non-essential and cut. Around half of research staff do not have time to invest in professional development – demonstrating just how limited that space already is.

    These overlapping pressures are pushing institutions to make trade-offs – but it’s clear that the most effective and sustainable approaches to researcher development will depend not just on resource levels, but on institutional priorities and strategic leadership.

    Unmet expectations

    At the same time, the ongoing review of sector-wide concordats and agreements, meant to clarify priorities and improve alignment, seems to have stalled – raising concerns about whether it will lead to meaningful action. The Researcher Development Concordat Strategy Group, tasked with overseeing implementation and strategic coordination, has also been quiet over the last year, though the new chair has recently signalled renewed commitment to its activities.

    This stagnation raises questions about the long-term value of the concordat, particularly in a landscape where institutions are grappling with resource constraints. Without strong leadership and coordinated sector-wide action, there is a real risk that institutions will continue to take a fragmented, compliance-driven approach rather than pursuing deeper reform.

    If the concordat is to remain relevant, it must address the structural issues it currently skirts around – particularly those related to researcher employment conditions, workload sustainability, and career progression. Without this, it risks becoming another well-intentioned initiative that falls short of delivering real sector-wide change.

    PCE and the concordat

    The introduction of people, culture and environment (PCE) in REF 2029 was intended to shift the sector’s focus from research outputs to the broader conditions that enable research excellence. However, the way institutions interpret these requirements is critical.

    REF PCE has the potential to drive meaningful change – but only if institutions use it as a platform for genuine reflection rather than a showcase of best practices.

    PCE and the concordat share several ambitions: both emphasise inclusive research environments, professional development, and supporting leadership at all career stages. The concordat’s focus on employment conditions, researcher voice, and long-term career development also aligns with PCE’s emphasis on institutional responsibility for research culture.

    This coherence is no accident – PCE was co-developed with the sector, and the concordats and agreements review recognised the overlaps between existing frameworks.

    If institutions take a strategic, integrated approach, REF PCE could reinforce and enhance existing concordat commitments rather than becoming another compliance exercise. However, this requires institutions to go beyond superficial reporting and demonstrate tangible improvements in the working conditions and career pathways of researchers.

    A call to action

    If institutions want to move beyond just ticking boxes, they need to take bold, practical steps.

    Job security must be redefined in the current climate. Researcher development should not just focus on career skills and knowledge but on career sustainability, accountability, and agility. While reducing reliance on fixed-term contracts remains a long-term goal, immediate priorities must also include clearer career progression routes (within and beyond higher education), cross-sector mobility, and support for career transitions.

    Workload and pay transparency need urgent attention. As researchers face increasing uncertainty about their career trajectories, solutions must go beyond surface-level fixes. This requires coordinated policy reform at both institutional and sector levels, including meaningful workload management strategies, transparent pay equity audits, and governance processes that embed researcher voices. While wellbeing initiatives have value, they are not a substitute for structural reform.

    Finally, the role of the concordat strategy group must evolve in response to the current climate. With institutions facing severe financial constraints and a shrinking research workforce, the group must take a more proactive role in advocating for sustainable researcher careers. This includes setting clearer expectations for institutions, addressing gaps in employment stability, and ensuring that commitments to researcher development are not lost amid cost-cutting measures. Without stronger leadership at the sector level, there is a risk that the concordat will become little more than a bureaucratic exercise, rather than a meaningful driver of change.

    Source link

  • Harvard Medical Researcher Detained by ICE Faces Charge

    Harvard Medical Researcher Detained by ICE Faces Charge

    The Harvard Medical School research associate and Russian native detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement three months ago and sent to Louisiana now faces a criminal charge—for allegedly trying to smuggle frog embryos into the U.S.

    The Massachusetts U.S. Attorney’s Office announced the charge in a news release Wednesday, saying it could mean “a sentence of up to 20 years in prison, a term of up to five years of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000.”

    Prosecutors allege that after the researcher, Kseniia Petrova, arrived from Paris at Boston’s Logan International Airport, a law enforcement canine “alerted its handler to the defendant’s checked duffel bag on the baggage carousel.” The release said Petrova “initially denied carrying any biological material in her checked baggage.”

    Petrova’s lawyer, Gregory Romanovsky, said in a statement Thursday that “less than two hours after the Vermont judge set a hearing on Kseniia’s release, she was suddenly transferred from ICE to criminal custody. This is not a coincidence. It is an attempt by the government to justify its outrageous and legally indefensible position that this scientist working for the U.S. on cures for cancer and aging research has somehow become a danger.”

    The government said in court Wednesday that it intends “to deport Kseniia to Russia,” Romanovsky said, “where it knows she will face grave danger for opposing the Putin regime.”

    He said he expects Petrova will be transferred to Massachusetts in the next few weeks. Romanovsky has previously said Petrova was transporting “a non-hazardous scientific sample,” for which authorities could’ve merely fined her instead of detaining her and revoking her visa.

    Source link

  • Russia May Arrest Harvard Med Researcher if Deported

    Russia May Arrest Harvard Med Researcher if Deported

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement is detaining a Harvard Medical School research associate who’s a Russian native. One of Kseniia Petrova’s lawyers says the government is trying to deport her to Russia, where she faces possible arrest due to her “prior political activism and outspoken opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”

    Gregory Romanovsky, the lawyer, said in a statement that Petrova was trying to re-enter the U.S. on Feb. 16 at Boston’s Logan International Airport when a Customs and Border Protection officer discovered she “had not completed the required customs paperwork for a non-hazardous scientific sample she was bringing from an affiliated laboratory in France.”

    “CBP was authorized to seize the item and issue a fine,” Romanovsky wrote. “Instead, they chose to cancel Ms. Petrova’s visa and detain her.”

    Petrova remains in ICE custody in Louisiana. The Boston Globe reported earlier on her detention.

    Romanovsky wrote that “CBP improperly invoked their extensive immigration authority to impose a punishment grossly disproportionate to the situation. This overreach reflects broader concerns about the treatment of international scholars by U.S. immigration authorities.”

    A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE, told Inside Higher Ed in an email that Petrova was “detained after lying to federal officers about carrying biological substances into the country. A subsequent K9 inspection uncovered undeclared petri dishes, containers of unknown substances, and loose vials of embryonic frog cells, all without proper permits. Messages found on her phone revealed she planned to smuggle the materials through customs without declaring them. She knowingly broke the law and took deliberate steps to evade it.”

    Harvard spokespeople didn’t provide an interview Friday about the situation or answer multiple emailed questions. In a brief email, the medical school’s media relations arm said, “We are monitoring this situation.”

    Romanovsky has sued to restore Petrova’s visa.

    “Ms. Petrova’s 1.5-month-long detention has caused significant disruption to both her professional and personal life,” Romanovsky said in his statement. “As a dedicated and highly respected researcher, her work is critical to scientific progress. We strongly urge ICE to release Ms. Petrova while her legal proceedings are ongoing.”

    Source link

  • Research flexibility doesn’t have to mean researcher precarity

    Research flexibility doesn’t have to mean researcher precarity

    If we think about research as a means of driving innovation and by extension economic growth, there is a need to consider the lives of the people who are doing the research.

    The UK has a significant strength in the quality and diversity of its higher education system – which trains a large proportion of the staff who end up working in universities (and elsewhere) performing research. We should, in other words, be better than we are at sustaining and shaping research capacity through supporting the people who contribute research throughout their careers.

    Certainly, that’s the case that the University and College Union makes in last week’s research staff manifesto – noting that nearly two thirds of research staff are on fixed term contracts, following research funding and strategic decisions around the country at a significant detriment to their personal lives and professional development.

    How does the system work?

    Precarity is not an accident of the system – it is the entire design of the system. Becoming a postdoc is not the final stage of the undergraduate to postgraduate to researcher pipeline: it is a step into a new system where the trial of job-hopping, house moving, city shifting work, may one day lead to a full time post.

    The first step after undertaking a doctorate is, unsurprisingly post-doctoral work – the postdoc. The term is confusing as it implies simply the job someone does after being awarded a PhD. Over time the taxonomy has changed to take on a specific meaning. It has become synonymous with precarious employment tied to grant funding. As an example, Imperial College London describes their postdocs as follows

    • a member of staff who will have a PhD, and be employed to undertake research
    • commonly on an externally funded grant secured by their principal investigator (PI) e.g. Research Council standard grant
    • responsible for their own career development but entitled to the support of their PI and the PFDC
    • entitled to 10 days development per year
    • entitled to 25 days leave plus bank holidays and college closure dates (if full time, pro-rata for part time)
    • entitled to regular one-to-one meetings with their line manager
    • entitled to a mid and final probation review
    • entitled to a Personal Review and Development Plan (PRDP) meeting once per year

    Crucially, in the section which describes what a postdoc is not, it includes being “a permanent member of academic staff.”

    This is often the case because postdocs are tied to grant funding and grant funding is limited to a certain period of time to cover a specific project. UKRI, for example, does not fund postdocs directly but funds research organisations directly through a mix of focused studentships and capacity funding. Research organisations then fund postdocs.

    This means that the flexible deployment of resources is the very start of the system. It’s not an accident or a quirk, it is that the UK’s research system is built around incentivising human capital to move to the organisations and places that most closely aligns to their research skills. The upside of this is that, in theory, it should mean resources are efficiently deployed to the people and places that can use them most productively. In reality, it means that instability and structural barriers to progressing to full research contracts are the norm.

    It’s not that UKRI are not aware of this problem. In a 2023 blog on team research Nik Ogryzko, Talent Programme Manager at UKRI, wrote that

    We’ve built a system where research groups sometimes act as their own small business inside an institution. And this leads to a very particular set of weaknesses.

    Employment contracts have become linked to individual research grants, with research staff often highly dependent on their principal investigator for career progression, or even their continued employment.

    Group leaders are often not equipped to support their staff into anything other than an academic career, and we know most research staff do not end up there.

    We also know such precarious employment and power imbalances can in some cases lead to bullying, harassment and discrimination. Such structural factors further compromise the integrity of our research, despite the strong intrinsic motivation of our researchers and innovators.“

    A number of institutions are signatories to The Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers. When it comes to the use of fixed-term contracts the concordat states that

    […]some of the areas of most concern to researchers, such as the prevalence of fixed-term contracts and enforced mobility, will require long term systemic changes, which can only be realised through collective action across stakeholders.

    Again, should a researcher be lucky enough to pass through their postdoc a permanent role is not guaranteed or even the norm. In reading through the websites of universities the reasons for fixed term contracts are various including; to align with grant-funding, to cover peak demand, to meet uncertain demand, to cover staff absence, to cover time-limited projects, secondments, training, and to bring in specialist skills.

    It is not that universities don’t recognise the issue of fixed term contracts, institutions like the University of Exeter has a whole framework on the appropriate use of these contacts, it’s that in a funding system which places a premium on project working it is necessary to have a highly flexible staff force.

    However, this does not mean that this system is inevitable or that the number of fixed term contracts is desirable.

    What is going on?

    According to HESA data, that number is slowly falling – both numerically and proportionally – for research only academic staff. As of the 2023-24 academic year, 63.9 per cent of “research only” academic staff (64,265) are on a fixed term contract. This sounds like a lot, but it is down slightly from a peak of 68 per cent (70,050) in 2019-20.

    [Full screen]

    The proportion of fixed term contracts for teaching only academics (another prominent early career route, often coupled with weekends at the kitchen table writing literature reviews for publication in an attempt to bolster credentials for a research job in an underfunded field) is also on a downward trajectory. Some 44.3 per cent of teaching only contracts (equating to 64,300 people) were fixed term in 2019-20 – by 2023-24 the numbers were 35.7 per cent and 63,425.

    If we take this to provider level we can see that a significant research focus is no predictor of a reliance on fixed term contracts. This chart shows the proportion of all academic staff on research only contracts on the y axis, with the proportion of all academic staff on fixed term contracts on the x axis.

    [Full screen]

    What this chart shows is that a strong focus on research (with many research only academic contracts) does not predict a reliance on fixed term contracts – indeed, there are many providers with a significant proportion of fixed term contracts that have no research only academic staff at all. While a fixed term contract is a poor basis on which to plan long term as an individual, for many higher education institutions it is a useful answer to wildly varying income and recruitment. Whereas for more traditional institutions it makes sense to maintain capacity even as prevailing conditions worsen, in smaller and more precarious providers unutilised capacity is a luxury that is no longer as affordable.

    If you look back to the first chart, you may notice a “salary source” filter. One of the prevailing narratives around fixed term contracts is that these necessarily link to the “fixed term” nature of funded research projects – the argument being that once the money is finished, the staff need to find new jobs. In fact, this is less of a factor than you might imagine: the proportions of research only academic staff on fixed term contracts is higher for externally funded than those funded internally, but the difference isn’t huge.

    Plotting the same data another way shows us that around a quarter of research only salaries are funded entirely by the higher education provider, with a further five per cent or so partially supported by the host institution – these figures are slightly lower for fixed-term research only staff, but only very slightly.

    [Full screen]

    So we can be clear that fixed term salaries are (broadly) a research thing, but there’s not really evidence to suggest that short term external funding is the whole reason for this.

    As a quick reminder, the research councils represent about a quarter of all external research funding, with the UK government (in various forms) and the NHS representing about another (swiftly growing)fifth. That’s a hefty chunk of research income that comes from sources that the government has some degree of control over – and some of the language used by Labour before the election about making this more reliable (the ten year settlements of legend) was seen as a recognition of the way funding could be reprofiled to allow for more “livable” research careers and an expansion of research capacity.

    [Full screen]

    This chart also allows you to examine the way these proportions land differently by provider and subject area (expressed here as HESA cost code). The volatility is higher at smaller providers, as you might expect – while research in the arts and humanities is more likely to be funded by research councils than in STEM or social sciences. But it is really the volume, rather than the source, of research funding that determines how researcher salaries are paid.

    Although the established pathway from research postgraduate to research is by no means the only one available (many postgraduate research students do not become academics) it is an established maxim – dating back to the post-war Percy and Barlow reviews – that to produce the researchers we need requires training in the form of postgraduate research provision.

    Although it’s not really the purpose of this article, it is worth considering the subject and provider level distribution of postgraduate research students in the light of how funding and capacity for research is distributed. As the early research career is often dominated by the need to move to take on a fixed term contract, one way to address this might be to have research career opportunities and research students in the same place from the start.

    [Full screen]

    What can we learn from this?

    Research capacity, and – for that matter – research training capacity, can’t be turned off and on at a whim. Departments and research centres need more than one short-term funded project to begin delivering for the UK at their full potential, because developing capacity and expertise takes time and experience. That’s a part of the reason why we have non-ringfenced funding: streams like those associated with QR in England – to keep research viable between projects, and to nurture developing expertise so it can contribute meaningfully to national, regional, and industrial research priorities. It’s funds like these that support researcher training and supervision, and the infrastructure and support staff and components that make research possible.

    But what the data suggests is that while the short-term nature of project funding does have an impact, especially at smaller providers and emerging research centres, there are many universities that are able to sustain research employment between projects. A part of this is bound to be sheer scale, but it doesn’t happen at all large research performing organisations by any stretch of the imagination. A part of the answer then, must be the strategic decisions and staffing priorities that makes sustaining researcher employment possible.

    That’s not to let the funding side of the equation off the hook either. There is a sense that the Labour party was moving in the right direction in considering longer term research funding settlements – but we have yet to learn how this will work in practice. By its very nature, research is discovery and opportunity led: a few years ago artificial intelligence research was a minor academic curiosity, currently it is big money – but will it be a priority in 2035? Could there be some areas – medical and healthcare research, large scale physics, engineering – where we can be more sure than others?

    You’ll note we didn’t mention the arts, humanities, and social sciences in that list – but these may be some of the most valuable areas of human activity, and government-supported research plays a more prominent role in sustaining not just discovery and innovation but the actual practice of such activity. Such is the paucity of money available in the arts that many practitioners subsidise their practice with research and teaching – and it feels like arts funding more generally needs consideration.

    Sure, the UK punches above its weight in the sciences and in health care – but in arts, heritage, and social policy the work of the UK is genuinely world leading. It has a significant economic impact (second only to financial services) too. Research funding is a part of the picture here, but a long term commitment to these industries would be one of the most valuable decisions a government can make.

    What are the other choices?

    The fundamental challenge is maintaining a system which is dynamic, where the dynamism is not solely reliant on a highly transient workforce. A simple, albeit extremely limited, conclusion from the data would be that there is too great a supply of researchers to meet the demand for their skills.

    The more important question is what is the value of such a highly educated workforce and how can society make the most of their talents. This is not to say the UK should operate a supply led model. A world where funding is allocated based purely on the academic interests of researchers might be good for placing emphasis on intellectual curiosity but it would not allow funders to match social and economic priorities with researcher’s work. Put another way, it isn’t sufficient to tackle climate change by hoping enough researchers are interested in doing so. It would also not necessarily create more permanent jobs – just different ones.

    Conversely, a system which is largely demand led loses talent in other ways. The sheer exhaustion of moving between jobs and tacking research skills to different projects in the same field means stamina, not just research ability, is a key criterion for success. This means researchers whose abilities are needed are not deployed because their personal incentive for a more stable life trumps their career aspirations.

    The current system does penalise those who cannot work flexibly for extended periods of time, but more fundamentally the incentives in the system are misaligned to what it hopes to achieve. There can be no dynamism without some flexibility, but flexibility should be demonstrable not permanently designed. Flexibility of employment should be used to achieve a research benefit not only an administrative one.

    This is not wholly in the gift of universities. A careful consideration by government, funders, institutions, and researchers, of how flexibility should be used is the key to balance in the system. There are times where the research system requires stability. For example, the repeated use of fixed term contracts on the same topic is a clear market signal for more stable employment. Furthermore, it is undesirable to have a forever changing workforce in areas governments have singularly failed to make progress on for decades. Nobody is arguing that if only research into productivity was a bit more transient the UK’s economies woes could be fixed.

    The need is coordinated action. And unlike in Australia there is no single review of what the research ecosystem is for. Until then as priorities change, funders work on short time horizons, and institutions respond to ever changing incentives, the downstream effect is a workforce that will be treated as entirely changeable too.

    Source link

  • Becoming a professional services researcher in HE – making the train tracks converge

    Becoming a professional services researcher in HE – making the train tracks converge

    by Charlotte Verney

    This blog builds on my presentation at the BERA ECR Conference 2024: at crossroads of becoming. It represents my personal reflections of working in UK higher education (HE) professional services roles and simultaneously gaining research experience through a Masters and Professional Doctorate in Education (EdD).

    Professional service roles within UK HE include recognised professionals from other industries (eg human resources, finance, IT) and HE-specific roles such as academic quality, research support and student administration. Unlike academic staff, professional services staff are not typically required, or expected, to undertake research, yet many do. My own experience spans roles within six universities over 18 years delivering administration and policy that supports learning, teaching and students.

    Traversing two tracks

    In 2016, at an SRHE Newer Researchers event, I was asked to identify a metaphor to reflect my experience as a practitioner researcher. I chose this image of two train tracks as I have often felt that I have been on two development tracks simultaneously –  one building professional experience and expertise, the other developing research skills and experience. These tracks ran in parallel, but never at the same pace, occasionally meeting on a shared project or assignment, and then continuing on their separate routes. I use this metaphor to share my experiences, and three phases, of becoming a professional services researcher.

    Becoming research-informed: accelerating and expanding my professional track

    The first phase was filled with opportunities; on my professional track I gained a breadth of experience, a toolkit of management and leadership skills, a portfolio of successful projects and built a strong network through professional associations (eg AHEP). After three years, I started my research track with a masters in international higher education. Studying felt separate to my day job in academic quality and policy, but the assignments gave me opportunities to bring the tracks together, using research and theory to inform my practice – for example, exploring theoretical literature underpinning approaches to assessment whilst my institution was revising its own approach to assessing resits. I felt like a research-informed professional, and this positively impacted my professional work, accelerating and expanding my experience.

    Becoming a doctoral researcher: long distance, slow speed

    The second phase was more challenging. My doctoral journey was long, taking 9 years with two breaks. Like many part-time doctoral students, I struggled with balance and support, with unexpected personal and professional pressures, and I found it unsettling to simultaneously be an expert in my professional context yet a novice in research. I feared failure, and damaging my professional credibility as I found my voice in a research space.

    What kept me going, balancing the two tracks, was building my own research support network and my researcher identity. Some of the ways I did this was through zoom calls with EdD peers for moral support, joining the Society for Research into Higher Education to find my place in the research field, and joining the editorial team of a practitioner journal to build my confidence in academic writing.

    Becoming a professional services researcher: making the tracks converge

    Having completed my doctorate in 2022, I’m now actively trying to bring my professional and research tracks together. Without a roadmap, I’ve started in my comfort-zone, sharing my doctoral research in ‘safe’ policy and practitioner spaces, where I thought my findings could have the biggest impact. I collaborated with EdD peers to tackle the daunting task of publishing my first article. I’ve drawn on my existing professional networks (ARC, JISC, QAA) to establish new research initiatives related to my current practice in managing assessment. I’ve made connections with fellow professional services researchers along my journey, and have established an online network  to bring us together.

    Key takeaways for professional services researchers

    Bringing my professional experience and research tracks together has not been without challenges, but I am really positive about my journey so far, and for the potential impact professional services researchers could have on policy and practice in higher education. If you are on your own journey of becoming a professional services researcher, my advice is:

    • Make time for activities that build your research identity
    • Find collaborators and a community
    • Use your professional experience and networks
    • It’s challenging, but rewarding, so keep going!

    Charlotte Verney is Head of Assessment at the University of Bristol. Charlotte is an early career researcher in higher education research and a leader in within higher education professional services. Her primary research interests are in the changing nature of administrative work within universities, using research approaches to solve professional problems in higher education management, and using creative and collaborative approaches to research. Charlotte advocates for making the academic research space more inclusive for early career and professional services researchers. She is co-convenor of the SRHE Newer Researchers Network and has established an online network for higher education professional services staff engaged with research.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link