The insecure scholar: My name badge is about to let me down again

Suggest you make something up . . . Depends on what you're aiming for. For dinner invitations, try "HEFC", the Higher Education Funding Council for wherever, or "Research Council" - this should guarantee some drinks/meals are bought, though the discussion may not always friendly. If you know your subject audience, simply label yourself as from the "Subject Association" - this will mean you will get lots of nice stories about your subject, though they will probably concentrate mostly on the teller's engagement with it. If seeking peace and quiet, try "Intellectual"; this will guarantee you'll be left almost entirely alone. But for a real winner - wait until after May and label yourself with the name of whomever is the Opposition spokesperson for higher education.

It's about time THE took the issue of the precariousness of recent post-PhD scholars seriously. There is such a glut of PhD graduates nwo vis-a-vis the number of academic employment opportunities realistically available that the usual carrer "advice" dispensed by those who got their first full-time jobs 10 years ago is completely redundant ("publish something" - even though I know of many unemployed academics with 4 or more articles in very good journals on their CVs). Uk academia is fast Amercianising itself, forcing aspirants to remain on insecure poverty wages for an agonising length of time, often well into their mid-30s, by which their economic prospects in terms of being able to have a mortgage or meaningful pension are becoming very bleak indeed (I do wonder what the life expectancy of peolpe in this position will ultimately be in the fullness of time - I suspect it will be quite a lot shorter than those with 1st class UG degrees who resisted the temptatin to go on to PhDs, instead sensibly choosing plum graduate careers instead). We need an urgent debate about the sustainability of this; if the academic profession aims to replenish its stock with the most able minds, then reform of the early years of the profession are required ASAP, quite frankly.

i once asked a VC why admin + managerial staff were rarely employed on fixed term contracts (in comparison with academics of equivalent age+experience+expertise). I didn't really get an answer other than "this is the way it is". I pointed out that he was a VC and therefore in a position to change the "way it is" but the conversation soon ended. The least which can be done to avoid this type of situation is a very loud and very clear message from the institutions to prospective Ph.D. students and postdocs that there is very little chance of them becoming permanent academics.

I agree with Roger. The actual prospects of post-PhD employment within academia are never accurately communicated to potential PhD applicants - mainly because a good supply of RCUK-funded PhD students looks good in terms of departmental reputation. And, of course, as managers control the purse strings, as well as the ideological direction of HE, the dogma of providing education for students at the lowest possible price holds sway. For most HE managers, academics (despite the years of struggle to secure jobs and the intensely long hours they often put into producing world-class research) are really just jobbing "grunts," viewed as being rather like people working the till in a department store.

Where's the shame in writing 'Independant'? The university system is a business, for good and for bad. Large businesses require savvy freelancers who can be brought in fast, grasp the mechanics and hit the ground running. Is it inconcievable that a Univeristy should be any different? Acknowledging that reality might open up opportunities, and the conference circut is just the place. There is value in acknowledging that at events where one's identity and worth is often judged by the issuer of a paycheque. There is value in an academic who is not affiliated to any institution (ask James Lovelock), just as one who has worked with many. This is coming from an Independant Filmmaker, a 3rd year undergrad, at the foot of the stairs of the ivory tower and listening to the chatter. I am often puzzled... Times are a-changing indeed.

The shame of writing 'Independant' is in the spelling....

PS I would strongly suggest you spell 'Independent' correctly on your name tag.

True, there is nothing wrong with being an independent scholar. I wonder what Steven Runciman put on his name badges; perhaps, 'Steven Runciman|Grand Orator of the Great Church of Constantinople'.

We sometimes forget, but quite a few of those "HE Managers" used to be or are "academics". You won't get anywhere trying to sell them a bill of good on how hard it is at the coal-face.

To Dr. Truth - why do you think they aspired away from the coal face? - also, next graduation ceremony, look at the funny hats; precious few tea-cosies in the management ranks.

Given the fact that is in the interests of universities (for financial reasons and to enhance reputation) to over-produce PhD students; I would suggest that Universities should be obliged to employ a nominal amount of the PhDs they produced for a fixed term period. If, for example, we force universities to employ say 25% of their own PhDs across a range of disciplines for, say, 3 years; it would ensure that 1) universities would actually produce decent PhDs rather than simply accepting anyone and everyone; and 2) the postgraduates produced would be fit for the job, with requisite teaching/research experience.

@Don Quixote: By 'tea-cosies' do you mean bonnets?

Alexander - yep - I wear mine to go out at night. Gives the taxi driver a laugh

Having recently come into higher education from 11 years worth of financial accounting roles in commerce and general practice, I can advise Roger that it is still the norm for management and administrative staff outside the HE sector to be employed on a permanent basis. I certainly would not have considered a fixed term post at a university when I could have had a permanent post at a leisure company or a firm of auditors. I think maybe Roger assumes that the lifestyle attraction of academia is the same for admin staff as it is for the academics. It's a nice place to work I'll admit, but then so are other places I have worked.

It will be interesting to read this blog. I expect to be at least a part-time independent researcher and writer for the rest of my career, which began in the FE sector. I have no illusions of any future prospects of a permanent university post - but then, my field (Disability Studies) was established by independent researchers, so I'm in good company. It's all about expectations. Being disabled, I am used to being a freelancer - it suits me much better than full-time work. In a changing economy, many more people may have to get used to insecure jobs, especially given the funding situation among universities. Yes, the government should sort this out - but in the meantime, researchers may have to realise that the status of being a permanently-employed academic is not going to be easy to come by.

University Accountant - you entirely missed the point of my post. Given this, you should try to avoid assuming how I (or anyone else) reasons.

Roger, and university accountant - don't fall out now! - I agree though, that U.A (abbrev.) missed the point - academics don't want the short-term contract at all! - I have plenty of anecdotal that, for researchers, the final year of a 3-year project is dominated by the efforts to secure some sort of gainful employment to follow on - quite understandable when these are young academics, just starting out on family relationships, maybe children on the horizon. This is hardly what we would think of as 'disinterested enquiry'. To be be polarised, if the short -term contract is to become the norm, then frankly, stuff 'em - don't do it! - I know of several academics with good quallity publishing that have gone off to diverse occupations including pub landlord, buying a garden centre, lorry driver and 'other'. So, what will be left if we extrapolate on this trend? Very oddly, it seems that academics' qualities are more portable than those in the ancillary services that many academics are starting to see as parasitic. Time will tell. The point is, University Accountant, that the short-term-contract simply is cr*p. If that's what's needed to make the business model work, then shut down now. It's over, gone. we can all go off and get a life. But this inexorable drip, drip, drip erosion is painful to watch, the feeble dying reflexes of a great beast that is already dead. BTW, what will the auditors audit?

I've read in a number of places (most recently on THES in the last week) that once you go through 1-year probationary period, you effectively become a permanent member of staff regardless of what contract you signed up to. Something to do with European Law apparently.

On the subject of bonnets, I hope that Don Quixote has not overlooked a peculiarity of Oxford academic dress. If I understand the regulations correctly only Doctors of Civil Law and Doctors of Medicine wear bonnets; those who hold the degrees of DD, DLitt, DSc, DMus, DPhil, DClinPsych, and EngD wear mortarboards. Cambridge doctors, I believe, can choose between the bonnet and the mortarboard, except for DDs, who never wear the bonnet.

Being in the same boat as the author, I can appreciate his/her position. However, don't feel too bad. In my humanities field a lot of the interesting work is being done by those on fixed-term, adjunct and honorary positions. People are getting wise to the fact that because someone is a lecturer it does not mean they do any useful research, and that because someone is "independent" it does not mean they are flakes. This is only going to become more obvious as time goes on. Oh, and BTW, @John, there is not technically a "glut" of PhD grads, rather an erosion of permanent jobs. I saw one recent department lose six lecturers to retirement to be replaced by one new appointment, despite having the same number of students. Check out Bousquet's How the University Works: Higher Education and the Low-Wage Nation.

Having an unusual name (and preferring that people don't look at my chest before garbling it) I find it easier just not to wear the name tag. I've never been told I must. Surely, if a name tag makes you feel inadequate, not wearing one is a simple solution. As a PhD student myself, I do get a bit tired of the relentless "you'll never get a job as an academic, these times are tough kiddo" which usually ignores not only that there are quite a few of us who don't want to work in academia (like myself) and many more who are able to be realistic and make their own career choices. Really, its just a part of this whole defining ourselves by our jobs palaver and having been chewed up and spat out at Simonleeistan I've seen just how harmful that can be.

@ Dave Thanks, looks like a good read.

Whetehr glut of PhDs or technically a demise of job opportunities, the end result remains exactly the same - people such as myself, with RCUK-funded PhDs, an RCUK-funded 1-year post, followed by a 6-month Research position at the LSE, and 2 articles in leading journals, along with tons of teaching experience, administrative experience and having presented work at conferences in Europe and the US alongside the UK, can't even get interviews for temporary lectureships - I've applied for 133 academic jobs in the last 3 years (i.e. post-PhD), all entry-level and all in wider fields that I could fit into, and have had no interviews whatsoever.

Roger you made a number of points, one of which I picked up on. You think it unfair that support staff have more favourable employment terms than their academic counterparts and perhaps it is but you believe that it is within the gift of vice-chancellors to to alter this state of affairs and I don't see that it is. The employment market dictates the terms and universities employ academics on short term contracts for two reasons: because it offers them structural flexibility and, brutally; because they can. Any university that wants to buck the trend and offer greater job security to academics will find itself at an immediate disadvantage to its competitors. Maybe there is a VC out there willing to chance it but I would doubt it in the current climate.

Maybe so, University Accountant, but what happens when the supply of candidates dries up because the best and brightest realise that if they want the high-paying secure jobs that their abilities can command elsewhere then they should not consider ever doing a PhD? Surely you then end up with a depletion in the quality of the stock? You already hear tales of experienced academics hired from overseas for entry-level salaries who save universities tons of money by coming in at a much lower level than their record suggests, but who can't actually speak sufficient English to communicate effectively to their students. Is that the sort of "market-friendly" HE that the sector wants? I think the sector is rapidly shootnig itself in the foot and simply doing the usual trick of blaming it on the market, as though it were impossible for influential figures in the sector, alogn with HEFCE, BIS et al to address the issue of employment contracts for academics. I bet if the Research Councils began to withhold all funding from universities that were too reliant on precariously-employed temporary staff, we'd sharp see a change in the nature of academic contracts, for instance...

Alexander re: academicals. At Oxford, DMus also gets a bonnet as do the lay doctors of DCL and DM. Everyone else gets the square. Cambridge doctors do not have a choice between square and bonnet, they all get a bonnet except the DD who gets to wear a Bishop Andrewes cap. Everyone when in undress wears the square. More info on this can be read in the soon-to-be-published updated version of Shaw's Academical Dress of British and Irish Universities book, edited by the Burgon Society.

Just picking up on what you say John, the situation you describe may result in a depletion in quality and also a depletion in quantity, both of which would shift the market back in favour of the prospective academic employee once again. The forthcoming constriction of the public sector while the private sector returns to growth makes this eventuality likely to occur at the point the public sector starts hiring again. As for regulating the problem away you have to consider whether the law of unintended consequences would give you something bigger to complain about a little further down the line.

My wider point is that I firmly believe the sector as a whole has the capacity to think strategically to ensure a long-term supply of very high-quality candidates to replenish the stock on a permanent basis, rather than rely on the vicissitudes of the market to provide this for it. As far as I'm aware, there is no intention to cut HE funding as part of the widely-expected cuts in the public sector budget in the immediate future (I think the major cuts will be in the QUANGOs - HEFCE, for example, will almsot certainly be abolished in the event of a Tory victory) so I don't really see the relevance of including HE within a simplistic framework of public sector cuts vis-a-vis private sector growth.

Hope you're right about the cuts John. I really do. Can't say I share your optimism though. Cutting HEFCE funding and raising the tuition fee cap would be the work of a moment for a new Tory administration.

Doesn't worry me. Ok. I am still plodding along researching my PhD, but at any conference ( which I can afford to go to) I am Larry Arnold, it's enough for me to have presented papers at various conferences, and attended others in an attentive and critical capacity. No I didn't write a book called Ablaze, nor was I responsible for the 9/11 airforce debacle, and my major is not cytology, you can't buy my LP's and I don't do reiki. (or any of those things googling on my name might suggest) I am the other Larry Arnold and if the major researchers in my field do not know me yet, they will, what I lack in orthodox credentials I probably make up for in eccentricity an notoriety. Whether I shall ever assume a full time paid position on graduation I know not, but if my self esteem were to rely on some name badge heirarchy I wouldn't be in this game at all. I know my stuff and I am good at it, good enough to take a few of the 'names' down a peg or two.

@Charles Bingley: '...provided that a Doctor, when taking part in ceremonial in the Senate-House, may with his festal gown wear the square cap.' I had imagined that a Cambridge doctor taking part in ceremonial at another university would probably also have this choice. Maybe not though. When you consider the very large number of academics throughout the UK who are Oxford DPhils it is hardly surprising that so many academics do not wear the bonnet. Furthermore, I assume that as an Oxford MA even when I do have a doctoral bonnet to wear from another university I'll continue to wear my Oxford MA outfit as, in a sense, the higher degree (since Oxford DPhils who also hold the Oxford MA wear the MA outfit rather than the DPhil). Anyway, this is rather off the topic, and just an amusing, arcane distraction from the fact that I'll probably never get a job, given that I am so much less well qualified than John.

Graduates of the University of Wollamaloo wear Bush Hats, with corks as an added distinction for PhD's. I'll bet nobody was expecting that.

Larry - are these hats on sale anywhere? - I'm wondering, if one is appropriately qualified, if there's any kind of "guest hat" scheme; I'd quite like to legitimately wear one of these to our graduation day...

I liked reading this first blog post and I'm already looking forward for the others to come. I hold the fixed-term experience close to my heart as I am a fixed-term post doc. I think the name badge feeling represents one of the many underlying insecurities associated with the fixed-term employment status of many post-docs --at this point, I know so many of us in the same position, next step is to create the fixed-term postdoc association! When you're fixed term, awkwardness at conferences is the least of it. There is an awkward feeling when you are in a place as a fixed term; it is business as usual for everyone except for you. The factual insecurity (after a year, you may be a goner!) and the emotional insecurity (should I really engage with this whole thing or should I keep some rational level of detachment?). People may argue what they want about getting used to it or about the fact that it's simply the nature of the beast in these rapid changing times but one thing is for sure, as a fixed-term post doc the whole thing feels more like a favour rather than a job. Many colleagues tell me that at least I have time to work on my publications and pump up my experience at an institution with good reputation which will then help me move on to get a permanent job.

I don't want to be unduly negative Kay, and your experience may very well end up being different (i.e. more positive) from my own, but publications and experience at as a postdoc at 2 different leadnig UK universities did absolutely nothing whatsoever to help me move on to a permanent job. Consequently, economic necessity has forced me to move into a career in market research (which is considerably less desirable, and something that I do not need a PhD for, let alone 2 postdocs), and abandon the career I trained so hard for and dedicated so many good years toward. I am trying to finish another article for publication in my spare time as I still have aspirations toward academia, but it is proving near-impossible to do so - and as for writing the book I planned, that simply isn't at all viable in my current circumstances. I would have to leave my job and live off bread crusts in order to try to re-establish myself. As things stand, I try to do what I can to discourage talented young people from pursuing PhDs at all.

In the period 1982-1992, I spent the ten years after my PhD grimly hanging on in academe, with series of part-time jobs before finally, to my then delight, landing the much coveted permanent post, with a proper label for badges at conferences. But now, as I warn my PhD students, the chances of getting jobs are about the same as in the 1980s but the HE environment is less welcoming. UA - you said you would not consider taking a job in a university had it not been on a permanent basis: the problem for us is that we are so little valued (even though we are the individuals that make universities universities!) that the same employers who would not dream of tereating someone valuable such as yourself in that way, feel entirely secure in treating academics so badly. So I tell my PhD students - do it part time, and do look elsewhere for your career unless you are prepared to wait for ten years to get a job, accepting it won't be one that will enable you to do your job (ie teaching students effectively) properly because of lack of resources and support from VCs and UAs...

I go back to my earlier point, even though it was distorted in the later comments. Despite being the most highly qualified and visible members of a university, academics are treated poorly by universities in relation to pen-pushing staff members. Furthermore, the same pen-pushers aren't assessed in the way we are - unless I've somheow missed newspaper reports of the top-10 university accounts divisions. UA - did you have to be internationally recognised in order to get your job ? I did, as do most academics at good universities these days. To attribute the system to "market pressures" is a little facile. Academia is largely a public sector endeavour and the influence of the market is tiny in relation to, eg, car salesman. The current system isn't result of an intelligent market getting the best teaching and research at minimum cost. For a start, the market isn't free and anyway the recent financial crash illustrates the difficulty of propounding intelligent market hypotheses. I've seen too many gifted scientists leave academia due to the poor career structure to believe that those remaining represent the cream of the crop. There are actions (some big and some small) that VCs can take to ameliorate the situation. For example, rolling grant contractors can be moved onto permanent contracts as the law prescribes - some VC's have done this, others haven't and are prefering to wait until they're pushed into it by legal actions. Basically, as pointed out earlier, the system is utterly rubbish and there is no reason why it shouldn't be changed. The details of an improved system aren't clear - the situation is complicated. However, there is much which could be done and which isn't being done.

Universities in the UK are PROTECTED under the so called "objective justification clause". If the universities cannot obtain funding, they terminate your contract and send you a letter letting you know when you can collect your P45. Your employer should make sure you have sufficient time to look for an alternative job. In addition, employment law should be changed so that this is no longer a valid excuse anymore for the cowardly universities to hide under. Unfortunately the unions and the universities are unwilling to challenge this. This objective justification clause is the simple reason why the author of this article cannot be made permanent even if he wanted to and at the moments unions are not powerful enough to contest this in judiciary. In this day and age, can someone explain why fixed term contracts are continually being used? And can someone please justify if they are morally sound?

Welcome back Roger. I feel invited to respond to two of your points, namely: 1. I was not, as you ask, required to demonstrate international recognition in order to secure my post; and 2. you make the point that the current situation is not about an intelligent market securing the best research and teaching at the best price. Isn't it? Seems to me there's no shortage of post-docs out there looking for a home and not enough universities needing them badly enough to offer permanent contracts. But then that's facile. And market hypotheses are discredited. I wonder what's really to blame?

AU - welcome back yourself. WRT the point about the absence of a shortage of post-docs is indeed a facile and misleading one since it implies that an absence of a shortage of post-docs implies that universities can get the best researchers. Research isn't like mechanistic bean-counting where somebody with the relevant bit of paper is deemed capable of adding up numbers. At its best, research is driven by theskills and imaginations of individuals, each of which who can make a huge difference to their international fields. A huge pool of "qualified" post-docs to pick from is useless unless it contains enough potentially world-leading individuals. In my own field, a prospective academic would typically do a Ph.D. and then go through 1-2 post-docs, usually ínvolving several years abroad. Only then would he/she be considered employable for a permanent contract. This process acts as a deterrent to a number of extremely bright individuals who decide, quite justifiably, to jump ship after their Ph.D. since the prosects of an academic career are uncertain and the whole process exploitative. I've seen too many of these people leave the field to have faith in the current system as leading to the best possible research.

I have experienced very similar problems after finishing my PhD in the UK. I left the British university and came home to Southern Germany with a degree nobody (i.e. no university, no academic, etc.) seemed to understand. Thus, people were appointed to professorships and post who were less qualified than I was and hold a non-subject-related degree. You should "network" was the advice of many people, however, it never worked out. Therefore, I carried on on a freelance basis; i.e. lecturing at my home university in the UK and doing freelance research as well as lectures at two German universities. It took me years to find the right kind of name for my professional status and I call myself within publications as well as confernces as an "independent scholar". This term brought about some admiration from colleagues who were less "free" than I have been for 8 years. In the meantime, I am proud of my status and can say "no" whenever I think I am getting expoited from any univeristy which is dependent upon my expertise. Nonetheless, my recent achievement of becoming a "guest-professor" to keep me going at one university has improved my inner self. The greatest problems of the entire "journey" are the finanical and protection factor. This causes headache from time to time...

There's an interesting discussion to be had, though perhaps this isn't the place, about the respective levels of qualification needed for academic/administrative positions, and the very different terms and conditions between the two categories of staff. That it has resurfaced here and in several other discussions is, perhaps, indicative of the extent to which the discrepancies are becoming increasinlgy hard to hide, and harder still to accept. But back to the point. It seems to be widely assumed (particularly amongst influential senior administrators, I find) that hiring academics on short-term contracts is economically expedient because it allows for flexibility (whereas to extract the same flexibility from administrative appointments would somehow, and for reasons never explained, be disastrous for the well-being of the institution). In the mid-1980s, another grim period (watch this space for the 2010 re-run), a university I then worked at advertised and filled two one-year academic posts. My argument was that the two people concerned were good and the university should have kept them. It didn't. Now they are successful professors elsewhere. Short-term academic contracts are a stupid solution: if the people you take on are good enough, you should keep them, instead of giving them the training to go and be successful elsewhere. If the consequence of advertising a short-term position is that you get weaker candidates, you are short-changing your students and undermining the basic purpose of the university. The term for this one, I think, is no-brainer. The greater problem is ensuring permanency for post-docs. At the moment, both the research councils and the universities are dodging this with each party claiming it is the other's responsibility. It'll only be fixed when they get together and recognize it as a problem. But for that to happen, VCs have to accept that it is ...

There is a further point to be made here, though, and this one is not so much "under the radar" as an outright taboo. This concerns the manner in which the now-dominant pathway toward academic jobs effectively discriminates against those from modest or low-income backgrounds. The early years of the "career" invariably involve the aspirant spending potentially upwards of 50% of their time in the first 5-6 years post-PhD unemployed, but still expected to produce a number of journal articles in leading international publications and (in most cases) a book monograph of some sort, usually with a leading University press. In my experience, yhe dominant means by which aspirants navigate this maze, with its financial impoverishment, is to be able to fall back on their parents' wealth to support them whilst they produce said academic works, and so they are not forced to sell their labour in the non-academic job market in order to pay such things as rent and bills. Those of us (such as myself) without access to such "independent" sources of finance are simply uable to do this and (rrespective of our qualifications, or external examiners' praise for our theses) are being cast aside in their droves. It is analogous to the recent media concern about internships for recent UG graduates (particularly in the media and NGO/think-tank world), and their lack of affordability for the majority who are de facto excluded from such potential employment, regardless of their own abilities/talents. I predict that as we move toward a scenario in which the aspirants are te offspring of post-Baby Boom generations, who have access to much less wealth as they face their own pension impoverishment, having to pay for care for their own elderly parents, etc. that the type of class background that prevails within academia will become increasingly rarefied over time at the present rate.

It is about time the "career" structure of academia was outed, although looking at the comments so far it looks as if the only people interested are those already well aware that a career does not exist. It sounds as if the writer is not lab based, so at least has some chance of doing freelance work. Medical science is so specialised that if you aren't interested in the big cash cows such as cancer, it is almost impossible to find another fixed term contract in your speciality and you are too specialised, too old and too expensive to be considered for other posts even if your practical skills are relevant. All of the "official" voices (university management, funding bodies etc) although making many pledges at the early part of the decade are still convinced (as stated in some of their official reviews) that post-docdom is a career path leading to permanent status as lecturer. Funding bodies also refuse to fund post-docs after 1 contract unless they take a pay cut. This doesn't account for the actual lack of lectureships, non-existant teaching opportunities (PhD students get that), the difficulty in publishing if you are part of a small group with limited funding, and the impossibility of securing the research funding always cited as a requirement for obtaining a lecturership post. There is a TOTAL failure of recognition that being a lecturer is not the goal of many post-docs, they are interested in discovery and the joy of science, which is why so many of them stick with the fixed-term contracts for so long. There is no career progression for a post-doc unless you are incredibly system savvy and get yourself into a well-funded and internationally ranked lab and then you might be able to secure a research fellowship - the only opt out from becoming a lecturer and staying with research. It is still not possible for a fixed term postdoc to obtain funding in their own name for their own salary. A few funding opportunities exist for being a named applicant on a grant application however you can fund an assistant to help your research but cannot remain working there after your contract has ended! There is plenty of PhD places out there, especially for clinical staff who mainly have no interest in persuing a research career but whose professional bodies insist on a PhD for them to reach the next step of their career path, as PhD students mean RAE brownie points and are a cheap method of getting results. A post-doc because of the system is worth nothing to the RAE result. I am currently working as a technican because I can't find a post-doc, and I've trying being away from the bench and didn't like it. My current employer also has another technican with a PhD and we have just hired an MSc to operate the autoclaves! To Young Gun: yes as a fixed term employee you are entitled to the same rights and working conditions as permanent staff however you cannot consider yourself to be permanent. If you manage to secure 2 or more contracts over 4 years with the same employer they are bound by EU law to make you a permanent employee, however they can still argue that the withdrawal of external funding is a just clause not to make you permanent - obviously at this point you need to contact the union.

Suggestion to editors: I know of a small, but significant number of scholars who have come to a conclusion that being independent of the university system is the only way they can engage in their subject area meaningfully. Of course, it's not the same for everyone (labs are expensive and beyond the reach of the individual) But I do know that many researchers feel that more time is taken up with funding competitions - sorry, applications, admin and so on than is healthy. Some teacher/researchers feel that the research part is almost wholly closed out and that there is an unspoken assumption that most of it should be done in their own time - it's essentially a hobby, but one the institution expects to be done (without paying for it, obviously). My question is this: how many are there who have left or foregone the mainstream simply because they want to concentrate on scholarly and research activity, and secondly, how well does it work, in the end? Is there anything we could do to help these independents?

At the other end of the career line, of course, there are also countless academics who have taken early retirement in order to get on with their work. If the country was full of GPs who retired early in order to be allowed actually to look after their patients, there'd be an outcry.

Getting a job is just the beginning. I am wondering how many administrators are also subject to a stonking three to five year probationary period, every single time they change jobs, like most permanent academics these days? Perhaps if administrators are as good as they say they are, they should be welcoming this into their own working lives? Quality assurance in HR and all that?

As an independent academic, I would like to post a response to Don Quixote’s comment above. Perhaps the first thing which I should say was that my position was not wholly chosen, and that a number of years ago I did make some half-hearted applications for PhD funding in the field of history, which were rather summarily rejected. However, even then I was somewhat sceptical of finding someone else to pay for my academic work, as almost everyone I knew who applied (and who were mostly successful) proposed anodyne, unchallenging research projects, which I doubt will be read by anyone other than their supervisors and examiners. By not applying for funding I could at least satisfy myself that I could do worthwhile research, and not research-council mandated trivia. Many years later I am convinced that I made the right choice. In the arts and humanities there is very little preventing you from producing scholarly work, other than a lack of time. The peer-review process prevents any prejudice against your work when you are publishing, whilst the availability of research material has never been a problem. The situation you find yourself in also has a significant effect upon your academic activities. For a start, when you are working in your own time, without funding, you quickly realise just how much published research is pointless, produced simply because academics are expected to produce. (My preferred term for this is “landfill research”.) If a subject is not something that you would be happy to work on in your spare time, it’s probably not worth the effort which goes into research and publication. Yet, tens of thousand of pages in academic journals are filled with work which no-one enjoyed writing, no-one will enjoy reading, and will not add in any notable way to an understanding of the world. Meanwhile, I publish what I enjoy working on, receive feedback from appreciative readers and can be confident that if I write something it will be the subject of press reports in national newspapers. As an independent academic you will also realise how backwards universities are in terms of their recruitment and staff management policies. There are, at present, far more students completing PhDs than could possibly be absorbed by the university system, a buyer’s market which means that universities can fill posts with a minimal of effort, and with little regard as to the working situations and career paths of their potential employees. Thus, a PhD will be followed with several years of insecurity in post-doctoral posts, before a barely adequate permanent position may become available. Very few individuals who are both sensible and competent would be prepared to put themselves through this experience, a fact which I have seen reflected in those people who are, at the moment, entering into the first stages of careers in academia. Thus, universities are increasingly recruiting from those who are desperate, independently wealthy, or unable or unwilling to pursue any other career. The situation is made worse by the prevalence of patronage within the university sector, what is euphemistically referred to as “networking”. It is discomforting to see the glittering careers of the barely competent, who have been propelled through the university system by older established academics. Together, these factors make universities dysfunctional and unattractive workplaces, and I am surprised that anyone would want to enter into this system. Yet, I think it needs to be stressed that this criticism relates to how universities function at present, and not how universities would ideally function. I would like to be able to devote more of my time to academic research, but I would not want to work within this system as it currently exists at present, and I know full well that I’m not welcome within this system.

David Trotter - why do you feel the need to compare the qualifications and employment terms of administrative staff with those ofacademics? I utterly fail to comprehend what relevance one bears to the other. As a Chartered Accountant of 11 years' experience in commerce as well as general practice/audit, I feel perfectly qualified to fulfil my current role, a feeling no doubt shared by my employer who would not have hired me otherwise. My terms of employment are exceedingly similar to those I would obtain elsewhere in the public sector. Do you ever stop to compare your terms and conditions with those of accountants or HR advisors in, say, police forces or housing associations? That would be may yardstick anyway. You need to find your own.

IA - you should be careful about making sweeping generalisations and confusing your opinion for fact (eg the remarks concerning the "anodyne" research of others). Its true enough that universities can be rubbish and dysfunctional at times - I've whinged many a time here. However, that's not the whole story. Despite all the cr*p, I love being a university professor - I research and teach in the areas which interest me and am paid for it as well. League tables etc. force me into many activities I'd rather not do but this is a relatively small price to pay if it allows me to spend sufficient time on those areas which truly engage me. As ever in life one can't have everything one wants. Its a pity you never had the experience of a research position at a university; you would find much to criticise but much to commend in such a post.

Roger, I don't think that writing off a proportion of published research as a waste of time and money is unreasonable, particularly in the arts. Pressures within the university sector, such as with the RAE, have encouraged academics to be producers, and the amount of research published in the last twenty years has increased at a considerable rate. How much of this really is significant research?

UA raises an interesting point about yardsticks. As part of my job I'm personally responsible for budgets which are of comparable size to many departmental managers in the public sector. Should my wages be linked to theirs ? I also have to teach, albeit to a higher level than a high school teacher, and with significantly greater responsibility for curriculum development. Should I be compared to a department head in a high school (they earn quite a bit these days) ? I also have to do research to an internationally recognised standard. Should I be compared with a researcher in a government lab ? Should any of those comparisons be the "norm" it would lead at least to greater job security than many academics already have. However, given the array of tasks we're expected to do, its rather rubbish that we accept the conditions we do. Then again, as I put above, we largely do it because we love it. That's still no reason for employers to take the p*ss, however.

IA - be careful with the cliche. The situation is more complicated than that. There are silly aspects to the job, as I mentioned. However, just because these exist does not mean that a researcher can't have an intellectually satisfying job doing things which interest him/her.

I am always amazed at how academics put up with poor working conditions and, in the lower levels of the profession, not particularly impressive pay. Why would anyone put up with this?

As a recently (18 months ago) qualified doc in history, can I just endorse IA's comments. A friend of mine took part in the last RAE as a reader: most of the stuff he had to wade through conformed to the 'landfill research' model. It has taken me some time to get academe out of my system and I'm still occasionally worried about my independent scholar status, but having completed my thesis part-time means I'm no stranger to hardship. There's always the less than enervating sight of the colonisation of HE by managers and penny-counters to remind me of what I'm missing.

University Accountant (why the anonymity?) -- the reason for the comparison is that I work not with HR advisors in the civil service, or for that matter Tesco's, but with administrative staff in universities whose salaries have typically been aligned with academic salaries, and even more so post HERA.Same salaries, same employer, same place, same pensions, same other benefits. I'm sorry if you utterly fail to comprehend why such comparisons seem obvious to me and to many of my colleagues. Maybe that is precisely the point.

IA and Roger - I suggested that idea simply because I think I detect a small, but significant number who believe (for one reason or another) that their academic interests would best be served outside the establishment. No question it's a lonely path to tread, and one that demands courage and rather different resources than being on the inside. Being on the inside, I have to confirm that there is an insidious pressure towards 'fashionable research - so much so that many young researchers I know of only work on projects that are squarely aimed at the money. this isn't impact, or social relevance - it's just fashion. In fact, it's research being steered by someone who is not interested in actual research, but rather interested in 'product'. So, underneath, my question was "is the research engendered by parties interested in making an industry out of it anything like what researchers, left to their own devices, would call "research"?" - and, if not, what is it actually for?

IMO, the extent to which fashion and external pressures dictate a researcher's activities depends on the field, the university and the individual researcher. There are certainly many who don't want to think for themselves and following the fashion lets them "paint by numbers" in their research. However, there certainly is room in the system for ambitious and imaginative researchers to do what they feel is appropriate, and be recognised for it. In the case of experimental science, following a consensus is often unavoidable (and correct) given that the cost of many experiments requires extensive collaborations. WRT helping independent researchers, a little less snobbery is required on the part of many university academics and funding agencies. Achieving this, however, may prove to be a tall order.

David Trotter. Being relatively new in my post as a boring old accountant I would prefer not to develop a reputation for being an opinionated blogger, hence the anonymity. Do you believe that because we share the same pay grading structure that our worth to our employers can be determined by reference from my skill set to yours? How can such a thing be measured? You are no doubt dripping with academic qualifications whereas after my bachelor's degree I went the professional route. I can audit, perform tax computations, draft cash flow statements and financial models, all of which will be scrutinised hard, but I have no idea what you are capable of. My skill set is marketable at a price that can be quickly determined with reference to accountants at my level throughout the public and private economy. Take that price, match it up against the closest point on the pay grading structure, and there you have my pay grade. All entirely without reference to your pay and conditions, however much you might like to refer back to mine. And trust me - we don't get as great a deal as you think. I earned far more as an audit manager in the city. But then I'm happier here. Put a price on that.

University Accountant -- but comparing our value to our organizations is EXACTLY what the single pay-scale implemented by the HERA process attempts to do.

Whatever it may attempt to do all it appears to have achieved is to generate unnecessary and unwarranted resentment and a bunch of oranges comparing themselves to apples.

Round our way, the fashion dictates to the manager, who tries (very hard) to dictate to the researcher. Of course, it's not so simple - you can't force people to research what you want - but you can stop them researching anything else. I'd like to see the independent researcher topic explored, as I think many of us could help more (though it often would have to be covert activity, but then we're used to that)

I've worked in universities for the past 8 years or so, and although I'm not an academic - I'm in a service-providing department and teach, rather than research - I sympathise enormously with those on fixed-term contracts. I was initially hourly-paid, and then on a rolling one-year contract in my first university, and although I tried not to think about it, each year, 3 months before the contract was due to expire, I'd get a letter effectively giving me notice. I could never be 100% confident the contract would be renewed, until after 4 years of this EU law meant that I was supposedly the same as a permanent member of staff. And that was the point where my department was closed down and most of the staff given voluntary severance. Oh, the irony. I spent the two years after that on very short-term contracts - usually around 12 weeks - being hourly paid, which, with two small children and a mortgage, was unbelievably stressful. I've just got a permanent position in a new uni, and although it's only a 0.6 contract I'm so happy about it because last year I worked in the FE sector and truly, there is NO mercy there. I thought about doing a PhD - in fact, I would have loved to - but even in the mid-90s when I graduated I felt the prospect of getting a job afterwards was so slight that I would be wasting my time. I can't imagine doing it now.

Can you affect the market? Individually I'd suggest probably not, but unionisation can. I see short term contracts as offensive and insulting, and can only conclude that universities are very poor employers. The senior management don't appear to be completely stupid, so I can only assume that they know this, and worse still, they do not care. I've worked for Open University for over 30 years (I've had the £35 book token, which I managed to accept with good grace). I have an "umbrella contract" with contracts for bits of work, each sequentially numbered, and now well into the three hundreds. Most people don't survive that long. Each year I get letters of potential redundancy, which often lead to "reductions in duties". I still hang on by a thread after 30+ years. The only ways to change this is by adverse publicity, (but senior management do not care about the public image, despite the waffle about the "strength of the brand"), or union action. However we need to build a stronger union. Both part-time casual staff and full time staff need to be organised. How many contributors to this discussion belong to the union? If you don't I'd encourage you to join. Its one more person to lend a hand to help change.

John2 - I think you've done fantastically to hang on in there. I have to say, though, that I don't think the union can fix this - the best they can do is fight a rearguard action. The basic problem is that the business model doesn't work - a university can't do everything it tries to do on the money available - something has to give. at the moment, universities are in a state of necrosis, and there's no evidence that this situation will change. In a weird way, people-as-individuals are changing the market - those that can do something else are deserting (current economic woes notwithstanding - but the problems that beset universities are long, slow-burn problems next to the present economic climate) - so what's left are those that are trapped - (and clearly, you can sweat these all you like), the new hopefuls (likewise), those that are entrenched with the old-style benefits (gradually retiring with full pension benefits) and the 'drones' that used to be ubiquitous in general office life. Universities can survive on this mixture for a long time - a bit like a metabolism that has throttled back to run on minimal resources. The replacement candidate for the 'ecological niche' that was once occupied by monasteries, now universities, probably won't actually come out of the university system, though disaffected individuals from that system might help pass on the torch. Twas ever thus, 'tis evolution in action. My suggestion is that it is individuals that can help to keep that beacon of civilisation alight, and assist in the birth of the new entity, whatever that might be - the university of second life, or the worker's co-op or whatever. But I think that, whilst we might need to keep the senile old body on life support for now, we shouldn't kid ourselves that it can ever regain former glories

I can add a whole new twist to this story. As a fixed-term researcher for many years, at different universities, I'm now 51. That means, under the current Universities Superannuation Scheme regulations for people over 50, if I'm made redundant I can claim early retirement without actuarial reduction of pension (after April 6th 2010, one needs to be over 55, which I won't be). That would cost my university (in fact, my department) a whole heap of money payable to USS, as I've built up a significant pension entitlement. They're desperate to avoid making me redundant during that critical window of time. So when my full-time contract was due to come to an end, they put me on a part-time one (one day per week), and have been spinning that out ever since on various sources of income, while we attempted in vain to find more funding for me. Once the crucial date passes, I'm sure they'll simply make me redundant with minimal consequences to the university. It's probably true that when those USS regulations were formulated, no-one imagined for an instant that there would be fixed-term researchers who fell under those terms. But I feel it's important to highlight this issue, as there may be a few others affected in this way.

I always find that 'Director Graduate Recruitment' works well- it gets you laid at industry dos and either assumptions of deputy head of department at academic ones or overall head at inter-university meets - dependent a little on suit and whether or not I've dyed my grey hairs out that month... You need a title that allows people to make up their own ideas about what you do - you let them keep the good assumptions and challenge the bad ones.

Hero - like it! - but I think you can overdo these things - I've found "Plenipotentiary" and "Director of Performance" don't seem to have the desired effect, and "Director of Attitudes Management" almost seems to be rather negatively received