Email
So, coming to the end of yet another fixed-term research contract, it was time to start applying for my next one. I was lucky this time – my senior colleagues had just won a large grant and one of the research assistant jobs was perfect for me. I applied and, fortunately, was offered the position. Great!
But it's not really that great, because the principal investigator (PI) had all but offered me the job in advance. The other 50+ applicants didn't really stand a chance. This is not unusual in academia and, when I was applying for jobs a few years ago at the end of my previous contract, I had no idea if any of the jobs I spent hours applying for were actually available at all.
Is this really a problem? I'd say, undoubtedly, yes. With a third of academics employed on fixed-term contracts (I'd guess this figure is a lot higher for research-only staff) and with the current scarcity of permanent lecturing positions, those of us wanting to stay in academia have little choice but to go from one research contract to another.
I'm not actually complaining about fixed-term contracts: I know that a job is fixed-term when I apply, I know how funding in the higher education sector works and I know that my employers would make me a permanent employee if they could. Moving around to different projects, departments and universities at the end of contracts has also given me excellent opportunities to learn about new areas, expand my range of research skills and meet new collaborators.
What I don't like is wasting my time applying for a new job when somebody else is always going to get it. My academic CV is easy to tailor to each job I apply for and, through years of experience, I can write a convincing personal statement pretty quickly. Even so, searching for potential new jobs and filling in numerous application forms is really time-consuming.
The problem arises because most research grants have research assistantships or postdocs attached to them. While it's possible to name these researchers in the grant, guaranteeing them the job, this doesn't always happen. A good friend of mine has an interview this week for a postdoc position on a project she co-wrote the proposal for, but the university where the project is based doesn't allow postdocs to be named on grants.
Why? To allow for fair competition, of course! Yes, this whole situation comes down to fairness and having an open competition so that the best candidate gets the job. Universities are not legally obliged to advertise posts externally, but most choose to do so. Partly this is to make sure that the process is fair and open, and also to make sure that it complies with equality legislation.
The fact is that the best candidate for the job often is an internal candidate, or is at least known to the PI already. This is because those people are likely to know more about the projects, to have similar research interests and are known to get on well with the rest of the group.
It's not that I don't like the idea of fairness and open competition. Rather, I would argue that PIs need to be trusted to decide if a position needs to be advertised or if they already know who they want to work for them. This would save lots of people, PIs and job candidates alike, all of the time, money and stress involved in the application and selection process for jobs that are already taken.
This week's anonymous academic is a research assistant at a Russell Group university.
If you'd like to contribute an anonymous piece about the trials and tribulations of university life, contact claire.shaw@theguardian.com.
Join the higher education network for more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us on Twitter @gdnhighered.
;