Prof. Nigel Thrift was asked to consider from a higher education perspective the issue of research careers.
Prof. Thrift has now delivered his report: Research Careers in the UK: A Review [PDF 389kb] which is publicly available for you to comment on. (An executive summary [PDF 16kb] of this report is also available.)
You can join the continuing discussion on the issues and recommendations by posting your views on any aspect of Prof.Thrift’s report on this blog.
Comments made on this page will be brought to the attention of the respective policy handlers for this issue on a weekly basis.
We look forward to hearing from you.
(Comments posted on this topic earlier in the higher education debate process are still available in the archive for you to consult should you wish.)
I would like to comment on the question of widening participation at postgraduate level and specifically whether first-degree graduates of Russell Group universities are overrepresented at postgraduate level. This is mentioned in Professor Thrift’s report (section 2.2.4) where it is observed that there is a heavy concentration of ‘home’ research student numbers in Russell Group institutions (about 50% of the total, with eight institutions claiming a third of all research students). I welcome Professor Thrift’s discussion of widening participation at postgraduate level: this has been an almost wholly neglected topic, despite the revolutionary growth in postgraduate student numbers, which have more than quintupled since 1990.
The report mentions that “the majority of research degree students are graduates of research-intensive Russell Group institutions” (page 21). I’m not sure that this has been established for certain, although it seems reasonable to surmise that students will remain in the same or similar institutions for postgraduate study that they attended for first-degree study. One would then expect, as the report speculates, that there will be an implication for the composition of the research student body in terms of social class.
The key point here is a lack of suitable data or prior research. It is not known for certain which types of institution current postgraduate students attended as undergraduates. HESA do not collect this data about postgraduates at present. Some institutions might collect such data for their own marketing purposes, but there is no system-wide understanding of the issue.
I have undertaken a large-scale national survey-based research project on the background of postgraduate students which suggests there is an overrepresentation of Russell Group and other pre-1992 university graduates at postgraduate level (the research is referred to in Professor Thrift’s report). However the nature of my sample means that it not possible to be certain that this apparent trend genuinely applies on a national basis. It should be possible for HEFCE, HESA, or a similar body to investigate this issue further by linking the individualised student record of current postgraduates to their older records as undergraduates (this has been done for other HEFCE research projects, for instance one which investigated undergraduate drop-outs who later entered another institution). In that way, the HESA record for current postgraduates could be supplemented with data about their prior institution(s) and the proposition that graduates of certain institutions are heavily overrepresented among current research students could be fully investigated.
There is of course also the question of whether such a concentration of research student numbers in a small number of institutions, regardless of their first-degree institution, is likely to impact on the socioeconomic profile of the research student body, but that is perhaps not a straightforwardly empirical question.
I am very keen to do Postgraduate research. However, I am deaf in one ear. Due to a related illness (cholesteatoma) my first degree result was poor, largely due to my university’s failure to have the Disability Discrimination Act measures in place. Deaf/hard of hearing students are eight times less likely to graduate than the general population. Following my degree an operation went wrong, leaving me very ill for over a year. This prevented me using the legislation for redress. I then successfully completed an MSc.
When applying for PhD studentships I have faced a number of difficulties. Firstly and most obviously, is the failure of the sector to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ for the effect of my disability based illness at the time of my degree. I am currently in dispute with the Medical Research Council over their failure to vary the 2.1 or 2.2 plus MSc minimum for elligibility. The disability agenda needs to be addressed within the research community. There are just 14 deaf/hard of hearing peoople doing research degrees but represent 2% of the under 26 age group. (RNID).
Secondly, there is the difficulty, once outside university, of identifying opportunities. I would propose that all funded PhD research scholarships must be advertised in national media. Finally, the quality of an MA/MSc needs to be better defined. At present, they do not seem to be seen as a clear progression and superior or advantageous progression from first degree. For completeness, I am from a wider access background and was at the University of Liverpool for my first degree.
It is encouraging to see recognition that the shift to permanent contracts for research staff has been accompanied by increased redundancy thus making very little difference overall. I would suggest that, for all the noise from Universities and funding bodies about these changes, on the ground things feel no different and the morale of researchers remains as low as ever. The real problem is that this review, along with the original concordat, the new concordat and the Roberts review, have no real solutions to offer. As long as employment is tied to short term funding and there is no particular will from employers and funders to deal with this the current situation of chronic instability resulting in researchers feeling undervalued and ignored is not going to change. This is particularly true when Universities and funding bodies simply pass the buck to each other whenever issues around reward / retention of staff arise.
It is also notable that the review acknowledges that the pressure to publish is not going to lessen. Nevertheless it still suggests that other activities from research staff are desirable. How this will help rather than simply increasing the burden already placed onto RS is unclear. Of course extra activities are a good thing but unless there is some sort of clear reward system built in it becomes just another additional job to be done for no extra money.
It is of course true that being valued by the employer is vital for increasing job satisfaction. There needs to be some consideration of how this is to be achieved in a world where postdoctoral researchers are regarded as disposable and face constant threat of redundancy. The usual lip service paid to research staff is merely that and until Universities and funding bodies start to actually take these issues seriously this seems unlikely to change.
In summary, as far as the postdoctoral experience goes, the review makes all the right noises. However postdocs are used to this and are often told that they are valued, vital to success, at the core of research etc etc. None of this helps when the funding is running out, redundancy looms and researchers are widely treated as second class employees. Until some mechanism is found to make a research career viable over the longer term it will remain difficult to sustain a career and postdocs will continue to be unimpressed with warm words that offer no actual help or support.
Having read this report, although it is good to see these topics being discussed, as a fixed term contract researcher I feel that as usual the important points are being missed. Regardless of the noises that are made by institutions we are still treated as ‘temporary’ workers and the feeling of not being part of the university, and not being recognised leads to extremely low morale. I have struggled from a low paid family to get where I am and given the number of student loans etc, that I had to use to get here, the pay that you finally get is not worth the years of study. Although all levels of encouragement for students below and including undergraduate level is to be encouraged, if the support is not there for postdoctoral posts(and in my experience it is not) there is little point. Finally given the funding/publication situation just how is one meant to do any experimental work, given that we spend all our time applying for our next post? I continue in my job because although the pay is appalling and morale is at an all time low I love the complexity of understanding the research and I think currently this is the only reason for anyone to continue in a research active post.