13 Aug 2023 - Entrepreneur
There are a lot more PhD students than the number of academic positions available…
According to a report from the Higher Education Policy institute in the UK (HEPI), 67% of PhD students want a career in academic research but only 30% stay in academia three years on. These numbers mean that most young researchers are not able to achieve their career objectives after many years of sustained effort and sacrifice. This is a tragic situation for many early career researchers that find themselves having to forgo their dreams of conducting ground breaking research for the benefit of humanity. In this article our objective is not to establish the reasons why there are too many PhD students for the amount of positions available, for that we refer the reader to this good nature careers podcast titled “too many PhDs too few research positions” where one of the participants compares the situation to a failure at “birth control”. Instead we are looking at the implications of the increased competition on the researchers and the actions they are then led to take to keep their dreams alive.
As the HEPI report cited previously suggests, most PhD students intended a career in academia after the completion of their degree. However, the struggle to build an academic career is so persistent that is has become a popular theme in many Hollywood movies that portray researchers. It is often represented as a tension between the researcher’s independence in how they live their life or express their ideas and the obtention of a tenure which would allow them job security and intellectual freedom. Unfortunately, in this case fiction and reality are very similar. Studying for a PhD is training to become a researcher. Given this fact, one would assume that the career path of a young academic should look like this : Complete PhD -> Get an academic position -> Build an expertise and reputation -> become professor -> Retire. In reality, getting to professorship feels more like an asymptote that can never be reached, most early career researchers get stuck building an expertise and a reputation and searching for the next contract that will keep them employed for the next 6-18months. And of course on top of that researchers are encouraged to “move around” between institutions so they can build their networks and boost their employability, completely ignoring that some of them have dependents of aspire to settle. It is common to remain in this loop over a decade before finally giving up, which is an indication that the 30% cited in the report remaining after 3 years are only the early leavers.
One of the best features of the academic world is its diversity, people from all around the world meeting to exchange ideas and learn from one another. Working in academia will expose you to a plurality of cultures, languages which greatly challenge and enrich your experience and understanding of the world. The downside though, is that as a market participant in this industry, the competition seems fiercer than ever before and it’s become rather difficult for an individual researcher to differentiate themselves from their peers. A lot of the metrics traditionally used to assess one’s research output are being gamified. For example, the number of publications and impact factor are two metrics that together should represent your ability to produce new ideas and assess the impact of those ideas on your field. Unfortunately, these metrics can completely be overtaken by “gangs” that will add and cite each other on their publications in order to improve their score and look more appealing to funding bodies and other universities. A consequence of this is also the flood of articles with questionable results that dilutes the quality of the scientific literature. Sadly, there are no standardisation body/regulator to even the playing field for everyone.
Given the difficulty faced by young researchers to shine through conventional metrics such as research publication count/quality and impact factor, they are now increasingly using other means of signalling, meaning unconventional means to stand out amongst their peers and build a successful career. This often means an increased social media presence to disseminate their work and demonstrate their expertise in a given subject matter or participation in outreach events to build a public presence that could propel their careers.
At face value this seems to be a positive development that should be encouraged as it participates in the promotion of research and raises awareness of scientific topics. However the question we ask is what is the cost of this new behaviour on the quality of the research produced and disseminated within the scientific community and the broader public? Additionally, what is the cost on the health of young researchers subjected to yet another source of pressure to produce output? “Publish or Perish” was the mantra of early career researchers, instilling a constant feeling of anxiety over one’s ability to constantly produce new ideas that will be deemed worthy by peers. The new mantra is slowly shaping up to be “Publish, maintain a Twitter/Linkedin/Facebook/Youtube profile or perish”. This once again is yet another role that is added to the responsibilities of researchers, that of outreach officer.
Given that there are still only 24 hours in a day, there is inevitably a threshold of diminishing returns that will be crossed where any new hat worn by a researcher is negatively impacting the quality of their research output.
Moving from academia to industry is often the route taken by researchers after many years of holding on to their dream of finally being able to do the research they want, sometimes at the expense of a comfortable life. It is often seen by researchers themselves as a personal failure, a capitulation versus money, something so meaningless relative to their initial ambition. Fortunately many go on to have brilliant careers in industry and find other ways to drive change. Universities are also becoming aware of the need for coaching young researchers that find themselves needing to transition to industry. Coaching programmes are not widespread yet but where they do exist, they provide the support and guidance necessary for researchers leaving the academic world to understand what are their transferable skills and how to translate their many talents in a language more familiar to the traditional jobs market. Universities seem to still struggle to understand why investing in the staff leaving their institutions is beneficial to them. If we could suggest one reason, it’d be that the staff leaving on good terms is more likely to maintain a good relationship with their former institution and build pathways to industry partnerships. This is how industry partnerships could be born and research further enhanced for the benefit of all those involved and the broader public.
Faced with the harsh reality of the lack of academic positions and the scarcity of research funds, researchers often venture to more exotic pools of money in an attempt to bring their vision to life. Starting a company based on their research often sounds like an appealing solution, killing two birds with one stone. First this opens access to funds that were previously unavailable and that have much deeper liquidity than any conventional research funding body can provide. Second, it makes you more attractive to your own institution and more likely to land a permanent academic position. Of course there is also the possibility to get rich beyond your wildest dreams. This route is now highly encouraged by universities seeking to generate impact by commercialising their IP and creating new income streams and supported by governments chasing ever more economic growth and competitiveness for their economy in a global market.
As a short conclusion, the profession of researcher is now highly competitive, which leads early career researchers to seek ways to be creative to differentiate themselves and build fulfilling careers. The routes taken by young researchers to make a living could be argued to lead to less desirable outcomes for research since the additional distractions surrounding their core activity are diluting the long and slow focus required to make true groundbreaking advances.