Mano de obra

This section discusses the interviewees’ perspectives on their future, and looks at how

organizational and national measures impact their professional and private life. It turned out that academic culture and structure also played a role in their future plans. Working on grant writing, education certificates, gaining tenure, publishing more articles, and so on were all informed not only by institutional demands but also (or perhaps even for the largest part) by the wider academic norms for building an academic career. Austerity measures and the growing emphasis on the value of science for society were national developments discussed by current postdocs and assistant professors as impacting their own careers, but mostly indirectly, e.g. when they mentioned the growing competition for grants and the growing body of PhDs in relation to the stable or even decreasing number of tenure positions.

4.5.1 IMR

The three interviewed postdocs at IMR had three different career strategies. One interviewee considered to leave academia, the second wanted to stay in and the third was keeping all options open. At the time of the interview the first woman was considering to leave academia, partly because of her interest in practical value, but also

because she missed the ‘human’ side of work, i.e. more constructive interactions and

shorter term thinking. She was thinking about working in a research institute where she should would feel more at ease, not a ‘tough commercial’ company, but a “small club

118

with attention for each other”. She stated about science: “it’s after all a certain culture, that fits some and not others”. She saw herself as one of the latter category.

The second woman was applying for grants. She wanted to stay in academia. She said she did not have the academic network to get a position, so she would have to take the route of acquiring grants and as such increase her chances for being promoted to an assistant professorship.

For the man, though his aim was to stay in science, he also kept “his options open” for a

career outside academia. The insecurity of science was not something that bothered him, as his partner had a permanent contract. Going out of academia was also not motivated by the relatively low salary, as he felt the freedom provided by academia

compensates for that. He said not to be “so super-ambitious” that he would work nights

and weekends.

All IMR assistant professors wanted to stay in academia and several wanted to stay and grow within the IMR. For most of them this intention was implicit, as they had as future goals becoming associate professor, getting tenure or getting on a higher salary scale. Only one man said to keep the option open to change his career to outside academia.

Interviewees were ambitious because they wanted to be “marketable” (man) and to have a good CV for future possibilities and positions. They looked beyond the institute when it comes to plans for publishing, because a few interviewees saw the institute as not being very ambitious. IMR was not seen by some as a particularly demanding institute, but interviewees put pressure on themselves to be able to succeed outside the IMR. They needed publications to be able to either get promotion or a better position in a different institute. One woman was explicit in wanting to become associate professor. One woman said she was “continually looking forward” with respect to her career. For

instance, she planned to finish writing a book, although in the IMR this is not greatly rewarded with points. It would be important should she want to continue her career in for instance the US. Here institutional arrangements were thus ignored for the sake of her own future. Another woman said that staying in academia would mean she would

have to “juggle a lot of things at the same time” and that this is a hard thing to do.

Interestingly, one man said not to go and work fewer hours being a father, because teaching would not decrease but as a consequence time for research would. This shows how people with children could be disadvantaged as their research time is diminished when having children. Here an institutional measure thus put pressure on choices made by early career academics. One woman said she and her partner would not buy a house or get children, as that would mean they would have to start living together and that would prove difficult due to the two body problem.

Only one IMR man expressed doubts about working in academia. He had experienced multiple episodes of near burnout and was critical of the high work pressure in relation to the relatively low salary.

One IMR assistant professor (f) was happy that her husband had a permanent contract, as they had a mortgage on their house. She stated that mortgages are still geared towards having a permanent position, and it is difficult to get one having fixed term

119

contracts like in academia. Here a national measure (or rather: banking measure) clearly impacts the chances for academics in building a private life.

4.5.2 IMAPP

Within the IMAPP, applying for grants was one of the most relevant future activities, seen by the postdocs and assistant professors as central to their careers. Moreover, the

postdocs’ plans were to apply for (tenure track or junior faculty) positions. One postdoc had concrete plans to go abroad to a foreign institute. Another postdoc was considering applying for permanent positions in the same country as where her partner was living or for more grants. To do so, she was now working on making the best of her current grant and appointment. A man postdoc talked about academic careers being increasingly

influenced by politics and nepotism. Much depends on one’s research topic and how it

aligns with people or groups hiring new staff. Here we see that informal institutional processes can impact the working experience of early career academics.

Besides these ambitious plans, some showed doubts about pursuing an academic career. One man did not want an academic career as the required mobility put him off, as well as the stress throughout his PhD and the pressure he felt within the academic system. One of the flowing woman postdocs said she would try to be successful in academia, but if she failed there would be enough other options. Another woman was quite pessimistic about getting a next job. Yet another woman was going to try to stay in academia for the next years by applying for grants. Interestingly, she noted how the intersection of two of her identities gave her an extra disadvantage in academia:

“Ihave a double handicap. I mean, I’m a woman and I’m also foreigner. So you know, I’m

a minority and then another minority” (IMAPP, postdoc, woman)

Though she said in IMAPP not to feel disrespected for being a woman, she had experienced and heard of others’ experiences of difficulties in academia due to being a

woman and/or foreigner. She had herself experienced moments of exclusion earlier in her career and talked of the competitive world and politics in academia.

All IMAPP assistant professors wanted to stay in academia. One man was considering becoming a full professor in the future, though in his eyes this would not be possible if he stayed at IMAPP, as internal candidates would not be promoted to full professor positions, he claimed. So here, institutional arrangements impacted the course of his career. Moreover, being a professor was not something he aspired right now, as he noted that they have little time for research and have to engage in many managerial tasks. He did not know if he was going to stay in Nijmegen or even the Netherlands. Two of the assistant professors mentioned the ambition to further climb the academic steps. One man said if he would not, or if he was not given promotion, he would leave and go to another institute, perhaps even abroad. He did not see himself in higher management, but possibly as full professor. Interestingly, although the woman was one

of the most ‘promising’ interviewees, she described herself as being not so ambitious,

and being lucky. This runs counter to her accomplishments so far and to her ambitions. She displayed the implicit norm that one can only grow to top positions when working more than full-time, the heroic picture of the academic. She kept applying for grants to be able to further build a research line and group.

120

Multiple interviewees were in doubt about whether to start a family and when, where to live with their partner (and family), or whether to buy a house.

“I am happy to delay my starting of a family until I have more security.” (IMAPP, postdoc,

woman)

The insecure character of academic careers influenced the future plans of interviewees. Institutes are not able to give many candidates a permanent contract and hence security, which impacts the early career researchers in their choices for their career and private life.

4.5.3 Concluding remark

We noticed how early career researchers are affected by pressures on different levels: institutional demands (number of required publications, getting an education certificate, working on their societal value), national measures (mostly indirectly through austerity measures and increasing insecurity, leading to higher competition in grants, more difficulties in getting a permanent job), and most of all, the demands of the academic system to be successful. The academic culture is guiding in that it shapes (and is shaped by) national measures, the dynamics of which impact institutional measures. Within this arena of multiple demands, early career researchers manoeuvre to be able to stay in academia and some decide to leave.

121

ICELAND

Thomas Brorsen Smidt, Gyða Margrét Pétursdóttir, Þorgerður Einarsdóttir

1. INTRODUCTION