5.3 Satisfacción
5.3.1 Conceptualización
Most if not all male newly tenured speak about how research work is a passion: however, many have a dual career in university and affiliated with industry or private sector, and often in the beginning having thought about going into private sector before doing a postdoc. However, after postdoc the desire to stay in university is higher and more pronounced. One could say that doing a postdoc is already an important
82
professional step or transition into the research profession for males whereas the doctorate remains still open to changes and is more ambiguous.
As for men, women also speak about research as a passion, vocation even and of being inclined towards this at a very early stage. Also women speak about the importance of doing docs and postdocs abroad, and of being at the right place at the right moment and depending on who you know is important for getting a permanent nomination: for FNRS as well as for academic nomination.
Getting stuck in administrative and non-gratifying tasks is something that female newly tenured complain about, which can confirm the presence of the sticky floor phenomenon (Booth, Francesconi, Frank, 2003) (there are also postdocs female who complain about this). Alicia speaks about how she regrets that an important part of her time is dedicated to secondary and assistance type tasks, she even refers to herself a
kind of “luxury secretary”. This is something considered getting in the way of her actual
work and institutional affiliation/loyalty/membership (Dubois-Shaik, 2014). Not being entirely taken for full.
Lots of newly tenured women interviewees (ELI and IACCHOS) speak about themselves
as being their own “boss”, or “left to their own devices”: there is much less narrative
about collaboration than with male interviewees; there is more hierarchically lower
interaction, such as with their Masters’ students, doctoral researchers, or postdocs
employed in their projects. This ties in with the system of increased auto-regulation we address in D 5.2 (see working paper N°8). Not enough peer support or collaboration as for males. However, women newly tenured speak about good PhD support, but not spoken about in terms of mentors.
There is also with newly tenured female academics a pronounced narrative about harassment due to being a woman: by senior colleagues who are experienced as being
jealous of their younger female peers, who don’t propose joint publications, who bid for
similar projects without proposing collaboration. Women speak about a competition- based culture experienced by them. There is also conflictual relationships with other staff members, such as laboratory technicians, who are male and older, not liking to be
“told” by younger female academics. Newly tenured female academics also speak about
how in some cases, being mothers would expose them to haven been “taken advantage of” by supervisors, who would systematically put their names on papers they wrote by
themselves and of FNRS criteria for recruitment not being in par with their real lived situation, such as is the case for Cassandra: “The contrast with where she did her
postdoc abroad was very great upon returning to UCL; the precariousness was lived in a more pronounced way, as the support from her former promotors had deteriorated, especially after announcing her pregnancy. In fact, one promotor took advantage of her publications and co-signed systematically without actually working on the papers, whereas she believes that publishing alone is important for her career and for gaining
access to permanent positions.” There are therefore visible signs of old boys’s clubs
(Case, Richley, 2012) or male bastions, with a joint effect of Matilda/Matthew (Rossiter, 1995; Merton, 1968).
The insecurity of short contracts during a long period of time was a source of stress for many female newly tenured during their early career stage before nomination, without any guaranty that this would work out. Also the thought of professional reconversion
83
seemed more difficult for female interviewees, whereas male interviewees seemed more ready to change without feeling regrets or doubts. Manon: “This job insecurity
(She had several short term contracts of 5 month to a year duration) was a great source of stress for me. It was impossible for me to think of a professional reorientation towards the private sector.” However, she still started to “job hunt” in case her
application for permanent researcher would not work out.
In Monica’s case “she speaks about how the periods of applying for permanent positions
as being the most stressful, because she would question herself fundamentally and
wonder whether she wouldn’t try other career paths, she had applied for the second time and did not know if she would end up applying a third time.” The postdoctoral
period seems to be have been harder for female interviewees from ELI; struggling to do publications and meeting with CV bodybuilding (Fusulier, Del Rio Carral, 2012) necessities. Also work/life balance is a challenge, whereby precariousness persists although females are newly tenured, by always having to maintain a borderline balance, like a kind of trapeze act, with danger on each side of not being able to reconcile. This balance is possible but with the support of partners who are not in high profile jobs themselves if children are around, or else childless with high profile partners’ job.
For male newly tenured in ELI, the fact of having a stable/permanent position has done much in terms of diminishing stress and uncertainty.