The theory

An IRF allows you to build up an independent research programme before taking on teaching and administration commitments. The best fellowships range from 5 to 8 years – enough time to establish your own research group, break into a new field or map out a new one, and lay solid foundations for your future research programme. Importantly, applying for academic jobs from this position allows prospective employers to make a concrete assessment of your ability to gain research funding, to manage a research group and to publish independent research papers. Assuming that you have proven ability in these areas, you are in a strong position when applying for academic jobs – not only do you already have a good track record, but your employer knows that you will have the time and professional maturity to take on new teaching and administration duties. If you do not have proven ability in these areas, the fellowship has served to allow you to realise this for yourself.

The theory

There is a constant tension between change and routine, and in the context of an academic career it is perhaps most visible during the transition from postdoc to PI. Before we turn to the practicalities of doing well during this period, it is worthwhile considering the wider background. Life is change – stars are born, live and die on such a long timescale that humans cannot even imagine, and at the other end of the scale processes in living cells occur over nanoseconds. However, as the popular saying goes, ‘only busy cashiers and wet babies like change’. Change unsettles us and our biological reaction is of the ‘fight or flight’ type. But change also brings renewal and opportunities, and in a professional environment, if it is tackled well, it can strengthen your career prospects for years to come.

As seen in Chapters 8 and 9, you can start your independent research career either in the context of an academic job or as an independent research fellow. Although the two positions carry different duties and expectations, they share one thing in common – time has to be managed differently from when you were a postdoc. While many postdocs work very hard, they often work at hours to suit themselves (certainly not 9–5). However, as a PI you have to fit in with other people – either in the context of time-tabled lectures and meetings or to oversee the work of your research group.

The theory

It is obvious that the number of people with higher degrees far exceed the number of places available in academia. It is also obvious that academia is not the best career choice for everyone. For example, if you are a great researcher but do not enjoy teaching, then academia is not the place for you. However, your scientific skills – such as analytical reasoning, ability to solve problems in an unorthodox way (thinking outside the box), to communicate to a wide audience and to synthesise diverse sources of information – open many avenues for you.

Before deciding on a career path you will need to think carefully about your principles and priorities (see Chapter 1) and to gather information from several sources. There are many alternative careers in science and most universities organise careers meetings where non-academics talk to postdocs about their own career trajectories following a science PhD and postdoc. Even better, if you know a scientist working outside academia – talk to him or her – what have they done since being a postdoc or PhD student, what excited and inspired them and what frustrated them? You will also need to assess your own skills – most universities have a Careers Service or Human Resources office that can help you do this.

The theory

The previous chapters have emphasised the development from dependence on others to independence: how to increasingly take a lead in actions and have more responsibilities. Thus far, interacting with others has been in the background, yet scientists increasingly work in groups and sometimes in large multinational teams. To be effective in the context of a team requires an understanding of what you are naturally good at and an acceptance of the fact that some things are better left to others.

In the last century there was considerable research into effective team-working strategies. In the 1980s and 1990s Meredith Belbin, from the Henley Management School, proposed a model based on ‘team roles’ (Belbin, 1981). In his words:

This distinction between team and functional roles is helpful in the case of a conflict between a person’s natural inclinations and job requirements; it can help in renegotiating the role. While originally developed in the context of management teams, this model was subsequently shown to be more generic and valid for non-management teams (Belbin, 2003). A recent review summarises progress since the inception of the original hypothesis (Aritzeta et al., 2007).

The theory

Covey’s philosophy for success (see Chapter 1) is focused on developing seven ‘habits’, of which three relate to how we deal with others. Since we act upon, and are acted on, by the world around us, it is essential to identify the limits of our influence. In this context there is a Circle of Concern that comprises events and actions that we have no real influence over, but which still affect us, and a Circle of Influence that comprises events and actions that we have some control over (Covey et al., 1994). The art is to focus our efforts on the latter (note that proactive people ensure that the circle of concern is encompassed by the circle of influence).

Covey’s main audience is managers and industrialists – can scientists, and in particular academics, benefit in any way from his philosophy? One of the main aims of science is the production of knowledge (Ziman, 2000) and on this premise many similarities can be found. For example, scientists are promoted on the basis of the quality and number of papers published (output), the total amount of grant funding awarded (resources necessary for production) and on their national and international reputation (brand name). More importantly, the success of Covey’s philosophy is in large part due to a combination of ethical principles, self-development and action in the real world. In his approach ‘fundamental principles’ such as fairness, integrity and honesty form the cornerstone of behaviour (Covey, 2004). It may be no coincidence that each of these principles is central to the scientific process.

The theory

Managing people is an art not a science and some would even say a black art. There is an apocryphal saying that managing academics is like herding cats or pushing a wheelbarrow full of frogs. However, you only have to look at the success of ‘big science’ projects such as the Large Hadron Collider to realise that this saying is only partially true.

Managing people in academia, or more generally in research, does not necessarily mean working within well-defined hierarchical structures, such as those found in industry. However, there is a common code of good practice, which underlies managing others. It requires recognition of the fact that we are interdependent on others for achieving outstanding results. In the context of Covey’s seven habits of effective people (Chapter 1), a good group leader would think ‘win–win’ (habit 4), seek first to understand (habit 5) and synergise (habit 6) (Covey, 2004). What does this mean?

The theory

Your life as a postdoc or an independent research fellow depends critically on obtaining grants from a funding body, such as the Research Councils in the UK, the National Science Foundation in the US, or the European Commission in Europe. Competition for this funding is fierce and, in order to secure money, you or your supervisor will have to submit a research proposal that will be judged by a panel of experts. Whether funds are awarded will depend greatly on how novel your proposal is (your vision), how well planned it is, and how cost effective it is. To succeed, at least in the short term, your novel idea must fit within a certain funding stream and must be viewed positively by your peers. Whilst it is recognised that there are risks inherent to every project, these risks have to be identified and managed appropriately. Furthermore, as the funding agencies are publicly accountable for the grants they give out, you will need to justify how you intend to spend their money.

Before getting carried away and spending a lot of time writing and developing your ideas, you should check your eligibility to apply for a particular award. Depending on your official status, different options will be open to you. For example, if you are on your first postdoc, you can apply for a variety of personal fellowships or for conference travel funds, but would not normally be eligible to act as a principal investigator on a multi-million pound research programme. At the end of this chapter, we list links to various funding agencies and schemes.

The theory

Postdoctoral researchers occupy a transition zone between well-defined PhD study and equally well-defined PI positions. In effect, postdocs can be compared to medieval journeymen – having finished an apprenticeship, they would hone their skills by travelling from one master to another until they were competent enough to become masters themselves (Harris, 2008). But how do modern-day journeymen find a job that pays a salary and has future employment prospects? Most postdocs are funded by personal fellowships or by research grants awarded to PIs. As a PI, you have to consider very carefully who you want to employ on a grant, particularly as it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract research funding. Unlike graduate students who embark on a course of study with the defined endpoint and goal, postdocs embark on a project for many different reasons. Maximising the potential of both your research programme and of your postdocs’ careers (be they ultimately in science or not) requires that you recognise what these reasons are.

Recruitment

There are a number of reasons why people decide to carry out postdoctoral research – for example:

1. They are committed to a career in academia and this is the next step towards becoming a PI.

2. They are interested in research, but are not yet sure whether they want to stay in academia or move across to industry. They see a postdoc in academia as less likely to close doors at this stage.

3. They know they don’t want to stay in scientific research but recognise that scientific skills are important. They want to hone these skills further before doing something different.

4. They don’t really know what they want to do, but they are good experimentalists. A postdoc is thus a job to fill the time and pay the bills while they think of an alternative career.

Depending on an individual’s motivation for doing postdoctoral research, they will have different needs and expectations. You will also have different expectations, depending on the type of project that needs to be carried out. For example, do you want someone who will challenge you and who will take the work in directions you might not think of, or do you want someone to complete a defined piece of work that requires a certain skill? Either way, it is crucial to clarify expectations on both sides before you hire someone and you therefore need to ask penetrating questions at interview (see examples in Box 14.1).

Preface

This book is based on a series of 20 workshops developed by Jane Langdale in 2005 for postdocs in the Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford. The topics were subsequently extended by Barbara Gabrys to cover other disciplines in the Mathematical, Physical and Life Sciences Division at Oxford. The motivation for the workshops and for the book, stemmed from a desire to help postdocs gain a thorough understanding of what being a successful academic entails, and to provide a set of tools to help them achieve that goal. The book can also act as a foundation for others who wish to run their own series of workshops – in each chapter we give an example of how we cover the topic.

We have written the book primarily in the context of the UK higher education sector. However, much of the content is equally applicable elsewhere. The main differences relate to the titles of the various academic jobs in different countries rather than to the expectations of what those jobs entail. Specifically – ‘Lecturer’ in the UK is equivalent to ‘Assistant Professor’ elsewhere; ‘probation’ is equivalent to ‘tenure-track’; and ‘Head of Department’ is equivalent to ‘Chair of Department’ (although Heads normally line manage academic staff whereas Chairs do not). Wherever possible we have used the more universal term Principal Investigator (PI) in order to avoid confusion.

The theory

In what follows we assume that you are looking for your first permanent or tenure-track academic post. In the UK this would be Lecturer, in the US Assistant Professor. There are two ways of getting such a post: either by internal promotion or by applying for an advertised post. As the latter case is more typical, we focus on it here.

As there are not many academic jobs available at any given time, the competition for them is fierce – as many as 100 people can apply for each post. Therefore, you will probably need to write several application letters before you get invited for an interview and you may only get a job offer after several interviews. In order to increase your chances of success you need to search widely, do a lot of preparation and planning and hone your interview skills. Interviewing is a communication process centred on talking and listening. It is different from a conversation as an interview is structured. Traditionally, it is conducted face-to-face, but nowadays people can be interviewed by telephone or via a video-link. While statements of factual knowledge and information on a candidate’s attitudes and beliefs can be gathered in all three types of interview, a telephone interview misses non-verbal messages. In this sense both you and the interview panel lose important information.