EN EL ORDENAMIENTO LABORAL ESPAÑOL
10. EL MODELO LEGAL DE IMPLICACIÓN DE LOS TRABAJA DORES EN LA SE
Postdoctoral researchers are rarely involved in institutional decision-making structures and processes. Across the university, there is a formal governance structure with numerous committees and sub-committees (around 40), as well as various departmental committees. The commonality between these
committees across the institution is the absence of a membership drawn from the postdoctoral research staff population. Postdoctoral researchers do not get invited (or only very occasionally) onto these committees. This is particularly striking, considering the proportions between academics and research staff are equivalent across the institution (both academics and research staff represent 17% of staff) and the faculty (25% of academics, 31% overall research staff with 22.6% of grade 7 Postdocs) [2015 data]. What is important to consider
here goes beyond an issue of fair representation, but the meanings of such institutional structures.
In response to the researcher development initiatives, a number of university- wide committees and sub-committees have been appointed, since 2010, to address issues, strategies and policies related to both doctoral students and research staff. However, the combined initial terms of reference seemed to have been to the detriment of research staff. Only in June 2014, 12 years after the Roberts recommendations, did the institution establish a formal institutional committee44 (reporting to the University Research and Innovation Committee, which itself directly reports to Senate), dedicated solely to research staff: the Research Staff Development Committee. Notably, the equitable representation of the Postdoc/ research staff community on this supposedly research staff- focused committee had been minimal. While one academic per faculty was recruited, only one research staff member represented the interests of
researchers from 5 faculties. The Chair was reluctant to increase the size of the committee and considered the membership adequate. We were told that if Postdocs really wanted to have a larger representation, they should contact the chair directly to make the request. The majority of Postdocs having never been involved in formal university-wide committees, I felt that expecting them to place such a request seemed to disregard the limited institutional capital held by Postdocs and mask the positioning of researchers within the field.
Eventually, the committee accepted the recruitment of 2 representatives (STEM and non- STEM faculties). It took several rounds of discussions and a change in committee chair to finally obtain equitable representation of one researcher representative per faculty.
Similarly, at departmental level, there is often confusion about the participation of Postdocs in staff committees and staff meetings. In one department, for example, only one Postdoc representative is invited to the staff meeting. In another department, Postdocs are invited, but no standard agenda item is set for postdoctoral researchers and very few attend. In some instances, Postdocs
44 It is interesting to note that, as of December 2016, this committee, while visible in the pages of RIS, is still not included in the map of formal university committee structures on the university governance webpage.
may receive emails about staff meetings, but are unsure whether they are allowed to take part. When Postdocs are formally invited to attend, but do not participate, academics are quick to conclude that this indicates Postdocs are not interested, and that they know they have better things to do. When asked about the position of Postdocs in relation to the rest of the department, one Postdoc commented: “Postdocs are very insular- they just go into the lab and have no reason to engage”. Similar withdrawal from institutional functions is seen in the difficulties faced in the recruitment of Postdoc volunteers to be part of committees for the Postdoc researcher societies.
When challenged on the issue, academics argue that Postdocs are not academics and not employed for dealing with administrative responsibilities. Postdocs themselves see their time better invested in research, and say that participation in such activities is of no value to academic progression. At face value, academics do not consider committee memberships as an academic socialisation process that could be of any benefit to postdoctoral researchers. Different logics of practice seem to apply here. Membership of such committees is considered when reviewing academics’ CVs for promotion, but, in contrast, academics will repeat that committee memberships do not contribute to
decisive selection criteria in lectureship recruitment. However, no consideration is given to the cultural and social capital accrued through participation in such committees, nor of the organisational contribution Postdocs could make, in addition to research outputs. Arguably, committee work may be of limited use to transit within the field of postdoctoral research, but may be of substantial
relevance in other professional fields (which researchers are likely to move into).
7.8 Summary
In this chapter, I have described how the structures of the field of postdoctoral research can be observed through a number of practices that contribute to positioning Postdocs within the field. These structures are structuring a
Postdoc habitus that has embodied flux, osmosis, and invisibility. The doxa or “misrecognition of forms of social arbitrariness” (Deer, 2014, p. 114) of the
postdoctoral field becomes constituted through these structures and practices, establishing a valuation of practices (Fochler et al., 2016) in academic work. Postdoctoral researchers become socialised to the valuation of scientific capital above all other capital, by being removed from institutional practices. This constructs a future academic habitus, where the logic (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992) of academic work is about research, entrenching a “hierarchical
ordering” of all academic activities (Lucas, 2006, p. 61).
Symbolic capital is denied postdoctoral researchers, by their not being afforded the status of active contributors to institutional functions, structuring their
position as invisible knowledge workers in the field of postdoctoral research. Postdocs start to deny themselves possibilities for integration and a voice within the institution; they incorporate within their habitus the structure of the institutional space that limits their integration, with the intent of focusing their efforts on knowledge production. Postdocs may indeed follow the expectations set by the institution and academics of not being interested in contributing to institutional structures and activities, renouncing the scope to reach broader capital.