What is your current role/position? - Other - Text
NMR and Lab technician with high proportion of teaching activities
EngD Student (Doctoral level, equivalent to PhD but with embedded placement for 3 years)
Research officer supporting local Companies based in the University
Course Co-ordinator for EPSRC Sensor CDT
Postdoc (career stage) and research fellow (job title)

Please explain why?
Contracts and career progression plans may reduce the future options available to me. The sector is losing staff and may not retain people like me for longer. I'm committed to a STEM career - my passion, experience and qualifications are what keeps me there.
I have a 5-year research fellowship and am working very hard to convert that into an academic position, including taking on teaching roles in the department.
Recruitment in academia is too biased in favour of non-males and minorities. To fix one problem, injustices have been created.
There is not a path for more permanent research based jobs in academia, except if you plan to have your own group. Also, the infrastructure needed for pursuing experimental work in my field makes the entry cost too high. Also, having a family there are constraints on how far and where you can move easily.
I imagine burnout will have set in fully by then and it will no longer be sustainable in terms of my health and wellbeing to continue.
too much politics, groupthink and bureaucracy
Not confident of my ability to succeed in academia.
Jobs are scarce in my home country. I want the stability of a permanent position, and I don't want to keep moving between institutions and countries for postdoc positions. I am tired of working 60-80 hours a week and not being paid for it or getting credit for it. Ultimately, I'm tired of the exploitation of early-career academics, and I don't want to sacrifice my personal life to remain an academic.
I aspire to secure a post-doc position after finishing my PhD (only just started) as I hope to remain in academia and enjoy research
It is easier to find jobs outside academia than another funded project
Academia does not renumerate people competitvely. The work load is not justifyable compared to non-academic jobs for similar pay.
I am nine year from retirement. It's a but late to unpick the errors now. I do think if I was in the same top X% that I'm in as a XXXXist in accountancy or law or computing then I would much more highly paid.
I see myself between industry and academia.
I invested a lot of effort in this career and I think I want to stay in and grow my expertise
If there are better opportunities for me to leave academia, I will definitely leave. At the moment, academia is not a healthy, fair, supportive environment especially for early-career researchers. This is my point of view.
I have spent so long in getting my education and research that I dont really see any viable alternative option
Because its what I enjoy and I'm good at it
It is the career past I have chosen and I feel that I have invested too much time and effort to change career field now.
I will probably overcome the barriers I see at the moment. I need to think, and research gives me a way to do this :-)
I see myself in the same job. I don't know what else I would do, and I wouldn't want the upheaval or uncertainty that would come with changing profession.
I love my job. I hate the pressure and the demands it places on me but I love the research and the teaching.
I've been doing mathematics all my life both as work and as a hobby and I cannot envisage this ever changing.
Inertia (no strong incentives to leave), job security (I have it now, might not have it in industry).
I’m guessing at some stage my contract will not be renewed due to financial issues.
5 years is well ahead of my planning horizon. My best guess is still academia, because it allows for more flexibility.
I believe academia is best suited for myself
At the end of my PhD, I intend to work for the company that is currently sponsoring my research.
Because that is my goal and I am on track
I want to progress my career in academia.
I think there is a glass ceiling if you are non-British in HE in the UK. I might still be working in a STEM field in academia, but maybe not in the UK.
On the education side of STEM academia, may or may not include active research in the field. I enjoy the field, I enjoy helping others to discover, and I also enjoy the fact that I keep learning more when I teach outside my "comfort zone" .
Working in academia but also company role
Cannot depend on short contracts forever, and not personally ambitious enough for a fellowship.
I started my PhD at 28 years old in a small research group after working in the industry for a few years. I do not feel the connections I am getting now can help me progress far in academia.
I am not sure if academia is the right place for me. I've found it very competitive and very bias. I would ratherr apply my knowledge in a less stressful environment.
Stubbornness; dedication to independent research and learning
I do not have enough motivation/research ideas. Also, depression.
I will hopefully get another postdoctoral position to continue trying to become an academic, but I feel like I already do not have a sufficient "track record" to ever reach that end goal, with no feasible way to do so.
Im disillusioned with my current field; I'm finding it very hard to progress beyond what I'm currently working at due to being in the uncomfortable position where I don't have experience for industrial jobs but I also lack the training/skills necessary to be competitive for a PhD in my field. I'm not competitive enough and no one is willing to train me, I can't afford anymore institutional education and online or self-taught courses are seen as dubious at best. Im really reconsidering remaining in STEM as a researcher, I don't want to waste all my education/time/expenses but I am also very tired of the lacking work-life balance and lack of empathy for neuro-divergent/foreign individuals. I'm tired of the pressure, the rat-race for meager remuneration, the haphazard guidance attempts and my lack of a foreseeable future. I do love this field but this past year has me considering running off and becoming a shepherd.
I really like the concepts (research itself, the projects associated with it) but I really hate the system. I've barely started as an academic but I just don't see it working out without throughly burning myself out in the next few years.
It's the natural progression path for my long term ambitions.
I enjoy research and I would like to proceed with it.
I currently do not see another option for the skills and background that I have, although I would like to find another route out of academia, as I am not satisfied with the impact of the academic culture and expectations on my mental health.
It's just what I love to do. However, the boundaries between academia and non-academia are blurring.
Cant imagine doing anything else at the moment (although I do look around for diverse career possibilities that match with what I enjoy in STEM)
I'm satisfied with my current position, and seem to be progressing acceptably.
There are some genuine benefits to the role - for example, flexibility and freedom to pursue your own interests
Being in academia is just right for me. I am good at it, am successful, am recognised and appreciated. The pay could be a little better though compared to industry. In the end, we develop the future AND train the new generation of STEM practitioners, not unimportant I would think. Note, I worked in industry for 3 years and was very disappointed. Happy to have returned
I enjoy the flexibility and ability to control my own research focus and can't imagine what else I would do that would offer such flexibility
Stability due to stage of life and current position.
I have a personal agenda of topics that I will investigate. Being in academe is the best way to continue my path
I have a secure job that I like doing, so don't see a reason for changing
I've tried working outside academia twice, once I enjoyed it, working for a Government agency and would do that again, once for an NGO and hated every second of it, academia is immensely rewarding - primarily because one is perceived as neutral and you can choose who you work with
Most of academia in the UK is already a business, with limited appreciation for research.
I love it and I am sure I will do it in the future (well, at least in the next 5 years, Brexit and pandemic permitting)
Starting a different professional career would result in a strong income reduction which I cannot afford
Because this is what I am building now and I like it
I am good at my job, a job that not many people could do. I can't think of any other profession or position for which the same would apply.
I joined academia from industry so can easily move back in a non-academic role.
I am highly satisfied with my field and position.
those working in this area are analytical and logical hence, socially inept, lack emotional intelligence, lack empathy, are single minded and self focused, have little understanding of human nature, nepotism is rampant face needs to fit to get ahead
Even if I went into a commercial/industry setting, I would like to retain some partnership/association with academia. I like the opportunity to pursue my own interests as opposed to those that have a business objective/value.
I am still aiming to secure an open-ended academic role
Whilst I will always maintain my interest in the sciences, I don't think I have everything it takes to become a PI.
It is difficult to advance in academia due to limited jobs, and you can only be a postdoc for so long. Choosing between career and family has to be done as a woman but men never have to choose.
I enjoy the job I do and want to remain in it
I like academia because of intellectual freedom for hypothesis testing that is not dictated by the profit margins or the direct cost effectiveness like in industry
Because I actively decided to pursue an academic career, against many personal odds and after exploring other options. I am driven and while I have always had many self-doubts and my job situation is uncertain, in the end I always achieved what I set out to do
Interested in applying for a job in industry
I am hoping that I will be able to continue in my current role
I am likely to stay for the next 5 years due to my current role. Although the response to the pandemic has led me to realise all the biases in academia and difficulty in working in it, and I am often sorely tempted to leave as my faith has decreased significantly in realistic and positive change happening
I am a full professor, I do not envisage retiring nor being fired
I am a full professor, I am happy in my current position, I do not envisage resigning nor being fired.
Continued employment in academia most likely.
Lack of funding opportunities in my specific area of research means, in my opinion, there is a natural upper limit to the number of lecturer level positions. This number is currently fulfilled and there isn't enough retirements going on to free up places for junior lecturers to come in. In addition, my partner is also an academic and there are limited opportunities in my geographic area, but good opportunities for her.
I love research and STEM, but I feel like I am running out of steam and have less motivation to keep putting in extra hours to make sure I don't fall behind. I believe I have progressed as far as PhD through hard work and dedication, rather than knowledge/intelligence. I do not believe I am smart enough or have a 'USP' that will help me to obtain one of the few available academic positions that come up within my field (evolutionary and behavioural ecology) in academia. I am also tired of having to move to new places, make friends, then leave everything behind after a few years. I would like a more stable lifestyle.
This is where I would like to be in 5 years, however I am aware that due to funding pressures and the need for more a more stable job (ie not fixed term contracts), I may be forced to move into industrial research rather than academic.
Natural progression from my current role. Also a career I genuinely like
Less stress in industry and more predictable hours and workload
Love science but the pressures in academia whilst wanting to start a family make me think that I can't do both academia and family life
Probably because I feel trapped as I have invested too much of my time and effort into this career path.
I want a secure job with reasonable hours. I want to be able to settle down somewhere. I want to do tasks with a defined end.
General dislike of the academic working culture, and the belief I am not good enough to work in academia.
The chances for progression within my role are very limited and due to the requirements to achieve lecturer status or similar I cannot gain the experience (i.e. publications) required in my current role. Furthermore, the academic environment sometimes feels like being in a kindergarden and there is much talking behind each others backs and little face-to-face confrontation. This all makes the work environment (from time to time) uncomfortable and reduces productivity. This is mostly coming from a few select colleagues and it feels like it is shifting with more new appointments. It may not be a step out of academia forever, but I currently would like to experience the STEM industry for a while to widen my experiences.
I would like to transition to industry: project management
I'd prefer the financial security that industry provides, as well as the set working hours.
Hoping to get yet another post-doc position as probably too old and niche to find another job
I love the work and want to keep going with it! Even if I wanted/needed to leave, other professions would require a high degree of retraining, likely meaning a significant pay cut which is difficult when having a family to support, and I would miss the freedom and self-direction afforded me as a researcher.
I love my job and I don't want to leave. I've taken a paycut to stay in academia.
Love my job too much to do anything else
In an increasingly competitive market for academic positions, I think it's unlikely I have a strong enough CV to remain in academia though I love doing research.
Fixed term contracts lead to uncertainty which is fine when you are younger and have the option to up and move to follow a job, but I now have a mortgage and have put down roots. I would prefer more stable employment.
Career prospects too insecure, the particular field I am working on is overcrowded and dying.
I'm not sure if going from 2 yrs contract to 2 yrs contract and place to place is for me and it is not a given a more long term position will come up
That is what I want to do and I am working hard to get there. I can only hope that it pays off, but I am aware that this is a very competitive field and sometimes not very meritocratic.
Experiences within my research institution are limited. The hostile working culture & current cuts to academic positions in our institution are demotivating to a person at a early career stage.
I really enjoy research and there are some benefits to the structure of life in academia i.e. somewhat flexible working hours and deciding my own research direction which appeal to me more than the equivalent benefits I would receive working in industry.
Academic life is not compatible with my goals for personal life.
My skills are mostly technical and STEM related so it's likely I continue to use them. There is a chance I leave academia after my contract, but it's more likely I stay.
Jobs in academia come with a lot of pressure, publication/funding pressure, and progression is uncertain, I want to have a job that is less unstable
I am a clinician and would like to combine my clinical and research career
I feel like the academia environment does not suit my values and my vision for the life I want to live. It doesn't leave space to be creative and be yourself and thrive. It's too strict and old-fashioned, doesn't promote people with initiative ideas who can think out of the box. The procedures are often too slow and it takes years to start working on an idea (from applying for a grant until actually starting working on it). It doesn't let you the space to be flexible and most of the times the mentality of the people is negative.
I do not want to teach and do not think I would be good at it
I am not sure about it yet. Thinking about other options beyond academia... I just do not feel I am good enough for it.
It is the only job I like and which I am good at (at least amongst the one I have tried). I do not feel a push to change my research field or quit academia.
At this stage, I prefer to work in academia.
I am not keen on doing a specific research study day by day. I would love to change projects and meet non-academia people in the industry for a broader understanding of current society
Too much competition, too few prospects, too much pressure, too many extraneous responsibilites, too little stability.
I don't find enough enjoyment in the job
Stable employment and most people I work with are pleasant.
Stable job prospects but lacks promotion opportunities
I'm at the end of my career and will retire in 5 years
Some parts I enjoy too much to want to give up despite all the problems, switching at my age is difficult
Academic research has more freedom than industry STEM research where thee is more of a focus is on making a profit rather than scientific understanding. Working environment in academia is more productive I find especially in the STEM subjects
I don't see myself changing fields. I think I will stay where I am now.
I would continue working in my field. I like th teaching aspects, whether undergraduates or postgraduate researchers.
There is a lot of uncertainty out there and while I am on an open-end contract I'll stick with this.
I love my job and am very fortunate to have a teaching-focussed position (T&S) at an institution that (for the moment!) values education as an important part of what it stands for as a university. I am also in the very unusual position of being able to keep doing research science (rather than eg. pedagogy), albeit with less time than my research-focussed colleagues. I consider myself extremely fortunate to have this balance (I adore teaching and scientific education, but also love doing science), so I will do everything I can to stay. That said, my career does feel precarious, all the more so as I have three children and a partner not in science/academia and so am not as mobile as many of my colleagues who have been effectively selected for their ability to be mobile.
I have reached a stage where I feel quite established in the field and work is going well and is exciting
Even though I have my doubts about the way I am perceived I still enjoy this career, and wish to continue within it as I think it is worth it.
I enjoy academic research and gained many skills during my time at University.
The number of jobs available compared to the number of researchers at my level
I think I will stay in this role or may move to another institution but it will be within STEM.
I am very content with my current work and my colleagues. I do not feel discriminated against in any way.
I don't want to do a post-doc because of the short term contracts: I want to have kids and get a mortgage. I do not like the instability of academia and expectation to move location between post-docs/ fellowships.
In my opinion the majority of academics have an overwhelming love of their subject that extends to all aspects of their life. I do not. I alos do not have the drive to go through mulitple fixed term contracts in order to evetually find a permanent role.
I want to use my experience in real-life examples and I don't want to constantly feel the pressure to produce something of novelty
Not sure about my perspective in academia... still thinking about staying in academia or moving out with a great deal of anxiety
My ambition is to build my lab group and get promoted.
Actually, I can see myself working in all three areas. For me, it's more about the concrete field, topic/theme, team and people I get to work with and develop/create something for. Preferably, I would like to remain in academia but I'm not at all 'married' to that idea. And I generally don't mind if it's in STEM or not. My skill set, I think, is applicable beyond that, amongst other things thanks to my strong foundation course (computer science degree in Germany).
I am getting tired of applying for jobs and constantly getting rejected for them and being passed over in favour of more junior candidates. I am not getting any younger, and I would like to have a life to live.
I enjoy my work, and my current role is tenure track.
I came from Social science background. I study STEM to apply its techniques and methodology in social research. Thus, I will eventually go back to the social field rather than staying in academia.
My PhD will take 4 years, and I want to do a postdoc.
The lifestyle of academia and observed experience of people working academia and their issues with the job expectations
I wish to pursue a career in academia, because I love research and would like to do independent of industry
There is a specific competitiveness in academia that I am not interested in, and I don't like teaching.
I want a permanent position not a contracted position which is harder to find in academia.
Academia is an aggressive industry. It has to be focal point of your life to do well. You have to want to live it everyday, during your working and non working hours. The atmosphere can be very toxic, and I don't think Id be happy long term in such an environment
I love working in STEM, but the academic job market appears to be unsustainable. For example, most postdoc positions are short term (couple of years) with absolutely no guarantee that you will be able to get further funding for the project at the end of the contract. This increases the likelihood of having to move every couple of years to find a job, which is not something I currently wish to do
No postdocs currently available in my area and location
I think that I am unlikely to want to continue with research after completing my PhD.
I enjoy working in STEM and have put a large amount of time into it so, it would feel like a waste.
I hope to continue into post-doc roles and eventually a full-time academic role.
PDRA positions appear insecure and unpredictable so progression in academia is unlikely. There are more non-STEM jobs for my skillset so it is likely I will end up in one of those jobs.
I don't feel I have the motivation or necessary intuition to succeed in a full academic career.
I came from many years working in industry and while I am enjoying my PhD, I think I will return to industry afterwards
I enjoy the intellectual challenge of academia compared to industry
I enjoy STEM and see my self working in industry in the future
I guess the COVID pandemic has left me feeling much less like I am part of the group, as the amount of contact with other members has dropped off almost entirely as others have been busy with teaching responsibilities. I originally wanted to stay in academia when I started my PhD, but now it feels like a lonely place to be, and I crave the amount of contact my partner has with his office colleagues, even though he too is working from home. I want to work as part of a team, and have a stronger sense of the objectives of my work, rather than feeling like I spend most of my time figuring out what I'm meant to do next.
I like having a purpose to my work which I think I will find more in industry than academia
Additional workload in academia beyond reserarch work (e.g. teaching commitments) and potentially less rewarding career/salary progression
I love research but I have no desire to jump between postdocs once i've finished my phd - i'd rather have job security
I am at the start of my career, i do not believe i will live it any time soon
My aim is to have an independent research career
I enjoy and am good at STEM relative to other areas of study however the academic environment seems to be very demanding in terms of time and work and I want to have a career where there is a better work/life balance.
Want to actually achieve a meaningful result.
From what I have read and gleamed from discussions with other researchers postdoc positions are quite transient and poorly paid. There also appears to be a fairly low success rate in moving up into a permanent position which is a little off-putting. I would like to stay in academia but I'm unsure how easy that will be.
I love research and the environment I work in. I'm also passionate about tutoring/lecturing/teaching and ensuring HE is accessible to ALL people who want it
From my point of view, chances of success in a career in academia are very low.
I believe that Covid-19 will have had too much of an impact on my PhD so I will not be competitive enough to secure a further academic position
I feel that academia is difficult to stay in due to the high stress placed upon the academic to accomplish high quality research whilst also ensuring delivery of high quality teaching, managing undergraduates and postgraduates. There appears to be little support and just doesn't seem worth it.
I think it likely that I will not make it as an Academic. Moreover, the academic career path is so unstable and difficult. It makes it very hard for people, especially those with disabilities, familes, and/or other commitments.
My role lends itself well to both academia and industry and there is a lack of promotion possibilities in my chosen field
My doctoral research project has made me aware that I want to work in health and social care, and I have decided to retrain as a therapist. Part of this is motivated by not enjoying some aspects of academia (the stress, the 'always on' expectation, the ambition one needs to demonstrate to get ahead, the competition), but more so it's because I've identified a profession that feels right for me, which sits outside of STEM. I might choose to stay in academia in that field, but I am yet to experience the culture of it so cannot say for definite.
Although I am sometimes tempted to quit and do something else where I can switch off more easily in the evenings / at weekends, I don't mind my job and I think that is better than most people can say.
because i want to be a professional footballer
have a permanent job, mostly happy with my work
I very much like my work at the moment, and I see myself progressing withing the same position over the following 5 years
Academic positions are highly competitive and the start of the career is usually on short fixed-term contracts, which means one has to spend a lot of time on job applications and move places often to be successful. I would prefer a job with a higher degree of certainty.
Academia, for all its flaws, still is the best place for me to work in
I feel I am working towards being happy with my academic standing
I love what I do and passionate about my own research. Hence, I would like to continue in the same field and establish myself as a leader in my domain.
Jobs in academia seem to be too intense for the pay
I don't think I am suited to continuing in academia partly due to the difficulty in achieving a reasonable work-life balance.
Actually undecided as to whether to put option 2 or 3 here - I'm not hugely fussed either way to whether I'd like to stay in academia or not - I'd just like someone to pay me to do cool Stats problems, whether that's in academia or not.
If I continue working then I will be in a STEM field in academia, but retirement/partial retirement is appealing if I can afford it.
Academia has left me burnt out, feeling like, whatever I am, that whatever it is, isn't valued in academia.
I'm in the middle of my PhD and feel I need a break from a university environment afterwards. It seems like there is a culture of over work. I'm 24 and I already feel tired by it.
The sheer stress and anxiety of work depending on securing funding is daunting. Furthermore, with an excess of candidates to academic roles, it is even harder in current times to secure relevant positions. Lastly, I do not believe academic institutions are mindful of work-life balances, which is of great personal importance.
I think it unlikely that I would find another job outside academia but I am now close enough to the minimum age for retirement that holding out in a university is a reasonable option.
I shan't quite have retired and I have easily five years' more mathematics to do.
No job has the level of creative freedom within the sciences, constantly learning new things, testing your knowledge, pushing the boundaries of your research or your own understanding... I couldn't imagine anything better!
I am lucky enough to have an open ended contract and I hope I will still enjoy my job in 5 years time and still be here.
I am finishing an EngD and after that I plan to continue working in the company where I have been placed.
I would like to work in industry for some time, within an R&D setting. I would come back to academia once I have developed my skills in a professional role and can provide more real-world expertise to students and colleagues. Something I have encountered from undergrad through to PhD is that some academics have only worked within academia, and whilst they may profess to have experience outside of this, it is evident that they are somewhat naive to how things work outside of the insulation and luxury of a university.
I can obtain a more competitive salary outside STEM
I see myself working in a healthcare department or medical school in academia.
no reason to leave a tenured position as long as job of interest and promotion options remain available
I have previously worked in a STEM field not in academia and worked outside of STEM and found that my interests lie within STEM within academia
I think my predominant work will be as an nhs consultant with maybe some time in research as an extra due to cuts in funding for clinical academics
Academia is toxic. The entire industry is filled with people who either have no ability or no interest in effectively managing and training early career researchers.
I would like to stay in academia, I suspect there aren't a lot of jobs available at the moment though.
My current contract will end this year and the hopes of it getting extended look slim. I have a family and house where I am, so I don't plan on moving to a different university so I will likely work in the STEM field but not in academia if my contract isn't extended. I would love to continue what I'm doing.
I want to get a postdoc, but will I get it? It's hard regardless but with Covid I'm terrified.
I enjoy STEM subjects and my day-to-day work, however I am not a naturally organised person and I am easily overwhelmed with large workloads of small tasks. Academic careers are competitive therefore to stand out in the crowd it is expected that you take up extra responsibilities. My want of an academic career is not as strong as some of my peers I have spoken to, therefore, I do not think I am willing to compete by doing additional work which aligns with my weaknesses and causes work stress.
I want to contribute to society in a more positive and important manner e.g. charity work.
I think it is exceptionally challenging to remain in academia, as the job market is so competitive. I'm not sure if I have enough published work from my PhD to be able to get a Post-Doc position
I've been quite jammy to land jobs and funding so far, so I hope my luck continues.
I love academia and would love to stay, but I want to start a family in ~5 years and I don't want to be traipsing around the world with no job security praying for a permanent position somewhere. Academia is not a stable place to raise a family unless you have one really young or older than I'd like
I would like to continue to work in a STEM field within academia but I am constrained by geographical location and family commitments. Therefore I will only be able to stay if I can secure a permanent position at on of the 3 Universities in my local area. I feel this may force me to look for employment elsewhere.
I like STEM, think it is very important and feel I have something to offer to other people as well as satisfying myself.
Find research too stressful. I prefer having more defined tasks and working closely with people rather than the uncertainty of research.
I am director of physics, leading on the growth of a newish physics unit. While I'm disappointed and often angry at my promotion prospects or lack thereof (as I have more of a focus on teaching in my current role); I enjoy my job and want to leave a legacy of strengthening STEM opportunities within the north east.
My PhD programme is more focused on moving into industry after completing the PhD and I am likely to follow this route as I would like to work in industry.
I don't think there are other jobs I could do.
It seems like academia is a very competitive and thus slightly unhealthy environment. Only few people seem to make it all the way to the top (Professor) and have to sacrifice a lot (social, private life) to get there. Also, during my studies at one university, my supervisor got fired and at another university, all staff of our department was fired because the university moved the department to a different campus even though the department was growing rapidly at the present campus. Therefore, as soon as I enter a stage where my life (professional, personal, social) will get unbalanced to suceed further, I see myself moving into industry R&D due to better work/life balance, pay, promotion possibilities and job security.
Academia seems to be a highly competitive and thus slighlty unhealthy environment. Only few seem to make it all the way to the top (Professor) and have to sacrifice a lot on the way (social/personal life). During my studies, my supervisor at one university got fired and at another university, all staff got fired due to the university moving the department to a different campus even though it was growing at the original campus. Therefore, I see myself moving to industry R&D for better work/life balance, higher pay, more job security and better promotion possibilites.
I have acquired skills and expertise which allows me to work both in industry and academia. However, I find that the range of problems I can work on in academia is much more interesting for me. In addition to that, learning new skills etc. is sometimes limited in industry.
Academia gives me the expertise and time that I need to become a good R&D Engineer, which has always been my main career goal.
I enjoy working in academia so will try to continue to do so.
I'm unsure about this because there are absolutely parts of academia that I don't like, i.e. lack of long term job security when working on shorter contracts, and at this stage of my career I am concerned about securing long-term/permanent employment. That being said, what draws me to academia is the ability to essentially design and run my own research and the flexibility of changing research directions, and this is what compels me to remain an academic.
I have always worked for working in academia. Personally, I do not give up easily; however, in academia it is a bit different to be in the position that I really wanted to be.
I love doing research, it is my passion and goal in life. I also believe that academia provides the best chances to follow such path. I also believe in freedom of science and sharing of knowledge is really important to me, both this aspect are often incompatible with research in an industrial environment.
I am not sure where I will be in 5 years.
I love doing research. I am doing my PhD and my aim is to become an academic while doing research. In five years I see myself as an academic at University.
Unlikely to be able to get a postdoc role
There is a lack of job security and progression in academia due to a lack of long term or open ended contracts. I do enjoy academia but I don't want the stress of staying and having to prove my worth every two years on funding forms. I'd like to stay in stem but there aren't any jobs in my field in the area I live and want to stay.
I am passionate about teaching at a higher education level.
I really enjoy the aspects of the job but would want a permanent position after my PhD
I feel comfortable in academia. having little experience of STEM work in industry I can't see myself leaving academia at this early stage of my career
Once I have finished my PhD I want to go back into industry. It should be noted that I intend to return to academia later in my working life
difficult to transfer skills out of academia
I am 55, a bit too old to change careers, and I love my job, or used to love it. I am just getting so tired of not being seen. I am really good at what I do.
I don't feel like I have any other choice as I'm so specialised at this point what else could I do? I do love the key parts of my role, but feel like I'm drowning in workload and admin tasks.
I will retire next year but still continue with STEM research and book writing
I love my job, but I am dissatisfied with the increasingly top down corporate management structure of the university. I see corrupt management and promotion practises. I am committed to trying to improve this from the inside, and generally like and respect my colleagues, so will probably stay. I can't rule out moving to another STEM-related career in the long term if my disillusionment continues.
I have dedicated my career to teaching and learning in STEM. I have taught in secondary and in further education, and higher education / academia is by far the best option.
Many of my responses are shaped by the fact that for 1 1/2 years now, I have worked at the OU as a Staff Tutor, which is an academic role that is poorly understood outside the OU. Prior to that, I had a more traditional senior lecturer position at a research intensive institution, which came with more status and respect within the scientific community. I got a bit disillusioned with aspects of the world of academic science and wanted a change. I am happy where I am now, but cannot yet say where I want to be in 5 years - at the moment I struggle to exclude any of the options above. I know that some of the things I became disillusioned with will apply outside academia too - so....
I don't know - short term contracts make it difficult to plan ahead.
'Hope' rather than 'see', perhaps. But computer science departments don't employ people like me...
Being an early career researcher requires you and your family to make large sacrifices - you have to move around a lot, job security is very low, pay is not great and additional benefits are pretty much non-existent. The workload is high and doesn't always feel worth it. Industry has it's problems but at least you don't necessarily need to move half way across the country (or continent) to progress.
I am successful at what I do. My research area is perpetually important and there will always be students to train.
A long term health condition will have forced my retirement
Limited positions open, others have more experience meaning I cannot get experience
Would like to be more financially stable in a career
My field of study has a lot of growth potential in the near future, and I would like to participate in further projects.
I have previously worked outside of STEM and outside of academia, and I missed them both.
I have serious doubts about my own abilities
State Pension Age, combined with disillusion with an academic environment where management struggle with communication (send, receive and understand!)!
I hope not to lose my job in that time, although the current situation in Leicester is worrying.
This is a natural continuation of my present, permanent role.
The research is fun and I can imagine getting better at the teaching bit
The more experience in mathematics you obtain, the more fun it becomes.
There are too few opportunities in academia
I both love teaching and doing research, but I am aware that getting positions in academia is highly competitive. In 5 years I plan to become a Lecturer (at least). If I won't be able to do that, I might look for a different job not in academia.
As a woman I am tired of being in a male dominated environment and in my area more women can be found in the private sector. Also, attempts to changes of the status quo to become a more inclusive department are routinely shot down by senior colleagues (all while men) and it gets really tiring and exhausting and disengaging. I don't fit in, as a mother of 2 with a full life outside of work.
I have an open-ended contract in a Department I like very much and see myself working in STEM in academia because I want to continue to work in this field at this institution. I have a large network of colleagues bonded through not just our discipline, but also across the university, with mutual friendship and respect. I also love teaching my students and feel I make a difference in their lives.
I value stability and this job appears stable.
I would want to go after being application scientist rather than research one.
I have a fixed term contract pending probation to get a open ended contract confirmation
Work-life balance in academia is not ideal. The pay is not commiserate to academic tasks of research work, teaching, and funding search/applications. I remain interested in the STEM field, thus ideally working in industry or other companies that can allow me to focus on this aspect and not worry about tasks outside of my interest.
I dislike the lack of commercial application in academia
I worked in industry for many years before returning to academic on a teaching-only contract. I really enjoy teaching.
Chances of getting a permanent lectureship are remote. Also I live in Northern Ireland and I'm not really willing to travel to mainland UK, which restricts my possibilities.
I want become a lecturer and teach at university level
I am gaining a PhD to advance my industrial career / gain new skills. I was in industry prior to my PhD, and I intend to return to industry after. Academia would be more of a backup option for me.
I have begun my PhD fuelled by a passion both to learn and to teach. Working in academia appeals to me as well suited outlet for that passion.
I am only interested in doing research and academia provides the best and widest range of research
I've always had a passion for working in physics and astrophysics, and I discover new aspects of this all the time. I don't see myself being happy outside of a research capacity, and I prefer working to further knowledge, as far from a profit motive as is possible - although I still undoubtedly have much to learn on the front of competition and financing research.
There isn't many postdoc opportunities in my field in NI and I have family responsibilites which means I cannot travel for opportunities
I've been a bit disillusioned by academia, and probably more specifically, academia in QUB and SMAE. Whilst some people can succeed in it, it is quite cutthroat. I also find that the conflicting roles of teaching and research causes an extremely high workload. In general, I don't think a career in academia is good for the average academics mental health.
My decision to do a PhD was intended to a means to an end, learning skills which I could use in specialised job. However things can change.
Had a bad experience during my PhD, it's caused a lot of stress and anxiety and depression
other interests outside the STEM field that may take a greater hold on my plans, not impossible that I will be in STEM or Academia but will be dependant on the opportunities at the time
Academia is simply too of an exhaustive environment. My prospects for finding work in-field are also small.
I am now an MPhil student in Queen's University Belfast. I got a 3 years PhD position in Max Plank Germany. I like the field I am working and will work on.
I'm a senior lecturer on track to prof, and despite enormous pressures I like many aspects of my work
It is the job I have wanted for a while, as it gives a sense of satisfaction and allows me to use my skills. Though it has a very stressful workload. Also, it is hard to leave academia and get a suitably well-paying/rewarding job.
Will retire within 5 years and hopefully continue as Emeritus.
I like research and I like the flexibility that academia offers.
I'm really enjoying the work I'm involved in but a lot of the academic side of things just doesn't appeal to me. Also I have a family to think of and a steady 9 to 5 job will make it easier for me to get a mortgage and look after them I feel.
The pluses of an academic career outweigh the disadvantages right now, so I'm staying.
I like what I do, in teaching and research.
I love my work - teaching and exploring engineering through research work, solving problems for the benefit of others.
I love science and I love interacting with students. However, I question my ability to reach the highest aceadmic levels.
Still things to contribute and enjoy the role. Settled in my career now at a senior level.
Once you spend a period of time as an academic, it becomes near impossible to get a job outside academia
There are major issues in academia as a whole and I don't think anything will change anytime soon. I no longer think the effort required to attempt to become an academic is worth it!
I would like to use the skill I have developed in my Master's and PhD to work in STEM, but no necessarily in an academic environment
I enojot this field of work, I am planning on building my career here and taking steps to ensure that I can remian in an academic career
I feel like a lack of grant funding in the area I specialise will make things difficult for me to progress.
I aspire to become a lecturer/prof. I am keen on being the representation I lacked seeing studying/working in academic
I am enjoying my work and I feel that I am good enough at it to continue
The environment in my field of academia (specifically Organic Chemistry) has felt toxic and publications and how far you progess seem very much to be like an Old Mens' Club. The pressure to not take your holiday entitlement and to work excessive hours every week is not conductive to a good work/life balance. I'm doing a PhD in my field because I enjoy the subject and want to learn more, not because I want to be the best in my field - and many academics just cant seem to get their heads around this.
THis is an ideal secenario, I, however, feel like I would like to still be involved in the STEM field, but appreciate that this may require a transition to a non-academic setting despite my best intentions.
I would like to move to a more outreach based career, with more interaction with other people. I feel that academia can be quite solitary
I would prefer industry over academia in the long term as I think I am better suited to that environment personally
I definitely see myself working in STEM but I am still unsure as to whether I can see myself staying in academia. For me there isn't enough being done by institutions to make academia inviting or a sustainable work environment for all. The people in leadership positions need to be vocal and active in their demands for cultural change and not rely on those in less secure positions or most likely to face discrimination to fight for change. However I am also uncertain that the field of STEM outside of academia is any better in this aspect.
I like chemistry, but I think in the long term I would be better suited to industry after my PhD
I enjoy my job doing research and teaching, and while it is very stressful and challenging, I have determination to continue.
Because I have no where else to go for this salary in this part of the country
Outside academia is just not an option for me, at least now.
My career floats between academia and industry. I am attracted by specific projects. My skills are recognised and sought after. I don't feel compelled to apply for lectureships etc. as I prefer the technical side. Occasionally I worry that my career path does not follow a typical and well charted pathway but this is my choosing. I think that it is important to be happy with the project and people you work with today because tomorrow cannot be controlled anyway.
It would be difficult to transition into another field
I would like to go into a research support role, though happy if that still relates to research support; alternatively open to look at job opportunities outside academia and/or STEM
Although I am not satisfied with the recruitment, career progression paths because of biases, I am confident to stay in academia and play a key role to change it.
I have a lot of professional industrial expertise. I would like student to benefit from my industrial expertise. I like teaching students. The pay is ok (but much less than industry). I think students benefit from my industrial view (i.e. the view I developed to become a senior manager in industry) of what industry is actually like, and why best practice exists (i.e. the mistakes that are made in industry).
I still think I have a chance. I fear though that my tendency to invest in few but good papers is risking my chances of getting there.
That's what I want to do because that is what I enjoy to do
I don’t know where I will be, or what I would prefer. I would probably be in steam in academia as my skill set is difficult to sell outside this industry.
Very slow career progression, filled with political and administrative hurdles.
Academia is too competitive and requires heavy time investment (i.e. outside of work) to turn into a career
I have gained deep knowledge in my research area and I would like to establish myself as an expert in my research areas, which allow me to contribute to addressing the most-pressing issues.
Poor progression prospects, low pay and lack of stability. The people I see succeed have unhealthy work ethic working long hours and weekends as standard and while I enjoy and am passionate about my work, the constant worry of securing funding while not having time for family is a big concern
very competitive, will have to be very flexible and open to relocating if I am to be successful
I don't think I've had enough academic output and I don't think I enjoy it enough.
I don't think I have the academic credentials to succeed
I have a lovely job that provides a high level of challenge and reward
I think staying in academia is the most likely. I feel like the expectations and pressures coming with the position have gradually increased though, so it's hard to say.
I can't see myself having the momentum to change jobs, but I wouldn't rule out a change of career.
I have only started my academic career in the last few years. I love what I so, I love teaching undergraduate and postgraduate students and I feel that I am having an influence on how we interact with our students and run our courses. I wish I had more time for research and I have some fantastic ideas that I would love to pursue.
Plan to continue in current role (or similar).
Academic freedom is too valuable to give up even if I can get twice the salary
Despite the long hours, poor work life balance and increasing amount of admin I do love the freedom of researching what I am interested in. I do not think any other STEM job gives that independence and freedom.
I have circled back round to academia after 15 years outside of it. The choice to return required a lengthy consideration process.
This is my current area and I am not planning to change areas.
Lack of opportunities to improve or change my current situation.
I'm done. I've been trying to leave STEM for the past 8 months. I just can't any more. I started a new job in January, I've have had difficulty accessing safety training and equipment, a co-worker has twice in this time commented about how this is no job for women with children and why do women take maternity leave in their first year? Coupled with this, each time I move to a new job, I've had to move country. In my current role, my expenses exceed my income. My husband is also a STEM researcher and in the 5 years we've been married, this is the first time we've had both of us employed. We're just hemorraging money to moving house, high rents in short term contracts because the lease contracts and employment contracts so rarely match up. And we've had to continually put off having a family because maternity leave doesn't start until you've been employed for 12 months, which is hard on many short term contracts, and each time we move we have to re-register with a doctor and go through any waiting times to access health care.
My contracts soon ends, and not so sure to carry on my career in academia (given my experience and values).
Academia conducts important researches with are basis for improvement of current world. Nearly the same can be said about industry, but the academia focuses only on research and thus is concentrated on delivering best results which are reflecting real world.
Slow rate of progression in academia. Duration of fixed term contracts necessary to reach tenure.
Sadly postdoc short-term contracts don't offer enough stability and grants and fellowships are extremely competitive. (This is exacerbated by being female and needing job security for wanting to plan for a family in the not too distant future)
The true answer would be "I don't know". I chose this option because, despite the many problems that academia has, I believe I'll keep on trying to find a position in a University. I would like to be able to do independent research and I think academia provides a good environment for that.
This is what I do, and not currently planning to change the field.
I wouldn't want to leave science and I think I would like to stay in academia but I think it's likely the lack of stability and the constantly moving from place to place would lead me to look for something more permanent.
The academic career path is designed such that only a small percentage will make it to the top/stable positions. To reach those positions you often have to sacrifice many other parts of your lifestyle. If you do not want to make those sacrafices you are left hopping between contracts with no sense of job security, thus the prospect of a permanent position outside of academia is far more attractive to someone who is not confident that they are in the top percentile of people who can secure a permanent job on the academic career track.
I think the academic jobs market leads to a culture of always trying to excel even more than the next person in a highly talented pool of people. In my opinion this in turn leads to glorification of long hours and unhealthy working practices which isn't a culture I want to work in long term.
Because people are very toxic, in a way that would categorically not be accepted in industry
I like research and would like to do a postdoc in another country
I'll need to work in science so that, when I start a business, I have a useful network in place.
I am only 6 months into my PhD so the vast majority of my experience may be down to lockdowns, but so far the stress and number of hours I put in do not feel worth it. Academia is beyond a full-time job: it is very hard to switch off from my work. Being a naturally anxious person anyway this is taking its toll on my mental health and personal life. The relatively low pay (for the amount of work, and compared to industry), and inability to move forward in other areas of life (e.g. being paid as a stipend rather than a salary make mortgages and finance inaccessible) are also factors. That being said, I still have a passion for STEM subjects and would still like to be able to use my knowledge, so working in STEM feels the best fit for me.
After finished my PhD, I have to return to my country to continue my job as a lecturer. This is part of government employee and I cannot reisgn from this job
I worked in industry previously and have left my job to do a PhD to get specific experience. My plan is to go back into industry after I finish my PhD.
Academia is a thankless, underpaid grind with no upward mobility for the vast majority of people in its field. Whilst tenure exists, the positions are too scarce and fiercely contested to adequately inspire me. Given that this is essentially the only light at the end of the doctoral tunnel, it isn't worth pursuing on the off chance of lucking out.
I want a stable job and don't want the insecurity of being a post-doc with many temporary contracts. Other sectors will allow me to use the skills I've obtained in my PhD and previous studies, have clearer career progression and better financial incentives.
I enjoy the subject but it seems to want it be your passion and i think there are more important things i want to have the time to do those. Also having long term job is appealling
Would like to progress in academia, however seems unlikely as it currently stands.
Unless you're a prodigy there's not much chance of a postdoc, and even less of a full time position. And then even if you do get one of these things, having to work extremely long hours for relatively low pay and move country at least every 2 years or so for 7 or 8 years, and then potentially not getting a permanent position and having to start a career when I'm almost 40 sounds awful. I can see no benefit in working as an academic when, despite being I like to think quite good at what I do, I'm realistically not going to get a permanent position and going to have to leave eventually anyway. Better to get a proper job, which pays almost double what a postdoc does and has better hours and is more stable and has better potential for career progression
I don't feel like I'm competent enough to continue much further in academia and I do not believe the environment suits me entirely
Having spent over 50 years working in mathematics, I hope to survive for at least another 5 years in order to complete projects currently under way.
If I can I would prefer to take my future into my own hands and start my own business.
I am fairly satisfied with my job and am on an open-ended contract, so don't expect to change jobs in the next 5 years.
Unlikely to change career at this stage.
Secure contract at current institution, career progression so far
That's what I've fought for and I was hired by the university.
I genuinely don't know what's happening in even six months time. But the non-academia jobs which seem interesting to me are mostly non-STEM too, so I suspect I'll either be still in academia or doing something entirely different.
I don't have the drive to churn out lots of publications. I enjoy working at a slower pace and would probably prefer to spend more time engaging with students and the public than doing research. Although I do enjoy my research. I just wish the only way to get ahead in research was not through constant publishing.
Unless I get a job soon that offers me more security for myself and my family I will have to find a new career. Based on geographical constraints this will likely not be in a STEM field.
I anticipate continuing to work as a postdoc for many years. I am not interested in teaching, so my current position is a good fit in that I can focus on research and service. I do enjoy the flexibility of my current job, where I live, and my colleagues.
Academia is becoming increasingly stressful, it's simply not worth it.
I like my job and I have a Professor position without end date
This is a tough question. Academia is in a huge state of flux at the moment and I cannot predict what will appeal to me in 5 years. I can imagine leaving both academia AND STEM.
I'm intending to stay in the same job at the same University.
I expect to be in the same position I am now. It is too risky to move as the only income-earner in the household.
I like what I do and want to pursue a permanent academic position. I think I have got what it takes to find it, although I'm conscious of the limited opportunities and existing barriers.
In my current position, I have been completely excluded from the research group following an announcement of pregnancy and taking my subsequent mat leave. I have become very disillusioned with academia. Even before pregnancy I was treated like a lackey not a fellow academic who actually possessed key knowledge and experience required for the job. I never actually got to use any of this knowledge and experience but instead was given menial tasks.
I want to leave academia as soon as I finish my PhD, I don't really feel well suited to the academic process and I would much prefer to work on shorter, more dynamic projects within a larger team.
I would like to progress onto a post-doc when I finish my PhD
I believe I am good at what I do once given the chance and don't see myself enjoying anything else as a daytime job though would like to be involved in something more. By this I mean a more diverse team with different aims and objectives other than research. I also do not see myself as a teacher but quite like the idea of working in industry, or at least being a consultant.
I am not sure I want to work in academia, where the stress, workloads, and competitiveness appear to be very high. And in my field (conservation science), there is a very large non-academia sector (NGOs, charities etc.) which offers an alternative path which it can be argued is more impactful than academia anyway
This is what I hope for but I will leave academia if I can not make it work with my personal life (I won't move to any country for a job and have a long distance relationship, I won't take lots of short term contracts). This seems negative but it is the picture I feel I have picked up as a PhD student. I am hopeful for the time being!
I enjoy it and plan to work hard to progress in academia in my field.
I love researching and contributing to protecting our natural environment through evidence based approaches.
I enjoy academia. Although i hope to still be working in academia, it's very competitive so I might not be able to achieve this goal.
I enjoy the research that I am currently doing and wish to take it further after I have graduated.
I don't see an alternative. I have some previous consultancy experience but it is no longer up to date or in an area that provides significant opportunities
I am a senior academic, at a career stage where I think a radical change in employment is unlikely.
I am keen to to get tenure and so to experience whether things will change or feel different when in permanent position. If its makes little difference, I am likely to leave academia for my own well being - not for lack of motivation or interest or necessarily skill.
I'll make it happen no matter how hard is going to be.
Assuming I can get a permantent contract I am happy to work in Academia (although probably more on the teaching side as you don't have to continously justify your existance with grant applications).
I am not sure if I will be in academia in 5 years, it depends on if I continue to find contracts in academia. I would like, and aim, to stay in academia but the competition is so high that I am not sure I will make it. I do not want to go back to commercial science (working as a corporate environmental scientist and engineer), but will if I have to. I am hoping to get a second fellowship of find a track tenure position that I can sucessfully apply for.
I'm currently a teaching associate and there is a definite pathway for progression in the next five years. I'm working on blended/online learning which seems to be a growth area in the coming years.
I like working in academia so far. Still haven’t decided for certain but it’s a possibility to stay in academia
I do not think that there are research positions in academia in my field
Not sure if there will be opportunities for me in academia
I enjoy working in academia although the income is not very high.
Don't think there will be research positions or permanent roles available at the university.
I like working in academia and I like working in STEM fields. I think this is what I am good at.
I always wanted to carry out research but in a hospital environment rather than the academia.
I have a desire to ensure that all those working in STEM develop the skills needed to work in interdisciplinary teams and build competencies through their training in areas such a global citizenship. It's a long road ahead but an exciting one
I've tried other jobs and I like this best. Academia has some major flaws, but I now have job security, and my institution is relatively progressive and allows me to work flexibly.
I love my job, it's rewarding and I'm good at it.
I am getting tired of the academic life and my colleagues and feel that I would be more fulfilled in a non-academic role.
Exploring this area in my subject I am excited to learn and gain deep understanding but to take that and apply it to a business area/product. I will want to maintain research as a core aspect of my work.
I've just started my PhD programme and in 5 years will have just finished it. I believe the next natural step is to do a postdoc, which will be in academia.
I am currently applying for postdocs with the view of continuing in academia. Haven't given the long term too much thought but the current idea is to stay in academia for as long as I'm enjoying it.
I enjoy academia and I am committed to pursuing it as a career
Academia comes with a lot of hoop jumping. I'm enjoying my PhD but when I graduate would rather have a real effect on the world by applying the skills I have learnt in industry.
I would LOVE to have put 'working within a STEM field in academia', but the statistical improbability of that makes me think I'd be kidding myself to assume that.
Too many hours, not enough time to do research, but with research used as the main metric.
I enjoy my work, and would not be able to do what I do (research work for its own sake in Mathematics) outside of academia.
I recently succeeded in getting appointed as a lecturer, and I think this is a very important milestone in any academic career. I am therefore quite enthusiastic about remaining in academia. However, there was a lot of luck involved in this, and I am sure many Postdocs don't feel as I do now.
I imagine continuing to get grants to continue working at a university because of the nature of my work which is clinically translational.
Have a passion for it and experience in it
I'm too old to change now. No one will hire someone my age, so I simply cannot afford to lose my current position.
Poor career progression, hit the glass ceiling and constant funding applications
Research funding has now become a lottery and cannot be depended upon, resulting in loss of momentum, loss of staff and an increasing inability to being able to secure future funding.
I imagine I will fail to progress, but I am still probably at a stage where I can do one more postdoc before falling out the system.
Not feeling valued in academia. There is no chance of progression. The head of school advised I should leave if I want to progress!
It won't be possible for me to keep working in academia
I enjoy my career and love doing research
Work-life balance not sustainable; grant funding too much of a random lottery
I need to make a comment here... I don't consider myself an academic and I don't believe my University does either
I am not interested in teaching but I am hoping for a job in the energy sector. while previously I wanted to be in industrial research now I think that there are many interesting technical jobs
My goal is to be a lecturer, only thing holding me back is applying for grants, as not many are open to post docs on fixed term contracts
I hope to stay in academia and have a large (£1M +) fellowship but there is doubt whether there will be academic positions in future with so many places in recruitment freeze and I am not prepared to move anywhere to stay in academia.
I enjoy the challenge of teaching a vast variety of students with different abilities. I can pass my experience on in a positive manner.
After my current contract ends, I intend to work for the industry, preferable in a position where I can still be in touch with the academics, but definitely with my primary activities being developed in the industry.
Would like to gain some industrial experience
Too specific a skill-set to be transferable out of academia or to non STEM. Unable to financially take a pay-cut to move fields into a junior position
I like academia because of the freedom it affords me to learn new things, work on a wide variety of projects, have flexible working hours, and work in a less pressured and non-corporate environment.
Because there we are many people fighting for very few positions in academia.
Always worked in STEM but never had such freedom of thought and diverse professional culture until I became an academic, so I will stay as long as possible.
I like working in research and enjoy teaching students so I would like to stay in academia
Psychology (especially applied) is not valued and rewarded.
I have just finished my 1st year in my academic post and it is unlikely I will have achieved enough to warrant leaving.
I love working in Academia and the University provides the adequate support for me to succeed
No motivation to move. It's a secure job that is relatively well paid so difficult to justify moving to a new career.
currently spinning out a stem company from the university and plan to pursue this avenue
I feel there are more jobs and more chance of job progression outside of academia.
Working in academia has changed. As students are now "customers" it is has changed the approach of lecturing there is an enormous amount of workload associated with academia if you are passionate about doing your job correctly and to the best of your ability (80+ hours per week). This coupled with the fact that the pay scale has not increased in a number of years and it is common to feel underpaid and certainly under appreciated with your role as an academic. I am passionate about my role and love lecturing within the STEM subjects but it is becoming unmanageable and I feel I could be left with little choice but to leave against my preference to stay in the field.
Not planning to do a post-doc, however I want to get a job that involves computer programming, and preferably do devolvement of algorithms.
I am currently in the third year of a PhD student, and there is still one and a half years before graduation. I plan to become a postdoc after graduation, so I will continue to stay in this field.
On my pathway, there's no room for promotion so I've been at a stagnant position for about 10 years.
I am currently a PhD student using the PhD as a method to change field. I have worked as a researcher in another University. I am unlikely to go into academia unless the role was convenient for me and I honestly wouldn't see it as a career move. The contracts are short term, the work required to advance means unpaid overtime, student interaction is pressurised due to the universities making welfare a responsibility of supervisors. Having seen first hand the poor standard of some RA who are rehired despite not actually turning up for work I would not want to be associated with them.
I already have several years of experience in non-academia and doing my PhD is just a bonus to my commercial full-time work. I expect to continue working in non-academia but I hope to achieve more with a PhD.
Salaries of PhD holders in STEM in the UK is very low. Cleaners literally have higher salaries than STEM PhD holders!
I think it is the most probable outcome but I am also mentally prepared to do something else
I’ve just started my first postdoc so expect to be able to find another position in 5 years. The transition to permanent staff member is the big step - 10 years would be a different answer to this question
The low pay and lack of opportunities in academia
I am planning to be an academic in the future.
I have always wanted to work in academia, and I love the sense of community and collective learning that it provides.
I believe that it is possible to contribute to science, and therefore society, in a way that is publicly funded, and therefore without motivation driven by profit.
I hope to continue working in this area once I complete my PhD. I’m enjoying this field and hope to expand my knowledge more
I really enjoy the research elements of my job - they are highly stimulating, I get to work with people who are equally passionate and enjoy sharing ideas. I also like the culture of the university- autonomy and life long learning.
STEM is interesting, academia is sapping that interest
I'm hoping to be on a postdoc and potentially on a more permanent position in academia. Because I enjoy this job more than anything
I enjoy what I do now and would like to continue
I currently only work 60% of the time for a university and 40% elsewhere. I think if I was still 100% in academia I would not be able to face another 5 years but 60% feels sustainable for now.
I'd like to stay at the university, but I'm not sure if this will work out.
I enjoy research, and care enough about academia to try and stick it out and change things.
In 5 years time I will be able to draw my personal pension, and expect to have retired.
The academic career system is absolutely broken: it does not reward experience, but only numbers (ie. publications). Without help, it is impossible to have a good work-life balance as the career pathway progresses. People who have very good practical skills (eg in the lab) and no interest on pursuing an office-based job (ie Principal Investigator) have no future in academia. Finally, the uncertainty of having 3 year contracts only (postdoctoral positions) frequently causes stress and anxiety.
I enjoy the freedom and challenges of the academic life of a researcher.
The UK academic system is broken. Very little chance of getting a stable academic position in any way. Its no longer about one's credentials or independent peer's opinion or publication record or ideas. It is more whether the candidate belong to certain 'backgrounds' and ticking some boxes not so related to scientific merit. More importantly whether an 'influential and powerful' person is behind's one application - that pretty much defines the success.
It has been my aim for several years now - I took a few years out to work in Teaching and decided that doing a PhD was the right thing for me, with the eventual goal of having an academic role in a university
The job insecurity in academia is terrible and a substantial portion of my time is wasted on bid writing when I could be doing research - industry is not without fault, but i think it's issues are less systemic than academia's
I love doing research and enjoy the open ended nature of it. I find academia rewarding and want to continue in it post PhD.
I hope to do clinical engineering with hospitals rather than stay in an academic institution
I am happy in my position and provided I can obtain another contract I will continue with my work at the University.
I believe I am more likely to be successful outside of academia. I don’t have the ideas to become a lecturer and win grants.
As a PhD student from a reputable university, I can land a postdoc job and make academic progression in my field of expertise.
I do not want to have to move around every 1-3 years. My partner has a stable job and it would not be fair.
I will never leave STEM and I like education
This is all I've ever done. I don't see myself in another career
One of the main difficulties for women in an academic position to my opinion, is the lack of perspective on how to combine private life with career. I'm very lucky I didn't have to make that choice as I started in academia when I had already children. Also, I'm very stubborn and love learning - I can't imagine working in any other field.
I've got tenure, I can probably hang on that long at least
I wouldn't choose to leave at the moment, and I think my job is secure on that time frame, though possibly not over 10 years unless I bring more grants in
I think to work within academia post-PhD you need to be in a situation where you're able to accept short term, temporary contracts and move to different parts of the country/world to take up opportunities. This isn't conducive to the lives of many ECRs who have relationships, family, etc that can't just up and move.
I will be retiring from full time working in 2-3 years time (age 66 ish)and intend to pursue other vocational hobbies in retirement. However, I wouldn't rule out still doing a partial role if needed.
I think I am reasonably good at what I do, and with years I got to like teaching as well as research. I like the flexible (in theory) working hours, though in practice I have been working like mad recently. I am also a cautious person by nature and the relative job safety of academia appeals to me.
The workload is difficult to reconcile with family life, and to be honest I probably want a new challenge. It honestly depends how long my students manage to keep me interested - my part of the subject itself does not have enough to do that.
I am settled and successful in what I do. I also have children to support and I do not envisage a career change until later in life, if at all.
I am Interested in commercialising my research or science policy
The working conditions of academia are too unfavorable, specially for an international researcher.
I thoroughly enjoy academic research, and the environment that comes with it (curious minds). I just don't know for sure whether I have the capability to lead people as the sole leader. It is a pity that the choices are either becoming a PI or leaving; it would be great if there were other research career paths. Or even if you could develop into a group leader at your own pace of development, and not be punished for it with career instability (endless postdocs). Or if you could be a joint PI with someone else so that you can jointly decide on the group (this exists, but I don't know how to achieve that situation when I look at the vacancies at mys level which are typically tenure tracks). I think I *can* be a group leader but confidence does not come naturally to me (and I mean confidence with respect to other people, I never have confidence issues when I'm doing my work, it is just that I somehow don't exude confidence in the eyes of other people), so it will take me longer to build that up. It is a pity that those who need longer are dependent on temporary postdoc contracts and thus have a very insecure life in the mean time. But in the end I think I want this badly enough that I'll deal with all the job insecurity they throw at me, until I get there.
I still have hope I can stay in academia so this where I would like to be in 5 years but if I were evaluating my chances for success that would likely be ~50% and probably in another country (I'm not British and I feel I have higher chances for an open-ended position outside the UK)
I love STEM, but my physical and mental health have deteriorated so much that I will not be able to continue.
Don’t have the confidence to try something else.
I've not done yet everything I want to do
Academia was never the long-term plan, but a lifestyle choice.
I want to, and I think I am good at it and have a chance.
I am at this point pursuing this route that would still put me in academic science in 5 years, but I think it is also likely that I won't be? (Just then I have less of an idea of where I would be doing). I am just about to finish a PhD--so in 5 years likely with either secure a more independent research position or I will find another career.
I am passionate about my research field and the projects I have been working so far. I believe that via research and science we can at least try and make the world a better place, but also it is only science that can deepen our understanding about the world and our place/role in it. Despite the difficulties and challenges the pursuit of an academic career involves, I can't see myself away from this environment.
I don't see academia fitting to my life-style. I would like to have a family and enough money to support them.
I enjoy the technical aspects of academia but do not feel academia is the place where I can reach my goals any further. I have gone as far as I want to go and need to do something else to feel that I am reaching my goals.
I have wanted to be a professor from a very young age, and I don't see a timeline where I am not able to do that.
I would like to continue on to professorship somewhere.
I have always wanted to leave academia but somehow i enjoy too much to leave. I will do it eventually.
Ideally I will remain in academia, alternatively industrial research. Alternatively I will create a company or work for a company or move into politics (or consulting if I want a safer option).
Would like to drive change more directly
I want to keep working in STEM, but have not decided yet whether in academia or not. This depends a lot on the opportunities presented to me at the end of my PhD.
I don't currently intend on doing a post-doc (although this may yet change), but think it probable that most good jobs I will be able to find will be in STEM
I don't think that the work-life balance in academia is conducive to having a good family and social life. It works whilst you are a student and have no other responsibilities but once you get older, it becomes difficult to manage.
I think eventually I'd like to go into a field that is more creative, I started a PhD because I felt like this was something where I could work on turning my passion for writing into an actual profession.
The risk to reward ratio is too high, it's unlikely that after a PhD there'd be a position for me and even if there was it's unlikely to be a stable career basis
Academia seems very much focused on publishing and how to get the next bit of funding, rather than actually producing work that will benefit the greater public. There’s a huge gap in research and what is needed to progress health policy.
hoping to remain in academia if possible
It is the easiest thing to see, because it is all that I have worked in so far. I would probably find it harder to find a suitable job for health reasons outside of academia.
My PhD is part funded by industry which will likely offer me a job afterwards. Industry has more job security.
I don't like how people don't work collaboratively in academia, it's all about being first author and people will step on each other to get there
I kinda fell into the PhD; having done a couple internships in banking and realised I wanted to do something with better future prospects (i.e. learning some hard skills, such as coding, ML, etc.), a PhD seemed like the obvious choice. When I finish my PhD I'll probably apply for jobs, but if I don't find anything I think will help me develop interesting skills, I might continue with a post-doc
In 5 years I will be 2 years post-PhD, and I think I'll probably some sort of postdoctoral research
The funding of research staff is very poor and attacks stability and family life. It's unlikely there it will be possible to achieve stable enough funding to support my family.
This is probably my last job before retirement. I also think that I could not be employed in another career.
I disagree with the combination in statement "I've stayed in academia because it was the easiest option/I couldn't think of another option" - In my case academia was the easier option because my applications outside academia were unsuccesful (I applied to about 20x more jobs outside academia than inside)
Want to experience work outside of the university
The pay as an early career researcher is not competitive and I would like something where my work makes a more immediate impact.
Competitive and hostile environment of academia
Easier to get a job in the industry than in academia. Do not enjoy the aspect of always having to apply for grants in academia.
I enjoy the academic freedom -- but also the opportunity to work with industry including founding/advising companies
I would like to change and move to a different sector
I see myself in research but do not want to stay in academia. I think financially, being in industry makes more sense than staying in academia. There is also more room for professional development.
I don't know where I'll be in 5 years' time, I like to be surprised.
I find that the 'publish or perish' way of life in academia is detrimental to both research quality/rigour, and not the kind of environment I want to stay in for much longer.
Currently preparing several proposals for individual fellowships that would lead to an academic position (lecturer).
I feel that there is no way to progress in academia and that my academic experience has not prepared me for industry careers either. I would be starting from the very bottom again.
currently a clinical academic. I suspect that in 5 years time I will solely do clinical work.
I am tired of the constant competition to obtain fixed-term contracts and ultimately I don't think obtaining a permanent position would make me happy.
I'm still working this out. I worked in industry for over a decade before moving to academia. There are advantages and disadvantages to both sectors. At the moment, I'm giving academia my best shot, but if no opportunities for progression arise in the next couple of years then I'll probably move back to industry. A key reason for this is that I would earn much more in industry (and potentially have a better work-life balance).
I enjoy the experimental and research side of academia, but at this point I do not see myself as a lecturer in the future.
Don't want to move countries and number of positions limited as well as pay rise.
I am excited about where my research is going and new directions for teaching in my department, and I have an open-end contract. This last year has been very hard for those of us with caring responsibilities, but I think if anything, in the longer term the more flexible ways of working will make work-life balance easier.
Happy with my role, and mostly importantly, I am in a permanent role (finally). I'm not engaged in research (100% teaching role)but do have opportunities via supervision to get involved in research output.
Although currently on a fixed-term contract, I have prospects of extension (eventually becoming permanent), and so far I am happy enough with the job.
Due to covid, resources have been cut. You can always apply to a fellowship, but it is getting harder as sometimes they want young people with a lot of experience... sometimes is not realistic. If they consider the number of published papers, that is a big problem for some scientists that get papers published, but a good one, rather than 5-6 medium/low. So at the end... it seems to be the number of paper/citations rather than the actual content of the research. As a woman, I have a family and that consumes/takes a lot of time away from research. No matter what, people always is looking at you if you are away from work.
At 63 having retired at 57 from a senior engineering executive role I decided to do a part time PhD and ended up doingcontract lecturing and Dissertation supervision instead of the PhD. I can see 100% retirement in 5 years if I live that long!
It's my life. I can't help: I didn't chose it but it has chosen me.
Too high competition to stay within academia. It seems that transferable skills are welcomed by industry.
I don't see myself continuing research beyond my PhD - I'd rather work in another field (but still STEM related)
It remains my primary aim to stay in academia and continue working towards my goal of being a fully independent researcher. If I didn't see myself in academia, I wouldn't be fighting so hard to make it more inclusive
Lack of opportunities and job security, particularly if I don't want to move to another part of the country (or abroad) and don't want to be a lecturer.
Research is very important to me and academia offers a nice work environment.
"Two body problem" -- having a partner with a permanent position limits my postdoctoral searches to a geographical location, and therefore it seems unlikely that the right job in my niche sub-field will appear within the physical location necessary (let alone me also getting said position).
I enjoyed my research, although it is really competitive working in academia .
Am tired of being in my position. It makes no sense to me already
I feel it is the natural choice for me as I like teaching as much as I like research.
I am looking for a stable position sooner and getting in academia for a young researcher like me takes a long time.
Fixed term contracts and moving my family around after each postdoc is the main reason why academia cannot be a permanent career choice.
I would like to work in a STEM in a industry
I don't think I have enough papers, contacts, presentations to stay in academia. I also don't think I like the culture very much.
Too many big egos and too much job insecurity in academia.
The feeling you get from academia is this of constant demeaning of yourself and your job. You are always being compared with the best which affects most of the people. I always feel like I'm not working enough, I'm not smart enough and that what I do doesn't matter. I get that there should be criticism and peer review which should be focused and constructive in order to progress, but I can't stand it. Also, I can't work on an abstract research and not having a final result/project outcome in mind.
I don't want to continue with research after my PhD
I am settling down in my life outside academia (homeowner, partner, etc) and would choose to leave academia rather than flit between different institutions on fixed-term contracts.
I like doing research and that’s what I want to do as a job
It seems like academia is far too competitive and not enough academic positions are available as PhD studentships
Passionate in research and would like to continue doing that
I have been in full time education for &gt; 20 years and I would like to work in industry after the completion of my PhD. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't either continue with or come back to a career in academia.
I've found that I enjoyed teaching opportunities within my PhD more so than the research itself and intend to move into teaching.
I enjoy my job, but not enough to dedicate every waking second of my life to it. Competition is so stiff for positions they go to people who are willing to sacrifice more, eg. moving around the world, working long hours, delaying starting a family
It is too hard to become an academic. Postdocs have limited contracts, need to move around a lot, overall very unstable. I also prefer doing hands-on research rather than teach, supervise and fight for grants.
Desire to enter a more stable and settled working environment, with less lone working.
It just feels like it's the right place for me
I plan on applying for a Postdoc after the PhD.
Work outside of academia is too inflexible. I accept the 10k-20k+ pay cut to be in academia and be able to work how I like when I like.
I would stay in academia if possible as this has always been what I wanted to do
Some of the practises in academia seem outdated and there is the pressure to publish for the sake of publishing. Fields like computer science are developing much faster because they have better access and organisation of knowledge as open source projects or software
I love my research and I love my research group! I would love to stay here and continue to work for this group for as long as possible; the PI is amazing and the group is very friendly. We all help each other with experiments and analysis and I love the topics we address in this lab so would love to stay in order to contribute more to this general field through disseminating my research (papers, presentations etc)
Academics keep on stating the high bar necessary to survive in academia and I don't think I am able to reach it.
I fell that especially as a female I'm being pushed to do a lot of teaching and don't have much time to focus on research which is negatively affecting my career progression
I have just obtained a 5 year fellowship and permanent contract following on from that, so the journey is just beggining!
Too much in the way of responsibly to back out and retire early
I prefer to work on things that will benefit the community rather than just writing up papers
It is a fulfilling occupation and I imagine I will have unresolved research and studies in 5 years that I will be keen to continue with.
The toxic culture in academia is changing at too slow a rate for me to want to stay in it any longer.
It is still my preference to stay in academia, although I have doubts about my ability to compete.
I am suited to working in STEM, however do not know whether I have what it takes for academia, and may want to move to industry
I don't particularly enjoy my research area and I believe it would be hard to change at this point. I also am deterred by the short-term contracts and the high possibility of having to move to another country for a new job each time my contract finishes.

Please explain your answer?
Most senior staff are white, male and do not have children. PhD students and post-doctoral staff are diverse, but most senior staff aren't. There is the expectation that you will sacrifice family life for career, so I don't see many people like me (that want a STEM career as well as a family life) in academic roles.
Physics is a field with too few women, famously. I feel it is generational though, and those older people with the current power will soon give way to more diversity.
Recruitment in academia is too biased in favour of non-males and minorities. CV no longer matters. To fix one problem, injustices have been created.
There is a specific archetypal set of characteristics promoted consciously or unconsciously.
very diverse in terms of race but not in other aspects. Not very good at embracing that diversity or talking about it.
No apparent attempts made at diversity in hiring.
There are still far too few women and people of colour in academia, especially in my area.
Very few women are employed permanently (&lt;25%). I've seen men get positions when more qualified women also applied. Zero racial diversity. The institution where I completed my PhD in a developing country had much more gender, racial and sexual orientation diversity than the UK institution where I am now.
Diversity is visible in more junior roles (post-docs, technicians, RAs and PhD students), but there are very few non-white, non-male PIs
People should be given equal opportunities to get jobs regardless of their ethnicity, sex or religion. This is different from wanting to impose equality of outcomes between groups by setting quotas.
It depends on your yardstick. I was in a meeting at a table with a Scottish, Japanese, Russian and Italian colleague (I am none of those nationalities) and we were told that we were all non-diverse "white men". I think we had very diverse experiences of living through the 70s and 80s as we started in our profession.
Very little presence of black people and women
I think the level of diversity in my work place is good, but this has not been taken as advantage, due to many complicated reasons.
The department I work in has a varied range of expertise in computing and engineering as well as cultural diversity which is beneficial
We have a good mix of people in our Department
Diverse nationalities but visible minorities (women, PoC) underrepresented
Too many people have been in post for 20+ years and self-agree that 'this is how we do things here'. I cannot think of anyone who openly identifies as LGBTQ+. Little gender diversity, particularly in more senior positions. One BAME academic member of staff. Little engagement with curriculum decolonisation.
My colleagues are predominantly white men. A significant minority studied at Cambridge. Most of my students are middle class. Some of my colleagues don't seem to appreciate potential financial difficulties faced by students.
The proportion of academics in mathematics that are female remains low and whilst my work place is better than average, it is still not good.
This a natural consequence of low diversity in academia in general
Too few females, particularly post-PhD. Abysmal representation of black and minority ethnic communities. Hard to say about other diversity strands e.g. LGBTQ as this is not always disclosed, though I know several people in my School who identify as such.
Accounting for the overall gender imbalance in STEM, our workplace is no less diverse than the rest of the field.
While my research group consists entirely of white, Caucasian persons, is this lack of diversity down to bias or prejudice or is it simply that no-one of any ethnic diversity was interested. The statement "not diverse enough" would suggest that it needs to be forced and so removes the concept of only the best will succeed.
It is a very diverse place, not sure what is 'too much' diversity
We have very few female members of staff.
glass ceiling. You must be white, and British to go up the ladder.
I would actually answer "Do not know" as I feel that I probably amn't in a position to judge this.
I am working in a new research facility started not too long ago. As a PhD student, there are no post-docs between me and the PI, I had to figure out things pretty much all by myself.
Under representation of females and non-white or non-British staff
There is diversity at PhD student level. As you advance in your career, the number of women and POC decreases immensely (at least that's what I see)
Things have improved significantly from what I remember being a fresh undergraduate, although I will say that I am accepting and open to further work being done to promote better diversity where it is felt by the affected groups is necessary
My current lab has individuals from multiple nationalities but its highly masculine and highly normative beyond that.
We are a small team, but near enough an even split on gender and age.
Within the PhD community, there is an appropriate level of diversity. However, within the senior staff, they are dominated by white male researchers. Some research groups (led by a white male) have over 90% male members
Mostly white European or from developed countries.
Old white man with a specific passport dominate management and funding panels.
Almost complete lack of BAME researchers, and top level of institute is 90% male.
I am soon to be one of only 2 females in my department, and have long been the only ethnic minority. Students don't see enough female/ethnic minority role models and don't feel they can make it in academia. Many female students have told me that just being there as a female academic, doing my job well, is an encouragement to them and they wouldn't try it if they saw no role models. Therefore, there needs to be more, not just one or two. This is very common amongst departments in the UK in my field, except ones that have actively engaged in diversifying.
The representation of female and ethnic minority academic staff in my department is definitely too low to be truly representative, though this may be a factor of being a small institute anyway - even one hire would probably rectify this!
Strong age bias (in terms of opportunity) young vs old, asymmetrical responsibilities teaching vs research. etc
Engineering, too many men, not enough women. Also, the amount of culturally/ethnically diverse people could be better, although it isn't too bad in our centre
There is a lack of women at higher levels in the organisation and while there are a lot of different nationalities I think at Professor level it seems to be mainly white men.
Mostly avg' academics. Linear careers and linear thinkers. Quite boring actually.
My institute is diverse, but the whole university most definitely is not
Yes within our research institute, but the wider School is still too much balanced towards males. Nationalities and ethnicities are diverse though.
We actually have pretty good female and cultural representation, but it could still be better
Self-centered interests of colleagues in hiring committees, bias: colleagues hire colleagues who resemble themselves (research interests, nationality and educational background, possibly gender)
For sure in STEM the diversity is not yet at a good level. One has to be equally careful too in not trying to achieve equality in a much too short period of time!
Physics is developing under an almost total isolation from other research fields (e.g. chemistry, biology, etc.)
Definitely, the number of women in my institute is very low. The same with some ethnicities.
There are very few women among the academic faculty and not a single non-white person. Existing faculty are more inclined to collaborate with people like themselves.
We always strive to employ more female academics into permanent academic posts, but with mixed results. I would have answered "No diverse enough" until recently, but we now have Head of Department and Head of School both female in our STEM Computer Science area.
few females in leadership/management positions, females predominately are undertaking housekeeping i.e. course and programme management, caring responsibilities are considered on paper but not in reality which means females have less time to research whilst managing caring responsibilities and the day job which impacts career progression. Few women progress to professorial even when they apply they are knocked back with little feedback, opportunities and support to retry/progress.
These answers are badly worded in my opinion. The way I think is that our department has an attitude to diversity by which we appreciate and welcome those from different cultural and professional backgrounds. I think there is more we could do in supporting less diverse departments to put in place processes which welcome applicants from diverse backgrounds.
We have a small department (~20 academic members of staff) so it is difficult to be a truly diverse and representative department.
I think more important than "seeing the right amount of diversity" is make sure that panels and application processes are open to everyone.
There are academics of colour in the department
We have LGBT ppl, people of color as students but my department lacks academics from a non-white background
On the whole I think especially our Department (Chemistry), but also the university are doing well and turn rhetoric into action. They do try and in terms of students we get a good mix on various levels (ethnicity/ religion/ gender/ sexuality etc) which I am proud of. On a PhD level it is good, but could be better e.g. it is only in this year's cohort that two black women started. The higher up we go - postdoc and lecturer level, the diversity suddenly decreases. I know from several PI that they had good candidates from Africa or Asia and wanted to hire them, but that obstacles in the visa and internal admin process are challenging and time-consuming. It is good on them that they still keep going until they succeed, but I can easily see how quickly this becomes a barrier. On a PI level we had one candidate recently from India, but other than that no BME/ Asian PI and the male to female ratio is 3:1.
The department, and University, are actively targeting underrepresented applicants in the student and staff population. Recruitment, promotion and salary policy is transparent. Diversity matters are regularly discussed and communicated throughout the department.
The staff in our department does not mirror the diversity in our student population
representation of women is far too low, too much gender bullying and harassment
It is difficult to appoint anyone other than those who apply, and it is difficult to encourage others, the diversity is appropriate to the pool of suitably qualified potential appolicants.
Women and ethnic minorities are underrepresented.
Very similar backgrounds for everyone invovled
Most of the current senior academic team is now made up of women. This has rightly shifted from a few years ago. There is still some slight under representation of BAME colleagues
About half of PhD/post-docs are international. Not necessarily racial minorities always, but foreign. A reasonable amount are neurodiverse and some have physical disabilities. The male/female split is mostly 50/50, sometimes 40/60 (more females). I know enough people with various sexual orientations to assume diversity in this aspect is also not a problem. However, I am white, straight, etc so less likely to notice discrepancies in this area.
No POC. All same age range. Not many international students. Most people seem to come from middle class background.
The majority of group leaders who have gained professorship are male and white. There are many international PhD students, so a diverse range of ethic backgrounds. There is also a fair proportion of British Asian students. However, this diminishes in the group of researchers post-doctorate. Numbers of black, British researchers including students are next to none.
I work in a very multicultural and multidisciplinary environment
Vast majority of PIs are male, the faculty is not doing enough to promote diversity
Needs more women and people of colour in more senior roles
There aren't enough BAME academics, for example, not even one black person is part of our academic staff. Representation is overwhelmingly white and male.
A lot of privileged people who don't even realise it. E.g. people who've never had a non academic job (waiter cleaner etc) to pay the bills.
A good mix of genders, ethnicities and social backgrounds
There is a low representation in female and/or BAME academics within my department which I believe can be changed more. It does depend on the applicant pool and I am aware that my university is trying to improve the status quo. I do not think people should be recruited because they are part of a minority group, but rather the process should be more blind so it can actually be based on the achievements and suitability for the role. Re-deployment mechanisms as used by many universities may also mean that new, better candidates do not get a fair chance.
Theres a good number of interantionals and a good balance between males and females
The majority of my colleagues are white, with more men than women, especially in senior positions.
Women are represented a lot less at professor level, despite them being present a lot at lower levels. And there's nowhere near enough BIMPOC at any level!
Some members are foreign, most are women and there’s a disable person
At least in the building I work in, I feel there is little racial diversity as most staff members are white. There are very few BAME lecturers and professors in my department.
There is a good mix of people both backgroundsa and expertise.
Huge gender imbalance, and lack of in particular people of colour
The group I work in is highly diverse in terms of nationality, race, gender and disability
I feel that my work place is very inclusive. I do not personally think that the level of diversity can exactly be measured.
Whereas female representation at a student level is greater, minority ethnical representation lags behind and there is a lack of diversity at senior level.
while a relatively even number of males, females with individuals across LGBTQ+ backgrounds, the diversity of race/religion is poor.
In diversity of background our research group is from all over the globe (I'm one of 3/10 home students in the group and only 2/6 of the academics in the group are from the UK) and the academic backgrounds of the students and staff are widely varied including physicists, chemists, biologists and engineers. However, there are only 2/6 female academics in the group and only 2/10 students are female and the postgraduate ratio in the department as a whole is significantly lower than that.
Clinical academic field not as diverse in terms of gender, racial and LGBTQ+ compared to non-academic fields from my observations
Women are quite well represented in both the lower and higher grades of academia. From an ethnicity point of view there is less diversity than you may expect.
This seems like a leading question. I don't have the appropriate knowledge or viewpoint to answer this confidently. Perhaps, I dont know would be a better answer
Not sure what exactly you mean by 'diversity' here. Surely, there is diversity in cultural aspects.
There is a shortage of women in the department
Do I have to? Well, we are still not 50/50 in gender, even if it's getting better. There are almost no black people in academia.
An assumption, as I am part-time and rarely on-site.
My group reflects perfectly the diversity seen in the population of STEM students in UK.
We have a range of international members of the group as well as a strong representation of female researchers
It is Ok, not that many women at the senior level
Diversity reduces cohesion and seems to be pursued in preference to merit. I want to be able to do my work without propaganda.
Observationally correlates to the ethnic mix of the UK
We have a wide diversity of people in terms of age, gender, and culture with many from outside the UK. You can never have too much diversity!
white&male describes the majority of academic staff members; we're ok nationality-wise
We have staff & students from a wide range of backgrounds
Under representation of women and black scientists
There are fewer women students and staff, and even fewer from minority ethnic backgrounds.
It's hard to determine this as I've recently joined the department.
Universities are generally a diverse studying/working environment
There are very few women and comparatively few parents in senior positions (and of course mothers suffer on both counts). There is an almost complete absence of ethnic diversity. Finally, there is a clear hierarchy of interest from the leadership such that explicitly translational science is promoted at the expense of basic science. This is understandable given the general culture of UK science at present, but in my view it significantly undermines academic freedom, and harms innovation in the medium and long term.
Good gender Balance, some racial mix, different personality types
We have a good mix of ages, genders, and nationalities. This makes it a good mix of ideas and view-points.
A good balance of diversity in my field/department.
The demographics do not match that of the wider population, although a large number of nationalities are represented
SOme areas (i.e. mathematics) are diverse whereas others (Creative Technologies) are not.
In biology at LMU about 50% staff are women. We have a number of BAME staff too
Good gender balance, mostly white ethnicity (~ 80 %)
Unfortunately, as a city Bath is predominantly white and middle-class. This does extend to the university despite efforts to change this. There is a reasonable gender balance within the department I am in, but ethnically the department and the university is significantly lacking diversity.
Gender ratio is out ion balance, as well as race representation.
We are predominantly a white, male department. Currently only 2 women in academic roles have taken maternity leave is the history of the department and 1 of those has left.
I know it sounds clichee but it's dominated by white middle-aged males, mostly unaware of any bias they might bring to their (quantitative and qualitative) work.
Too much white man. Insufficient racial and gender diversity. Insufficient LGBT+ visibility.
In my cohort, only me is an international student coming from Asia. The rest of the cohort is from US, UK, or European background. Sometimes, in the lectures, I find it hard to explain the situation in Asian countries as the context is different.
Hard to say as it's relatively small working team. There is an obvious lack of ethnic diversity in biological science in general.
I think particularly in Bath there are mostly 'higher class' people while people from other class background are underrepresented. Diversity on ethnicity is a bit better but can still be improved. In my department there is effort to increase gender diversity at PhD level, although there are still many more males than females (and I don't know of people indentifying as other genders), but at the more senior level it is not balanced at all.
I am not sure diverse in which regard exactly, but it seems like most people I encounter have similar backgrounds, ethnicity, etc.
The department I work in has a diverse range of workers from a representative of groups.
The majority of those working at the university appear to be English men, especially those who are working in more senior roles
The maths department is mostly straight white men, not very diverse
I think that the best people are in the positions. Diversity is encouraged but not at the detriment of fairness.
Coming from an industry placement in my final year of undergraduate degree, the whole 40 cohort for that company were white. My entire group now, including myself, is white. More must be done across the board to attract minorities to start and stay in STEM. The work BBSTEM is doing is an example of positive work in this area.
The diversity level is poor. This is also reflective of science from high school through to university professors so more engagement must be started earlier.
I get the impression that any lack of diversity is a deeper issue than whether the university are hiring people from different backgrounds. This would stem back to gender stereotyping at schools and lack of equality in opportunity at a younger age due to social circumstances. However, I have no experience of the hiring process at this institution, so I can only make opinions based on the people I see around me at work.
The department is good at hiring the best person but the wider field is not the most diverse to begin with
I am really happy with my PhD group and we are relatively diverse, but in chemistry as a whole there could definitely be more diversity
There is a broad range of nationalities in our research group.
Diversity here compares well with other maths departments I've experienced
The research group has a good mixture of male and female researchers, which is partly what attracted me to this university. There are a mixture of people from different countries, however we are almost exclusively white. A greater level of racial diversity would benefit the group, as well as the undergraduate students who would be able to see people like themselves reflected in their teaching staff.
At the PhD level and above there is a majority of white males and whilst there is some diversity I definitely think there could be a lot more
The University I work at is not particularly diverse. This is more apparent as you go up the chain of command
It is very homogeneous, predominantly white and male, particularly senior positions
More diverse than most, but not yet in line with national averages, that being said change takes a few years to become realised.
Compared to other places I have worked this department seems to have a wide range of people from different countries and backgrounds. I don't know how to define an appropriate level of diversity but I would say that this department doesn't suffer from a distinct lack of diversity.
Condensed Matter Physics in the UK appears to consist primarily of white able-bodied men. There are almost no women nor people of colour. I also suspect there are very few from disadvantaged backgrounds, e.g. working class families - but do not have the data to be sure.
The level of diversity among academic staff is smaller than that among the doctoral students. Equality and diversity are considered important topics, but the department has a lot more to do to improve inclusion for people of colour and particularly black academic staff, which I believe is a wider issue than just my university. Women in STEM are supported and given opportunity to network with each other. LGBTQ+ in STEM is not really discussed, though the department is open and non-discriminatory, though I have experienced minor cases of harassment/bullying.
The statistics are pretty clear. For example until a few years ago we had around 30 male professors (almost all white) and no female professors! Things have improved a bit but not enough.
it just isnt... little racial/ethnic diversity
Poor gender balance (though in line with other departments), not a huge amount of racial diversity (but probably better than most of the rest of Bath). However I'm a middle aged white guy so I'm not really helping.
My department is a long way from reflecting the ethnic or gender makeup of society as a whole, so is very hard to describe as diverse.
very poor gender balance and general diversity
My workplace is very white male dominated. Although there are efforts to improve the gender balance, I believe that there are very few efforts to improve increase the fraction of minorities
There is a great deal of emphasis on gender balance but little credible effort to address other diversity issues.
Personally, I do not have a problem with the level of diversity. However, it is true that the large majority of the people in the work place male.
Recruitment and promotion only consider typical academic career paths, with "the right type of publications" (e.g. Nature) and "the right type of grant success" (large amounts from funders familiar to the panels).
Academia in STEM is definitely not diverse enough. Both from a gender and ethnic point of view (though it's slowly improving, I think), but also from a cultural and social background (e.g., political leaning of the majority of academics). These biases are not necessarily negative per se (e.g., political leaning) but are definitely something worth considering.
There is always more that could be done to ensure diversity at all levels. I think that some management levels are still dominated my males, centred around a particular ethnic group
Not enough women (but that's true of the subject as a whole) or ethnic minorities (who are much more common in industry)
Women and BAME under-represented in Maths
A while back I worked out that we have something like a 1:31 female to male professor gender ratio in the Maths dept.
levels of women are rising but the department/uni is still very middle-class white predominantly.
The department does not feel vibrant, somewhat one-dimensional and conservative on how development occurs.
We are heading in the right direction, but still large demographic differences between PhD level and academia. Seems unlikely to be purely down to choice of certain demographics to peruse other careers.
There needs to be more genders and more people of colour. Mostly white men.
Neither answer is appropriate as I am unaware as to what an appropriate level of diversity means
My workplace is very white, though not as male as it used to be. There is quite a high proportion of non-white staff in the lecturer grades but a very low proportion at professor or higher level.
Not enough women, not enough variation in social background, not enough anything really. But it can't be changed quickly and we know all this and are working on it.
Women are still very much under-represented in STEM, there is a clear reduction in numbers from undergraduate to PhD all the way to professor. My personal experience of working in academia (compared to other jobs) is that it is a lot more ethnically diverse than is usual in the private sector which is one of the things I like about it.
This is difficult to answer as a white British man, however: I believe my department is diverse in the sense that a large number of my colleagues are from minority backgrounds, and there is a fairly equal gender split. That being said, I wonder how many people within. my department come from poorer backgrounds and areas of low participation in higher education. I also note that whilst there are large numbers of colleagues and students from minority groups, this is not necessarily a broad range of minority groups, with the majority of these students being observed as South or East Asian.
There is insufficient gender diversity in high level positions
The PhD students in my department are quite diverse
diversity of ethnicities and reasonable gender balance in my field at my workplace
Minimal diversity- everyone is from a very middle class background
need more women and other minorities in the field
I am the only female in my research group. I can only think of three other women in my area of research in the world. I am nearly always the only female at conferences.
At both of my educational institution and current work institution there is an obvious disparity between numbers of male and female lecturing staff in the school. However, I work in mathematical sciences and this is very common and both institutions seem to be making active efforts to help balance this in the future.
We have a number of gender identities and people of BAME. But being a Maths department means there is a history of white male dominance which is at least on the way to levelling out.
I think that the department is comprised of straight, white, middle-class, males
Very few women and BME reach higher levels of mathematics.
Majority male staff throughout all levels. Not much diversity in terms of race and ethnicity. Women often move out of the work place due to family and location commitments.
Our work place is completely open to all.
There are very few women or minorities in my school. We are trying hard to change this within physics as we grow. The situation is worse in the wider university as a whole with very few women / minorities in senior roles.
Whilst I don't think this is intentional and changes are filtering through, most of the workplace is white and male.
We are thoroughly white, mostly native-English-speaking, mostly male, and mostly middle class. People with different experiences would bring more ideas and more ways of working to the table.
Due to COVID I have not met too many other people from the university but from online meetings it seems that there are several women and people of different nationalities. However, I think the percentage of women, non-white people, disabled and other minorities could be higher to reflect society, especially in higher positions.
Not enough women. Too many people with English and Asian background.
I work in a lab where you would find engineers, professors, researchers/post-doc, managers, PhD students and even sometimes Master students/interns of different fields and from different countries.
I am unsure what it means to have an "appropriate" level of diversity. Presumably that means that the workplace reflects the wider population of something (the country, or maybe the world). My workplace is very much majority-male so gender diversity is low. On the other hand there are a very wide range of nationalities represented.
When I first started working in the department one of the first things I noticed was the lack of gender diversity, particularly at senior levels.
The group I am working is very small including line manager we are three. I do not like working in that group as there is no collaboration opportunity and no colleagues to discuss on your and/or their work. I really missed working in a diverse, large group which is led by a supportive manager.
In my work place there is an fair distribution of male and female, Our group also include peers from all over the world deferring by background, culture and ethnicity,
Regarding women-men percentage, the number of women working on my research group is really low. Since I started a few months ago my PhD, I have not meet any women on my research group. I can only account for other two women working on the research work, and one of them works for a different university,
People seem to be employed based on ability purely, with people from many backgrounds present in the department.
It seems diverse. I'm not sure how I'd define not diverse enough or too diverse.
While the gender balance at my place of work is fantastic, ethnic diversity has a long way to go unfortunately
Not nearly enough women, not enough BME, not enough LGBT+, mostly white male workforce
My workplace is pale, male and stale. It feels like the way we're becoming more diverse is just waiting for people to retire, rather than recruiting more diverse people. We finally have more women, but we need to do better in recruiting from the Black communities because we have massive leaks in our pipeline.
There are people from a wide range of backgrounds and of many different nationalities working at the university so you could describe it as "diverse". I don't like the question though, it implies that there is an optimum level of diversity - people should just be chosen because they are the best fit for the job and regardless of their background, not to ensure an arbitrary measure of diversity is achieved.
Lack of black academics on permanent contracts. Too few women of any colour
Senior management are still predominantly white and (to a lesser extent) males. This does not reflect society. Diversity is known to improve team performance, and I believe diversity in senior management would help to improve the university culture.
It's improving and there is a lot of effort from my institution to increase diversity but it's not quite there yet.
Our institution is overwhelmingly white, middle-class and heterosexual. Gender balance is getting better, but not where it ought to be.
More progress is needed to ensure that nobody is hindered by discrimination or lack of opportunity.
It's all men, and mostly white men, especially at higher echelons. Lots of diverse students, (still mostly male) but that disappears as soon as you look at the academic staff.
Lots of academic recruitment is sorted before the advert is posted. I feel this limits how diverse the university can be
The ethnic diversity does not fully represent the wider community.
In my subject diversity is lacking at school and undergraduate level, but after that each "rank" is as about as diverse as the "rank" below
There are people from all over the world
A healthy balance of international professors and students work here I feel
Often the only female in a group of engineers. Little ethnic diversity.
I am really pleased to see that there are many women and people from ethnic minorities in my department.
People from all ethnic origins. Maybe not enough female colleagues
sensible level of female and other racial backgrounds given the engineering setting!
It is no worse than elsewhere. This is a general problem in academia.
There are people who research different areas.
The more powerful a position, the less diverse it usually is.
We meet people from all walks of life, regularly.
I have different people from different places in my work place
Queen Mary is doing an amazing job on this side. I was able to speak with people from all over the world. I also feel every person is respected, regardless of their gender identity, sexual orientation, or religion.
It is in no way representative of wider society.
The data is clear: we have 13% female staff and only 1 Black staff member. Also, only 25% female PhD students. This is appalling in 2021.
In answering the question above, I am viewing diversity not just in terms of protected characteristics, but also in terms of research areas within the Department, socio-economic backgrounds of participants (UG,PGT,PGR,PDRA,PS,Academic Staff). In this sense, there is a LOT of work to be done to create a more diverse environment. Probably the most important one for me personally is the lack of women academics in my deparment.
The "leaky pipeline" interpretation seems correct.
The large majority of staff and students are local
At present it feels okay, but there can be room for improvement with regards to Black representation. There appears to be good gender representation among PhD students and staff. Unclear about LGBTQ+ representation among staff.
I am the only non Chinese in a Chinese speaking group.
There is still a marked difference in demographics between the general population and academia, throughout the world. As Dame Bell Burnell has said, this can be a function of perceived prestige - men may gravitate more towards respected roles (often setting up barriers for others in the process), but the esteem of a given profession can change with culture. Again, she rightly says, this is undoubtedly due to socialisation - there is no evidence for inherent causation. Gender is one axis on which parity must be actively advanced - race and sexual orientation others, each with their own additional biases and discouragements to overcome, along multiplicative effects at the intersections of these identities. Equality has to be actively encouraged in our institutions, without succumbing to cynical schemes of hiring or acting purely in self-interest, to meet whatever minimum standard is required. This requires a fundamental, large-scale shift in our way of thinking about work and private life; intelligence and talent; and the role of STEM within society, and compared to other fields, such as the humanities.
I work with a wide range of talented people or all genders and many different nationalities
There is room for improvement. Whilst the school is getting better at racial diversity, I find that there is a lack of representation from the LGBTQ+ community
There are people of different colours with different accents, but I don't really pay much attention to this because it's objectively not important.
wide range of people, opportunities for everyone and would appear to be no hinderances to anyone
In terms of diversity, we don't have enough students of a working class family or students from outside Northern Ireland such as myself.
Working either towards or away from diversity as a policy both seem rather self-defeating.
I am working in a computational Chemistry lab. We have collaboration with experimentalist.
Male/female ratio is heavily-skewed male.
Depends what you mean by diversity. Gender? Race? Other? Ideally, the composition of a department would reflect that of the wider population. However for many reasons this doesn't happen. Not just in gender and race, but in social class/income. Indeed I would argue that this is the major barrier to success in academia. Hard to be a successful academic if you don't have the opportunity to attend university in the first place.
We have a diverse workforce within our department, but senior positions are predominantly white and male.
Honestly I believe that we should focus less on race/gender and all that stuff which I kind of think this question is hitting at. Let's just get the right people for the jobs they love, this pushing for a 'diverse' group can sometimes be unhelpful to pulling together a great team. Lets try leave race/gender behind and just have people who love their work!
Too few women and POC. Very pale, stale, and male.
we have colleagues coming from different places with different backgrounds.
Freedom to achieve the highest academic level own our own momentum
Many colleageus have spent there whole academic career at QUB, and there is a slight preference given to QUB graduates at all entry levels, so the situtation is self perpetuating. We need to bring in people from 'the outside' more.
Physics in academia is still predominantly white male. Women are represented to a degree, as are Asian ethnicities. However, sub-Saharan ethnicities are extremely rare.
There is a lack of diversity particularly in the Prof level of the department. It gets slightly better in junior staff, but not by much...
I think academia is improving but it is still a white/male dominated environment.
There are a range of people employed at my workplace
I would say the diversity level at the university tends to match the diversity of the of applicants. There are a lot of grants, opportunities and encouragement for minority groups.
I find this common in many academic institutions...I tend to be the only, or one of a few, Black woman in research group. This is a problem!
I think the workplace has a range of backgrounds and cultures
In my research group of 9 researchers (not including our male PI), only 2 are female. There used to be a third female but she quit owing to the toxic environment encouraged by our PI. In terms of other diversity factors though, our group is quite diverse, with representation from China, Africa, Central America and Europe, and the LGBT community.
I feel like my work place was more diverse when I joined, but the number of employees/students has also reduced whether this has had an effect on diversity and recruitment I am not sure
We have no minority group lecturers, and only a small percentage of female academics, little LGBTQ+ academic representation and the majority of new hires and promotions in the department are cis-white males
There seems to be a good mixture of people from a variety of backgrounds.
Whilst at the PhD level there is a decent level of gendered diversity, this is not the case in more senior academic positions. Other forms of diversity such as sexuality and race are also lacking throughout different positions within academia.
Only 20% female; little diversity in terms or race
There is a good diversity of nationalities in my department. However, there could be a wider diversity of women and BAME staff.
There is no visible or acknowledged disability. There is very little racial diversity, with only one asian and no people of colour. Professorial, reader, and senior-lecturer staff are all old white people with the exception of the one asian colleague
I like the people I work with. I expect to like new people too. There is are only two sorts of people I dislike working with - lazy people and people who are mean to others. Everyone else is welcome.
Diversity does not go deep in academia (I do not know about other places)
Variety of academics from all backgrounds
odd questions; I would argue that inclusion does not put a limit on diversity. In practical terms; gender balance could be better; and while the group is international, the focus is stronlgy on Asia (which is nice), but I had few encounters in my career in STEM with collagues from outside Europe, Asia, or the US
I work in a group of people from diverse background, ethnicity and nationality.
I am used to a professional environment with a more even split between those who identify as male and those who identify as female. There should be more people who identify as female in the engineering environment, as I don't see many around the school.
I don't think diversity is important per se, but rather that some degree diversity is a symptom of equality of opportunities in life, and I suspecr we are still far from representing groups as we would if there were equal chances and stimulus to go into academia.
Not enough female representatives across the discipline
Our lab has a mix of cultures, I am the only British citizen. This can lead to multi-layers of cultural barriers with me being the common ground, due to fluency in British culture and language. Diversity in gender is less so, but in engineering it is difficult to get applicants in the first place, and there are much lower numbers of female engineers. This is not a case of organisational discrimination by the university, but more a result of engineering being preferred by male undergrads.
I never find there is any lack of diversity in the environment I worked in so far.
Please explain how I can explain my answer.
In engineering it is more white male dominated.
I think it's fine. I think we have a meritocracy but this naturally includes a fair share of individuals with different sex/gender, disability, sexuality, race, nationality etc.
Our workplace has a high level of cultural diversity
Unfortunately this subject appears to experience this across the sector
I think that diversity is gradually increasing in my workspace, and there is an openness to it, which is good. It is important that it continues to increase, but that the hires made are correct along the way.
The recruitment process is biased against already under-represented groups. We need to do much much more to help under-represented groups at earlier career stages to help address this.
We have excellent diversity in our department, with staff and students from all around the world and with different cultures and backgrounds mixing. Generally we are lacking in female academic staff, however we are actively trying to address the reasoning behind this.
Diversity is overestimated, frankly it is nonsense. I dont care if there are 30 male and zero female, 30 female and zero male or 30 helicopters working as academics as long as they can do their job properly. I dont care what people's preferences or backgrounds are and by paying to much attention to irrelevant nonsense such as diversity we are consciously obscuring the bigger picture: people with mediocre qualifications get posts so that the universities can improve their diversity related indeces. This is pathetic
In my field, academics are predominantly male, able bodied and straight. There are very few women academics at senior level, likewise for LGBTQ or disabled. This is not reflective of the wider world and hence a narrow view of certain things dominates.
It is primarily white men and has been for a very long time. They've had ample opportunities to change their hiring practices and they haven't.
In a department of approx. 45 academic staff, only 5 are women. There are NO members of staff from a BAME background.
I work on a team of 6 working for the same PI (1 recently left but will be replace in the next few weeks). Of those 6, I am the only woman and of the 6 there are only two (myself and one other) who did not do their PhD AND undergrad studies at this university. The new team will be 6, two women but now everyone but me has done undergrad and PhD at this university. There are no people who are not white. I am a foreigner (non-EU), and the man who has just left our team was a foreigner (from western Europe). I, the white, English as a native language, Commonwealth citizen woman am the diversity on this team, and that is appalling
Still is a lack of gender, race and sexuality diversity
In my field there is quite an imbalance, especially in terms of gender and ethnicity.
I'm the only female in a group of more than 20 researchers.
While I personally (a white woman) feel well represented, I don't think I have ever met a single black academic in my field or my faculty.
I do not believe there is such a thing as "too much diversity". I feel that my workplace is not undiverse and therefore falls into an appropriate level of diversity.
It is very Caucasian heavy- there is diversity but still has a massive lack of BAME people
There's lots of diversity, people from all over the globe
We need smart, hard-working, cooperative people. We have a necessary monochrome in that respect. The kind of 'diversity' you're probably referring to in the question is irrelevant. The guy I work next to is Chinese and his value to the lab has nothing to do with that fact. Diversity of political/philosophical thought is low, as is typical in academia.
I am basing this on the research group I am a part of and not the whole department or lab that I would work in as I have been working from home since starting my PhD, and I am not familiar with the other groups who we would usually share a lab with. Male-female ratio in the group I work in is 50:50, not including Masters students. The group is multicultural, and multiple members of the group identify as LGBT+. I do not believe there is such a thing as 'too much diversity'
There is almost equal number between males and females, also people come from various ethnicity.
In our group we have a wide range of nationalities and cultures.
PhD research groups are fairly diverse in terms of gender and race. Most of the senior positions are held by white men.
There appears to be no preference to a specific group of people among my group of peers.
Look at any physics department, there's a lot of men
I have left the question blank because there are many kinds of diversity, and I'm not sure what `diverse enough' would mean (in some absolute sense, relative to other professions, relative to the undergraduate population, etc.)
I don't have very strong feelings about diversity in the work place
There are not enough women or members of some minority ethnic groups.
Critical theory is a destructive and divisive ideology; even this question is dripping with it. Why is “diversity” being the metric that all other considerations must become subservient too? Whatever happened to judging people by the content of their character rather than by immutable characteristics such as skin colour or what sex organs they have?
The gender and ethnic balance of my colleagues does not reflect that of the general population. Increasing diversity would probably increase the range of ideas, which is important in academia.
Too much groupthink in teams with similar backgrounds.
I don't care about diversity, I don't go around counting people by color, gender or whatever.
I am pretty frequently the only woman in small seminars, or at the pub and I'd rather not be!
As with most departments, the highest level academics (e.g. professors) are largely white males. There is good gender diversity at lower levels (e.g. ECRs) but very poor ethnic/cultural diversity across the board.
In my department although there was a period when there was a strong representation of women we have recently lost many and coming up through the ranks we only have men in permanent positions. As for BAME representatives I think we have one person on a fixed term contract - it's shocking!
My workplace is mostly white men, with some white women. Diversity is lower than average for the HE sector in the UK, and much lower than would be representative of the population.
Most students are well off and white. The large majority of Academic Staff are white.
It's mostly made up of white men of a certain age.
Mostly British/European academics, not enough women in leadership posts (e.g. professors)
Depends on what you mean by diversity? If you refer to diversity in opinion amongst academics from a political perspective then there is zero, it is an echo chamber, If you are referring to skin colour, well we are in Scotland and there will obviously be more white people. What is used to measure diversity? There are plenty of international PhD students and lots of post docs from various European countries. In regards to LGBT, I’m not sure, I’m not really interested in peoples sexuality if I’m honest nor do I think it makes any difference to their ability to work in the lab.
Don't actually know the level of diversity, have yet to meet most people due to covid
PhDs are fairly diverse, (still pretty white though), but moving up the academic career ladder, it becomes increasingly white, straight and male
I feel more could be done to promote an inclusive environment for LGBTQ+ and BAME researchers
I have not actually physically been to the workplace yet having been in lockdown the whole time so couldn't really say.
My department appears to be quite diverse, with probably around 50% women, and a very substantial number of non-British staff, which is great. I guess the only thing is that most staff are white European, and so diversity from places like Asia, Africa and South America is lacking
Not enough diversity on all levels (PhDs up to Professors). I mentioned once to my supervisor, as we work in Asia we should have PhD students from Asia as part of the group. They said they don't think the University supports funding students if they don't graduate from Stirling (as they can only graduate from one institution). Which I think is crazy. We should have more opportunities for people oversees especially if we are working in those countries.
I think there is a diverse range of gender and nationalities of academics at most levels.
There is not enough diversity with regards to ethnicity, social backgrounds, gender, sexual orientations and disabilities. Academia is predominantly based on power and position, there is a strong aspect of academia which is approach through a lens of white supremacy. Academics are very dependant teaching from on conventional sources, with a lack of reference to black, brown and ethnic minorities. This is portrayed in the work place. We need skills, interest and contributions from multiple ethnicities to enable strong team work and academic excellence - the work place is currently very monocultural.
I think the majority of people working in my department are white. It's also very male dominated.
There are plans to improve diversity but currently there is insufficient diversity in the workplace in terms of staff. Diversity for students is better but still more could be done
Appropriate but we do not have enough women or disabled people in our department studying in my field.
We have colleagues from diverse ethnic, religious and linguistic backgrounds and a balance of men and women. I don't feel there is any limit on this imposed by the university
I think that being successful in academe tends to favour certain socio-economic groups and not the full spectrum of diversity in society. Getting established is now super 'expensive' (student loans, costs of Masters degrees which may be needed to progress to PhD etc etc), and may involve many years of career uncertainty, and this is not attractive (or even feasible) for many people who, otherwise, might make fantastic academics.
My department is over whelmingly white and predominately male (although the gender balance is improving somewhat). We haven't detected any obvious bias in recruitment as this reflects the applications we receive.
Our department is unusual in its diversity in terms of staff. However there is poor diversity amongst students - and PhD funding models together with systemic issues around diversity in STEM means that I think this is set to continue.
There is diversity within fixed-contract staff but not amongst academics.
I'm not sure what metric you would measure this by?
From a research activity viewpoint the department research focus is heavily geo focused and it is difficult to break into this group to collaborate on a broader range of science focus. It is also dificult to know who is working on what as there are some siloing occuring and this makes collaboration harder as you need to find out who is doing what yourself first. As far as personal diversity is concerned the department is slightly positively gender balanced compared to other places (standard male/female mix).
Social class (check), sex (check), ethnicity (must do better)
Much of the senior staff in the department are women and there's a fairly large LGBT cohort. Ethnically, we're not very diverse - though Scotland as a whole isn't hugely diverse.
Due to the pandemic, I haven’t been able to meet everybody but so far I’ve seen it’s the perfect level.
During recruitment at Strathclyde only the candidates that look and speak like the panel get selected for lectureships etc.
I have not been to the department yet, so I cannot give a statement
Work with different people from different backgrounds to myself
There are students from all over the world in our department.
I believe that there is not enough diversity in my work place as I have not seen any non-white academics that are in higher positions.
My department is relatively diverse, my faculty is not. Leadership is predominantly white men over the age of 50 -- this is common across the UK.
Too male, white, straight dominated -but this reflective of academia in general. Recruitment practices in academia generally rely on success in a narrow range of activities that are very inconsistent with a meaningful family life - which is prejudicial against women or anyone with caring responsibilties - and in fact tend to reward self-centred behaviour. Tendency to look at diversity as a bit of a tick box exercise, with a real lack of empathy for anyone not like themselves (including students). Tendency to recruit internally can lead to groupthink.
Not enough women and a poor representation of Black academics in particular
There is diversity in both culture and race as well as academic pursuits
In my department, we got a lot of Asians and Europeans, few north Americans, Africans and South Americans are rare.
Mainly white, male, able-bodied people. I think this comes more from a lack in diversity of people making applications than bias in the selection process(?)
Both a gender and ethnicity imbalance/under-representation in the lecturers and the PhD students
Department is made up of people from all over the world who trained in different institutions so avoids bias towards mathematical theories/techniques that are particularly popular in one field/country.
Diverse on some axes, not so much on others
I don't see any particular discrimination in my environment.
If we include the students, yes - diverse. But greater diversity at PhD/academic levels is possible.
Small proportion of female academics, hardly any PhD students.
There is clearly a lot diversity in my workplace. My colleagues are from all around the world, which is a strong indicator for a healthy and diverse academic environment.
There is poor representation of minor ethnic groups despite a push to increase it
Very little diversity, mainly Caucasian members of academic staff
We have diversity in some directions, but very little under race, gender, disability, and probably other protected characteristics.
Not enough BAME representation in management
It depends at which level the question is referring to.
Multinational, gender gets worse at senior levels but okay at junior
Lack of BAME representation at faculty level
dominated by white heterosexual males and females
I think the opportunities are there if people are willing to work for them, though I understand that this may not be true throughout the University
There are people from all over the world, of different beliefs and culture
Very male dominated and most people have progressed from UG to professor in the same institution so it is very difficult for any outsiders. On the race front people are not even aware of the issues and lack of representation with many people saying they don't see colour. There have been moves to try and improve but this is in early days and a ban on recruitment is now making this impossible to act upon.
Great efforts are made at my establishment. The feeling and atmosphere are good. Covid has taken its toll but am certain we can recover that pastoral feeling.
We have a good mix of people, but they are not mixed across levels of seniority
I meet people from all backgrounds in my workplace.
We have a diverse team which work well together
Seems reasonable mix of all types of person in our research group. Unisure of wider university
My particular research group has a wide range of ethnic and age diversity across seniority levels. However, there is a significant gender imbalance with not many women conducting research in our group with perhaps a 1:4 difference and no women and five men at the senior project officer level. This reflects the discrepancy in the number of women who study STEM in general but it should be improved.
Although there is diversity in terms of nationalities in my workplace, there is still an imbalance between the number of men and women. I think there is a need for a greater number of women in academic positions. It was said that Engineering is a field where men are the majority. However, that is not true today. The number of women studying a PDEng or an MSc is almost the same as that of men, however, academic positions are still held mainly by men.
There is no such thing as too much diversity; my supervisor values diversity and recruits with this priority.
Very white male dominated - especially in leadership roles
Male/female ratio poor, and ethnic minorities not well represented
There is ~30 people on my department and all are Caucasian and mostly male.
I work in Engineering and I can clearly see an under representation of women in the Academic Staff. I teach to a cohort that is roughly made of 50% women and 50% men, however, it seems that only a very tiny minority of women pursue to academic positions. The same apply for people belonging to minorities. University is taking a proactive approach to solve the issue but it is still there.
The best person should get the job, regardless of background.
I would feel more comfortable if the gender balance was more equal (we need more female academics).
Old white men run the university and control the opportunities for new positions
Few women, almost no non-white academics
Our group members come from different countries in the world and will hold interesting activities regularly.
Very low proportion of staff and students who self 8dentify as Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic.
I do not do my PhD at the University but at home, so it is hard for me to answer this question. The appropriate level seems the most neutral answer.
Data still shows many groups (BAME, Woman, etc) under represented.
My work place is renowned for the diversity and equality in recruitment process.
There is a lack of diversity in higher education in the UK, and I definitely notice this in Bristol.
Everyone appears to be from a middle class, white background. Also there are many men
My department includes people from various disciplinary backgrounds and experiences. My team and department come from all over the world and I enjoy listening and learning from their perspectives and experience. We also have a range of ages, socioeconomic backgrounds and academic abilities. I think diversity can always be improved and I would love to see even more women be successful in the selection process.
Compared to my previous university (Aston) there is a much greater preponderence of white and middle-class students and staff
There's a fair diversity of nationalities but majority western european. 90% of my colleagues are men and 100% of my immediate colleagues. None of my colleagues are black. Of the British people in my group, there is a definite skew towards "posh" - I'm not talking public school educated necessarily but definitely what you might consider to be above average.
There may be a little diversity in colour or race but diversity in how people actually think about problems is very limited and their conception of the world is very limited.
Academics cling to a notion of "excellence" that is almost entirely self-referential. Unsurprisingly when such a criterion is the primary one in promotion and hiring decisions, the result is a monoculture.
Diversity could always be better but it is worked hard at my institution t promote it.
Women are underrepresented in my field, despite an overrepresentation in HE overall. I am not persuaded that this fails to reflect preference differences. An outlook that is not in line with progressive orthodoxy is a part of my identity I hide from colleagues!
While representation of women is improving with time, even if still lagging behind at higher levels, there is not a very good representation of minorities in any role in academia, from graduate students to postdoc and definitely faculty.
Our department at senior level is mostly male and almost all white. We lose good researchers at more junior levels because they feel they don't fit with the department and/ or their skills aren't recognised.
Insitution has GOLD Athena Swan and actively works to encourage and support diversity in all forms at all levels.
Many grad students come from the same University. Most postdoctoral researchers come from other countries. There is a more or less equal amount of men/women. However, the ethnic groups are mostly white and practically all the PIs (and other senior roles) are male.
I am surrounded by people who want to be here doing this work. I would not feel better if I had to work with someone who didn't care about their work and was simply here because of their skin colour, sex, gender or religion.
Systematic 'favouritism' is a common practice in many labs in UK HEI.
I believe in there being a balanced level of diversity representative of the population as a whole. I think that my university has a good balance of this without going too far either way and this is how it should be at all institutions - merit over other factors
I am one of two women in a research group of 11
Although the department encourages diversity and strives towards it, there is still an imbalance (especially with regards to gender diversity).
We have a small but diverse lab, each member is a different nationality but we have 2 female and 4 male members so gender balance is not very diverse.
The fear of being challenged over diversity issues have overtaken the simplicity of employing the best person for the job. In the same way that we do blind marking of students interview shortlisting could also be done blind
There is still a large majority of white males
I would say it is somewhere between appropriate and not diverse enough. There are a large mix of backgrounds in my department, however, the gender balance is heavily male-weighted.
I'm the only women in my research area and there is very little racial diversity in the department as a whole
Before last year, we only had one female Prof. now we have three. All our Pofs are white, able-bodied and European and the majority are male. We are more slightly diverse at the lower levels.
In terms of gender my workgroup does very well, but it remains a very white British majority.
The parameters are set - `diverse' people (women!) are still trying to fit in with how men believe good science should look
We are low on BAME staff and on women in senior research roles
Underrepresentation of BAME staff, disabled staff, women in leadership positions
In an engineering department, typically there are fewer female staff on the teaching/research side but fewer males in admin roles. There is however, a good mix of ethnicity within the department as a whole.
Engineering is low on participation by women. We rank higher than most but this should be improved.
The male:female ratio is very skewed in CS as a discipline (we are trying). Very few female academics with children. Very few out gay or trans people (except in the student body). racial balance among academics is appalling. Professional services does better but academics are all a bit one-sided...
About right, attempts at "positive" discrimination or quotas only make things worse. I'd say the people I work with are there because they were the best people available plus a dose of chance, no biases involved.
It is reflective of drawing on the pool of people available.
There is not enough diversity according to many measures -- ethnicity, sex, lifestyle, background -- the only measure which is relatively positive is that we are quite diverse in terms of country of birth.
Cambridge has a rich diversity of professionals and students
The Cavendish Laboratory seems diverse enough considering the ethnic diversity in the UK.
We have people from countries all around the globe, which I much enjoy. I am a woman and there are many other women in the labs I work, so I feel women are well represented (even if possibly not entirely 50/50 it's probably quite close). As to 'too much diversity' I find that difficult to say. Occasionally there are some tensions because of the diversity (culture clash) and it would probably be easier to work in a more culturally homogeneous environment where you always know what is considered appropriate or not by others, but on the other hand it is also an interesting aspect to be working with people who may view culture/politics through a different lens than yourself. Plus, I do believe that equal opportunities for everyone in the world are important and access to high level education is important for that. So I went with 'appropriate'.
100% of academics at a lecturer position or higher are white. Men are dominating in share (~70%)
People come from all over the place - it's great
We are mostly a white and not very diverse department. Cambridge is still filled with old white men at the top levels.
Too few female professors. Very few national minorities in senior positions. Leadership is completely white, old, and preferentially male
It is largely still white, cis, heteronormative, able-bodied. I am a white woman, and though I feel underrepresented--I know that gender is at least talked about and often addressed--but its the least bad axis of diversity (and also generally conversations of diversity only helps white women). There must be structural change.
The level of diversity has increased over the past few years, however there is still room for improvement. While positive action is taking place, sometimes it feels that the efforts to promote equality and diversity of the university are made just to tick boxes. While training for students and staff to raise awareness and to attract people from all backgrounds is available (which I think is very positive and very important), these efforts are not addressing the heart of the problem but merely touch the surface.
The majority of people come from white, affluent backgrounds.
There are a lack females and BAME people in my field
In my field (physics), there is a huge lack of women at the graduate student and professorial level. But the problem lies in the fact that women who enter undergrad intending to do a physics degree often graduate without one.
Not many people of colour. There is an acceptable amount of gender diversity in my workspace.
Very much a white man culture at the PI level.
More ethnicities and greater gender diversity required to reach some semblance of non-bias
There is a good amount of diversity on most metrics
My research group is entirely white, 30% women but none above the PhD Student Level,
1 of the only coloured students in my whole department
I am not particularly concerned by diversity of the workplace. Many are not from the UK, and a good proportion are female. The people we have are suitable for the job.
Our lab group is a very multicultural and interdisciplinary one. Everyone has a different expertise and works well together
While there are equal females and males there are not equal amounts of people from different backgrounds
We have students and academics from a wide variety of cultures and background. However, there are probably too few from a BAME background.
There has been a lot of progress in diversity, but we are nowhere near "appropriate levels" - diveristy is the lowest a the most senior levels perpetual generating misguided policies.
There is very little diversity, with mostly UK men in committees and senior positions in the University. Even numbers from EU countries in top positions are low.
I feel like the department has a really good representation of people from all over the globe.
We are fortunate that we have quite a good gender balance in our department. However, we have no BAME academics in our department -- and those in the most senior roles are white males.
there is a good mix of people coming from different backgrounds
I think my work place is highly underrepresented by BAME researchers.
I think the BAME and LGBT+ population in my School reflects the percentage of the population in the UK. However, GeoScience is predominantly a male field.
As a female academic I find the rise of identity politics to be very difficult to navigate. My university is more interested in gender identity than biological sex, which is directly harmful to female academics. Trans males do not face the same level of caring responsibilities or early discrimination that females do, yet are allowed to access our facilities and activities aimed to promote women. This is very harmful to the advancement of female academics, and exposes the underlying institutional bias towards males. Academia is still very male dominated and promoting identity politics is making this worse.
It's overwhelmingly white male dominated. There is zero representation of Black African or Black Caribbean people. Women and other ethnic minorities are also underrepresented.
There are people from many different walks of life, backgrounds and cultures.
Diversity is not for the sake of diversity by counting numbers... Better to be "naturally" diverse than be diverse for "politically correctness"
We're still quite male-dominated, and I suspect our socio-economic backgrounds are not very diverse either. More diversity on other measures, including ethnicity, would also be good - we're probably not miles off representative of our region in terms of ethnicity, but we recruit staff (and students) on a much broader scale than that.
The make-up of senior academic staff does not reflect the diversity of the general public and this (along with reading about others' experiences) suggests to me that there are biases in recruitment/opportunities.
I work with people from different countries and different research topics.
All are equal and that is it. There is way t much Diversity pushed by the system.I feel as a white elderly cathic that I am becoming persecuted for views which realy are not relevant to the workplace. MERITOCRACY is all that matters.
Mostly white blokes. A few women. No black. If one looks close enough, one could fine some olive skins...
Fairly poor gender balance (not many women), fairly poor ethnic balance (many white people).
I have very few non white peers in my department. I have very few non male peers but slightly more non male peers than non white peers. I have no peers who are non white and non male. While I have peers who are not straight (and are open about this), none of my superiors are open about being non straight and/or non cis (and thus I do not know any). None of my peers talk openly about any disabilities they may have
The university is much more diverse (in many ways) than any non-academic workplace I have been in - which is a positive.
More efforts could be made in certain, more obvious areas of diversity (sex, race), but overall my work place is diverse in many ways (country of origin, family backgrounds, academic degree obtained, etc.). One area that I would like to see more focus on is those from poorer backgrounds being given more representation: university remains a very affluent-driven population, which reflects in the academic workplace.
It is a too noisy topic. It does not worth to pay so much attention, it's becoming annoying.
I see a heterogeneous mix of researchers (race, gender etc) in the department, which is a very forthcoming environment for me to work.
I am working with people from diverse backgrounds.
I think it is fine but the more it's pushed the more awkward I feel being in a minority category. The more it's noted I start to feel "Did I get here to tick a box? Or because I was better than the other applicants?".
It's all white people and the majority senior people are men.
Exeter is a closed place. So, most of the staff in my level (PhD) are British who did their BSc here. I have no problem with that, but it doesn't promote diversity and for some people this could be challenging.
The majority of staff that I see fall into one category
It’s 4 women in the entire PhD group. We are in the 25/30ish
Exeter has a limited diversity at UG level and the retention rate for keeping minority groups is low.
My colleagues are still overwhelmingly white men.
There are very few people of colour in my department, students or staff, and no women of colour that I know of. This does not represent the population of the world at all
There is a shortage of women in my area, but this is mainly due to issues earlier in the career ie. primary schooling etc.
Students from multiple different countries.
While we may not think there is enough of a specific group of people, the university does not appear biased against hiring any groups. Presumably the numbers will rise naturally over time, and if they do not, it is very difficult for the uni to recruit people who do not want to work there.
There is a lack of "ethnic" diversity, although there is good diversity in terms of socio-economic backgrounds
I am working on a computational project but no one in my group or senior than me (even my supervisors) are proficient in the computational methods that I am using since they are mostly experimentalists. This is the risk when there is too much diversity in a research group- no one in my group understands what I do in enough detail to supervise, guide or collaborate
Generally at this university there is a lack of diversity. This translates of course to individual departments. I would however say that at the post-graduate level there is more diversity here in terms of e.g. gender, nationality than there is at the undergraduate level, but still not enough. We have a long way to go here to widen participation still and until we've made more of an effort on that I think the postgraduate community will remain quite homogenous.
I believe STEM research and research culture benefits from diverse views coming from different backgrounds. I see too many people in academia who seem to be cut from the same cloth making the whole system less adaptive than it should and needs to be.
The percentage of women is very low, especially in higher positions
There is an inadequate representation of female and BAME staff compared to the population as a whole
I've worked it several institutions and Exeter is by far the least diverse. I think it's more through geography than design, and I have not seen any signs of bias in my short time there, but I think that more diversity would benefit everyone.
Predominantly, white male and sometimes stale
There are a good mix of people from different countries, of different genders and expertise.
There are people from different backgrounds.
It does not necessarily meet the ideal standards but it is pretty much in line with the rest of the community
Mostly white, middle class, cis, heterosexual staff. I do believe there's a lack of understanding of diversity in my department, although they do seem to be trying to change that.
It is a fairly diverse work place, however there are some areas which are not widely represented, such as the physically disabled.
Given the field and the country I am in, I feel there is an appropriate level of diversity in gender and ethnicities. I feel that all people have equal opportunity in my department.

If you have experienced or witnessed any of the above, please describe in as much detail as you can (e.g., what happened, who was there, how did you feel, how did you respond).
I've heard staff comment on the sexuality of different technicians in a derogatory way. I've heard staff comment on the ethnicity of different research groups and how if you're not from the same background you can't contribute to their research.
Male colleagues treating me differently as the only female, one once threw a whiteboard pen at me in front of students because as a collective we were brainstorming and I suggested a correction to the notes
a group of 20 campus activists making a claim that one cannot be racist against a certain group of people with specific immutable characterstics. That view was challenged with an abundance of historic and statistical evidence. The response received was profanity and slurs as sufficently reasoned intellectual rebuttal could not be mustered. Was not a pleasant interaction, certainly. There was a smaller subgroup of people within that group who was interested in a reasoned and calm conversaiton and the opporutnity was taken.
The expectation that one plays an instrument, listens to classical music and has the right opinion about "popular classics" is part of the expectations of being the right sort of middle-class person who becomes an academic having had the right sort of school background. As an atheist I do find myself surround by them at work, which is nice. However, I am aware of conversations at Dept events that have made practising Christians uncomfortable. However, I think most of the discomfort comes from having moved from being an identity that is a certain sort of bourgeois expectation to being a bit of an out-group. It's the loss of expected privilege rather than direct insults. However, no one should be made uncomfortable by their beliefs.
People of faith are regarded as backwards and unreasonable
Offensive remarks: 1) group of girls in canteen rating the appearance of men in room. This was successfully addressed by someone else in the wider group asking how the conversation fitted with the institution harassment policy. Feelings: surprised, neutral. 2) lab group in canteen about 'there's someone gay in the group? Really?...'. I was very junior at this point and didn't know what to do other than get up and leave. Feelings: confused, disappointed. 3) Loud and escalating table banter at social occasion with external collaborators about women and map-reading etc etc. Had a (very productive) conversation the next day with the most senior person present about the behaviour I expected from him in this circumstance - it was very clear that I was uncomfortable with the comments and was trying to de-escalate. Feelings: excluded - close to getting up and walking out. 4) Ongoing gender discrimination by Director of Studies to member of teaching staff over a period of two years leading to an exclusion from appropriate decision-making. Ultimately dealt with informally by a complaint under the institution bullying and harassment policy. Feelings: confused, powerless, angry, miserable, inarticulate.
A colleague told me that after his job interview here, one of the interviewers told him a dead baby joke. (I've counted this as "disability" above, since it seemed the most appropriate.) In response to a stall on campus raising awareness about our university's campaign against sexual harassment, a different colleague made comments about wanting to be sexually harassed.
Excessive workload allocated. I was as supportive as I could be.
As an English person working in Scotland I have experienced anti-English remarks.
A senior colleague who was the chair of a board of enquiry referred to a student who was the subject of the enquiry as "camp as fuck", some colleagues repeatedly make derogatory comments about students from certain backgrounds (primarily Chinese students).
Approximately 30 years ago (!) a fellow student was dismissive of a member of support staff, assuming a lack of eduction/intelligence, based on an assumption related to their socio-economic status. It shocked me (I remember it to this day as really the only time I encountered this kind of behaviour in an academic setting). At that time I would probably have called it 'rude' rather than have been thinking about the broader implications. There is one further time when a colleague made a comment about me, in my presence, which related to my gender but it wasn't offensive, bullying or harassing. It was just stupid. So I didn't record it here.
Slight jokey remarks on females in engineering etc.
Mainly stereotypical jokes about ethnicity, Brexit-related banter etc. I responded back with banter as well.
Banter that went a little too far. It was recognised and apologised for quickly.
Making fun of an Indian girl not being able ot unterstand someone with a strong Scottish accent and her reaction, to then generalize about all Indian people behaving similarly.
The usual casual racism from older colleagues when I first started (now all retired). Things like not learning to pronounce my name and just making up an Anglo-Saxon one instead, or expecting me to conform to ethnic stereotypes. It was no more than what I was experiencing previously so I let it be. Once the older generation retired, things have gotten a lot better and in general I've had no issues. I should say the sexism and remarks based on ethnicity were more pronounces when I was a PhD student at Oxbridge, but it is actually now very good where I work.
I appreciate it perhaps looks odd, but I've genuinely never experienced or witnessed any of these things in my current workplace.
Called it out; Thoug I have ben around a long time and most of the events above were in the relatively distant past (1990s).
Many instances are due to the perpetrator's lack of awareness of how they behave. I also see people being harassed (etc) as a deferral when there is some other discomfort in the offender's position
As a female, I get and used to get a lot of unwanted attention, e.g. in conferences, from male colleagues.
in multiple occasions I was prompt to quit speaking my native language with other compatriot on University ground. The accident happened multiple times and the perpetrator was one of the highest figure within the University. I felt offended and powerless in front of this attacked. I did not do anything. In many other occasion I am the target of stupid jokes based on my cultural background. Most of the time I feel it is just a problem of ignorance.
A more senior colleague made a comment about their penis to me as a joke - I told them off though and my colleagues (who new him better than I did) also appreciated that it was an inappropriate thing for him to say. They also told me he had a tendency to say that sort of thing in non-work settings like a bar/pub after work. One of the most senior people in our department has a tendency to say inappropriate things in meetings or events. He's the only person who behaves that way, everyone else I know has a zero-tolerance attitude to that sort of thing.
Example 1: senior male PDRA used rude, insulting and offensive language towards a junior female PDRA based on a misunderstanding regarding a bit of equipment. No official complaint was made (at the request of the junior PDRA) but the male PDRA's line manager was made aware of the incident and it didn't happen again. Example 2: a male PhD student constantly undermined a female PDRA by refusing to accept her supervision. She left her role (albeit mainly for other reasons).
At my previous university my PI wasn't very accepting of my sexuality and made numerous comments about my looks. I know he also intimidated one of his PhD students for being muslim
Generally, our department is very good and inclusive of everyone who works there and most events are down to just two individuals, one former PhD student now postdoc, one PI. The PI got a promotion elsewhere, and the bullying was only partially related to gender. He was just a narcistic bully by nature. But he was protected to the detriment of several PhD and Master students (with serious consequences for them) and despite several official complaints against him) The reason why he was protected is, that he was an upcoming individual with high publication output and good at obtaining grants. In other words, reputation of the Department over student health and career. Well, didn't help, he still moved away, but is now Assistant Prof. If there was a way to put his name on a warning list for potential applicants, I would do that. The other individual has a problem with accepting advice from women coworkers (unless they are the boss), i.e. he accepts hierarchy, but not experience/ merit. I was in charge of organising certain experiments in an inter-group setting and as such had to distribute certain tasks and coordinate measurements etc because I had more experience/ training. However, he would refuse to participate in the cleaning of certain equipment (which he had used and it was him who would use it again) or would generally ignore what I politely asked him to do. It was slightly better with my former colleague (also female) who had previously done this job, because at that time he had just started with no experience and she had several years of experience and he relied on her teaching him. Despite of this, he would also ignore certain tasks given to him and only reluctantly accepted advice (usually after ignoring it first and failing with his own attempts). When he had questions about a software/ certain parts of the experiments, of which he knew that I can answer them, he would demonstrably ask a male colleague in my presence (even though he did not know whether t
People who pretend to be very inclusive but in doing so make their biases clear. For example, on one occasion a woman of Latino origin had an argument with another student. A third student of German origin said to defend the Latino student "understand her for she is Latino" assuming that all Latinos are "conflictive." In my opinion that discussion was not due to the fact that one of the students is Latina. I don't think that this student argues more than others because she is Latina, it is simply her personality, regardless of her origin.
General comments regarding my gender (female): ability to perform certain tasks in lab, comments on my appearance/style. Mostly ignored.
too much to give detail - covers everything, mainly personally gender and sexual harassment, being put down, talked over, vilified if speak out. My response has been mixed -sometimes to avoid and keep quiet, sometimes to raise issues always at my own personal and career cost. I have been passed over and not recommended for positions due to not being a clique. This all applies generally across academia, where people/referees hinder grant funding etc. Equally within my institution I have been attacked and vilified. I have also spoken out when seeing harassment etc, been a witness - nothing has ever been done. Indeed I have been offered additional research funding resource or personal salary gain to keep quiet, or people have turned on me. I have reported at many levels in Universities to no avail. the system is too formal and relies on the victim to prove, plus in my experience it always has a huge negative effect on the victims career and personal life
Many examples at conferences, where people make "jokes" which will make others feel excluded. A recent example was a senior male researcher showing a photo of him hugging his junior female colleague and making a joke about MeToo.
My supervisor will regularly say he is going to 'find a boy' to lift things that I am more than capable of lifting/moving and do on a routine basis when he is not around
Sharing an office with a more senior male colleague and being referred to as his tea lady by other more senior male colleagues. Not happy, but didn't say anything. I have a strong Northern accent so that is frequently commented on, people assume I come from a "rough" or different background compared to people from the South. This doesn't bother me too much, I just let it go.
Racial and sexual jokes, bullying and intimidation, myself and others, including my own students happen often. The excuse is often the perpetrator "did not mean to offend". I have had to rebuttal and confront individuals, often enough "older gentlemen", especially well established professors.
All of these would be remarks made in the tea room during tea break where many colleagues are present. Mostly originating from one select person they are trying to split opinions and get a reaction. They are known to mask things in a joke but overall create an environment that does not feel welcoming. These remarks and jokes are mostly in absence of the insulted and with the offender having a more senior position it feels like there is little I can do. They seem close with the management or at least able to skew it their way.
I was sexually assaulted by a colleague outside of work. I could not tell anyone and I have to keep working with him for the duration of my contract.
An insensitive remark (later apologised) about people from council houses
I was nearly bullied out of my PhD due to transphobic/homophobic harassment. I was called 'shemale' and 'lesbo' and the individual persistently used the wrong pronouns for me in a malicious way. I had counselling from the uni to cope with anxiety attacks so I could attend the lab. I was told "it's just his way" when I complained and that I should be the bigger person and ignore it. The person who bullied me was also criticised by my supervisor for being autistic. I didn't know how to speak up for someone who was cruel to me. I have witnessed someone calling a black PhD student the N word before. We all told him that was unacceptable. Another time I witnessed this person insulting another PhD student by calling him "gay". I stood up for him, and gained myself the reputation of being an "angry feminist". I left that lab eventually because I got the impression my PI was sexist. He frequently talked over female post docs and treated us like the male postdocs technicians.
Saudi student refereed to by nicknames which may have been in made in friendship, but could be taken offensively,
Has not happened in my current workplace. Mainly jokes/condescending attitude
Having a disability and being a little different usually leads to the normal jokes from people that don't understand or try and make light of it. Mostly this is with good intentions but it can grate a little. In the area I live there is a lower level of education and higher level of poverty. This naturally leads to people being very judgmental and making jokes about people that are different. Derogatory terms for different ethnicities and sexualities are common place particularly in the male dominated environments
In my previous post (in another university I prefer not to mention as it is also a prestigious one) a colleague was not very politely asked to leave the office when praying cause that was "offensive and disturbing" for some people. And that came from a professor. I was not present when that happened, but my colleague talked to me as we were good friends, and asked my personal opinion, especially given our different religious beliefs. I was shocked and saddened, and after giving my full support support to my colleague and apologise for such a behaviour within our institution, I advised them to report it to HR, which they did.
I overheard a conversation between an academic and student in which the academic made a joke about another (female) student being late to work because they were busy clothes shopping, in context it seemed somewhat sexist seeing as I have never heard similar remarks being made about male students by that academic.
In fairness in the UK it seems to be better than in my country. I have always heard jokes about women in physics for my entire academic life. Things like "I did not know beautiful women do physics", or even a professor said something about women have more skills in the kitchen during a lab practice... Here in Liverpool I did not see anything like that yet. I did not respond that kind of situation in the proper way, I think we usually feel shocked or too scary to respond.
The ethnicity to me is related to accent (Yorkshire), other comments have been quite light-hearted but still there!
Prefer not to say, but it was dealt with by managerial supervisor.
It is not about jokes, harassment or bullying, but more about prejudgements and comments like "women do not share what they know, they tend to keep things to themselves". I should have replied something ironic like "it is good that we have a man with modern ideas among us", but that didn't come to my mind in that particular moment.
I am from a minority ethnic background. I have overheard senior colleagues talk about the good old "Raj" days when I have walked by. I talked about it with other supportive and younger colleagues. I have been shouted at by a senior colleague, which I do not think he would have done had I not been from a minority group;I thought of making a formal complaint but colleagues said it will be detrimental to my career. I did not take it further. Some administrative support staff have not been supportive.
1-1 conversation with a senior male professor where the appearance of female colleagues was explicitly remarked upon. Informal gathering (conference poster session) where female academic was told she was "too young to possibly know anything about this". This is not my direct experience - that of a colleague.
In all the efforts to increase diversity people are more aware and careful around many religions, but I think people think it is OK to joke to and about Christians because they think this is their background worldview that they have 'progressed beyond'. So as a strong Christian believer I have come to expect a degree of ridicule and to feel marginalised if people realise my beliefs
Heard comments being passed about other colleagues, not people I knew, in the workplace.
Senior Lecturer harassed two PhD students (one after I had left). I made a complaint regarding the first, independent to the student. The staff member was unpunished for the first instance
Cannot remember all instances unfortunately. Mainly I have observed general inappropriate comments, but I would not necessarily call any occurances harrassment. The comments were inappropriate enough for me to note them as being inappropriate, and I believed I called someone out on their comment on one occasion regarding ethnicity, and the person accepted their joke may have been too close to the line and they apologised.
In my old lab, "jokes" about women in STEM were very frequent, coming from senior members.
I know my colleague when she was appointed got the comment from someone that she only got the job because she was a female.
A picture of a student's face who is wheelchair bound replacing Simba's face in the scene from the Lion King where Rafiki holds up Simba to the animals. I am not sure if I would have liked that, but they are all friends so maybe it is okay.
I haven't worked long enough to comment but no experience so far
Not personally in this position that I am currently in.
Comments were made about myself and other women in the department being seen as pieces of meat to the male members of the department. There have also been comments about female colleagues caring more about the style and look of papers and posters where as a male counterpart would care more about the academic work itself, as if caring about looks is a female trait which and should be frowned upon. Multiple times there have been issues around staring and comments on clothing.
I've heard of Sexist jokes being made by academics to students. I have also experienced ableist languge.
I was wearing a rainbow lanyard to show support for the LGBTQ+ community (I am a gay man), and a member of technical staff muttered to another colleague whilst I was within earshot "there are too many gays". It was late in the day and there was no-one else around for me to talk to about it, and I was about to conduct a study with a participant, who was a member of the public, so I had to compose myself and worry about it later.
Hard to remember details as most of these incidents took place many years ago, some in other countries. But for example, I have witnessed a female undergraduate (then PhD student) been harassed and inappropriately touched (common assault) by a post-doc. The University concerned failed to act. Came very close to hitting the perpetrator. He subsequently stopped me from writing my thesis by playing computer games on the only computer in the lab, and I ended up writing thesis at night, working &gt;12 hours at a time. He also deleted my entire PhD thesis from the computer in response to my deleting the games from the computer (fortunately I had made multiple back-ups of the whole thesis). Consequently, I over ran on my PhD by 4 months, costing me ~£6500 (a not inconsiderable sum in the early 90s). These incidents happened between 1990 and 1992; While a post-doc I was harassed and inappropriately touched by a male PhD student. He also made remarks which could be construed as racist and was generally rude and offensive. I made an informal complaint which helped but did not completely resolve the problem. Again I was very close to hitting the perpetrator after months of harassment. The perpetrator subsequently harassed another PhD student (who had a disability) out of his PhD. This happened in 1994 in an American University. I also returned for a post-doc into the same lab I was a PhD student and was again harassed by the post-doc mentioned in the first incident. As a result my career stalled, and amongst other things this post-doc cost me first authorship of a Nature paper. This almost finished my career and I was only just about able to secure an academic post. To put this in perspective between 1995 and 1999 I published one paper a year because I was unable to access the required resources. Once the post-doc left he still hampered things but I still managed to publish 20 papers and other outputs between the beginning of 2000 and the end of 2002 (I took up my academic
I would say that I have witnessed a few examples of harrassment which was based on seniority (the bully was in a more powerful roll). In the cases that came to mind, I felt angry but also intimidated, so did not speak up. In one of these cases, I felt that the person being bullied was able to take the matter into their own hands. In the other cases, I believe that the institute cultural was such that it was very difficult to raise a complaint or, more importantly, have the bully in question taken to task.
Inappropriate comments by some colleagues or line managers. In typical academic fashion, micro-aggression is more common.
act was done by an external visitor to the university, and gender-specific derogatory language was used
To me: "you're a white man of a certain age - what canyou possibly do for diversity". tried to explain my track record. At an appointing panel, the University Secretary asked a female candidate questions about child care that hadn't been asked of male candidates. Toldhim he shouldn't. Similar events at lesser panels.
Unwanted sexual advances at a conference, I felt terrible and ran away. 'you are in your role because you are a women' remarks are common.
Very occasional offhand banter about my being a person of faith (and therefore a bit stupid). I'm pretty thick skinned about that kind of thing so it just makes me cringe a bit rather than feel actually offended. Also heard an anti-semitic comment being made one time at a social event and I told them it was so not okay.
off-colour remarks & jokes in staff meetings, but this was mostly more than 10 years ago, and things have improved since then. (question is very broad - "ever" is a long time).
I was asked to lead workshop for year 12 girls. My research is focused around wearable technology. Faculty technician (male) told me to reconsider a wearable tech workshop as it enforces stereotypes.
No. Can't do this. Long story. Anyway, we sorted it out.
As a young research fellow I was told by a senior male colleague at lunch that he wished 'women would not come back to work after materity leave as their brains had turned to mush and they were a waste of space'. As a result of this I didn't start a family until after I received a permanent contract. I have had male colleagues make passes at me (off campus - they also knew I was in a relationship). I have had to work extra hard to convince colleagues that I am a competent researcher and not 'over-emotional like many women in academia'. In response I usually point out that there are plenty of over emotional men too and make it into a joke as that tends to cut through much better. I have seen male academics (not in my own department thank goodness) behave inappropriately to female undergraduates, being overly familiar or flirting. I have also obsevered that promotion and other advancement criteria are not applied equally and that the barriers to success are higher if you are a woman. In response I have tried to be calm, confident and point out inappropriate behaviour when I have seen it. I have always felt deeply supported by my department and so have felt able to do this from a position of relative security.
Assumptions made about female members of research staff, including their ambitions and abilities. Also delegation of tasks, e.g. minute taking at meetings always assigned to female members of staff.
I have never encountered any of these behaviors in Newcastle. It was definitely a thing when I was in Germany.
I was told that a famous academic took interest and invited me to go and work with him only because he "wanted to fuck me" because I am a young semi-attractive female PhD student. I am constantly criticised for the way I dress in the department. I had one time when a male kept obviously taking photos of me. A good friend (female PhD) was told her photo on the uni website was inappropriate because she wore a choker necklace and "held back women in physics". There are photos of males in pubs holding a pint yet they weren't mentioned. If you haven't done your BSc/ Mphys/ Mmath at my university then you're not "in" with the departmental clique. In all times I ignore what is happening - I learnt quickly that there's no point trying.
In a meeting to discuss PhD social activities a foreign (Greek), male PhD student suggested the girls "go get their nails done" whilst the boys play sports. Additionally, at a conference a foreign (Brazilian), male PhD student identified a female PhD student to me as "the one with the nice ass".
-A "playing-down" of additional needs that students from less affluent backgrounds may have - Jokes made about someone's disability (they were very shortsighted and jokes such as "could barely see the screen" were made) - In reference to a paper with Chinese authors, a senior professor said "you can't trust the Chinese" - Many assumptions that everyone in the department is heteronormative, i.e. assuming that all of the men in the department will have girlfriends. - Lazy stereotypes made by the head of the EDI committee about the additional challenges that LGBTQ+ members of staff or students may face
Private school backgrounds are always treated with more respect
I personally was told by a female superior that my outfit (which was a pretty normal outfit in my opinion) reflected badly on women in stem. I've seen other women be discriminated against for the way they look/dress. I've also seen cases of misgendering
More than once I have witnessed sexist and transphobic remarks towards other members of staff. Transphobia against a member of staff (muttered remarks and eye rolls during their EDI talk, offensive comments and jokes about their appearance) in group meetings. This was not commented on by other staff members (myself included) due to the superiority of the other members of staff in question.
One senior professor explained to me in detail why women couldn't do experimental physics. I do experimental physics, and I was left wondering whether he didn't consider me a woman or didn't consider me a physicist.
I have only been in remote study so I have not have enough interactions with others to answer this reliably.
At a meeting a senior female academic said she was unhappy with how a project was progressing. After she had left the meeting someone involved in said project dismissed her concerns by making a comment to the rest of the group about it being "that time of the month".
When doing a group project I was told the men in the group would build the machine and I should write the report. I disagreed and reported it to a manager, who supported me. A male colleague was angry I had achieved a higher mark than him in an exam and told me I was too stupid to do better than him. He told me to "prove it". I showed him my results and he was quite annoyed, but in hindsight I shouldn't have felt the need to prove it to him. A colleague was criticised for struggling with certain health issues.
Over several years, for basically all my roles, I had at least five times remarks like: "we need a woman on this committee/in this role/to chair this commitee, so..."; "we need a female role model, so you now teach...", Remarks about my breasts by students on student evaluations and by an older colleague some years ago. Threats about not being allowed to visit the Italian university where the father of my kids was working to give talks there. Suggestions not to ask for a collaboration with them by my friendly older colleague for fear of accusations of fraternisation. Remarks about LGBT+ stickers on office doors (safe spaces stickers) being ugly and ridiculous by HoS at AS meeting, although the LGBT+ society of our Uni was so happy about them. Not being allowed to chair EDI meetings without being constantly interrupted and challenged by HoS. Being (hopefully accidentally) thrown under the bus by management, after pointing out we are not ready for an AS silver application, etc. Etc. Etc. I do try to forget these things. I do not think it is emotionally healthy for me to dwell on them. And this happens in industry as well, perhaps even more so.
As someone with a disability I have frequently been made to feel like people were doing me a massive favour by making reasonable adjustments and that's exhausting to combat. On the most ridiculous and silly level this includes people saying "oh it's alright for you being disabled - I wish could get a decent office chair too". This does not have to be this way!
A senior colleague habitually harassed a junior colleague. She felt intimidated and alienated (as he was her boss and he closely controlled all aspects of her working environment). Although she confided in a few close colleagues, she didn't seek formal help and eventually left. I witnessed the same senior staff member bully junior staff at social events, and exhibiting intimidating behaviour to students and staff in meetings. This person is in senior management, and I know that some other senior management are aware of at least some of this behaviour (as some staff have reported it to them), however it goes unchallenged.
Witnessed at a previous organisation I worked for someone being prejudiced against and saying offensive things about a student due to his ethnicity. Reported the person - was told it was already known and efforts were being made for their dismissal but it was a long process. There have been numerous examples during my career (though not at my current institution) of negative professional behaviour against females. Mainly inappropriate remarks and harassment (including inappropriate physical contact).
I have had the usual thing of women in the workplace being belittled or put down in a meeting, then my same idea taken up and presented as the male manager's a few weeks later. The same manager bullied and was extremely unpleasant to my (female) colleague on several occasions, dressing her down for something that was his fault in front of a roomful of strangers.
Some employees claiming jokingly that it was urgent to have Brexit, because according to them the issues they experienced were due tu the presence of European/non British academics and students.
A racist, homophobic, misogynist, far right supporting lecturer (Mike McCulloch, look him up) continuously spouts his vile derogatory opinions-as-fact, insulting LGBT and BAME members of staff, and the university does nothing more than give him a mild telling off.
I guess it is just people making jokes based on stereotype. I treated it as individuals' opinions, although I do not fully agree with it. I feel a bit disappointed and offended. I understand why some people would make those assumptions and have those stereotype, but I don't like to make any comment or argue with them.
At Queen Mary I have never witnessed any offensive behaviour. Before joining QMUL, I witnessed some (offensive) jokes on both non-European and on non cis-hetero people in a few occasions in academia. They were jokes privately told to me, or within a small group of people. I was uncomfortable with that. For example, a really strong researcher was told to be "strange" or "not normal" because she is transsexual. As if her gender identity gave less value to her research. In those occasions, I usually say it is both inappropriate and wrong to say (and think) those kind of things.
I have occasionally reported these events, but it is a futile activity as the institution does not act: if you are generating grant income, that's all that matters. Those people are rewarded and promoted - those that got hurt in the process are not considered at all.
I have had a negative experience being a woman in mathematical physics at every level of my career: UG - told that I lacked the ability to continue in the subject. I (obviously) didn't listen to their advice to drop out, but the experience has shaped my approach to teaching and I "take a lot of chances" on students who do not appear to have promise and I have *never* been disappointed. PGR - work was not taken seriously at conference/when I approached senior academic in my field with technical question, colleagues responded with raised eyebrows and said they would "leave us alone" (having looked me up and down before the comment). I ignored this, had a very productive conversation with the person, who realised I was serious, but I believe it did affect my willingness to work on that particular area since this person was the top guy in the field. I continue to ask more friendly senior people questions and have less of problem with this kind of behaviour now that I am older (and probably less attractive to those who would make these comments). Postdoc - sexually harassed by fellow postdoc with no repurcussions for the offending party when I raised the complaint to a senior colleague ("he has issues"). I didn't press the issue further, stopped working on the collaboration and finished my postdoc with as little interaction with that person as possible. Unfortunately, I was also invited several years later to give a talk at a prestigious institution and found out when I walked in the room that he was a co-organiser for the seminar, so I had to endure a speakers dinner, which was unpleasnt, but not impossible to manage. The only place where I have not experienced the above kind of treatment from someone of same rank or higher is at my current institution as a permanent member of staff. It is worth noting that in all of the above instances, I have also been subject to inappropriate comments by the people "lower in the pipeline" (e.g., inappropriate comments relate
One incident that comes to mind was graffiti left inside our office building, which was censured in email circulated inside the department, though probably not seen by the person leaving it. Another was a visitor to a seminar in discussion at the pub afterwards, to which there wasn't much reaction (I didn't say anything either, shamefully)
I was outside the super market and there were some of the teenagers who harassed an Arab guy from across the street. I felt very bad but couldn't do anything and there was an Irish national who started arguing them and asked them not to bully someone because of their religion.
I was sexually harassed by another member of staff and filled a complain. The member of staff suffered almost no consequences and I see this person frequently and it scares me a lot. I was also made fun of because of my nationality with jokes related to stereotypes
I am a Christian and have recieved remarks about how someone can possibly believe in something like that. I often hear my worldview desribed by STEM academics as a being a coping mechanism or something for simple minded people who can't think for themselves (usually when they don't know that I hold these views but sometimes even when they do). Sometimes people want to discuss views and I'm more than happy to explain what I believe and why but this is often not the case. Usually it is just someone shutting down these beliefs on the basis that they're too intelligent to believe such nonsense I know that friends in similar situations also experience this
Oftentimes, the most obvious remarks of this nature come from a select few individuals, as a product of their worldview. A more diffuse form of these attitudes can sometimes be perceived - such as cases where people presumed my background as being one of a higher socio-economic level than is the case, due to skills I had demonstrated in typesetting and linguistics. Generally, what is encountered is less 'offence' and more often 'obtuse' - presuming statements about diversity don't apply to anyone in a group but exist purely in the hypothetical, etc. However - and I speak from a pessimistic scenario here - obtuseness can often shift into something worse, deliberate or not. This is more common with identities people are less familiar with, and may broadly overlap with the degree of acceptance amongst wider society. I've had a couple instances that suggest at least an individual believed themselves to be above these biases due to intellect, which is fallacious.
I've overheard how some male staff talk about female staff or students sometimes. It's not nice.
A man said to a friend who hurt her finger, 'this is why women shouldn't be allowed in the labs'.
Someone left a comment on my desk many years ago concerning my perceived religion, and someone in a meeting once accused another person of discrimination based on religion, which the accused found very upsetting (it was untrue). I have had comments made about me on social media, and also seen negative comments made by people about colleagues. (Some people seem to think that as social media is outside work then its oK to say anything you want....)
I can't think of many examples and the ones I can think of were quite minor.
A colleague has on more than one ocassion said that the allowances in exams/course work given to students with disabilities is excessive and most students with registered mental disabilities are tying to "beat the system" and are not truly disabled. In terms of race/ethnicity... some remarks have been made to me in the past that its best not to accept PhD students from certain countries.
One male person constantly asked only the females in the group if they needed help or if they were struggling and implied it was because females were worse in STEM fields than males
Being left out of group discussions because I am female. Being told to write up any time I have off as sick leave rather than being allowed to use my holiday entitlement. Ridiculed for taking the lift up 2 floors in my building rather than walking. Bullying another female (who eventually quit) owing to her needing time off at regular intervals (although never taking more than her entitlement) due to her disabilities (whilst a male in the group had similar needs and it was never an issue)
I student member behaved inappropriately to a junior student on several occasions. I was angry with the students conduct, but hadn't been provided the suitable training/information to speak out and handle this situation. My response wasn't sufficient in resolving the issue. Every time I think about those events I feel guilty that I didn't take appropriate action or even ask the junior student whether they were ok. Both students have since left the organisation.
A colleague in a different research group was treated with less respect because of her gender when being shown how to use a piece of equipment to the extent that she was upset and intimidated and it required intervention from a more senior academic. Another female colleague was repeatedly interrupted by a male colleague when speaking in group meetings and her male counterparts were not.
Two people share an office - one is more senior to the other. Someone said on group chat [junior person] I left this in your office. Senior occupant of lab says - I think you mean MY office. Certain members of group bundle in with funny memes. I felt that this was unnecessary and could have embarrassed both the sender of the message and the junior occupant of the office. For context the [junior person] and the sender of the original message (both women) are considerably more senior than most of the meme sharers (all male as it happens). However as neither of the women appeared to show offence I took it no further. It made me feel weird though.
I have many experiences where people use certain religion, ethnicity related comments, which I find disrespectful.
As you have asked the question, I will answer it honestly. As a Christian (by free choice not by birth), I am concerned that it seems to be accepted that people can swear or curse in the name of Jesus Christ. This is hurtful to me (even though I do not riot about it) and it would not be accepted by other faiths or religions for people to curse or swear in their name. If we are to be looking at how people are being treated, then it seems that this huge elephant in the room is being ignored - that of how Christians are treated, and how the name of Jesus is treated with great disrespect (or worse). This should not be accepted.
Once a technician suggested that the two female members of the group shouldn’t sit together as they would just chat and distract the office. I reminded him that he was the only one distracting us, which diffused the situation. That is the sum total of discrimination I have seen based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion or sexuality, in 9 years in this institution, including undergrad.
Sexual innuendo towards women in office, and religious hatred towards Muslims from non-muslims.
I am British female from an ethnic minority background. Due to my ethnicity I have been asked how long I've been in the country, I speak English very well and where am I originally from. I don't feel any of the people asking where being negative, I think they were genuinely curious. I just made me feel different, like I didn't belong. I confronted one person about this, to tell them how I felt and I felt they were remorseful and didn't intend to offend.
One of our PIs frequently makes racist/xenophobic comments and I witnessed them asking one member of staff if her parents had "found her a husband yet" because her family is of Indian descent. This same member of staff also told us that this PI accidentally used an extremely racist phrase in front of her and then immediately apologised. She told us straight after and was very upset. I personally felt very sad and angry, but powerless to do anything about it. It's been made clear that people who make complaints about these things experience difficulty finding future employment in academia.
This was mainly from a particular student who believe that some of their jokes were funny, but generally they were quite offensive to most people in presence. I confronted the student on many occasions about their behaviour and it was addressed by their line manager as well. Thankfully this was stopped relatively quickly.
Derogatory comments made on female academics at a previous institution being on "constant maternity leave" and sacrificing their career for the sake of children. Offensive comments made on female academics childcaring arrangements or lack thereof, comments made on female academics limited office hours due to childcaring commitments and unwillingness to accommodate these reduced hours or excluding them from meetings. Derogatory comments made about sexual orientation by a supervisor in front of a PhD student with that sexual orientation. Offensive jokes about female academics involving sexual acts. In all cases, due to the power dynamic (usual Professor level staff made the comments) between myself at the time and those making the comments and the precarious nature of postdoctoral contracts I did not feel safe or protected enough to comment without affecting my own career.
I prefer not to revisit those memories, thanks.
A member of staff was mocked by a student video posted on a social media platform. The video was a performance of a song using ethnic stereotypes to characterise the lecturing style of the staff member. I was shown the video by a colleague and felt upset on behalf of the staff member targeted. I heard that everyone had seen it and no clear idea of anything I could do about it myself. I didn't respond in any way to others.
Not long after I started, a senior colleague (M) complained to me that one of our female collaborators had taken maternity leave during her first year of her contract at her current place of work. This was in 2012. Subsequently, this same male colleague mentioned that the job this woman held (one that I had held in the past) was "no job for women with children". I have had difficulty accessing safety training and equipment, just being told that I don't need it for my everyday work. I have concerns about safety as I am currently trying to get pregnant, but I feel like I put my job at risk if I push for the training in case they work out why I am extra concerned. All my male colleagues have had this training. Again, not long after I started work in my current role, one of my other colleagues (F) was in a full on rant in the office about how all women are liars, because on internet dating they say they want an above average man but they reject 90% of men that try to connect with them. This colleague is very insistent on video meetings (instead of sending me an email), and I dislike this as he tends to go on rants about how the COVID lockdown is like the Holocaust. I have in the past asked my husband to sit out of frame on my one-on-one calls with F so there's a witness in case anything untoward happens. F makes my skin crawl and I don't know why. F also makes comments like 'I'm just being Scottish' when he means he's unwilling to spend money. I have asked him to stop and he hasn't done it in a while but we'll see how long it lasts. F's email avatar is an image belonging to a very niche sexual kink, but does just look like an anime character if you're not in the know. This makes me uncomfortable, but I don't feel able to raise it (although, it does make him much less of a threat to me if that is what he means by it). In all cases I have stayed quiet. Until recently, I was on probation and could have been sacked for any or no reason. In most cases, my speaking up would h
Occassional off-hand or low level remarks made, although I cannot remember any specific events.
I have been subjected to very severe racism, sexual, physical and emotional abuse. This has been in front of and without witnesses, all who stood there or actually became like that towards me. In terms of what I did, standing up for myself made it worse, and thus it had to be taken up by HR. It was humiliating and degrading to me as a person and led to multiple attempts of suicide
Some people come from cultures where its more acceptable to be offensive, and don't get that you can't say things. Doesn't help that there's not much diversity to make them feel to awkward to say things
These were all casual remarks in informal conversations. I was disappointed for the speaker and sorry for the subject of the comments. They were a long time ago, and I do not recall whether or not I protested, but I probably let the remarks pass.
contempt, ridicule from an individual (frustrated, private discussion) Some general poor underdoing presumed knowledge from some people (outnumbered, subject was dropped) A general institutional culture which pushes values which are antithetical to my own (take part in surveys like this one in the vain hope that the current prevailing ideology is both harmful and cancerous)
It feels like it barely counts, but a male officemate managed to freak me out by what I think were attempts to be romantic. He lived in the same direction as me and frequently would walk me home from the pub: there were a couple of incidents that made me uncomfortable, especially given I hadn't picked anything up previously. One night he asked if he could come in, and I was surprised and said no probably quite forcefully. He did accept that and left, and he never asked again, but I was left a bit freaked and confused about how he and I seemed to be interpreting things differently. Another night (I've actually forgotten which was first) after dark he left the pub after me, ran to catch me up, and grabbed my shoulders from behind when I was not expecting it, which freaked me out though nothing more happened - perhaps attributable to lack of empathy rather than any malice. I didn't do very much about it - he moved office for other reasons at some point, and he was due to move overseas in a couple more months for a postdoc, and most of the (very very minor, as these things go) incidents happened when we had both been drinking, and I was never very sure how to interpret them, I did tell a couple of other guys, one of whom was lovely and would walk me home himself whenever they both were there (and the person I was uncomfortable with never insisted on walking me to my door on those occasions). And I tried to avoid being alone with him as far as that was practical. ------------------------------- There was (I think he has now retired) a professor who was pretty commonly known to say sexist and racist things I personally heard him explaining tonal languages to a native speaker of Cantonese and sounding off about something distinctly eugenicy (different events). I don't think I heard him make sexist comments myseld, but I was also aware of several stories of sexual comments he had made to women, including UGs, and made sure not to be alone with him to collect any mysel
I was made fun of by a colleague on one of my first days of work for how I was dressed. I was told I would not get on very well because I was dressed too professionally/smartly. I was wearing a work dress and heels and I don't think he would have commented on the way I was dressed if I were a man. I have often witnessed men make comments about female subordinates that pertain to their appearance and not their abilities.
Typical for female academics. Always assumed that you've been asked to do something (whether it's good or bad) because you're female - never on merit of the work you do. Often says as a 'joke' but it's not funny when said by different males frequently.
I’ve been treated poorly and excluded from my research group since becoming pregnant. I’ve had inappropriate comments made about pregnancy and have been shown utter contempt from my line manager about taking mat leave and being off sick from pregnancy related illness. My boss has made it very clear what he thinks about women’s rights surrounding maternity leave despite claiming to be a feminist. I have been made to feel like I have done something wrong by getting pregnant and I’ve been shown zero support from my line manager or my department. Since having my baby I haven’t heard from my line manager at all; 6 months later. I didn’t hear from him during lockdown either despite him holding regular meetings with my fellow post doc colleague who is working on the same project. I have been excluded from all research group meetings during lockdown (the only person out of 17 others to not be invited ).I believe an attempt by my boss was made to sack me shortly after I told him I was pregnant. Briefly, he tried to make me retrospectively self-certificate for essential hospital appointments as sick days that had already been agreed at the time.. Self-certification would have resulted in a large number of sick days and as a result I would have been terminated. These days were previously agreed as working from home days following my hospital treatment,
I've heard about quite a lot of comments in the department regarding women in science, mostly behind closed office doors and sometimes a ladish atmosphere around certain male colleagues that is not pleasant for women in the dept. I have never been directly affected though.
I have not witnessed in person - only seen comments on paper drafts and emails. A fellow PhD student (female) has a very overbearing supervisor (male). He has never said anything sexist to her that I know of but I feel the kind of behaviour he exhibits towards her would not be tolerated by a male/ or he just wouldn't do it. It could just be an authority inbalance based on personalities but I have not heard that he is this way with male PhD students. I few of the female PhD students feel similarly towards male supervisors. One of my supervisors is a male and he sent me a rather disappointed and disapproving email reply when I let him know I coudln't attend a lab meeting at short notice. There are many male PhD students who have simply just not turned up and they have never received anything like this.
I think most of the time, open offensive remarks are relatively rare as there's an increasing awareness that this behaviour won't be tolerated. In my experience, it's more common for prejudice against people to take the form of microaggressions. It's also not clear whether this question relates only to my current department or not. I've answered in relation to if I've ever experienced these things, not necessarily within my current department. Most of my workplaces have been dominated by white, able-bodied men, so there hasn't been much opportunity for offensive remarks against other coworkers.
I am disabled and am subject to a lot of discrimination, usually in the form of insensitive jokes or offensive remarks "you can't be autistic, you're at a high level!", is an example of an offensive remark I have received. Nobody was there, it happened on social media, I felt low but I tried not to respond.
Disparaging comments as a PhD and Post doc about being from a working class background
I felt these questions were quite vague and hard to answer - I am of course aware of horrendous behaviours on social media in relation to all of the above. Does this mean I have personally witnessed these? Is seeing a tweet reported in the media the same as seeing it on Twitter. This is very unclear. I have mainly answered no but that is not to say I am not familiar with this subject.
People regularly make assumptions about my socio-economic background based on my name and my accent. I have been told I can work for free (end of PhD funding) because I am "rich" and have a "rich partner" who can pay my living costs for me. Many times people joke about how I "must have" particular political views based on my name/accent, how much money I "must have" (simply based on my name and accent!). I never know how to respond to these comments and they make me very sad and/or defensive because they are not true.
A white, British, middle age male academic interrupted aggressively my lecture once (in front of all my students), because he mistakenly believed I was occupying a room it was booked for him. After he cut my lecture short, he realized his mistake and apologised lamely saying people did not respect bookings and he had enough of it. I don't think he would have acted the same way if instead of me he found a white, British, middle age male teaching. Another time a male PhD student started an argument with me because I asked him to follow safety rules in the lab in front of another male PhD student. He denied it but I felt like the problem on that occasion was that I was a young female 'giving him an order' in front of others.
This section is a little bit hard to answer because how do you define what is offensive? Have people made jokes related to my nationality - yes - that I found offensive - no. Could someone find them offensive - possibly? How do you set a bar for what is considered offensive and what is not? Within accepted social norms I have not experienced anything that I would consider offensive.
Offensive remarks, bullying and harrasment in my previous 3 positions was rife. In my first 2 research contracts the bullying was so extensive that I was frequently in tears and suffered mentally and landed up in therapy. The bullying was both personal (gender, background) and generic (you're just useless) and came from my supervisors and their collegues. It was frequent, but the worst case was when my two supervisors sat in a meeting with me, I presented the update of the work, one supervisor stated that I was to not smart enough, was a girl and was not strong enough to get the research done and that it was basicly a failure (despite having publications on the research and being on time in the project deadlines) and joked about possible errors that could occur in my work that would make it wrong. The supervisor then stated that he disagreed with supervisor 2 in that I was providing sufficient proof of my progress and that I was actually in the office every day (which I had been). They then got personal and stated that maybe I was too emotional or sensative to be doing research. I left the meeting, and the two supervisors then argued over how the meeting went (supervisor 2 was trying to support me) and supervisor 2 landed but being pushed into the coridor wall with enough force that blood came out of her nose but supervisor 1. The entire department on the floor just pretended that the verbal and physical abuse to me and supervisor 2 by supervisor 1 never happened. I talked to internal abuse people, but no formal complaint could be made as supervisor 1 was HoD and the internal people wanted proof of the occurance and other than my verbal description I had no other 'proof' and no one would witness the occurance as they we either supervisor 1 personal friends/in his cohort of buddies or they were too worried about negative reprocussions from him. In my most recent post (contract 3) the bullying was academic control (I will stop or take away your research, I will preven
For clarity- just started at Strathclyde, so this reflects time at previous institution (Glasgow). Also worth flagging I'm a white middle class male, so have never been subjected to any personal abuse. I think a culture of 'incidental' bullying at my old School of Engineering- senior inflexible academics are parachuted into management roles they are ill equipped for. I suspect 'the books' look good in terms of grant income, so these individuals appear to be doing great job to the institution; however, their person-management skills are little to non-existent so they rule in the only way they know. If things are not done their way abuse in the form of sarcastic and dismissive comments are hurled at staff members in full view of the school. I've also heard difficult stories from female ECR's regarding severe criticism of their family choices (with suggestions their partners should get the snip, etc). There is a toxicity bubbling along there that I was glad to leave.
My supervisors joked about how men would find gay women "a challenge" to be conquered. I was told to hide my sexuality and gender identity when visiting countries dangerous for LGBT people. I was told when discussing discrimination based on gender that that's "just the way it is" All by senior female faculty.
I am not a woman, but I have seen that microaggressions towards women are commonplace in academia and engineering e.g.: talking over women, dismissing their comments, unfairly chalking up personality traits to their gender (e.g. when demonstrating leadership qualities, a man will be seen as direct, a woman as aggressive). These behaviours and attitudes are perpetuated mainly by older men, who make up the majority of the leadership in engineering organisations. Academia is built to reward those with middle-class and affluent backgrounds. Having social norms, accents, or communication styles born from a less privileged background creates a negative first impression that makes securing research funding, promotions, and respect more difficult. Negative behaviours based on socioeconomic background are completely normalised. We are nowhere near ready tackle this or discrimination against minorities if we can't even address the discrimination facing women.
Cultural remarks that are inappropriate to women are commonplace in academia. I have answered all the previous pages based on my Department, where I have never seen it happen, but in my wider experience, both within the University and at other academic institutions, it happens, both to myself and to members of my research group.
Previous university I was minimized for being a woman and young.
Senior member of staff at UCL telling me about how I looked and singling out in particular my ethnicity and choice of religious bracelets. Also witnessed another senior member of staff telling a peer that she was wearing Spanx, that’s the only way she could have looked as trim as she did. Horrifying on both occasions and one of the the reasons I left that job
As a young researcher I experienced or witnessed most of the above, as 'banter' which sometimes caused offence. Seems to have got less frequent as I work with more senior staff in more recent roles.
Too many to describe - here is one: A book of 'penis's was given as an anonmysous Christmas gift (the giver knew who they were giving to the reciever didn't know who sent it). This created a complaint, the person who complained left. WHilst the complaint went to HR and I am not aware of the outcome that person was promoted the following year and as a line manager was the person my friend was told to go with when she had a harassment complaint she wanted resolving. (she didn't and never complained in the end). The following CHristmas it was taken as a joke and the person who sent the book of penis's was given an award for the 'most inappropriate CHristmas gift' with much laughing (this was when I found out the story). I did email the person who made the joke about what I thought about the joke but he was much more senior to me and it got brushed over. I had a lot of conversations with colleagues many of the men didn't think it was a big deal until I pointed our what they would think if their wives got set anonymously a book of penis's and that it could be seen as threatening. Most men thought it was just the complainant 'couldn't take a joke'. Feeling stressed just remembering this and won't write more.
Some sexist behaviour by certain older people within the facility. Lots of criticism for not being Welsh and not speaking Welsh.
Low level remarks usually involving alcohol. Student and staff preconceptions involved. Subconscious bias is alive in the male welsh population more than female. Mostly coming from naivety and small town thinking that goes when they come to Uni.
There was the assumption by some that a female had won a research poster prize on account of being female and Welsh speaking.
Whilst myself and two colleagues were receiving training for a new piece of robotics equipment. Myself and my male colleague were having a conversation and the topic was about the use of domestic robots and I quipped about using a robot arm to stir pots in the kitchen and my colleague made what was supposed to be a lighthearted joke along the lines of "I've already got one of those, my wife" or something like that within earshot of our other new female colleague. The line itself was fairly harmless in the context but I didn't think it was appropriate and sent the right message in front of a new female employee in a field that is typically male dominated. I made a jokey remark along the lines of "I think your partner would have something to say about that!" to indicate that I didn't agree and that the topic should be swiftly moved on from. I don't think it was intended to be genuinely sexist as I know that this man respects his wife and she also works in a academic / technical role but nonetheless I think it was appropriate to phrase it in the way it was and had sexist overtones.
Myself and one of my female academic colleagues sometimes find ourselves in meetings with male academics colleagues where we find it hard to get our voices heard. Sometimes my colleague even feels she doesn't get a say or that her opinion doesn't matter. Whilst these issues may not class as offensive remarks, jokes, harasement or bullying, they still have a negative effect on our perception of inclusivity.
whilst pregnant a line manager was bullying/harassing on tasks to be completed when unwell
A male researcher repeatedly asked a new PhD student to “go for a walk” despite her showing no interest and clearly being uncomfortable. He then offered to “help” her with MATLAB, despite her having extensive experience. I think it may have been a misguided attempt at hitting on her, but it came across belittling and patronising.
I have witnessed a senior member of staff making inappropriate comments to many female students, particularly on a field trip abroad.
Many jokes are made about women in STEM. Sometimes these border on inappropriate and offensive. Sometimes they are made in group calls and it is uncomfortable. On some occasions where it goes too far or if others are visibly uncomfortable, I call it out.
Another researcher has made sexist comments about female members of staff and members of public when outside work
This refers to my entire career / work experience so far, including places outside the UK. Situation is much better in my current institution (such behaviour is very rare there and is heavily sanctioned).
Group of South Asian male students in a lab talking about female students they knew.
Remarks made by the PI have generally focused on the area within the UK where the lab's technicians have originated or studied. They could be taken as jokes/teasing or as mildly offensive depending on the outlook of the person involved. Remarks were rarely directed at other members of the team. Sometimes they have been accompanied by disparaging remarks as to the technician's ability to do their job.
I witnessed bullying from a female Indian postdoc toward a male Indian postdoc. The female was (by Indian social standards) of a higher social class than the male. He was subject to bullying, embarrassing remarks and humiliation. She expected him to give up his resources to serve her experiments. I felt bad for my friend who was shy by nature. I and other members of the group hold him to make a complaint to our boss. The boss did not want to get involved and made everything worse.
I have been told referred to as "very beautiful" the groups male postdoc during team meetings, which although is a compliment it is unwarranted and uncomfortable. I have had my appearance commented on during team meetings by this postdoc and my supervisor. I have been told by the male postdoc that he was "surprised" when he first met me because he thought I was "a very pretty girl" but I was actually "smart like a boy" in his leaving speech. My supervisor has referred to my diligence and thoroughness in completing a task as "letting my OCD get in the way". Although I do not have clinical OCD I have a relative who does and found the comment incredible offensive. As a young women new to the field (4 months in to my PhD) I smiled and did not say anything to these comments as I was worried about the consequences. Other PhD students have had comments on their weight, moods, and work ethic related to their ethnicity and other factors.
Language which is just inconsiderate of women
My experiences all relate to field work on a research ship with multiple nationalities (I was the only European) and only 8 women (out of 45 total). Cultural differences and the closed environment explain most of the behaviour and I want to stress that this involved no other academics.
when I was young I had to learn to run fast and `disappear' to avoid unwanted attention and having to therefore offend older men - who no doubt would have to referee my papers/write me references
It slightly depends on the definition of harrassment. Once, several years ago now, when I was a junior member of staff, a senior academic engaged in a discussion as to how "wrong" my "choice to be gay" is, from a Christian point of view. This was hurtful. I simply said that we would have to agree to differ and tried to avoid in future. It is not a discussion I should feel forced to have. But does harrassment include issues relating to division of work? In that case, I have seen and experienced it several times on grounds of gender and indeed race.
I haven't witnessed those standard tyeps of discrimintation, but I've on rare pccasions seen some nastiness directed at those supporting free speech. We're not talking about "free speech" here in the sense of merely a cover for "traditionalist" views, I mean that I've seen a few cases where people giving an honest and pleasant opinion are briefly treated unpleasantly and unwelcomingly for it. Including people expressing some very sensible and egalitarian libertarian opinions. I have concerns also of health-and-safetyism being too strong in some areas, I've witnessed this being used as a sly way of dicsriminating against people who actually get work done in favour of managerialists and box tickers. Some cutting down on health-and-safety and some charters protecting free speech could be useful..
There is an undercurrent of classism/snobbishness which comes through in many discussions. For example, an assumption that having gone to the "best" universities equates with talent, and these assumptions can be hard to challenge. I am from a relatively privileged background, but I do think that others from different backgrounds have to struggle more. I think the same is true for women. In recent years, as I have had more responsibility and ability to speak up, I have tried to challenge such preconceptions when I spot them, but it is not clear to me how useful that is. For one thing, I do not really feel qualified to comment on (my perceptions of) the experience of people.
Kicked out of a club because of my ethnicity indirectly
It is difficult to answer because you cannot prove that some behaviors are caused by identity or not. I have now experienced a great number of enormously supportive and wonderful PIs and my current PIs are excellent. I have in the past however experienced that one PI would not extend the contracts of two Asian colleagues while still expecting (and almost coercing) them to finish projects in the group. The PI rarely ectended contracts, so it did not necessarily have to do with racial discrimination. However since these students are in very precarious financial situations, visa situations, and for one person the terms of their grant stated that a thesis must be finished before a certain time, this effectively forced the students to work for free. This borders on slavery in my view. Also these students are alone abroad, and if is harmful to use their vulnerability. Myself, I have experienced with one past PI that I felt I received less respect for being female. But they were somewhat older and I felt it was an unconscious bias regarding whom is a good scientist and how do they sound/behave (i.e. low-pitched voice, not sweet and insecure).
Ethnicity - mainly repeating stereotypes, for me I often hear that I surely drink a lot, this is usually half-joking, no one around finds it offensive. Other ethnicities - also mainly stereotypes, e.g., lack of individual opinions, lack of leadership skills, hard-work.
I never respond, because that only gets you in trouble with superiors.
Some words people use like ‘sweetheart’ they don’t mean offensively but shouldn’t be used. I haven’t said anything because it would upset them to be thought of as being derogatory.
a student tried to use my ethnicity to allege harassment, which required me eventually to complain to University HR and arrange mediation to reveal the totally baseless accusations by the student. This was hugely stressful and it a while for the University to get involved.
Mostly gender related comments on being a female physicist, one guy said it was 'interesting' to discuss physics with me. Another guy made a joke that "oh I thought they did not teach evolution there" referring to the 'backwardness' my of country.
- Socioeconomic background- I think perhaps more than bullying there is an assumption that people will know something or thrive in an environment. An assumption they will have a black-tie dinner jacket, know what certain foods or customs are. And then perhaps laughing when it is strange or uncomfortable. - gender: Have been left out on invitations to networking things. I was also told that I was not awarded funding because I didn't fit what people thought of as a successful physicist. In our departmental photos--the photographer arranged all the women in a clump in the front on the side (it was really awkward). At a conference, a professor talked about how his female postdoc was 'very pretty', when he introduced all his male postdocs as 'very smart'. Our department is regarded as very 'baby friendly', but until this year, there had not been a woman who had had a baby (it was always in reference to men--who --I think it is good--took paternity leave, but to me it was not very clearly baby friendly?) When I and another woman PhD student who were senior members of the group told our supervisor that younger (male) PhD students were disrespecting us, he told us to speak louder and be more assertive (or just quit working with them). A close colleague was told that the CVs of attractive women overestimate their technical capabilities. A graduate student told me that 'women are less interested in math'. In an unconscious bias training seminar, the (male) leader explained how all the male teaching assistants give more attention to the women students because they are hitting on them. (Very heteronormative, and also assumed this was sexual). I also often see people talking about certain racial or ethnic groups being derided for their habits in lab.
I found that some (not all!) technicians bully new students/new PhD students by 'bossing them around' and telling them to clean and empty bins etc. when it's the technicians job. I have experienced that myself, and in the following years, witnessed it being done to others. But this also goes the other way around as I have heard from technicians that some researcher spill something juts to tell them to clean it up (they don't clean their own mess?). This is humiliating. One employee also frequently used to harass PhD women but he never got caught because nobody spoke up. He is no longer working at the university because his contract ended (not because he was discovered harassing women).
Being told awards were received by me due to my gender. Being told the room needs to behave because now a female (me) has walked in. Being told I will get things organised because I am female. Seeing others talking about people of a specific ethnicity do not do their job well. When something is broken, it is assumed to be of people of a specific ethnicity that broke it. Hearing about how other women have experienced comments similar to mine.
I've been called a 'silly little girl' by a colleague once for arriving to a meeting just before the start. My other colleagues did not hear. I didn't comment and composed myself but I then took over leading the meeting because he was incapable of doing it and I think I made my point.
I am not allowed to disclose this. I felt singled out due to my ethnicity.
I was involved in organising 'pride' and 'eating disorder awareness' events in my department. Although the overall response was positive i had a very negative/angry remark from a senior lecturer that it was 'ridiculous to celebrate and engage in such things'. It made me feel very angry and upset, not only because i had spent a lot of time and thought in organising, but because these issues are extremely important for inclusion and mental health of fellow students. I felt vulnerable and did not know how to reply to this remark, so i just ignored it and stopped the conversation.
The instances I have experienced myself/seen done to others have been on the level of casual sexism in the workplace. Remarks about whether young women can be good PIs since they "might have to go on maternity leave", or similar remarks. I have also often been overlooked or ignored in conversations when in a small group setting of only men and myself (I am a woman)
My supervisor routinely makes remarks about gender and sexual orientation that are demeaning. It's done in public and in group meetings and accepted by other academics as a "you know he's racist etc" attitude.
Off-hand remarks assuming no gay person is in the room. Being lumped into a group (one of "those") as opposed to being judged as an indivudal.
I am sometimes jokingly mocked for being Australian in a UK institution.
I felt that one PI was treating their black male non-British postdoc differently from their white postdocs. I talked about it with colleagues who agreed and said that they thought it was unconscious bias so brushed it off somewhat. I spoke to HR about it and they said that unless the postdoc reported their PI, there is nothing they could do. I didn't tell the postdoc I discussed it with HR, but told them they could make a complaint if they thought they were being bullied. The postdoc said they didn't think they were bullied, they just thought their PI was difficult in general.
Colleagues making derogatory remarks about women.
A senior male professor in work has on a handful of occasions commented on the body/appearance of female students in a way that I perceived to be offensive or insensitive. I did not confront the professor because I felt intimidated, being a less senior student myself. I felt awkward and upset at the time, and a bit ashamed afterwards that I did not challenge the professor at the time.
There is a well-known male academic who is known for inappropriate dancing with female academics at the conference dinner of a conference I regularly attend. I had been warned by a colleague and refused his offer to dance. I saw him dance with a female PhD student and I would have felt very uncomfortable if he had danced with me in the same way.
Two main categories re: gender, one a technician with whom it was well known there were problems, people warned new postgrads/postdocs, but nothing was actually done. As a postgrad myself at the time, I managed the risks to me and did my bit to try not to leave others vulnerable, but didn't really see what else I could do. Another was a student being offensive to female members of staff. I tried to raise this officially, but no one seemed to know how to fit this scenario into existing procedures, and I think it just drifted into oblivion. There was also some classic 'are you sure he meant X?' and 'oh, he was just nervous and said daft stuff' from a male colleague about the situation, which really should also have been dealt with. I pushed back in terms of what had happened to me, but found it difficult as a new junior colleague already having her story doubted to push back further on the broader issues with what he was doing.
A comment ("joke") on a name distinctive of a ethnic group.
I have heard from colleagues about gender-based discrimination but not been present at the time to witness it. I have occasionally heard jokes about having religious beliefs/faith in general, not about specific religions. Note - I'm not counting incidents on social media (e.g. Twitter) that I may have peripherally been aware of but didn't directly witness or know the people involved.
A colleague that is older than me, male, told me that having my kid sick was the same than being on holidays. Mansplaining a lot, not just to me, but my female colleagues. Some men thinks we are their secretaries.
Yes LGBT guy had a real go at me for traditional cristian belief. My arguement was that sex and race are not relevant in the work place Only performance at work matters
Homophobic slur as a joke - it was brought up with senior people (not by me) and dealt with. We now have a 'culture committee' and a culture of calling people out on bad behaviour.
Socio-economic background: I've had remarks aimed at my accent and the fact that I'm northern more generally; I've been called a pleb or plebian or even referred to as a peasant based on the area of the country I come from and the fact that I went to a state comprehensive school. People routinely interrupt me in the middle of sentences to repeat a word I've said in a thicker accent, mimicking me. My accent is becoming less and less broad as time goes on which I feel removes part of my identity. Gender and sexuality: I have had people outright refuse that I participate in "women in..." events as I "don't count"; I've had people say they don't want to know about a person's "sexual preference" as they don't want to know what goes on in their bedrooms. I'm left dumbfounded at that on so many levels. I've also routinely been given the administrative jobs or been the one expected to know if other staff members are in their office like I'm some kind of secretary. I've had it made explicitly clear that I'm being invited onto things because of gender balance requirements - some of these being above my station - but yet I'm continuously told that only number of papers is assessed when it comes to promotions.
Many jokes about Chinese people because of COVID, their speaking etc. Many jokes about Russians, about alcohol mainly (but they do not drink a lot, in fact). Many negative about Muslim people. I feel very not comfortable and never will work together with people of several nationalities.
Prefer not to say, as it is painful to recall.
I come from a country which was struck from financial crisis very hard. One person (recently knighted by the queen...!) made some demeaning comments in front of me for my country and my people and how we deserved what happened. My supervisor, without any member of this category being present, has repeatedly made jokes for LGBT people that have no place in modern world. Again, my supervisor is all the time expressing his envy for people who hire students from eastern Asia who don't need anything more than a bed in the lab to give you high-prestige papers. Several other jokes from many people which I can't recall.
Sexist/racist comments made by senior colleagues referring to someone who was not there. I believe the colleagues' comments reflected their age/upbringing/culture and were not malicious in nature.
Had an absolute racist guy in my office. He was even too challenging for uni to handle so everyone decided to keep quiet and avoid argument
An older male teacher called India a “dodgy country” and bragged about humiliating an EDI person who was advocating for more gender diversity for minor statistical inaccuracies in her graphs
A few incidences of microaggressions have happened in my presence, either to me or to someone in my presence. Exact details aren't coming to mind as these would have happened &gt; 1 year ago (pre lockdown).
Not necessarily harassment, but at a conference a senior prof encouraged me into a situation with a male stranger when I had made it very clear I was not comfortable. We were in a large group but I'm not sure anyone else knew what was happening. I wish I had responded more strongly, but I followed along for a few seconds then left.
Experienced some remarks related to gender, generally in work social situations. Since this doesn't impact my career, i let it go. Another female student faced direct discriminatary behaviour from a supervisor alongside me. This included comments on clothing, being given secretorial work (which male students weren't), comments about starting a family etc. Done in presence of many PhD students in her group and myself. I offered emotional support and we explored options, but many revolved around creating a tension between her supervisor and herself in the last years of her PhD.
I tend to challenge comments like this rather than let them go. All of the things I have experienced have been from my PhD colleagues or undergraduates rather than staff, and most of the things I have witnessed have been too. There has been the occasional time I've witnessed staff making offensive remarks on the grounds of disability to others, and in this case it has not been within my power or remit to pull them up on this, so I have advised the victim to take the matter further and offered my support. I find the things I have experienced more easy to brush off than others but I would say that with regards to my disability which I am still coming to terms with myself, comments really knock your confidence and make you feel unwelcome and like you cannot ask for support.
Often people will make comments saying "Religion is incompatible with STEM research" etc. My university has a reputation for attracting private school students and this has been enforced at times to make me feel excluded from the community. I am currently seeking a diagnosis for a mental health disorder and senior academics in particular don't understand. I did witness a senior collaborator making jokes about preserving his "old boy's club" which made me feel uncomfortable but as a PhD student I felt unable to do anything about it.
I have had a lot of 'nasty' comments about my home country
Jokes when I was pregnant during my PhD were made by other students which were offensive, I made a formal complaint to the Head of Department, I viewed as immature and childish, I have a thick skin so wasn't hugely affected by this, but felt it should be called out for what it was, as it created a difficult/awkward working environment.
Remarks have been made to me regarding gender or sexuality by colleagues - normally either fellow PhD students or post docs/research fellows - in an informal setting (e.g. whilst having coffee or lunch at work). These remarks usually are often along the lines of suggesting positive discrimination is the reason for certain hires/promotions within the department/group; or there are often homophobic jokes made, not necessarily directed at me, but intentionally within my hearing. Early on in my PhD I would have gone quiet and ignored the remarks, that were clearly designed to upset me. And they did - pretty much every other week for the first 18 months of my PhD I considered quitting. Now, three years in, I tend to respond, telling them why they're wrong, and explaining why they shouldn't say the things that they've said.
Offhand comments made by senior staff. Regarding disability, there was a comment that someone with a disability was perhaps undeserving (who under the disability positive scheme was eligible to be interviewed for a new hire). It was just me and the staff member present, I didn't know what to say. I felt bad because I think I know who they were referring to, even though they didn't name them. Regarding socio-economic status, again just a brief offhand comment about being embarrased for working while they were doing their undergraduate degree. There were a group of people present, no one else seemed bothered by this statement. I felt offended.
Sectarian remarks from colleagues, I laughed it off

What factors have prevented you attending such off-line event(s)? (Is there anything that would have made it more likely you would attend?)
Need to focus on my own research and outputs for my career progression at this stage
I don't believe it would achieve its objectives
I'm not allowed to travel out of my area due to the Pandemic
Too busy with teaching/other research activities
1. Carbon footprint minimisation (if you can do it on line don't do it live)2. I cant be bothered travelling to hear the same folks say the same things
I have mainly known about activities which I have previously attended (so not eligible to repeat) and others not totally relevant to my expertise
I don't like travel anymore and I need to really convinced it will have an output which is mostly does not. Plus now with COVID 19 its easier online
pre-event evidence of subject bias in the set of participants
I did not consider them beneficial for me. In some cases I had the feeling that people wanted to listen to my ideas and then use them themselves (that would not be the first time!)
I judged the specific event not worthy of my time. I did not have enough economic resources
I have Asperger's syndrome which is a little prohibitive in such circumstances
Urgent experiments and other responsibilities
They're more directed at PI's than PhD students.
Too difficult to balance with everyday commitments and disability
Probably I wasn't interested in the topic, or I did not have time to fit it in.
A lot of these events are not terribly useful in as much that rarely did I get beneficial collaborators from such events. I tend just to approach people directly instead.
I have the chance to attend quite a lot, and they take up a lot of time, so I cannot attend them all.
Too many other demands on time. Frequently scheduled during teaching semesters and tend to be multi day events.
Irrelevant to my work/professional network
They seemed to have little to do with my research area.
Low likelihood of anything useful coming of it.
The general problem is chronic lack of time due to heavey workloads, especially at certain times of year. Often these events are scheduled outside of University term times, the problem for parents is that this often means school holidays - making it harder to attend.
I am based in a different city from my university, and also I am not generally interested in this kind of events.
Mainly feeling under-qualified to contribute anything of use.
More information about the types of projects and topics they will explore. We get a lot of emails about "hackathons" but no real info on what will happen in them. Also some sort of incentive would be nice - for example an evening meal afterwards. Lots of the hackathons are run by companies and I get the impression that its more about free labour for them.
I did not find the time to attend the events.
I had a breakdown and was not able to travel for several years.
Travel. Having to travel distances for activities is something I need to really carefully consider before I do it because of disability. I also feel so overwhelmed with work that I don't feel that I have the time to attend.
I have primary-age children and events are often after work - it's not possible to attend those.
I have attended in the past and these are still biased towards some people
I couldn’t travel to the designated place of the event
topic of the event incompatible with my moral principles
It is hard to find the time to commit time to these.
No time - overburdened with multiple responsibilities and TOO much admin
Time or money limitations - I do hope one silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic is increased opportunity for online access.
Not enough time to attend and lack of funding.
Busy and have attended several in the past.
Experience of their lack of effectiveness and tendency to promote the loudest mouths present - more about characters than great science
I am very busy and already collaborate with lots of people. People tend to seek me out proactively.
I attended in the past, but as a junior academic my contributions were more than once taken in by others who mismanaged my potential follow-up role and I ended up just working for others to profit but to no advantage to my career.
I didn't want to travel without my husband, we'd just moved house and I hadn't settled just yet.
I'm not clear on the objectives/benefits of these kind of events
Social pressure to communicate directly with someone I don't know. Having them talk to me first.
Time, it is very hard to take a day out to attend these meetings
I had to prioritize other tasks at the time
not welcoming, closed groups, fixed agendas, travel, stress of travelling
More emphasis on direct benefits from attending
I applied for the Welsh Crucible two years ago (2019) but I was not selected. I did not apply again in 2020 as I was pregnant, and close to term at the time of the event.
Practical family issues; workload and time available
I only started as a postgraduate student after the beginning of the pandemic, so all events have been online
I don't have enough time to participate in these events. I would have to work extra hours to compensate in order to meet deadlines.
From the ones I have attended have not found anything useful from them
Travelling was incompatible with parental and caring duties.
This is the sort of situation that populates my nightmares. I am not good at situations where I do not know what to expect!
In general these events have focused on people showing off what they know and can do, rather than collaboratively working to a solution. Especially since sharing information / results and ideas can lead to other researches stealing your ideas and publishing before you.
Not really, just balancing my time - I don't take on too many projects at once, so wouldn't attend one if already got a lot on. If an event filled a particular gap on my CV, I would be more likely to attend.
I wasn't interested in the particular event
I was aware of one such event, but it was not a high enough priority among all the other more urgent things to do. I would usually rather spend my limited time collaborating with people I know/seek out than with unknown attendees.
The event required significant time and travel commitments.
Waste of time - generally badly organised or very superficial and basic

What factors have prevented you attending such on-line event(s)? (Is there anything that would have made it more likely you would attend?)
I work part-time and it wouldn't fit with my hours.
Need to focus on my own research and outputs for my career progression at this stage
I have more than enough to work on without committing a large block of time to initiating new projects.
Too much teaching to prepare. It's a lot of invested time on a very long-shot.
I don't believe it would achieve its objectives
I didn't think the people involved were willing to listen to diverse ideas from other areas of science or were really interested in communicating with different science disciplines. They simply wanted to bolster their own egos and research portfolios.
Time and availability, along wich changing career path
I wasn't feeling well enough to participate. I was struggling with depression
I rarely have time to myself, it was just really bitter that the event was due out of hours and required a lot of commitment
They don't fit into my work schedule at the monent.
Again, too busy with other teaching and research activities.
Relevance to my research, and likelihood of funding. Most of these events are simply levers for the organisers to get funding so over the years Ive learned to discriminate timewasting vs real opportunities. Ive become much more targeted
mainly it is past experience with individuals or organisations that have demonstrated lack of ability to be effective
I judged the specific event not worthy of my time.
time, workload increase with transitioning online as a result of covid, also increased admin as centralised admin support at my institution at the start of covid, increase in international student numbers requiring additional support, no increase in workload leaves no time for attending such events
Problems to solve at home, not interested in the contents
no time and the atmosphere at conference, which is aggressive, competitive, cliquey and focussed around drinking culture, and very exclusive
More important work in other areas of my research. Compounded by my current contract being very short term.
The event was designed to be intensive, scheduled for long hours on three consecutive days. As I have a child to look after this would have made full attendance difficult. The event also had fairly stringent criteria on who they would like to attend, particularly focusing on people from academic fields outside of my own. I did not feel like I met these criteria, though later they encouraged more people with a similar background to me to attend.
The topic was not very relevant with what I am doing
Timings, and often they don't feel like they work so well or I get anything out of them.
I'm currently writing up and have to concentrate on that.
It wasn't relevant to my expertise, so I didn't feel I would be any help.
Price and I wasn't sure what to expect (I haven't attended a conference before)
Too difficult to balance with everyday commitments and disability
Similarly, I probably wasn't interested in the topic, or I did not have time to fit it in.
I just think collaboration is so much better when you can actually connect with people in person.
They seemed to have little to do with my research area.
Not enough time to meaningfully commit. Not comfortable in an on-line enviroment for this kind of activities.
I don't really think you can build meaningful new collaborative relationships online - you can't get a sense of the person or how you would work together. The best collaborations require trust and friendship.
I am generally not interested in such events.
Feeling under-qualified to contribute anything of use.
I didn't feel like I had the time to attend such an event
Sometimes lack of time or interest in the event.
I did not see any advantage anymore at the point they offered these online. I kind of gave up to get a promotion.
I also feel so overwhelmed with work that I don't feel that I have the time to attend.
When it was on offer, it was not high enough on the priority list of things that need to be done....
Again, they may clash with school pickup time or other child-related commitments.
The conversation just doesn't work remotely
Sometimes these events didn’t fit my timetable
I wasn’t interested in the topic of the talk.
I hope we can get back to "normality" before the end of 2021, so those events will be moved off-line again. For this reason, I am pushing right now with my own research, so that I will have more time next year for such events.
The online events have mostly happened since covid, and I have been homeschooling kids during the various lockdowns and catching up with everything the rest of the time, so not been able to attend anything.
No time - overburdened with multiple responsibilities and TOO much admin
The ones I knew about were aimed at researchers earlier in their career. I forwarded these to my students and other students in the subject area.
I often feel the workload I currently have stops me from participating in these events.
Lacking in confidence and worried it would effect my work rate
I am very busy and already collaborate with lots of people. People tend to seek me out proactively.
- other things more pressing to do - seeing not much of an overlap with other fields
I was on a deadline and decided not to attend. However, I think that I should have participated.
Lack of time, and difficulty of interacting online
Timing, zoom fatigue, duration, time zone difference, little chance for serendipitious conversations over coffee which is often where the real value lies in such events, likewise the lack of effective networking via the online format.
I would have wanted to attend such an event in person, I knew some people, it would have been good networking, but on line there isn't the same ability to socialise. Also, suddenly time differences come into play, and I've mucked a couple up and missed events because I had the time wrong.
I do not like online events and only attend them if I find them very interesting
Social pressure to communicate with someone I don't know.
Time, it is very hard even to hind a half day free of teaching and administration to participate
I had to prioritize other tasks at the time
I have just started my PhD programme and need to figure out how to stay on top of things before starting new events.
Timing - am in the final stages of my PhD so decided to focus more on current research and virtual conferences instead.
Being too busy due to coming to the end of my PhD
These events are not relevant to my research field.
I don't have enough time to participate in these events. I would have to work extra hours to compensate in order to meet deadlines.
Just won't be the same experience online without the face to face contact with strangers
Times were incompatible with parental and caring duties.
attend some, but often forget as their is no significant commitment or get eclipsed by events
Actually, I took part in such an event but it was not on research challenges. We worked in teams to build presentation skills and confidence when talking in public. I am aware of other events but everything is happening virtually during the pandemic, and having another activity in front of the computer was too much for me.
Not interested in the subject or no time.
Catchy name of event but they mostly go off topic and depress
Timing and work building up (final eyar of PhD)
These events feel like they have a lot of people and groups end up being too large.
Waste of time - generally badly organised or very superficial and basic

From your perspective, what are the main advantages and disadvantages of attending events designed to develop collaborative research ideas and activity, on-line?
Societal benefits of bringing different fields together. Access to novel lines of grant income.
much harder to "socially mingle" and develop a longer lasting network
The opportunity to form and strengthen research networks. Also, to gain new perspectives.
Only people whom have the correct network are invited. If you are from a developing country and an early-career researcher, you won't be invited.
Being online makes events easier and more budget-friendly to attend for people with busy schedules and small travel budgets, however it is significantly harder to interact and casually chat with people over video calls compared to in person
We do not need an "event" to develop collaborative research ideas and activity.
It's easy to see the terrain than to really engage in an informal discussion.
Disadvantages: it seems an unnatural or forced way to build collaborations
Lack of "side talks" with people you can approach in the coffee break
It saves a lot of time to do on-line events, so I prefer online approach.
Advantages - online levels power disparities and allows more diverse voices to contribute. Easy exit if session becomes hostile. Can be conducted from a safe place. Room dynamics washed out.
Advantages: Lack of travel, easy to organise Disadvantages: more time consuming to get ideas across, less social interaction and harder to get to know people
Managing energy - new people are tiring and at an in-person event your choice about hours spent interacting is very limited; you have more control on-line.
Advantages: I love collaborative research Disadvantages: many people talk with hindsight about the importance of cross-disciplinary communication for effective interdisciplinary collaboration. Those people I am around who are arranging these events do not listen to those of us who are experienced in this and are not interested in facilitating communication. They simply want to boost their own research.
Advantages: networking, career development Disadvantages: need to find funding to support it
The attendees are not always fully engaged in an online evenr.
Advantages: much easier to attend online events than offline events due to there being no need to travel. I hope the ability to attend these events online continues after the pandemic eases. Disadvantages: it is harder to move between different groups of people and create new contacts without the breaks and lunch times to make small talk.
I'm not sure what this is getting at and feel unable to answer.
Advantages: easier to attend, environmentally friendly Disadvatanges: social dynamics completely changed and this could reduce effectiveness.
Advantages: collaboration, networking. Specific to online: no need for travel. Disadvantages: risk of ideas being stolen in a publish-or-perish world. Specific to online: lack of pen and paper/blackboard to sketch ideas/graphs/equations; digital alternatives are unsatisfactory.
Advantages - can work with people worldwide Disadvantages - difficult to communicate as freely online
The best of both worlds, comfort of your own home and get to meet new people and explore new ideas.
Some work, some don't, but the opportunity is there (better than not having such opportunities)
The collaboration tends to be on the projects opeated by the arrangers, implying if you want to get others to collaborate with your work, then you need to arrange (or promote) the sessions yourself
On-line means it is easier to fit them in to a busy schedule. Properly organised on-line events can also give individuals a chance to put forward ideas and can be more structured with less people talking over each other
These events are clearly positive but they are not as effective as face-to-face events
Never heard of these activities, but I would never attend.
advantages: people might be less shy online, some processes (image processing, sharing information) can be more direct/better developed and faster. disadvantages: as a student many of these activities result in non-action, I once participated in a course on how to improve communication between interdisciplinary individuals and my pair was on his phone the whole time. I can imagine as a working-individual and in a science focused setting this might be reduced but I also fear the screen might attenuate progress/communication due to lack of connection between individuals.
The obvious disadvantages are the inability to communicate as efficiently as a group could at an offline event, that simply the nature of zoom/teams meetings. They also prevent members of the group from being able to personally interact with the elements in play. However, they can be conducted from home, fewer risk assessments are needed and they are far cheaper for everyone involved, with regards to time and money.
This varies a lot by event - some can be completely useless if there are no potential collaborators whose research aligns or complements mine, others an be very useful indeed.
I think research has shown that informal time is good for developing relationships and this could be more difficult to manage within online settings. I think it is probably more difficult to prevent distractions, i.e. it is easy for people to be online and listen but actually be doing something else However, it is much easier for me to attend rather than having to organise childcare and I imagine this is the case for other people as well
+ No Need to travel, low carbon footprint, save time and money. -No face- to -face difficult to 'bond',
interactions are too structured, and spontaneity is suppressed. some participants are not fully engaged
Cuts down needless travel time but at the expense of being able to network more effectively
Main advantages: simple to organise, no travel required. Main disadvantages: generate proper interaction of participants, lack of informal discussions
Some people (competitive or powerful) oranges them with the aim of getting new ideas for themselves, rather than sharing.
I strongly believe that in the interdisciplinary effort we have the chance to maximise impact and diversity today's scientific research. The entire research system is broken and forces people to work on few "fashionable" topics imposed by an elite
Advantage: Ease of attending, less environmental impact Disadvantage: Screen fatigue
advantages: research partners, bid for funding, learn and share with likeminded colleagues
Advantages - getting to know new people, increasing network, online means the time commitment is much less. Disadvantages - less social than offline meetings, online is harder to speak to individual people
Adv: Same as in-person, that is, becoming a broader researcher. Disadv: May be a little hard to 'connect' with strangers online than in person.
advantages: no travel or accommodation costs, you can do it from your own home/work, easier to fit around work. disadvantages: miss the feeling of the conference, miss the extra conference/social activities, it's nice to visit other places/universities.
I did not know such things existed tbh. I think it could be a real advantage in my field. I work on biological questions, but use biochemistry, biophysics, structural biology and more to answer them. I am often excited about testing certain ideas in ways beyond my expertise, but it would take too much time or effort to learn something completely new (or establish it) and sometimes there are limitations regarding equipment/ infrastructure/ financially, too. In these cases collaborations can advance ideas/ projects faster and more comprehensively. I myself had a collaboration with a genetics/ cell biology group which was really fruitful because my findings helped them and theirs helped me design experiments. Biophysics/ structural biology are especially known for collaborative projects within and outside of that field. A new perspective from another angle often helps to achieve a breakthrough. Usually, these things emerge from attending seminars/ conferences or inter-Department events, but introvert people who find networking and social activities challenging, are disadvantaged. If on-line events are organised and prepared wisely, e.g. by providing a summary of what each participant does, what they're interested in and looking for (either vaguely or specifically), it could overcome this initial barrier as people can directly reach out to someone without having to do small talk first. On the other hand, online meetings can be less productive or take away some of the spirit and creativity for completely new ideas. It is certainly an interesting concept that I would like to know more about
I have never attended one of these, but imagine that the main advantage would be convenience for all participants not having to travel to a particular location, so wider scope for participation. The main disadvantage I have found with larger online meetings is creating opportunities for smaller groups to chat away from the main meeting.
They may be beneficial for introverts as extroverts will take the lead at in-person events.
Especially important in the current circumstances.
I have found that on-line accentuates the problems of in-person, when virtual meetings ought to be more inclusive. It is in the culture, so with limited time virtual meetings replicate the worst aspects as its easier
I have not heard of this and have not thought about it
Advantage: less travel time, you can drop out if it isn't working. Disadvantage: it doesn't work. This is the worst type of activity to move online.
Cross school research leading to impactful grants.
In the DTP group this was designed for, my work is unusual and so opportunities for advancing my own research were limited. There was a wide range of biomedical projects there, so it was not a targeted event, meaning much of the advice etc was not useful to me specifically. I enjoyed learning about other people's projects, and it is good to get out of your research bubbl often to see what other techniques etc other's are learning. Off-line the main benefit from this event was networking - I have been to online conferences and workshops since Covid and no matter how hard they try, networking is basically non-existant. This means there would be very limited benefit to me attending an online version of an event like this.
You are able to bring together a much wider group of people and are not excluding based on ability to physically attend an event, this includes enabling childcare responsibilities to not impact ability to engage. The only real disadvantage of the on-line format is that it is much harder to approach someone casually for a one-one or small group conversation.
On my personal experience, I found that these very rarely develop in a real and strong project. Too many people simply want to do their own things
Spontaneous meetings do not happen, difficult to talk to individuals, however may be easier for more people to attend these events.
Events of that kind sound like they will be beneficial to most academics as it allows you to get new ideas and look at your own tasks and problems in a different light and through the experiences of others. This will often allow for unexpected solutions or methods you can use to employ in your research. However, for some people it may be difficult to share much about their respective research areas due to IP issues and patenting processes or other legislative issues. Personally I have learned most when using specific examples from my own research rather than abstract scenarios as sometimes used in training courses.
I only just heard of these, so I've no idea.
With an online format, the main advantage for me is flexibility as it reduces travel and accomodation costs.
I find them very useful to establish collaborative networks. Sometimes it is difficult to have a good attendance, and that limits the impact of the event.
The advantages are limitless as long as such events are not enforced. I think embracing on-line collaboration is an essential step progression in to the modern world. The pandemic has accelerated an online revolution and science should be driving this. A disadvantage would be that it’s hard to recreate the physical connections formed in person, which I think drives collaboration.
Advantage: more freedom Disadvantage: loss of personal touch from interactions with people
I am all in for collaborative research ideas (either offline or on-line). I believe that getting together with people who have different perspectives can result to amazing outcomes, if the environment is supportive. However, there is not a group of people in my department who do research on any topic related to what I am doing, so sadly there are not such events for me.
disadvantage of not being able to chat easily and informally with people to network outside of talking about the research
I'm not convinced of the applicability or usefulness of such events beyond "networking"
In my post this is compulsory as we are part of a large international collaboration. It saves on time and travel and means we can meet on a regular basis and at short notice. The disadvantage is that it is difficult to bond as a team or a and meaningful professional relationships that avoids a them and us outlook.
it's almost impossible to have 1:1 discussions, despite existence of breakout rooms
Good networking; exchange of ideas; new collaborations.
Advantage: access to a wider range of individuals and expertise unencumbered by geography. Disadvantage: lack of the informal break out conversations (in a pub/over coffee usually) where good ideas are most often created.
Recognising the beauty of diversity and cross disciplinary work
They are easy to make accessible and available for a wider range of people, like those working remotely. However they stunt a lot of natural discussion, and can allow people to dominate conversation
More scope to meet people from around the country/world.
The advantages are to see what areas your skills could be used for, i.e. in other disciplines. The disadvantages would be that there may not be such opportunities
Advantages - accessibility and convenience Disadvantages - difficult to read body language
On-line events can prevent the natural flow f conversations. Group calls can only ever have one person speaking at a time, often in person events enable multiple discussion to be occuring and thus enable greater creativity. As I have not participated in any online collaborations it is difficult for me to expand further
Advantages: no need to travel, so better response and attendance rate Disadvantages: Difficult to discuss things, even in small groups; I didn't feel motivated to do any social activities
Opportunity to met and interact with people with a purpose to collaborate.
Get useful information, network. Irrelevant information
Advantages: Can attend more events to get more information, but the interaction will not be in-depth. Disadvantages: If the event is online, there is limited room for social interaction and to get to know a person. Thus, it might be hard for further long-standing collaboration.
Advantages include meeting new and interesting people who might have many research interests in common with you. Disadvantages are that sometimes people are not compatible, and conflict of interests may arise, leading to uncomfortable situations and friction.
It is a lot harder to talk to people during online events.
It's important to get people from differing backgrounds to discuss their work as they can often learn to approach things from a different angle. However, such events would have to be very specific to worth the time and investment.
On-line activities such as these force collaboration. People are naturally awkward when they haven't had chance to relate to each other and are then thrown in 'breakout' rooms or told to conversant about a very linear structure.
Provides another avenue of work for which you can find success if your other work is going badly. Also, collaborating on work tends to lead to better results, due to the diversity of ideas. On the other hand, online groups can be difficult to attend as it can be much harder to find the opportunities to speak if you have an idea, due to lag or the fact that you can't see everyone as easily.
Advantages - more attendence throughout timezones. Disadvantages - In person is far more productive and better network building
I just prefer face to face contact, it can feel quite forced when on-line, it's much easier to just chat in person, although in these times it's important to challenge old ideas and embrace this new on-line way of meeting people. I am trying!
Advantages: can share content more easily Disadvantages: internet issues, people not having cameras on, people don't talk as spontaneously
Every "meeting" is forced and scheduled. No Natural conversation flow
Disadvantages are that you inevitably sit silently through a group call and don't actually get to contribute
More easily accessible if online but also lose out the personal element slightly.
Helps with accessibility, making it potentially easier for people with disabilities and other issues to take part
The online nature means you can invite speakers who couldn't usually come to these events in person. Equally, you get to meet people you normally wouldn't meet. Some of the disadvantages include fatigue of attending events online, and that the format of some events can be non-inclusive or have technical problems.
Creating collaborations online is difficult, and I think online formats are naturally less inclusive: it is too easy for some people to dominate and others to sit quietly without contributing. On the positive side, it can be easier to attend online events especially for those with caring responsibilities.
It's fundamentally difficult to meet relevant people and take research ideas forward. You need to attend lots of these events to find the right person/people to collaborate with.
advantages: zero travel time, easy to record proceedings disadvantages: hard to look at experimental apparatus and facilities; obstacles to forming break-out groups (software not always up to the job or software expertise not sufficient)
I think it's hugely important to bounce off other people research ideas. In particular in the current environment where many of us are working at home, and thus interacting less frequently with collagues. Without getting imput from others, and others' perspective, I think that there is always the danger of getting stuck in a bit of a rut.
They are only of any value if the momentum is maintained after the event. This rarely happens.
Faculty events to artificially create research connections between disparate fields are not helpful. Discipline-based events are much more useful and productive.
working through e.g. collaborative data analysis / coding is easier offline
advantage: time and cost Disadvantage: don't get the informal side
Advantage: doesn't spread covid Disadvantage: harder to communicate online than it is in person
The only disadvantage is the time it takes away from other tasks (and occasional boredom if the topics don't end up interesting me). The main advantage is the energy it gives me, which can translate to interesting work.
difficult to have the extra side conversation over coffee between main discussion events - the main discussions are often initially focused on some specific topic/idea but the side discussions are frequently where the new collaborations come from. There's too much of a barrier to initiate side conversations by starting a new email thread or yet another zoom conversation.
More difficult to have "natural" discussions on-line. Being naturally reserved, I would not willingly participate in an on-line discussion. Would much prefer to meet with people in person and build natural rapport.
Advantage - no travelling involved, everyone is in a familiar environment (home, office etc.) Disadvantage - depends on quality of internet connection! Personal interactions are dulled slightly, there's no substitute to speaking with someone who is physically in the same room as you
My work is very technical. Putting me in a room with other people, selected by somebody who knows nothing about it, won't work. That doesn't stop the research councils doing it, but unless you have a specific target in mind, it doesn't help.
In on-line meetings it is harder to get to know new people, e.g. by chatting over a coffee. Advantages: take less time/effort to participate
They are often very forced - the most productive of my research collaborations have all growth organically from research networks/meetings. It is hard to engage fully with online events and none of the personal chats (which are more important than the formal exercises in building networks) can take place. Online events are also relatively formal and heavilty chaired by necessity.
I have rarely, if ever, found these events useful, even if they are sometimes enjoyable while they last, there is no real takeaway from them. In any case, making them on-line makes them far more accessible, even with its associated challenges.
Not sure of the advantages - it feels like something the department do to keep active and to build connections in a difficult time and that is a positive organisational outcome, but not necessarily one that attendees benefit from directly. It's difficult to network in any meaningful way because the events use open communication, whereas in person where audio is of equal volume and fidelity at all times. In a physical event space, you can step away from groups of people to discuss ideas and network with other individuals in a much more natural way.
It's good to network and meet new people, but there is a danger that such events will be dominated by a few people.
time-consuming, unclear balance between effort and reward
well obviously improving yourself as a researcher
Advantages - on-line provides a means to collaborate with people from wider geographical areas and other research areas at ease. On-line events would be open to recorded discussion, allowing flexibility in attendance time to fit around other commitments and preferred working styles. Disadvantages - naturally quieter people might be more easily overlooked during a discussion as it is harder to speak up in a digital environment. It may be difficult to share ideas clearly with only pre-prepared digital interaction, such as screen share of presentations.
Advantages: Networking opportunities, increased experiences of other fields. Disadvantages: Rarely relevant enough to my work, diffuse for those socially uncomfortable
I think it's great to build collaborations, network with other academics, and perhaps even build your skills set
Advantages: more people can turn up from all corners of the world. Disadvantages: very difficult to hobnob, which is where the majority of networking, headhunting, and collaborations are done
Advantages: They encourage you to look at problems from a different perspective, they improve communication Disadvantages: They damage your self esteem when your contribution is overlooked or your intelligence is doubted
Advantages - more accessible for people to attend. Disadvantages - less social connection, harder for less technologically able to share their ideas
Definitely advantageous and a great way to develop ideas and start/continue research projects and partnerships.
Develop contacts. Interesting work. Possible connections to your research. Disadvantages: time consuming and possibly giving away your valuable time for free
I think they are useful but I am not good at turning discussions there into ongoing collaborations.
Disadvantages: takes time away from your actual PhD project. Advantages: personal growth, networking, learning from others, sharing knowledge
When we are online we can easily find the people and the presentations/speeches of the topics we are the most interested in. Also it can be less tiring at the end of the day and we loose less time in my opinion.
I found it is not the same as when you attend off-line real conferences. I felt it is not an effective way of having virtual conferences, meetings etc.
It is possible to cut down to the point. There is no time waisted and allows for people from different background and universities to be able to come together which would have otherwise not have had the chance. It is much easier to plan an afternoon of discussion online rather thatn a full day meeting inclusive of travel and maybe an overnight stay.
I'm not sure what they entail because I have never heard of them before. For research collaborations this could be a good idea for planning stages, but doesn't account for the resources/labour needed for field/lab work.
I haven't attend any, so I cannot talk about it.
Ad: Getting to talk to people in your field to help you with your own research. Especially useful if there are no expertise at your university. Easy to attend for everyone. Dis: it is difficult to connect with people online and relationships will be superficial and difficult to carry forward.
I think it is a huge advantage to offer these events online. They become much more inclusive this way and accessible also to academics who are not able to travel (e.g. with carer responsibilities, disabled, overworked as travelling costs time and energy,...). They are also more sustainable this way. The disadvantages of not being able to meet in person are set off in my opinion and can be fixed at a later time, once collabs have been established, if the parties involved see a need for that. I wish this would have existed when my kids were small, or when I was not well enough to travel.
Advantages - these are so so much more accessible on line and I don't feel like I'm missing out because I can now attend much more than previously.
Lack of opportunity to state one's views. Not seeing the facial expressions/gestures of people stating their views
I don't want to attend online events, as it is meeting people in person and spending time getting to know them that leads to good relationships and ideas.
Adv - easier to attend online if you have a young family or are really busy. Good for talking to people one-to-one, but difficult for big groups.
Because we are a distance learning university, our staff live all across the UK and Ireland. Historically research activity has been concentrated around the central campus in Milton Keynes. Online activities allow academic staff to participate in research for whom frequent travel is difficult or impossible.
I think networking events like this are hit and miss, depend very strongly on the dynamics of the people in the room, whether they are already in cliques (and whether you know someone who can introduce /sponsor you to join in). If colleagues who know you already and work in a similar rather then complementing field consider you as competition or collaborator....
Just the difficult of online meetings, as well as the inability to network in the normal way.
It should bring new ideas but doing it remotely, not in person, makes it harder to engage with.
Less opportunity for spontaneous conversation
Networking and gaining insight from other people’s perspective
Difficult to encourage participation in a large online group.
The accessibility is brilliant - no need to spend time and money on travel, and fits in well with other demands of life outside of work.
There needs to be a clear common goal for it to have benefit for anyone participating in it.
Difficulty engaging and established cliques/groups.
wider reach - no hindrance of travel budget or travelling
It is much more effective off line. You have a lower chance to meet anyone online. Online makes something not possible, possible.
Advantages: no barriers. We can collaborate with whoever we want, wherever we are. Disadvantages: if the event is synchronous, different time zones could be an issue. I think we also lack the culture of doing on-line collaborations. I feel the whole society should spend more time on this, so that it becomes more "natural" to do it.
I think the lack of social contact between collaborators makes it harder to understand each other.
The disadvantage is that you are likely going to waste time as it leads nowhere. As I have limited time, this has been off putting. The reward when these events work well is high, as it leads to collaborations and other opportunities.
There is very little in the way of professional reward for developing collaborative research built into the current promotion structure of academics. I am asked to make cases on everything I have served as a LEAD, not as a co-LEAD or co-PI, etc. unless it has an industry connection, patent, etc. involved, which is not feasible for my research area.
For the moment they're what we have. I can't predict very well how well the online model will work once travel becomes available again, but so far my experience is that it's much easier to stop paying attention to an online event, i.e. travelling to an offline event helps sequester one's time for the intended research pursuits,
Advantages: less need to travel and can participate more flexibly Disadvantages: Collaborative sharing of ideas particularly hard to do online (especially in maths).
Advantages are like it is easy to collaborate while at home. Whether it is difficult to maintain it like this because I am not used to it but I am adapting with time.
Being online makes it simpler to participate in such events, plus less carbon footprint! Even if we are very busy it makes possible to participate for some of the time. It’s a great idea
There are definitely plenty of advantages. The foremost being up to speed with what current research groups are working, potentially a nice exchange of ideas and skills that keeps things fresh, which ultimately can lead to some good networking. Disadvantages is mostly dependent on how much the participants are willing to share. If nobody divulges anything, then it limits the effectiveness of the event.
Pre-recorded conferences are useful as I can watch at a time suitable for me without distraction of emails and work that needs to be done. I can also catch talks that may have occured at the same time if live On-line events make networking very difficult and meeting new people is often more difficult as people generally don't want to hang around before/after to socialise (myself included)
Online access leads to a notably broader audience, by ignoring logistics of travel, etc - it can provide a greater range of leading voices as well, who might else have been unable to attend. However - and this might change with time - but communicating and making links with people is harder online, and may be due to how comfortable you are doing so. I think this is more likely to affect those susceptible to more traditional doubts, such as imposter syndrome, that may take root more easily in those with a minority identity.
I can't see any downsides. Even if nothing comes from it, it's always good to collaborate and communicate with others
People from all round the world can contribute more easily because it's online. It's good exposure to research, it's possible your searches through online journals are biased because these journals may publish mostly from certain countries. Furthermore leaning on the work of your peers is generally going to be beneficial and a smart thing to do. The disadvantages of online over in person are generic and many, mostly having a psychological and cultural impact in my opinion.
Advantages, works well for this current situation, also allows people with less funding to attend. Dis advantages, online meetings are hard to work in groups, discussions are difficult as they have to be 1 person talking at a time and groups cannot form easily within a larger group to have small side discussions
The difficulty of connecting with other people via the internet. Made worse by work stress and general lack of free-time.
Advantage is that they use up less time generally - and you can do something else if some topic in which you have no interest is being discussed. Major disadvantage is that you lose the opportunity for chats etc over coffee - which is often when the best discussions take place.
It gets you out of the office and gets thought processes going!
I love this kind of work, working around a problem and bouncing ideas of new people is one of the best ways to open new avenues and form new relationships. Would love to get involved in some of these.
F2F events are much easier to network, to build relationships, and to collaborate. Online events do not encourage collaborations and much more agenda oriented.
Advantages: various and latest input Disadvantages: lack of the feeling of togetherness
I find they lack precision and rigour - they become more of a social experiment than anything else
It is far more difficult to meet people for potential collaboration online because there are no events such as poster sessions.
Opens up new collbarative oppertunites which have the potetnatil to lead to new grant applciations and potentail funduing opertunites. It is harder to make connections in an online event than in person.
An advantage is the ability to work with people from areas of the world you may not have access to and take knowledge from someone with very different experience. a disadvantage is sometime poor internet connectivity can reduce your ability to communicate in these scenarios
Advantages: networking, sharing of ideas Disadvantages: "stealing of research ideas"
Advantages: more accessible as no need to travel and cheaper Disadvantages: less social, sometimes hard to mimic the same format as seen in in-person events
Online allows for attendance which has less of an impact on work schedule, taking hours rather than days out of my time. Online, however, suffers from technically difficulties and discussion can often be challenging with more than two people. In person meetings involves a removal from personal work environment which can actually be beneficial when tackling new challenges/research ideas. Networking is easier in person
I find doing things online is quite difficult to get everyone's perspective, and break out rooms can be more awkward than the in-person equivalent. But being online does make it more accessible, as committing to travel can be difficult.
On-line events can include more technical issues such as lagging and issues with people talking over each other which can often make me less likely to participate if I am already feeling self-conscious. However you can participate from the comfort of your home or workplace which may make me more likely to participate and means I can get involved in events that I may not otherwise have been able to attend.
Networking is the key thing. However there is a high chance no new collaborations resulting in the event in my experience.
They are free!!!!! I have no access to travel money and no access to grant funding so I have to self-finance attendance at events. Free-to-attend events with no train-fares, especially online, multinational meetings, has been a huge boon of Covid-10
Online is convenient to maintain collab, but very hard to establish a new one.
there is the vague chance that it could be useful; but that seems like a gamble
It is needed to develop an inclusive environment through collaborative research idea and activity. By organising this online, a wide range of academics who otherwise couldn't join because of budget or time constraint can join.
Online: Its difficult to all speak as the technology only lets one person speak at a time, so you can get cut off. Online: Its difficult to see body language unless people sit further from the camera. Also you do not know if they are looking at you and paying attention to what you are saying.
I never participated in those, but I suppose that maybe people are more likely to behave more politely when they think they are being recorded.
Cannot branch off and have individual discussions in an online event, but attending is much less hassle, and I am more likely to sign up.
+ More accessibility for international researchers, as they don't require visas or administrative processes to reach the venue. - Online/virtual events cannot replace actual face-to-face meetings or networkings, as being humans a physical interaction leads to better understanding.
Advantages: Expand my knowledge into different areas and to know how different (ways) other researchers think. Disadvantages: None
More scope as can be anywhere in the world
Working online requires less commitment than an offline event. This can encourage more people to take part, however I find myself less confident to speak online when you are unable to read the room.
Great events to progress love networking and generally speaking about my research
On-line is a lot more convenient. In-person is more time-consuming and required more organisation.
Networking, renewed enthusiasm and access to different perspectives are the main advantages. Lack of opportunity for informal conversations during free time is the only disadvantage.
Adv: develop new research, perhaps feel part of community, Disadv: not clear that contributions will be visable, less control over project.
It will open up new research opportunities for you, but I struggle to find time to work on the proposals that I need to submit in the near future, so this will take time away from my main focus at present.
Lack of effective networking, lack of audience engagement, lack of time to chat which is where research ideas are often formed.
On-line events allow for better preparation and more informed interaction with potential collaborators, because I would expect that they are generally well structured and it is possible to have notes and reference materials to hand off-screen. This is an advantage for participants who have low confidence in more informal discussions, who are uncomfortable to 'wing it'.
Advantages: no need to spend days travelling; I have food and drink available that I like; Disadvantages: the events now don't necessarily run during the 'day time'; difficulty with scheduling when the events are during the day as I am still expected to be attending day job meetings; no breaks in scheduling to change rooms or use the toilet.
advantage: less time pressure to attend events, and they can more easily fit around other responsibilities, can utilise lots of technology available. Opportunity to gather with people from a more diverse background / location. Disadvantages: less natural communication methods, can be tiring to spend long periods of time on group calls.
all involves cost - which is hard to cover or to apply for specific grants for. People tend to gravitate towards names and faces they know - which makes it hard if you are the outsider
Main advantage: time/place flexibility Disadvantage: it seems quite challenging to establish meaningful collaborative relationship at an online event with people one has never met before, particularly if people are from different (academic) fields
Advantages: on-line allows a greater bredth of people to attend and interact which I believe improves the quality of the event. Disadvantage: Actual engagement in on-line events can be lesser due to "zoom fatigue" etc. Also, some acivities/ methods do not work well in an online setting.
Advantages are you can easily siphon people off into the appropriate area more easily so you don’t have to try and worry as much about finding people. However it is not easy to build a relationship over the internet as it is in person
I don't think good creative ideas are ever established by groups. Individuals should take the lead and others join the effort once the idea has been developed.
We can broaden our connection, also we can improve our research ability by collaborating with others, Improve communication skill as well
Pros: Networking Cons: Distracts from current projects, which are more important
Main advantage is the ease of access to such events without the need to travel/pay for a conference. The disadvantage is that networking is significantly harder as people are less likely to 'stand around and chat' online.
need collaborators in academia, if for nothing else than that it helps getting postdocs
+ less travel + less time lost to travel - less connection to other attendees -- especially ones that you do not know
A positive is sharing research ideas and seeing how they could come together into a project.
Comment related to above: as senior academic, events were primarily to benefit others rather than myself.
It feels forced, collaborations start with an email.
advantage is the freedom to attend with no travel cost. No significant disadvantages.
Advantages: these events ought to be fun and useful, if they work, and online means fewer financial/caring obstacles to taking part Disadvantages: Zoom calls are exhausting, and in general a problem with online events (compared to offline) is that the rest of life carries on around them, so you end up juggling more things than if you had to travel.
Advantages: open to a wider audience, wouldn't limit someone by cost, location or ability to give up time to travel. Disadvantages: internet issues, not as organic, lack of social contact which often drives collaborations.
I cannot think of any advantage when compared to off line meetings. They are unpredictable and depend very strongly on the ability of the organisers to maintain a smooth and productive discussion.
Hard to properly network and connect online, but clumsy at making conversations.
do you mean off-line? getting to know new people, and being able to talk after the event which is often not as useful
Better for the environment (no travel) More awkward socially
It takes up a lot of time that I could have otherwise spent on my own PhD but it adds to my own list of skills/qualifications while establishing good and long-lasting working relationships.
Advantages: advancements with a range of ideas from people with different backgrounds. Exciting. Different. Thought-provoking. Learn new things. Disadvantages: none? Might be difficult for everyone to have their say if they feel excluded - harder to include online?
It's harder to just chat casually and get to know each other better. For example, offline, you might break for lunch and have a chat. With online events, you would have your lunch separately.
Potential new research ideas and opportunities and new working arrangements/relationships
Advantages - skills development, opportunities, learning Disadvantages - accessibility, inclusion, environment
Online events require less time and travel
There are significant advantages in terms of a reduced environmental impact and the ease/effort of 'meeting'. On-line activities, however, often suffer from technical issues (they can be tiring, if protracted) and distractions. Furthermore, the lack of 'water-cooler' interactions (not planned/scripted) potentially constrains team-building and creativity, as well as reducing the chance of building social networks, too.
I feel more comfortable developing ideas with researchers I am already familiar with - or know through other colleagues. I recognise this could be quite limiting but being involved in "sand pits" and similar is not something I'm very comfortable with.
I don't really have much experience of them (usually because of other committments) so not sure.
main advantages include extending your network significantly when you're in a group of people you have not previously collaborated with. Sometimes is a really positive experience, sometimes you spend most of the time trying to break the research silos and trying to get people to hear your research as a valid focus.
Potentially removes barriers to access for some All focus/attention is on the speaker
Pros: Tends to draw multidisciplinary practitioners together. Cons: Hard to identify the right route forward, who takes ownership or leadership of any potential projects (and industrial partners who are generous with ideas but not able to authorise funding).
The in-person touch is lost, unfortunately. I find talking to people offline easier than online due to seeing their emotions and reactions live. The advantages are that most of the events are free and easy to access from your home.
The main advantage is that you can broaden your network. Many senior faculty do not seem to respect the expertise and experiences of ECR on fixed term contracts, or PhD students.
I really don't know since I haven't attended any.
The main disadvantage is the lack of face-to-face interactions.
Online events although useful do not allow for the same level of engagement, side discussions and development of new networks and relationships. Often in these online events there is less opportunity to easily express opinion and ideas
Benefit often doesn't outweigh the time cost.
I don't think the research councils do enough to bring in new faces/voices to these events. There's a bit of an in-crowd mentality and many of these are self-selecting (i.e. the in-crowd hears about the events first, registers first and then dominate proceedings. The fact that this is a self-selecting process might mean UKRI feel they are dong a good job, but they need to take a more active role in ensuring the in-crowd don't just perpetuate the status quo. With in terms of diversity, but also because it stifles new ideas and encouraged groupthink. Quite frankly senior profs (including myself) should be invited to be observers at such events and keep quiet to encourage ECRs with new ideas.
The advantage is that this kind of events could inspire some ideas
Advantages: Recorded sessions allow for replay Disadvantages: Communicating and knowing the audience is tough to overcome when speaking
Disadvantage: you interact less with people, and connections made online are less lasting.
More people can attend without the need to travel.
The main advantage is networking, getting to know people you wouldn't have met otherwise. The disadvantage is that it can be tricky to feel as invested in an on-line event. My attention span, for example, is shorter when I work online
Disadvantage: I personally find group discussions online harder - the social dynamics are different and internet connectivity can make you feel less included (e.g. if you have a lag the conversation moves on before you can join). Advantage: Saves on travel and costs and can be more flexible with other schedules so may facilitate greater accessibility.
I don't know, I'm not familiar enough with these types of events
Adv: networking, immediate iterations, fresh eyes Dis: thin and weak extra-verbal communications
I'm not really interested in developing "collaborative research ideas". If I can tackle a research problem myself, I prefer to do so. Otherwise, I already know people I would look to for help. I am not interested in having an ever-growing list of collaborators.
I'm afraid I have no idea what one of these would be like.
Positive - can put you in touch with a useful research stream that you would not have otherwise encountered. Negative - I am already pushed for time with current activities.
advantages: geographical distance does not matter much. Cost effective. can be organised relatively quickly. disadvantages: less personal, less easy to trap the senior academics :-)
Harder to communicate, not as natural/flowing as in person. Have to be careful about how things are worded as cannot draw examples and show as easily
Usually too broad to have any chance of fostering genuine collaborations. These have been box ticking exercises in my previous experience, usually initiated by newly appointed management.
Discover other viewpoints and ways of addressing similar problems
In my opinion collaboration is better in person
Get to meet people, but it forms cliques and groups that only support themselves and allow corruption
Advantages more inclusive, less travel, lower carbon, easier to access for people with caring responsibilities. Really would like to do some - just realised I had done one as part of a conference jsut for 30 min online was very useful.
Broader range of people. No travel restrictions or budget constraints. people really want to network. Active linking of people by supervisors online is key. More time for discovery of new networks, podcasts and material has been a revelation
2020 showed us that "on-line" can be easier, cheaper and faster with the same or even better outcomes of in-person events. The disadvantage is that people usually require in-person contact to build stronger relationships and a possible lack of this can affect collaborative work developed on-line
Chance personal interactions can break down barriers between individuals and organisations and can provide spur of the moment inspiration
Advantages: Networking Disadvantages: Since everything is run online (due to COVID19), everyone organizes events. Sometimes it is difficult to cope with all this offer.
Advantage: share methods and techniques which are obscured or omitted in publications; Disadvantage: unlike off-line events, only one individual may speak at a time on zoom so less informal interaction/communication will occur.
Online it is hard to have conversations with individuals and it makes it harder to have a natural conversation
I feel this type of events may be harder to organise online assuming attendees won't know each other before the event. It's always easier to break the ice in person.
Unfortunately, it is very much in line with eth problems with research in general; I would love to do it but as an academic with teaching responsibilities it is becoming more and more impossible to get the time to conduct or participate in any research.
Main advantage is the research that gets done. Disadvantage: the topic tends to be set in advance so may not line up with what your main thrust of research is.
Sometimes online it a can be easier to ask questions
It can be time consuming with a lot of padding around the really valuable thing, which is talking to new people
Collaboration opportunities and learning about new ideas/materials/ideas
The advantage is the convenience to attend these events, while the disadvantage is the lack of face-to-face communication.
Advantages: all the things mentioned above, great for confidence, to meet new people and develop collaboration skills Disadvantages: can get in the way of other work, are not always as useful as you might expect
It takes out the increased time commitments of travel and waiting, allowing otherwise busy people to give up more time from their schedule. Online does not have the same feel, and since there is usually only one "room", there are not opportunities to have smaller discussions. Breakout rooms aid this somewhat, but they are too structured for the ad-hoc nature of informal conversations
Online means we can reach and interact with international colleagues who we might not see regularly attend in-person events. Spontaneous discussion is difficult online and building a rapport with others takes more effort. This can make collaboration more challenging.
The advantage is that there can be opportunities to interact with different people who may have different ideas to yours. The main disadvantage is that they either take up work time (which must be caught up on) - or they take up private time, which I'd rather not do. Additionally unless the new research ideas are clear-cut great ideas, there often isn't really time or resource to investigate them any further than the workshop.
Main advantages are the networking and main disadvantages are is that they usually don't relate to research question that are pertinent for as well as the there much too superficial in scope and depth
Main advantage is accessibility - more types of people can attend. Main disadvantage is that the technology is still a serious barrier to communication.
Difficulties are (1) having participants commit to the event full time without other distractions; (2) bouncing ideas off each other for half a day is almost impossible if it's all screen time.
On-line events just do not foster networking and exchange. They are cheaper and currently safer though. Nevertheless, I do not see how online events will replace offline ones in future.
Disadvantages are logistics, technical problems, and priorities of our individual institutions often differ. Advantage is simply that it can be done!
obviates the need for costly and time consuming travel, reduces the organisational overhead, reduces barriers to those who might not otherwise be able to attend.
They can be intimidating. Someone with lack of confidence and impaired social behaviour would find the interaction extremely hard. They can also be very rewarding for own's career. They need an amount of time and focus that is usually incompatible with other personal duties.
The advantage is that the platform is built around technology designed to transfer multimedia. Data and ideas can be communicated effectively. The disadvantage is that the face to face interaction is lost: the connection that makes people want to work together. As opposed to two isolated cells that are briefly linked.
N/A as I have not attended any of these events
Networking with other academics and institutions, building on research skills, exploring new topics of research
Pros: Save time and money for travelling. Cons: Not efficient communication.
Easy to attend - no travel involved. Hard to discuss in groups on-line, exchange of ideas more difficult
The main advantage is that they are easily attended without having to re-locate for a day. Unfortunately, they are often not conducive to natural talk and I find it very difficult to interject with on-line meetings and collaborations.
wider audience from different backgrounds
Advantages - accessible to those with less funding or less able to travel due to caring/health/disability/teaching load. Disadvantages - needs structure, chairing and energy to turn such events into actual outputs. These are often lacking - energy put into organising such events doesn't seem to extend to dealing with the aftermath.
Pros: accessible to those for whom travel is a barrier. Cons: Usually go nowhere and a big time sink.
+ve = Ease of access to people, sharing of data, sharing/use of other resources, flexibility in when research is done and reported, not reliant on travel to get to meetings/other events. -ve = Impersonal, side or chance conversations not as easy, team building not as effective (remoteness).
Generally, people find it easier to focus. Also, ability to arrange things flexibly around personal life (childcare etc)
Great for those wishing to form collaborations and share ideas.
Online events are only useful where travel is genuinely impractical (I'm no fan of flying so I'd support them for collaborations betwen folks who can't use trains and ferries to get together). Onlne can also help for inconveniently tiem stuff where you can't practically get between places fast enough to be in physical meetings in different locations. Also helsp in the early mornings, to avoid having to wake earleir so as to get to the meeting location on time. But Covid is not sufficient excuse to take things online, most of us are young, minimally vulnerable and don't often meet people in elderly vulnerable categories. The overreaction to covid needs to stop, herd immunity and Great Barrington must be embraced (furthermore we've got vacciens now and all the vulnerable are vaccinated already, not that there was an excuse to go online even before they were vaccinated) we need face-to-face working to actually get things done.
I would say that such events will naturally benefit those who are outgoing and confident enough to attend them, who are probably the people who need them the least. I don't know how you could make such an event attractive to someone who feels like I do.
Advantage: Broadens your horizon of the knowledge you have about your field. Provides an opportunity to ask specific question. A new idea could spring up from such collaborations. Disadvantage: could be very superficial, as a result of the timing and the platform than in person activities.
We are very very busy people and I generally don't need *more* collaborative research. I already have too much to do. An online event is slightly better because you can join easily/quickly in between other tasks, and also just see whether it is interesting rather than having to travel somewhere and waste time if it is not what you expected.
disadvantages - getting everyone to speak up and share, noting the discussions advantages - good mix up of people, might bring unexpected ideas
Poaching of ideas. Finding the right collaborators to work with. I’m not sure how these sort of workshops would work online, everyone is fed up of zoom. I think trying to make new relationships or collaborations online would be very hard. Keeping up with existing ones is manageable. Would be interesting to learn how to foster a good collaboration though
very little opportunities for networking and generation of new ideas.
Advantages: It's convenient to be at home with a cup of tea. No requirements to travel. Disadvantage: It feel impersonal. It's hard for me to feel the real person behind the camera. Bad sound/video quality and connection failures make it worse.
I don't really know. But offline would probably be better as people can read reactions and body language to ideas easier than being online. My assumption is that sharing ideas is harder online.
There is a certain formality associated with the online event, so people are less willing to speak up if they don't think their idea is fantastic. It's also very hard to have spontaneous side conversations.
They are often run with an agenda and neglect the true interests and ideas of participants especially if there is a moderator.
Advantages are the same as always, and obviously encourage accessibility! Disadvantages are the lack of physical interaction and the ability to socialise outside of an official capacity
Advantage - allows people to improve confidence Disadvantage - each situation is unique and difficult to develop structured collaborative research ideas that are deep enough.
Disadvantages - lose a lot of the ad hoc socialising. More staring at a screen. Advantages - less effort to attend.
Its more time-effective to arrange meetings online, especially with collaborators around the world. I find communication is not as easy and/or occasionally interpreted incorrectly online.
getting different perspectives and seeing that all groups are not the same
It becomes more of a social event when it's in person, while it becomes a bit more dry/work-focused when it's all online. Especially speaking with people I've never met before
Very useful to discover new potential collaborators as opposed to e.g. researching online by googling. There is always someone doing excellent work you miss in the vast stream of literature produced nowadays.
As an introvert, I do not like the attention that is placed upon me by being one of only 12 people on a screen; furthermore, I do not know what to expect when I attend such an event, i.e. will it just be me with one other person I don't know.
Advantage: no geographical barriers or restrictions. Disadvantage: far harder to communicate effectively.
Very difficult to have side conversations, which are so important for getting to know people, especially if you are not the dominant voice in the room
Discussions done online with more than 4 people are not straightforward and easi but become more than a toll. What is missing is the natural flow that you can have when done in person
Time zones are a problem and often these events are not inclusive to people in other time zones. There is a heightened sense of anxiety being forced to mingle with new people online. However, the advantage is that more people are able to attend.
You cannot have small-talk with someone in a relaxed environment so it is difficult to form a connection with someone and make friends. This is not essential for collaborative work but it does make the process more enjoyable.
Advantages: online events may allow a wider group of people to participate (e.g. people without funding for travel), better for the environment if the face to face event involved lots of travel Disadvantages: more difficult to make a connection with someone online, less chance meetings
Easier and less expensive to attend, and take less time away from other responsibilites.
Well if one simply puts strangers together in these online events, silence is what ensues... and the conversations remain superficial.
Disadvantages are the loss of natural conversational cues, which is more problematic with more people (more than 3 or 4) and with people you don't know very well. Advantages are the range of people with whom one can interact, without travel time, carbon emissions, etc.
Advantages - exposure to new ideas and diverse perspectives that come from outside your immediate network. Online format could make it easier for people to attend. Disadvantages - time-consuming; risk of not "hitting it off" with the group of researchers you're assigned to work with. Online format is not as rewarding as in-person interactions and is especially hard to build bonds with people you don't already know.
On line is not so good for building relationships
Main disadvantage: Implication of all participants
Advantages: can happen anywhere. Disadvantages: technical issues! I also find online calls/meetings very intense and quite intimidating at times.
These seem like they would be great for networking but I assume they would need great hosting and coordination to ensure they work in an online format.
Advantages: There are fewer practical limitations on who can attend, so it is possible to meet with people you may not be able to in person. No travel time, so easier to fit into schedule. Also better from an environmental perspective.
Main dis - everybody agreed with sth during the session and no one is doing anything after. Main adv - you can ignore some people which are never relevant for your work and collaborations
Advantages: It is hassle-free if you have a good internet facility. No baggage of travel involved. Disadvantages: It is quite difficult to build trust with new collaborators which is quite easy when one meets face-face.
Main advantage: - Easy to discuss research remotely, as sharing screens is possible, rather than crowding round a single machine. Main isadvantage: - Less likely to chat informally, and building a relationship that is not just work-orientated.
Good point- meet new people Bad point - people are looking for the "big names" and there is mostly not enough overlap in research for the people to meet with to collaborate with you.
I am too stressed with the workload I already have to be open-minded to meeting new people and discussing new ideas
The disadvantages are that most of the introvert people don't actually live the full experience of it.
Doing anything online is slightly awkward if you don't already know the people involved beforehand.
TBH no new collaboration happen at such events. People only meet with people they already know and working with. If you show interest in collaboration they won't say no but never seem interested
Advantages: there are (now) lots of platforms which can suit the different needs of events to develop collaborative ideas. The platforms are fairly easy and flexible to use. Disadvantages: on the other hand, due to the number of different platforms that are available it can feel a little overwhelming to (for the time being) only be able to meet with people through a screen for sometimes hours at a time.
Online events reduce the time and travel commitments. But online collaborations are generally more stilted and have a tendency to get dominated by the loudest voice more than inperson events.
I'm not sure how they work in general, particularly in choosing who attends and from what research field or background
The ability to record an event is an advantage. On-line wifi connectivity problems is a main disadvantage.
Many software products com from projects like these. Time spent on something that is possibly irrelevant.
The main advantage isbringing together people with problems and people with the the ability to solve them. The main issue with most of them is that the people with problems are unable to explain their problems in a way that others way outside their field can understand. Many times they have issues that have been solved for years in many fields but they cannot articulate their problem simply enough for others to help and even interact with them. Ideally a common framework for what each group expects from each other, e.g. some common terminology, what one group expects the other to provide and in what format. This is, of course, very difficult and usually it takes many meetings to tease out what people want from a project and what can be achieved -- making the 3-hour sessions, like some of these events are, hopelessly inadequate.
Disadvantages come from some people being more shy and less willing to initiate discussion, and these is less time for bonding away from work.
Pros: diversify research interests, connect people with different skills Cons: other people on the team (other PhD students) may not be invested or take the task seriously
Advantages: networking! Meeting academics from other institutions is always helpful and meeting other PhD students is great. It is good for learning about other peoples' research and for developing your own research interests. It is a good way to get involved with research not directly related to your PhD. Disadvantages: depending on the split of people in the groups, early career researchers eg PhDs could feel like they were outsiders as they are the least experienced in the room. Finding time to travel between institutions to fulfill these collaborations is a bit hard and especially during COVID times the actual travelling restrictions means its impossible to do lab work with other groups
I think the main advantage is being able to talk to reserachers who don't have the funds to travel for conferences etc allowing more diverse partnerships that serve to improve research on a wider scale. I feel the main disadvantage is that the platforms for online meetings are often difficult to use and are inconsistent which makes it hard to spend time actually discussing the main issues.
It is very difficult to create the same atmosphere online than in person, especially when you have to develop collaborative research ideas.
Waste of time - generally badly organised or very superficial and basic
I would be interested in this if I felt it would yield results, but the time taken is the biggest disadvantage. I would need to be convinced it would be useful.
Much comes from personal networks, online you feel remote and not connected in the same way
The main advantages are the chances to meet new people and get involved in research ideas that can be really brilliant. The disadvantages would be that the event will not be always fruitful where some people will be dominating the talking and pushing towards certain ideas.
Building your network with peers - at the same career level as you. I've always found this much more positive than interactions with people more senior. The main disadvantage is that you end up with exciting ideas for collaboration but no resources in which to conduct them. No time, no money, or if there is money you can apply for it's usually to run more workshops - which no one really wants to do.

Sex/Gender - Other (please specify) - Text
The options for this are awful. You've left no room for anyone outside of the gender binary and managed to "other" transgender individuals while not specifying that you are assuming "woman" and "man" are cisgender. A trans individual would tick at least two of these options. I'm a cisgender woman.

Which of the following terms best describes your ethnicity? - Mixed background (please specify) - Text
Native south American, Black African, European
south african background but grew up in the middle east and australsia

Which of the following terms best describes your ethnicity? - Other background (please specify) - Text
White Scottish don't consider myself 'British'

Thinking about your responses in this section, please add any additional comments regarding what has impacted either positively or negatively on your working life.
Working part-time because of my caring responsibilities (I am a parent/carer to two disabled children) has limited my opportunities. There's an expectation that all academic jobs are full-time plus (including part-time roles). This has prevented me from pursuing full-time research or academic roles to focus on a part-time non-academic role that fits with my caring responsibilities. I can't spend every weekend and evening writing papers and grant applications like many of my academic colleagues. I can't spend weekends doing marking. However, academia is the only place I've been able to find a part-time STEM role. I feel I'm in a job that can't progress as there's no room for a part-time member of staff to progress it.
Recruitment in academia is too biased in favour of non-males and minorities. CV no longer matters. To fix one problem, injustices have been created.
working in a discipline with men, I've often felt like the only one who has to consider caring responsibilities
I believe that I have been given better treatment than others, in one way or another, thanks to my race and gender.
workloads can be extremely high. Applying for competitive grants is seriously time-consuming.
My father never had a career. He was a shipwright with a job and a long-term worry that the shipyard would be closed. I find myself facing "getting to retirement" in the same way. I wish I had understood more about how to "build" a career. I also wish I had understood more about how middle-class university friends didn't really mean it when they said the money was unimportant to them (etc.) when it really was. It has been like moving to a foreign culture for me.
Positively: talent and good luck Negatively: not being pushy
Exploitative nature of university managers, blatant disregard for individual strengths in pursuit of university priorities.
The possibility of working in large consortia and in general team working was fundamental. Good mentors were precious. Bad mentors were useful too as they helped setting the scene.
1. The work-life balance in academia is very bad. There is endless work to do, and there is no enough time for research. 2. Unfair assessment system in the department is very negative for early career researchers in different fields. 3. The assessment system produces lots of pressure to young academics. 4. Lack of guidance, support to early-career researchers.
Due to disability I need to work longer hours than most to meet important targets and deadlines with no consideration given to my disability.
I came into academia late - I couldn't believe what I was seeing in terms of sexist attitudes, speech, behaviour.
Positive: supportive department which really engages around everyone's cutting edge research (high concentration of internationally leading research); 2nd RSC Irene-Joliot Curie women-only careers conference (role models and inspiration); PIs giving me absolute freedom over working hours during long-term caring for my mother Negative: long-term caring for mother (and having to learn how much this needs to be spelt out in job applications); culture of appointing protegees to academic positions; Covid-19 (exhausted after work/childcare for months on end); teaching/research balance in current department (too much compulsory teaching); culture of solo working (not just Covid, also including in research groups which didn't discuss their research - I need to talk to people to be effecive!); having to fight departmental politics around me rather than doing my science; appalling line management
My working life is actually quite positive now, in large part because I have been able to find a university teaching job that does not involve research! But I was incredibly lucky to secure such a job on an open-ended contract - such luck really shouldn't be required.
I have been lucky at a number of key points in my life, leading to a very smooth academic career.
Positive - getting away from my PhD-awarding institute, though I know not everyone wants to move around.
Positive impacts: plentiful funding Negative impacts: poorly skilled colleagues
Why was there no button for "no impact" in terms of the effect my gender has had on my working life? I've had to put "little impact" when in fact there was none.
Brexit is not helping, although that is not my organisation's fault.
I entered academia recently in pusuit of a career in teaching at high levels. Following frustration in a PhD (which was eventually scuppered by Covid) I have secured employment in a post where I teach a combination of FE and HE students. In that manner, I have discounted academic research, in favour of teaching. I still have an interest in research, but do not expect to do so within an academic institution: rather it will be done independently, in a non-related field outside STEM.
Childcare reponsibilities have made fellowship applications impossible.
I had poor direction during my PhD and I got my postdoc position out of luck. What prevents me from progressing in my career is depression.
I'm a mess during presentations and interviews, I feel like this had had the worst impact out of all the things in my profile as I can't help but show how anxious I am. Online intervews have helped a lot since I can stim and select how Im seen. As a biologist I had no apparent issues with supervisors and in finding role models, when I started focusing on bioengineering this increasingly became an issue. In particular rumours of lecturers/supervisors being easy on me due to being a woman/biologist. This has just escalated since my MSc since I take rejection really badly and tend towards being a people pleaser, my "emotional" responses and position as a woman in STEM leads to a lot of comments. Frequent comments on 'lacking focus' due to being depressed, being too disorganised due to being anxious, asking for too much help overall. Im the only bioinformatician in my team so what may look like incompetence is frequently just a lack of design/hindsight for a position such as mine in a system like theirs.
Being a straight, cis, white male from a well educated, middle class family has set me up for the best chance at life that most people can reasonably hope for. I would very rarely be subject to abuse or bullying because I am not an easy target.
My parents do not hold a university degree but there are others that were not listed here.
I don't have any children or caring responsibilities - these have easily been the biggest factors positively impacting my working life.
I have two disabled children and a housebound mother to look after. I made a decision a few years ago to better balance my work/life balance to ensure I spent time with them. This has meant a decreased productivity. Second decision was to spend more time in the lab doing what I love instead of managing research (which I did for years). This is because I became aware of the reproducibility crisis and that most published work was rushed and over interpreted. This has made my publications even slower and more accurate but has not helped career wise as no one really reads papers any more.
Judgements from other colleagues re maternity leave etc Difficulties in managing research grants etc during maternity leave due to lack of cover provided Childcare impacting on hours that can be worked and which hours - this can depend a lot on your partner and family circumstances and for a while I had a partner working away long-term and no nearby family so being able to attend something with slightly different hours to usual was very difficult
When I worked in England Scottishness was considered a joke so I was subject to quite a lot of 'jock' jokes. When I worked in Italy it was made clear that although I was a senior faculty member I would not go further due to 'nationality'.
I had important role models in my undergraduate and post-grad education. Without them, I would not have had the same career
a working-class background is challenging in my academic environment
I feel that more than my gender/ethnicity, what has positively impacted my working life is that I am not competitive, I enjoy working and interacting with people and apparently I put people at ease.
Having developed my initial career outside the UK, and not being British drastically limited my chances of career advancement. In addition to this, the current trend towards rebalancing the inequality between genders, makes the career path of a young male researcher even harder. The economic barriers for recruiting international students and researchers is another killer aspect. Finally, universities in the UK are designed to push young "independent" researchers to have the heaviest teaching workload for the initial academic years, while more senior personnel cherrypick final year courses with very limited number of students (i.e. low workload) and maximum chance for recruiting doctoral researchers. The only positive impact is due to the collaboration and friendship with other academics.
Women are still not perceived as being as competent as men. You have to constantly keep proving your expertise and competence and unless you are clearly better than your male counterparts you run the danger of being doubted.
Strongest negative impact on working life is from University's executive management which ignores academics' needs, ignores pleas for additional resources to help with tremendously increased student-to-faculty ratio, decreases admin support, and has all but pushed academics to do research in their spare time. This is counterbalanced (positive impact) by heads of schools and heads of departments' tremendous efforts to push back, but unfortunately there is a clear imbalance of powers. If I leave academia (or a University) then not because of the fellow academics, but because of the University's incompetent executive management groups. This is not unique to my present University, I have left my previous University (also in the UK) for that reason.
Stereotypical views of women held by both men and women, nepotism, jobs for the boys in a masculine discipline, even women become more like men, "cliques" form and difficult to break in, academia is competitive and "individualistic" with a "community" "collegiate" background such as mine it is difficult to become "individualistic". Academia is very closed, no openness and transparency. The words are used however, not followed through. For example, career progression, little feedback when unsuccessful is provided especially in writing, sometimes face to face is offered as a means of feedback however, not tangible, fails to relate to criteria which questions the credibility. No follow up regarding development. Few colleagues help to build others up conducive with a competitive, masculine, individualistic working environment. Culture tends to be one of not speaking up and challenging decision makers/management which is not conducive to women speaking up indeed those in early careers including ECRs fear losing their positions. Colleagues do not speak up and declare disability such as mental health or speak about caring responsibilities, these tend to be looked upon unfavourably by both women and men.
It's challenging to manage a mental health condition, especially when you feel like it slows you down or demotivates you from working in general
As I am white, I might not be aware of some issues and as our Department grew and Covid came, I grew out of touch with a lot of people. Before that, I was part of an inclusion and diversity committee in which I learned about difficulties some undergraduates are experiencing. However, on a PhD and postdoc level, till last year, I knew every single person in the Department and many people regularly confide(d) in me when they have problems with supervisors (which is usually down to PIs not being good managers or understanding the needs of their groups) or colleagues, because people know I always do my best to support and help them. Apart from those two colleagues, I have not heard of any other people who showed inappropriate behaviour, but of course, one can never be 100 % certain. As for me, I don't think that being white has helped me at any point.
I was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2018, so was off work for 11 months during treatment, and have worked part-time since returning. The university were and still are extremely supportive. I worry about the longer-term impact that missing a whole year 2 years into my first post-doc will have on my academic prospects. I worry about my next employer being less supportive, should I need more treatment in the future.
My disabilities are a huge mental and physical energy drain, moreover I feel expected to work ‘normally’ as if I didn’t have these conditions. Additionally I have to work extra hours (teaching and marking) to be able to pay for medical devices.
Not being married / having children at an age where it is common to postdoc abroad = positive impact.
The main negatives are competition, aggression, being put down and vilified, inability to bring up a family easily, having additional caring responsibilities, women are treated as second class citizens, things like Athena Swan have massively increased workload and condoned the terrible practices of certain institutions that have achieved gold. positives - working with younger staff and students, changing their lives, excitement of research - but huge issues obtaining funding due to all barriers again women
I don't believe I would have been able to have an academic career if I was black or female.
Positives: the people I work with - we are friends rather than colleagues and this makes a massive difference on days when the science goes wrong. Negatives: the university often seems to forget we (PhD students, and seperately, researchers) exist. They often make decisions about labs without consulting people who actually work in labs. Especially from the handling of Covid, my opinion of the univeristy has massively shifted, which is why I am happy in my lab/career, but angry at the same time at the university. We feel that the university does not care about us.
I believe my ethnicity had a positive impact because my country share some cultural/social similarities with the country I work in. Similarly however, it can have an even greater positive for people who grew up and are working in the same country
Negatively - lab groups can be very cliquey, if you're the only student in your lab group there is little opportunity for social interaction
Unconscious bias probably plays a strong role regarding career progression and leadership roles for people like me. Such decisions are often taken by white/male/heterosexual/middle class or a group of them.
Male chauvanistic attitudes of my superiors and PIs.
I have notices that line management plays a big part in the working life and the relationship you have with them. I have had two direct line managers in my current role, one being very supportive and albeit far from perfect it was very clear of what you got and how you would have to work together. With the other I did not seem to be able to form a bond or proper working relationship feeling like all I say or do is wrong or to their dislike. Having a good relationship and feeling able to talk about issues or problems encouraged me to aim higher and strive for more whereas having a bad relationship with line management frustrates and makes me doubt myself and the job I do at times. It has had a negative impact not knowing what was okay in their eyes and at times certain processes and behaviours made me feel bullied.
Being on fixed-term contracts with a young family is very challenging. So much time is spent looking for the next job, and this has to be juggled with investing in my family and my current role. It's exhausting and stressful!
The thing which has affected me the most was having to quit postdocs to fit around my ex-husband's career.
As someone who priorities my family over my career, this has restricted me in terms of working abroad which is often encouraged in academia as my partner would have struggled to gain employment if she travelled with me. I don't regret this at all, but it may prove to hinder my prospects of continuing in academia as I look at obtaining fellowships.
I think that being a woman still affects negatively the career progression in academia. It is a fact that the number of women in the higher ranks of our institutions is still very low.
A surprising positive impact of the coronavirus pandemic has been an enforced online switch. Remote meetings has excelled my ability to manage time and minimise distractions. An issue in previous working environment was overbearing supervisors requiring following up in person every day creating a hostile & high pressure environment. A forced switch to pre-arranged online meetings are a blessing in disguise.
Negatively impacted by the lack of information available about obtaining a PhD post and will likely be hindered by the lack of information about career progression and getting a postdoc position.
Covid-19 and working from home have impacted in a great degree my working life. I find it really hard to focus and keep myself motivated. Also, the behaviour of some of my supervisors affects me a lot (being critical, always focusing on the negative aspects and never highlighting the good ones)
The most positive aspects are having a good supervisor relationship, but also keeping distance. Sticking to a system of work is work and home is home, my career is in STEM but it should not be my life.
I feel as a woman, we care a bit more about others- I feel this can have a negative effect of us at work (we care about students, family, friends), there is a sense of an emotional burden in this sense (yes I have generalised there, sorry!)
Being one of the few women in my field has its advantages too: more visibility, people remember you more. If you are not shy, being "unique" is good.
I think overall, younger colleagues are fairer in their treatment of someone of my background. Of these, those from outside the UK are more fairer.
Some colleagues just don't take me seriously. For a long time I thought it must be because I'm not loud, or it must be that they sense that I'm not as confident, or perhaps it's because I look young. However, more and more I think it's them. I don't match their picture of what a great physicist looks like and they assume I'm not good at what I do. When in fact, I'm very good at what I do.
Being a parent is an absolute nightmare in academia. Having young children at precisely the stage of life when long hours are just absolutely required is tremendously hard. Secondly, I am in remission for colorectal cancer and when at work need to always have quick access to a disabled toilet (have a permanent stoma following a successful operation). The architecture of university buildings leaves much to be desired for disabled toilet users.
As a junior I felt quite marginalised and that I did not fit the desired culture. But as I get more senior And more confident, I see my unique Ness as an asset. So I try to be outspoken to encourage juniors to keep going when it is tough
I am aware that I am very fortunate to have come across the people and colleagues that I have. I know of much more hostile situations, I have just been very lucky in my career.
No good PhD support system within the department.
Balancing children with work is hard - and the pandemic made it even harder. In terms of career, the lack of mobility while they are young has had, I think, a significant impact as an early career researcher.
COVID has been a real problem for mental health and work performance. I have missed out on so many opportunities by not being at work. I do hope to be granted an extension so I can get the face-face support I need, as well as take part in wider professional developmental opportunities. Also, where I am 30, many of my fellow PhDs are a lot younger, which can be difficult for social equality and inclusion.
Being single might help you to have more time to focus on your research/study; however, being in a civil relationship or having a family can assist your mental well-being in a long term. I try to find a balance between both.
My supervisor has allowed a very positive start to my proejct
Willingness to work abroad makes it easier to find a job.
For the parental education question, there should be an option of "no eduction". Having a parent with no formal education has made any university process hard. I had 0 idea of degrees or life after them because I didn't know anyone growing up who had ever been to uni. I think had I known someone who'd been through the process, I'd have made different decisions.
I could not give an appropriate answer due to a lack of multiple-choice options early: I think that the education level of my parents has had a very positive impact on my career.
My skin colour has had a huge positive impact upon my career path. I have benefited many times because of this. Personally, it makes me feel like I am not in the position I am now on merit but rather through the misfortune of others coupled with deeply rooted racism in both the educational system and industry.
I should probably note that I am not an openly gay man so I don't actually know how this would affect how I am treated in academia.
My ability to cultivate relationships has given me an advantages due to the classicv saying 'who you know, not what you know'.
I recognise that my gender and ethnicity may have positively influenced how I got to where I am today, even without me being aware of that. I don't feel my sexuality has influenced my working life, other than wanting to network with other LGBTQ staff and PGR students.
Generally I feel appreciated by the department in which I work, and I enjoy working with students both UG and PG. These have both had a positive impact on me remaining in academia.
Joining a well-established (though small) research group as part of my first full-time post as a lecturer returning to the UK from a fellowship overseas.
The ability to control and develop my own independent research career was very positive.
Family responsibilities, if taken seriously, make it difficult to fit into a workaholic culture.
I have not always done what is *seen* to be the right things to do to advance in my career. I emphasize the "seen" here, because in the past, individuals at higher levels have overlooked my work in favour of someone who is tick-boxing and overselling their abilities/work and not really a team player.
C19 has really affected working parents and continues to do so. I literally cannot tell you how much with no childcare for 6 months plus the stresses of homeschooling. Even now school is uncertain and I have had one child out of school for two days (could have been 14) this week. I had to cancel a dept seminar talk I was giving as just one example of how this limits my career. I say working parents but it seems way more to be working mothers.
I feel privileged to be able to make the choice to do more childcare, even if this is slightly at the expense of my work.
the fact that my partner works in another country much of the time, so working hours can be vastly increased, compared to when he's around. (is this positive or negative? good for productivity, bad for work-life balance/general stress levels)
Mental health has been impacted working in an academic environment: negative.
Having small children definitely makes it difficult to compete with other members of staff for academic positions (plus financial burden). This factor is not consider for career progression.
Having children has meant that I can spend much less time working than many colleagues, including male collegaues with children who do not take an active childcare role. However I think it has led me to be much more organised and waste less time, the long hours culture does persist though. I also think it is harder to get your research proposals funded as a female PI which is probably one of the things that limits you most. Finally you are more likely to be given 'caring' administrative roles which take a lot of time and detract from research.
Having a partner with a stable job that could support me after the funded period of my doctoral studies finished was essential for me.
Thee primary negative influence on my academic and professional career has been growing up poor/working class and in an area of extremely low participation in higher education. My parents took the time to educate me from a young age and this had a hugely positive effect in early years, levelling out as I progressed through high school. My school seemed to have resigned itself to the idea that most of it's students would end up working on farms and completing apprenticeships for trades such as plumbers and mechanics. Very little time was dedicated to explaining the academic process; what was required to go down that route; or most importantly, that it was even a realistic option for students from my background. Furthermore, STEM would not have been an area which my teachers, or parents would have focussed on, at least not the STM subjects. Students from my background who attended university were largely pushed towards subject areas which were could be seen to provide immediate tangible financial gains upon qualification (accounting, business etc).
My working life has been a bit muddled and I am now studying for a PhD at the age of 60! I think I would have benefitted from having a mentor.
being a woman from a "third-world country" (I hate that term) does not help. People have prejudice
Being on a fixed term contract for so long is having a big effect on my mental health. With my contract coming to an end this year I am constantly anxious about the future, almost on a daily basis. I have taught whole modules in my department since 2017 with top feedback and despite the department needing more staff for teaching it doesn't look likely that my contract will be extended or made open-ended.
Obviously covid! My supervisors were very helpful, but the uni was terrible when I lost my stepmum to cancer and needed time off. They mispaid me then demanded the money back when I was trying to help plan her funeral.
Positive impacts: one-on-one mentorship and encouragement from senior academics (verbal affirmation alongside outcomes and awards). Negative impacts: potentially undiagnosed ADD (I am going to seek professional assessment once the pandemic over.)
anxiety has impacted: pretending I don't have anxiety (so that my capability isn't questioned) is more damaging than the actual condition
Degree educated parent but still working class background had a mixed effect. Understood importance of obtaining a degree and could have help from my mum in looking towards studying at university, but she was still an unemployed single mum throughout my childhood.
I have been supported in my career in STEM.
I have been lucky enough in previous jobs that there is room for my episodes of depression but it is very unclear to me if this job can accommodate them; this job also incorporates many more tasks that are difficult as a result of ADHD and/or autism, to the point that I am not sure I can do it.
I have experienced a lot of sexism in high school. However, I think I have not personally experienced discrimination that I know of regarding getting a job/study place or a promotion due to my gender. This might be due to the fact that I had mostly female supervisors. However, there is some sexism from male colleagues, mostly unconsciously. I expect sexism to increase in my future career (e.g. not to be promoted or hired 'because she is in the being-pregnant age').
As a white heterosexual man working in a western country I know I'm positively affected by people's bias, this makes me feel ashamed sometimes as I know statistically I owe part of my achievements to this and there might be somewhere someone with a different background that would have deserved these better than me.
Sometimes being a non native British can make things easier or more difficult. For example as people know English is not my main language, they would probably be more patient and understanding with me when I’m struggling with something. On the other hand, some people are not understanding and can quickly become impatient/annoyed when I struggle to explain something.
being in an interdisciplinary position. I did not have a group to work with no post docs or other phD I was alone. moreover despite being in the engineering department 90% of the time I was officially under pharmacy meaning that I was excluded from most engineering activity. In addition the first year I was given a desk in the postdoc room instead of with the other PhDs. All this factors combined made it really difficult for me to socialise and establish a strong bond with my peers.
Demands for higher education in many jobs with STEM roles. The job market is very competitive, with many people holding at least an UG degree.
With some people (not the majority), being younger than them has had a negative impact. I think the person was scared of someone young being better than them.
I value job security over the risk of a failing academic career.
The duration of time I have for my research has had a slightly negative impact on the choice of where my focus lies.
By now I am unfortunately pretty sure that the fact that I am a woman did not help. The fact that I lived and worked full time in a country without any family support in that country, raising twins, did not help either (the father of my children was an academic in another European country, this fact was repeatedly used in hiring committees against me, or at least they tried to). The first years, I was sometimes asked to work Saturdays where there was no child care available I could find, for instance.
Management unknowingly setting unrealistic deadlines and expectations.
Was very difficult to "catch-up" when returning from maternity leave, particularly when returning part-time. Working part-time attracts predjudice - people saying/thinking you are not committed to your job etc but also negative unconscious bias.
Being gay in STEM, this is the best job I've ever had. However, there are still small microaggressions that happen frequently: for example, assuming that I am straight, referring to my husband as my "partner", worrying whether or not to casually mention a chat with my husband for fear of how it will be received, and feeling frustrated at the relative ease with which straight people talk about their children and families.
I think I have been very privileged that I was raised by parents who did try to reduce gender stereotyping (although not always succeeding - but know one can do it perfectly). Coming to the UK as a Postgrad, I think it also helped that I was not judged as my much by where I did my 1st degree or if I was, then my country of origin had a good reputation. Equally, I lodged with a posh family as a postgrad and although it may seem a weird thing to say, I think acquiring unconsciously a posh/southern English accent has probably helped sometimes....
Homeschooling has been a significant challenge
Support from professors to follow a phd.
I've come to academia after diverse roles / career breaks and it offers flexibility and I have been very supported and encouraged by some in my school. However it is a difficult workplace to get to grips with, particularly the culture (and lack of responses to emails), communications, complex systems and structures. Made worse through remote working, but I have still found barriers to collaboration within the university which I don't fully understand. I would like to know more about career development and funding opportunities.
Working from home and online is definitely a positive for me, as it allows for much more flexibility both now and in planning my future. Negatively, I have suffered from lack of confidence exacerbated by lack of positive affirmation.
My father had a degree in Engineering, so I could have discussions with him on science and was encouraged by him to go into this field-positive Though I am passionate about science, I had better abilities in other fields (foreign languages), which I might have chosen as studies had I not considered it to be of less interest. Negative Doing a PhD while raising kids is extremely difficult, so it is something to avoid. negative
negative: line manager who did not want anyone being better recognised than himself (thankfully now out of the system!)
Plymouth is run as a business by managers who have no concept of what it means to be an academic. We are drowning in politics and paperwork. Mental health of staff is in tatters, we are set at each others’ throats by political games which force us to compete for our jobs. Deborah Greaves is a monster.
Numerous positions of interest in my field in the past ~3 years have been advertised for women only, or specified women as priority candidates, which has excluded me from applying.
The protection some people have in academia, no matter how many allegations, they are untouchable for some strange reason
Some mental illnesses which are not recognised can be a huge setback.
Being a first-generation college student is hard. I think academia has lots of unwritten rules to be successful, so it is easier for people coming from a different background. I also feel that being a white male heterosexual guy has helped me in these years. In STEM it is still common to hear someone saying that a work "is not good enough" only because the author is a female, or black, o a transsexual person. I spoke with a good number of female colleagues over my years at university, and almost all of them think the whole society values their contributions less because they are female
The social-economic situation of my family deeply impacted my working life negatively.
I recently became a British Citizen. I identify as BAME here in the UK because of my ethnic/cultural background and this has helped me connect with my students and find a community of people who I can reach comfortably, in contrast with some of my white colleagues. While this took some time for me to understand, I am happy it has turned out this way.
I have been living abroad for the past 10 years, making my career in different countries. Having and other foreigners as supervisors had a huge positive and role model impact on me. Also having the support of the EU with a MSCA fellowship changed my life.
Generally it feels more difficult to apply for jobs within UK as a non-white man. LGBTQ+ support seem to mainly be present for students as they have their own club and society, but not as prominent (if any) for staff. Support in this regard appear to mainly be from outside the university.
Nothing has impacted me greatly but on a lot of PhD applications it is listed that "women are encouraged to apply". I absolutely belive in equal rights and representation of all kinds of people in STEM academia but phrases like this make my friends think that the only reason they were accepted in their positions is because they are female. This detracts from the amazing work that they do as they now think their career progress is defined by their gender rather than their accomplishments. I understand and agree with what this is trying to accomplish but I don't agree with the way it has been done
I think generally society has an unhealthy relation to work, that can often be heightened in academia - hard work is proportionally rewarded with no upper limit, regardless of cost to health. People are encouraged or expected to uproot their entire lives after discrete amounts in time, potentially across the globe. Starting my career, "you'd make more money in industry" seems almost a universal mantra; common knowledge, but with a worry that to take that career path would somehow be "giving up".
As I'm a straight white male, I generally have no problems interacting within the UK. I recently was diagnosed with dyslexia and it has been a challenge doing my PhD within the required time.
It's almost impossible for me to tell whether my gender or Afghan name have had any impact on my life, I certainly have never felt like it. I think personality fit does have a big impact, which is a bit of a luck of the draw.
I would not have made it this far in academia is I were not white, male, straight and without financial difficulties.
I didn't respond to the question on maritial status, because there wasn't an appropriate answer. I am co-habiting in a long-term relationship (20+ years). The options were only married or civil partnership. For a survey on inclusivity, the lack of other options for this question seems like an oversight!
I'm pretty happy where I'm at and with the team around me. The only thing I'll add is that my negative responses and mainly in relation to how much is freely given to other students simply based on their gender. As a male I have significantly less opportunities to apply for grants, get my voice out there and obtain various other types of support than a female. AN example being I wasn't allowed 2 weeks of paternity when colleagues at the same level can expect 6 months maternity (they do deserve it though, just was shocked at the apparent blindness to the importance of a father too!). There are so many grants etc aimed at woman, special days showcasing their work and, I know it's a personal opinion, but I feel sorry for them. Their work isn't showcased and highlighted for what it is (and usually it is excellent work) but simply because they are a girl. I'd also add that as a PhD student and a father there is zero support from a family perspective, in fact looking at it, family is actively discouraged through the actions of grant-awarding, opportunity-giving bodies (not in word but in deed)! I love where I'm at but I could never recommend what I'm doing to any guy who wants or doesn't have some outside financial source whether through savings or other help - my question to you is should this large aspect of human life be so ignored? Is study and contribution to knowledge solely for the single?
Being a woman in a male-dominated career as well as being a mother has significant hampered my opportunities to grow my career.
when to have a family was a major decision throughout my career. Given the lack of permanent contracts until you reach the final stage of the career (becoming an academic) it makes it almost impossible to have a family earlier.
Having children has moderated my working hours and energy
As an academic, there is an unwritten expectation that staff should be working 50+hrs per week to fulfil all the different job roles. Caring responsibilities make it incredibly difficult to commit this level of time to the job, ultimately limiting career progression.
Inclusion within the departmental community. Postdocs are often grouped with PhD students due to their roll within research and the temporary contracts they hold. We are, however, members of staff and not students. Not being involved in departmental staff meetings/decisions in the running of the department does not incentivise me to stay within the department and in some sense within STEM research. These frustration waste my energy which I could be devoting to more productive endeavours. It is especially frustrating that we as a group are last to hear about changes that effect our workflow the most. I don't like that it is assumed that the itinerant researcher has not positive contribution to departmental management
Inclusivity in STEM events have definitely had a positive impact
You can not be what you can not see. Only 9% of chemistry professors are female.
Negative impacts - the complete inability of senior staff to "manage" people. There is no management training for Heads of Department and other line-managers. And there should be.
Positive: the opportunity / being granted chance to work from home (on average 4 out of 5 days a week prior to Covid19; with pandemic - completely from home): more focused working
I hope I treat all people equally, and feel that generally I am treated equally. Although I am starting to get the feeling that I may need to get rid of my grey hair when speaking / trying to influence some.
I believe there is some prejudice in British academia that causes people to think that only those who studied at Oxford or Cambridge are truly good.
A lack of clarity in general on what the key performance indicators are as a researcher and how to demonstrate them. I am one of the most active members of our lab, and do a lot of admin and operations support. This gets in the way of my ability to produce papers, so I don’t get considered for promotion. Despite me picking up relevant skills that my more published peers are yet to develop.
So far I felt very positive about the working environment I am in.
Research Fellow not treated equally to Lecturer despite identical pay scales. Academic reserved term for lecturer and not used for Researcher. University considers Researcher as failed academic.
Great parents and family who are very supportive
Academic career progression is very unknown and as someone with parents who didn't go to university, I didn't really know a career as a researcher or academic was possible. My experience during my PhD was that I was surrounded with people from more educated families, and it could feel very isolating
Parents' educational background: there were very low expectations for me while at school as education was not especially valued in my family. Therefore, I was never encouraged to complete homework or to study for exams etc. My parents were supportive of my choices, but they didn't actively push me in education. I also gave very little thought to my choice of undergraduate degree, because none of my family or friends had been/were intending to go to university. Childcare: I am not able to work evenings and weekends or to travel as much, which puts me at a disadvantage compared to most of my peers
Being prepared to move between jobs appears to have helped my development compared to many of those who are less mobile
I have had to teach different modules in every year of teaching since starting (~3 years) and taken on a few large Admin roles, which have affected my ability to conduct research, meaning that I have to work incredibly long hours whilst trying to manage my family life.
I'm Australian - to get any street cred in academia, you need to have worked overseas. Which means a minimum of two overseas moves, that puts me financially behind my peers in both my home country and whatever country I'm going to. I married a British man, and we have had SO many difficulties getting visas sorted, the expense, the time apart, it all takes a huge toll on our financial situation and our mental health. This often means that one of us gets a job in a country where the other doesn't qualify for a visa. Every job but one I have ever applied for has asked for experience submitting and winning grant proposals, but none of them have been prepared to let me be involved in this process and get the experience that they want me to have.
The current WFH requirements of COVID has greatly benefitted my work-life balance.
I do not know if I have recieved unconcious positive bias being a white male. However, my personal experiece sugggests I have been treated fairly with other genders/races/sexual orientations etc.
COVID has significantly affected working life in a very negative way. The only positive is the amount of virtual seminars/meetings available but it's not quite the same.
As a 1st generation researcher, I find it difficult to get advice from people that can relate to me. I also have grown up in a poor household, so money is still an area of issue, and the main concern graduating PhD is that I will have to find a job asap to be able to support myself as there is no safety net.
Mental health problems are pretty common in academia
It is impossible to voice concerns, objections or alternative approaches that go against the current "group think" that dominates academia without fear or reprisal or serious repercussions. Slowly this is bleeding into STEM and there will be very negative fall out when it takes hold.
Taking maternity leave means you're out of sight out of mind and passed over for opportunities. I feel like having taken two periods of maternity leave I blotted my copy book too and my LM would now rather pick basically any other postdoc for any opportunity. The fact that I am now working at home (again out of sight) and was briefly furloughed has only added to that. In terms of getting future contracts/positions I have less on my CV than others who have not taken this time out.
Anxiety and other mental health issues (negative impact)
I'm not from a highly privileged background i.e. I cannot work for free/ spend a long time looking for a suitable position and expect parents to support me.
Personal issues aggravated by COVID have definitely made a negative impact on my working life, only making the issues currently experienced in my personal life worse. It has been difficult to gain appropriate acknowledgement of this issue for this issue though changes to deadlines etc. have been made.
It is hard to quantify, as I have not felt excluded directly - I have felt lonely not having many women and people from mixed ethnicity in my work place. However, I do feel like people want to be inclusive and therefore ask and welcome me to come on board due to my mixed ethnicity - whether this is a tick-box exercise or a true want to be inclusive I do not know.
Lack of funded extensions due to COVID has negatively impacted my working life. As a PhD student, this has made me feel undervalued and underappreciated.
The level of understanding of autistic people is lacking, there is a lack of training for staff. It makes it harder to communicate with people who think you're making excuses, despite the many challenges autistic people face at university.
flexibility of Uni work has been positive. Overwhelming demands on time and work have been negative
I had a supportive family and came through the system when Local Education Authority student grants were available and it was not the 'norm' to have a post-graduate degree to progress to a PhD. It is different now, and I am not sure that I would have continued on an academic career path if I was starting out currently (the pressure to get earning asap would probably have been too great).
Not an answer to above but I wasn't sure if I would get the opportuntity elsewhere to say this - I think some of the questions in this survey were too blunt e.g. when you ask about bias in recruitment / promotion. This is a big area that could cover many different facets e.g. does focussing on research in promotion mean there is a bias in promotions? Whilst i responded that I didn't think recruitment was biased, if someone from a disadvantaged background was to apply and didn't have the same qualifications and experiences as someone less disadvantaged, they would probably be less likely to get the job. This is bias but perhaps not of the recruitment process itself.
Positive: wonderful individuals in my faculty who are understanding and supportive Negative: the pressure to do everything and anything in order to get the next job (leads to no work-life balance and very poor mental and physical health)
Covid has not actually had a huge impact on my working life, other than the fact I now work from home but the day to day tasks have not really changed only the location.
I am grateful that I started my research later in life (not straight out of my MSc) as I think this has helped me look at the research with a broader perspective.
Child care during covid. We have 1 child (1 year old) and we share responsibility throughout working week (i.e. child isn't sole focused responsibility of one person whilst the other works 100% of the time)
Probably less able to engage with peers due to depression/anxiety – and not being able to drink while on certain medication really limits out-of-office social activities.
Starting PhD midst pandemic is not very encouraging and I have no lab access so far. However, to some extent I’ve learned how to manage my days and discipline myself.
People who are different and who try to do things differently (in the broadest sense) are not respected (at Strathclyde).
I have had mixed experience of line management, from very supportive to outright negative and destructive. These negative relationships were disguised as supportive at the time and only with external intervention were they seen for what they are. I feel lucky this was the case. My career progression has been rather unique in that I was based overseas with the University of over 20 years as a PhD student and then as faculty. I had to fight for 15 years to gain core funding status which was very demotivating and throughout that time was very much on the periphery. having returned to the UK now (2020) I see a big change in the attitude of UK colleagues for collaboration and engagement.
The reviewers and panels for grant applications come from UK Universities. Insititutional bias at UK Universities therefore affects UKRI funding body decisions. This means bias at institutional levels stacks the odds against some groups of people not just an institutional level, but at a national level.
I have benefitted from excellent mentoring in my career, and the support of my family. I am bloody-minded enough to find the sexism that has been directed at me to be a stimulus to do better rather than grinding me down - much of that confidence comes from my (relatively well-educated) mother.
Becoming involved in science advisory work has impacted positively on my career. Having 3 children has been a challenge, but my partner being an academic has helped. My current department is great, well balanced and inclusive and I have answered your questions with that in mind. If I had been answering for the rest of the university you would have got a slight more negative view (not entirely) but some departments have significant issues to address.
I've always had a supervisor/line manager that is a good mentor, supporting me in many things and not just work, and had trust in me. I also have a supportive wife.
Everyone I've encountered has been hugely supportive which is great! I think the largest hindrances are internal lack of faith in my own abilities, which I understand is 'normal' but would be great if it wasn't.
Having to live a large distance from my place of work for a number of years has made working life more arduous.
Time off for looking after children before having a permanent academic job has been the biggest negative impact - not that I would have wanted to change that. It was very hard to get myself established after a break and I have been very lucky to have managed this - luck has played a large part, i.e. my employer needed someone with my expertise when I desperately needed a job!
I have an overall positive impression of academia. I think senior academics are generally supportive and kind to ECRs.
Being currently employed, few if any of the specifics about me have much effect on my employment - however, if I were to try to change jobs I believe they would hurt me a lot more. Being older, being female, being trans, being non-british. All of these would count against me and be negatives!
I joined Sussex as a research fellow due to my intensive industrial experience. Whilst working in industry, not having a PhD didn't have an impact on my career progression. However, in academia you are treated as "lower class" with minimal career progression, especially by academics who haven't worked in industry.
LifeSci research in a Uni setting is fundamentally problematic in that research active senior management are effectively competing with more junior staff for limited research funds.
Competitive, underhanded behaviour of colleagues, the favouring/promotion of the most ruthless self-serving individuals who go on to perpetuate the intrinsic problem with the way academic research is structured and the brutal environment in the workplace.
Home schooling during the pandemic has delayed grant submissions and taken important concentration from research. Teaching has taken over as priority to help students learning remotely and adapt teaching formats, resources and delievery.
I didn't have caring responsibilities before COVID..... it currently has a huge impact on my working life. You asked the question about gender and working life, but I wonder too if age is not also a factor and possibly nationality..... I work in a group with many nationalities, the majority of the technical staff are not white British
Having inspiring mentors/colleagues has helped
Being dyslexic has meant I can understand what students with disabilities may be experiencing
Short term contracts in academia. Nepotism. Dangerous situations. Team working, travel, sports and the ability to meet and interact with new people have been the very best things.
Positively: the quality of the universities where I completed my undergrad and master studies, industry experience, well-known supervisors.
Sense of community and focus on wellbeing at Swansea university. Very supportive and approachable line manager.
Experiences cause me to believe that having a non anglo saxon name is a professional disadvantage in the UK and that political correctness only hides unconscious bias pervasive in UK society (including higher education).
Some bureaucracy and administrative roles limit time that would be better spent on research.
In a way, being a female scientists in STEM discipline has helped me stand out from a very male dominated croud. I found that being French also greatly helped me positively standing out in Wales.
People seem to assume that having children only affects women, but it affects men often just as much. There is a cultural expectation that fathers should carry on just as before.
I am aware of the fact that many of the senior positions of academia are occupied by men, and although I have not noticed anything myself, I feel that this may disadvantage me in subtle ways as I attempt to work my way up through an academic career
My military background has had a positive and negative impact on my working life. It made access to University more challenging but has helped me collaborate and work well with others
Honestly, the longer I have been in university research, the clearer it has become to me the degree to which the university doesn't really care about us. I've had my labs and offices relocated (and downgraded) repeatedly, all for the university to improve "THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE". My research directly brings in hundreds of thousands of pounds to the university and it doesn't really seem like anyone cares.
I feel affected by stress and prone to burnout, even in a good working environment. As a result, I'm not taking on as much responsibilities as I'd like to / would be needed for progression.
Physical/mental impairment (CFS) significantly limits the amount of time I can work actively in the lab and also concentrate when working away from the lab. This can be difficult to marry against the unpredictable (unrealistic) workload of an academic career. Aspects of female physiology are not allowed for in many academic environments.
Caring responsibilities have made me take the decision of stepping down from my career. Academic research in STEM is an extremely fast paced career that can not easily be juggled with parenting and/or caring responsibilities.
My worst experience is when I worked for a professor who did not care about the well-being of his research group. When you go to work every day knowing that you are there to serve someone else's career it can be damaging to your self-esteem and mental well-being.
The big thing has been Covid - it has reduced the university experience and all that comes with it as a PhD student (beyond just the social side). It will be harder to succeed in STEM once this is all over, let alone get a job in academia in the future.
Being a woman in STEM has been an advantage - but there is also the expectation of being a role model and the expectation of unpaid/extra outreach work because, as a woman, its your obligation to be an inspiration to the next generation. In honesty, I am in academia at the moment because jobs arent easy to find in the middle of a pandemic - My preference would be to work in a research arm of a industrial company.
My sex and gender mean colleagues treat me in very friendly mannar, but the "positive" attention can be very uncomfortable. My mother's PhD degree has pushed me and my siblings to gain higher education. My brother also has a PhD. They are my role models for academic life and have given my valued support and advice. My dyslexia as mean completing lengthy text based tasks on time is difficult, and my copying/validation methods I have developed to compensate this include trying to produce work to only the best of my ability to justify the slow work time. This means my work is well regarded but my perfectionism and time management is criticised.
I stopped working (for 11 years) to bring up my children. I am now an early career researcher while others my age are at senior lecturer/professor level.
Although one of my parents completed an undergraduate degree, they did not pursue a career in that field. Therefore, growing up we were never "well-off" so throughout my university academic life, I have had to take part-time jobs to support myself. This has not necessarily been a negative in all aspects, but it did not help with social experiences if I was missing out due to work.
Negative impacts on my working life were an unsupportive partner and prejudices on womens role as a mother uniquely in my family.
You included religion in your section on harassment, but not in your demographic data gathering. Yet again, religion is ignored or it is assumed that STEM professionals are not religious, therefore negative comments about religion (or simply not bothering to collect data on it, as here) are common and viewed as acceptable. You asked about feeling excluded - when people don't even bother to collect the data on religious affiliation, despite collecting data on all the other protected characteristics, that feels pretty exclusionary. So thanks for that.
+ve = I have always kept an open mind, my glass is always half full, having worked in industry before academia helped with self-confidence. -ve = Industry background sometimes makes one intolerant of other's attitudes to completing work on time.
I think the single biggest thing, for a woman of my age, is having children. Many, many women have dropped out. The main difficulty is travel, meeting organisation etc, and the fact that industry-facing work is absolutely unbalanced in terms of making this tractable/feasible
Just the right mental attitude and seizing opportunities when they arose.
Government overreaction to covid has hugely damaged my working lfie and mental health. Being in the labs keeps me sane, the departmental technicians have eben very good about getting some things re-opened, but the senior "manglement" of the central university spent the whole of spring/sumemr 2020 panicking and locking us out for no good reason. I wish some Uk universities had decided to reject this government's diktats and operate a Swedish style covid policy on campus instead, something based on practical hygiene and protecting mental health by preserving normality, focusing protection, rather than the digusting tyrannical health-and-safetyist, illiberal panic we have suffered.
Went to under-performing school age 11-18.
If there had been a box to tick which said that my background and parents' education had had a strong impact on my career, I would have ticked it. I grew up in a fairly affluent middle class family, and I felt it was very natural for me to go to University and immediately fit in with other people of a similar background. I now know that I was very fortunate to have that start to my academic career, as it made all the subsequent steps that much easier for me.
I have developed a huge amount of resilience and independence in my career over time It can be quite isolating at times in a foreign place. Hence loneliness
I find that I come across as insecure. I am not in my own mind, but it is true that I don't like to be the center of attention. I am 100% sure that if I were a man I wouldn't be regarded as insecure, just not very outspoken. My youthful appearance and general sweetness makes people ascribe an insecurity to me that I don't feel on the inside. People tell me I should behave differently to come across more secure, and I do try and take their advise, but in the end it will always mean that I have a disadvantage due to my appearance and attitude. Whereas it is not clear to me that the best scientists must always be the one who likes attention and likes putting themselves in the spotlight. I do agree that there should be a certain amount of networking and presenting, which I do enjoy, but the fact that I do not like to speak loudly or brag about my research results should not factor in. You should be able to be a kind, humble scientist and not loose out on grant money.
If you have a family, you just cannot compete with those that don't.
My own drive has been the positive and negative on my working life. I think most academics have issues with stress and anxiety because we all strive to do better and expect more from ourselves. Academia isn’t the healthiest place due to all the competition and the negative feelings of grants and paper rejections. But we do it for the love of finding out something new and discovering.
I think I likely benefit because I am white and generally easily fit into what people picture as a scientist and fit in the social environments. Because my parents went to college and themselves have stable incomes, it was always expected I would pursue an undergraduate degree. I also have not had to support them during my postgraduate career. Additionally, in financially challenging times, they have been able to support me so I have not been as worried about income as some of my peers (and not had to teach for example for extra income.) My parents however are not academics or have higher than undergraduate degrees, so they do not know much about an academic career. This does create some conflict, (and I think peers that have academic parents benefit from this), but I don't see it as a significant disadvantage to me. I am largely abled, so while I have some mental health challenges these have not significantly impacted my work.
Being non-British makes it harder to get funded for research projects. But I was lucky. For people with my financial background, I don't see it possible to fund such an excellent education that I received here in the future.
I want to clarify a bit on my response about the amount of impact my gender has on my work life. I input "slight negative impact" but this is only because I was thinking of the net gain. Being a female does have many positives in my field, I can help influence others, I am often sought out for my opinion (on non science related topics), and there are some targetted awards that are only for females to help even the playing field. That said, since coming to Cambridge (a never before that) I have experienced many negative impacts on my work out, to lower the net gain. I've experienced discrimination and exclusion more so than anywhere else. Exclusion is the hardest thing, because it is subtle and quiet. Because you are not 'friends' do you not become part of an inner circle, where many reserach ideas are discussed. Thus, being left out of projects, likely unintentionally, but sometimes it feels deliberate.
I don't think I've experienced any discrimination-- if anything, because of my age (at large conferences).
I am very lucky to have parents who are academics - although if they were not I would not have been a scientist. Otherwise the career progression in academia is totally unknown and indecipherable, incredibly subjective to who your PhD supervisor is as they can progress or halt your career. There is also a lot of unfairness in who can get a PhD now many people are expected to have expensive masters degrees for which there is little-to-no financial aid, and summer placements are not equally advertised among universities. More avenues into academic STEM and stable jobs are definitely needed.
Mental health conditions often have to be hidden from the work place and are not accommodated for by the employer, which presents a permanent struggle to the affected person. When at work, one must always try to surpress the mental health struggles as much as possible, which is anxiety provoking and tiring. This has had negative effects on my working life, e.g. some days not being able to attend work as my condition was manifesting itself too obviously.
Coming from certain background I have had to earn scholarships to attend fee paying schools to achieve goals of attending university. I have had to work harder than others in balancing full-time degrees with jobs to support myself including a study abroad scholarship due to my high grades. It has not been easy becoming a PhD student from parents who did not achieve higher than GCSEs. Being a first generation university student, it is hard to find role models to guide me. Every grade, internship and success has been done alone. And I can truthfully say that the process to get this far has been made additionally difficult due to my ethnicity and background. It should not be this hard. It should not be so hard to do a PhD and get paid at least a minimum wage which means I do not need to find a part-time job working late hours so that I can feed and pay rent to then do my PhD during the day.
Women's health has been the largest negative impact by far, with a much smaller contribution from noise in accommodation
No support at home from my husband negatively impacted
the biggest negative impact is the lack of care in the university sector for the terrible employment conditions for research staff, University HR offices shrug their shoulders and say "not our problem" and in essance the only thing one can individually do about it is to try to arrange a sequence of grants that end/start precisely at the right moment to employ you - especially difficult in Cambridge where research staff cannot submit their own PI grants! The end product is being constantly under redundancy receiving threatening and abusive letters from HR functionary administrators.
I should have moved away from academia immediately after completing my PhD. This is what I advise most PhD students to do.
The environment is highly competitive internally, i.e. even within close-knit (reserach) groups everyone competes for the same limited resources. Collaboration is encouraged, but not rewarded - only metrics attributable to an indivudal lead to a job. This disadvantages individuals with a stronger need for more collaborative, friendly, supportive environments, which often align with gender and other characteristics.
Children have helped with routine. However, it has been very difficult to travel and keep up with conferences and many other tasks. So overall negative impact on my work career, though positive on my personal life.
Having parents with a university education has shaped my working life as it was expected that I would follow in this path.
I am outspoken. I don't speak the academic language, partly because I am a working class person working in a middle class environment. If I tried to fit the mould a little more I would probably be further on in my career, I did try at the start and it made me very unhappy. Ultimately, there shouldn't be an acedemic "mould", but there certainly is.
Positively: Good role models/mentors/supervisors who have been encouraging and helpful.
Having children during PhD lengthened this process and settling in an area meant job opportunities are restricted. Simply not an option to move to another city/country for a position.
Positive: - sufficient scholarships/funding throughout my studies so I didn't have debt and could even save a financial buffer - family that valued education and accepted my decisions to move internationally - not experiencing discrimination or harassment myself - supportive academic advisors and usually good relationships with colleagues/peers - opportunities to develop a good international academic network Negative: - visa/immigration hassles (UK worse out of my sample size of 2 countries) - challenges/lost time of adapting to different countries and institutes - lack of support in a previous UK institute where I held an external research fellowship rather than an employment contract - short-term nature of contracts - lack of confidence, mental health struggles
I think that the perceived prejudice that people have today is nothing compared with the really hard time women like my first wife had to tollerate in tbe 1970s and 1980s to forge a career in engineering.
I experienced a bad injury for which I had to take a month's medical leave which ended just as the COVID-19 lockdown began in March - this led to issues with physical and mental health including mobility, focus and motivation.
For the negative part, due to covid 19, my work load has been significantly increased, which really brings lots of pressure
I don't think that it's really important. When I have an interview (as a member of the panel) with a new postdoc or PhD student, I don't consider he/she is a woman or he/she is gay or she/he is black/white etc. The only thing I consider is her/his skills and how they related to the position we have. If we have 3-5-7 people with an appropriate set of skills, after a series of interviews we always can conclude that this person is the best-fit person for the position. We never consider sth except our criteria for the position
The department I work in are very friendly and sociable, so I always feel like I am part of a group there. Unfortunately, I no longer have this because of the pandemic.
Positively: having excellent role models in education, both male and female.
My low self-esteem has worsened partly due to working alongside big egos, as well as a lack of encouragement.
The fact that I come from a country which was destroyed by financial crisis played a very negative role. Despite of that, I guess that because I am a white, straight man is helping, although I have the idea that this position was not given to me, but I earned it.
I believe that academic life up to this point has been easier for me than others because I have been healthy and single with no dependents.
communication is a major part in research and stuttering is the only disability people don't take seriously and assume you don't know enough
Nationality definitely limits certain opportunities
I think as a woman I have had more opportunities to participate in extra-curricular activities, but this is turning into an obligation to do things outside my job description
Suffered mentally as work became more pressing which had a negative impact on my work. Cognitivie Behaviourial coaching availabel and used.
Difficult to say for sure, but being male may have had some advantage, but nothing clear came to mind.
Gender: there have been times where there have been initiatives to increase opportunities for women in my area, but at the same time I have also come across other PhD students (outside of my research group) who have made sexist remarks or not taken me seriously because of my gender (so overall I put neutral) Parents education: my parents are not in STEM, but their education was helpful in the early stages for making university applications Ethnicity: luckily English is my first language so I am confident and fluent when presenting my research topic (I have a fairly neutral accent so I feel like people understand me better)
I work as part of a cohort system (CDT) for my PhD and this has positively impacted my wellbeing allowing me to maintain the working life I have without burning out.
Covid has very negatively impacted my work load and my working hours. I'm currently working more than 12h a day due to an extremely heavy teaching load that I have been allocated.
Caring parents,, caring partner, wonderful children
I began my career in science when I already had 5 children and it was a real struggle, number 6 came along during my PhD. My husband was ill throughout my studies and during my PhD and subsequent career, he died 4 years ago and I had to pick up all the emotional and financial consequences.
many other non-research related tasks to do
My supervisors are not just intelligent and knowledgeable in their field but also have excellent people skills and compassion. I always feel inspired and supported.
I can't really say that my identifying as non-binary and pansexual has directly negatively affected my working life too much in academia but that is primarily because I am not particularly open about it around most of my colleagues. It was clear from the outset that more senior members of my group were homophobic and transphobic and so, for the most part I have kept that from them for the best part of three years. This has, however, made me miserable at various points throughout my PhD and has made me seriously consider quitting many times.
Trauma and mental health problems are under-recognised in academia.

Thinking more broadly, in your view, what is the most important issue affecting retention and career progression for Early Career Researchers in STEM?
The total lack of academic jobs. There are hundreds of PhD positions, many fewer post-doctoral roles and a handful of lecturing roles. Most people can't compete. There is still inadequate training of early career researchers in finding jobs outside of academia. This is a missed opportunity as most ECRs will not work in academia and need to prepare to enter other roles.
Recruitment in academia is too biased in favour of non-males and minorities. CV no longer matters. To fix one problem, injustices have been created.
competitiveness amongst colleagues and a lack of willing to collaborate if not for the gain of a more senior person
Increasingly shorter and shorter contracts, down from 4-5 years to 2 years being a "long" contract. As a result of the time constraints imposed by shorter contracts, you have to either decide to slow down any potential advancement you can make or choose to sacrifice your home and social life, eventually burning yourself out.
- short fixed term contracts stifling job security over long term - poor financial rewards coupled with long hours. A career in industry with a STEM background is much more financially rewarding (assuming that is your key priority); for instance, a few of my coleagues with equivalent qualifications went to industry immediately after completing their degrees and earning x3-4 that of an academic postdoc salary within the first year. - the very low probability of obtaining an academic position is another key factor for poor retention when compared to a more permanent job in the industry
I believe that more needs to be done to retain a diverse cohort of students in academia. While diversity and inclusivity seems to be improving at the undergraduate level, it remains low in postgraduate and senior circles.
The insecurity of short-term contracts. Long work hours to create and publish enough papers so that you can obtain the next short-term contract. Too many responsibilities that cannot go on your CV that also result in long work hours, e.g., mentoring, making sure the lab is running smoothly, running errands for PI. I've started interviewing for jobs outside academia and I feel so much more appreciated and wanted. I feel my skills are valued outside academia, rather than constantly being criticised. I love research and problem solving, and I'm so glad that I had the opportunity to be curious about the natural world for a few years, but the system itself is toxic. I'm not leaving academia because my passion for research has died, but because the system is asking too many personal sacrifices.
Funding availability and publish or perish culture.
Early Career Researchers in STEM are not encouraged to strongly pursue a career in academia because the low salary do not correspond to the value of work.
There is a lack of opportunity/interesting projects in certain research areas whilst there is (too) much in others.
The job has transformed so much … Outreach, public engagement all extra to doing world class reasearch (or teaching). I think (still) enjoying it despite the crap is still the most important thing to help people to want to stay. I think the precariousness (now) once the glittering career path had faltered is the new problem for length of career.
The commodification of further education and the over-reliance of university finances on student fees. It is in direct tension with research, and is completely unsustainable in the long term. University funding needs a complete overhaul.
Early career researchers (PDRA) struggle in getting credits and academic merits. They would need to be given possibility of leading activities, too often they are shadowed by their line manager.
1. Need better work-life balance 2. Need a fairer assessment system in the department. Different subjects need to be assessed differently. 3. Better guidance, support to early-career researchers
good quality mentoring, followed by role models.
I think it's impossible to single out one "most important" issue. Here are some I have identified: - The selection/progression processes for researchers are competitive even though research itself is collaborative. - Academic references are given too much weight, making progression through a research career too dependent on knowing the "right people". (Personally I see references essentially as a form of nepotism.) - There is a common belief that success in mathematics requires "genius", thus psychologically excluding many of those who lack extreme confidence in their abilities. - The literature in my discipline is poorly written and very difficult to read. Incomprehensibility is often seen as a sign of greatness. - Maths is presented as historically being an entirely Western/white European activity, even though this is false.
Teaching load not appropriately recognised and appreciated.
Aspiring academics are being put off by the number of postdoc positions in diverse locations that they need to take before getting a settled permanent position. Also there is disillusionment with the ever increasing unnecessary bureaucracy and management that is pervading universities. One is also put off by questionnaires where it is impossible to go back and change responses to earlier questions.
A career in STEM is extremely demanding personally and it is disproportionally so for women and other underrepresented groups
Career progression? What career progression.... Short-term contracts, the model to which seemingly the whole world is wedded, is by far the biggest issue. People leave because they can't see a future.
One of the most useful qualities to progress in the academic career is the willingness to partake in the publish or perish system and exploit it in full, publishing rushed work that should be unbecoming for scientists but that will be published anyway - and a publication is a publication
All researchers must feel included in terms of their contribution to the field and as a member of the research group, which will enable them to feel comfortable in the role and more likely to stay on and progress in STEM based fields
I think that a lot of those that start down this route, they get burned out and lose sight of why they started, if they had a reason in the first place. When this happens, they lose the drive to continue and this is why they stall in career progression.
People enter STEM subjects without knowing what they are getting in to. These subjects are popular, and branded as leading to professions of the future. However, they are not easy, and people often buckle under the complexity, and competitive nature. What would balance this is early information about what STEM subjects entail, early/inclusive training and more communication between involved parties (professional organisations, industry, universities, research etc).
Avoiding isolation, and promoting networking and collaboration, given that early career researchers are not especially aware of the opportunities available (or confident in pursuing them).
Job insecurity and short term contracts. Survivor bias from those in senior roles. The inability to stay at the post doc level long term and pressure to apply for fellowships you don't want.
Abandoning a 'business' model for the operation of academic institutions, including shifting away from casual employment contracts.
In the case of women, motherhood. I know a few cases of women who lost chances of getting funding/jobs due to this. Or they delayed having children until they were well positioned and now deeply regret it, but they had no other chance if they wanted to progress in their careers.
There is an uncanny valley between a MSc and a PhD, too experienced for entry level but too unexperienced for a more developed position. This has meant that looking for work is impossible and competition applying for PhD's as an international student becomes impossible. I got a position working as an RA but my supervisor refuses to train me outside of what I work with but I would rather move outside of the area this job is in, when I ask to join courses or approach others everything is too expensive or it becomes complicated. I personally feel like I have entered a dead end in my career, I can either unroot myself and return to a country where I have nothing or stay and eventually become un-hirable since I just can't seem to progress.
In a perfect world, we would all have as large an budget and limitless time with which to perform research with. This lack of budget particularly is the death of many potential projects and has a decent impact on career progression. Whether or not its the MOST important I cannot say, but its the first thing that comes to mind.
Impact on mental health, work-life balance, work-family balance, the expectation and reliance on working beyond office hours, the expectation that every opportunity is "for our own interest", impostor syndrome, the feeling of actually working almost as self-employed rather than part of a team.
Career progression in my subject is dominantly linked to grant income and not academic merit. I do hold grants but the focus on amounts of research income as almost the sole promotion criterion is very demotivating. This view will be contested by my promotion board but I find it strikingly obvious.
Career opportunities beyond PhD - far few postdoc and faculty positions (long or short term)
Instability. In my field, it is assumed you will do at least 2-3 fixed-term postdocs before moving again for an academic career, and it is well known that very few succeed. The instability of constantly moving to find fixed-term jobs with a small likelihood of an academic career at the end puts people off. Even in industry, the jobs are very insecure, my peers went through rounds and rounds of redundancy and many very bright, clever people have left STEM because when you get to a certain age and have kids and a mortgage, you just need some security. The pay is certainly lower that what they can earn when they leave STEM. Also, lack of role models for women and ethnic minorities in my field. Most people who work in STEM in my field probably do so because they enjoy the science, it's certainly not for financial reward nor security!
Lack of support for those with children/caring responsibilities, especially women. The fact is those without these commitments, who choose to work very hard for very long hours usually (though not by any means always) have a higher volume of measurable research outputs, and have an advantage over others when it comes to securing academic positions, particularly over those who are restricted to working e.g. 9-5 Mon-Fri due to other responsibilities.
I don't think there is an issue of retention I think there is an issue of diversity
Its a pyramid it has to be. Its always been difficult but there is now lots of opportunity for ECRs (that was not there in my day). Probably to the detriment to ECRs (Elderly career researchers).
impossible pressures to bring in funding, along with pressures to be the most esteemed person on the planet. I cannot recommend this career to anyone who has any alternative. some have no choice and MUST be academic
Having sufficient space and time (and funding) to develop themselves and their own ideas (i.e. a 6 month 'me' time at the end of grants)
hiring and promotion in many cases not based on merits, working environment for lecturers less attractive than for previous generations (salary, non-research workload, departmental and university politics, lack of tenure, pension, ...)
Generally, the fact that in position of power there are a lot of old-fashioned people with very stereotyped ideas. A recent one is that women have to be in every committee and this puts a lot of strain on them.
Especially in the UK (and I have extensive work experience in many different countries), career advancement is based on your affiliation and networking. A small group of scientists (in many cases with very limited scientific relevance and recognition outside the UK) with very strong political power, and connection with important journals and funding agencies, decide how to shape the future of science and research in the UK. If you moved your initial research steps (PhD, first post-doc) within a powerful group your chances of success (ease in publishing, receiving funds, having a special treatment within your institution, etc.) grow exponentially. Resources are always given (fro the greater part) to the same people, in the same domain. The funding system is not transparent and affected by numerous problems which will never be solved by those currently in charge. This is killing the research in the UK and it makes this job less and less attractive to smart people.
Career insecurity, not enough opportunities, strong element of luck in who succeeds, need to be strongly self-promoting.
communications in interview or discussions
Poor work-life-balance throughout the career. Early Career Researchers see their advisors' poor work-life-balance and decide to choose another career path.
See answers above. Inflexible working conditions, fewer opportunities for progression, little in the way of feedback when try to progress, Early in career "fear of failure" when culture fails to recognise that humans fail, "they are not perfect" it is difficult for ECRs especially women, and those from BAME backgrounds etc - unsupportive working environments.
It is really important to support people to understand how to progress in their careers, even thinking outside of academia. What my department does really well is even if someone leaves they find a way to keep you "on the books" so you still feel that connection to academia. Things like that make me less interested in leaving because if you are valued and your team make it clear to you how you can progress then why leave? You have a team of people who understand you and actually want you to stick around.
Lack of jobs at entry-level lecturer positions, and a lack of funding opportunities specifically aimed at early career researchers.
PIs taking in interest in their students' and postdocs' careers.
The support - with academia changing there is not the support/experience that there previously was.
Comparatively short contracts/ job security, affecting family planning and finances negatively. It seems that career progression depends a lot on the support of one's PI or a mentor who knows the tricks of the trade and advise accordingly or even recommend their group members to befriended colleagues. When you have to figure everything out on your own and have no feedback at all, it is hard to compete Although work-life balance is being promoted more, the common thinking is still very much that one has to dedicate many long hours and weekends to research and put in the extra effort and even then, it is a lottery which is not worth playing. (Because even if you are good and successful, the odds to actually make it are still minimal). This has negative effects on health, family life and ultimately creativity/ productivity i.e. research output. Promoting something is one thing, but as long as there are so many people doing the opposite, you have to play the same game
Short-term contracts for early career staff, reliant on external funding. Early career researchers starting their independent careers often overlaps with the age at which it is common to start a family.
bullying and harassment, and exclusive cliques/drinking culture
Severely limited funding, too many early career researchers chasing too few jobs,.
Low pay, but this is maybe especially true in London.
Late 20s/30s the lack of security in terms of jobs and the everything/nothing model of academic funding i.e. if you make it to Principle investigator youre fine in terms of jobs, if you don't hit on grant funding there is very little to fall back on (permanent postdocs are not really a thing) which leads to a "crunch" time where you have to decide whether you continue or jump before you're pushed.
The discrepancy in opportunities offered. As a student in a DTP scheme I am offered a lot of networking/conference/workshop/funding opportunities, but other PhD students, particularly university funded, are offered absolutely nothing like this. We earn the same, and will all get a PhD out of this, and yet they will have significantly less to put on their CV through no fault of their own.
Although there appears to be a movement in academia of promoting work life balance, mental health, wellness etc. Most of this is just talk, with little action. Particularly since covid. For example, being been sent multiple emails by the university telling staff that it is OK to not work at full capacity because of the pandemic, but still expecting the same level of output. Or, offering mental health services, but not providing the services with enough resources to support demand (not enough appointments available + long waits). Ultimately, it is the lack of support and sense of belonging that pushes me away from remaining in academia.
The need for establishing a system whereby your employment is not dependent on being awarded grants every few years.
Temporary contract, lack of long-term projects
For people wanting to raise a family, the option of part time working with realistic workload
At the moment, Universities across the UK have adopted a "business" model to run them. The consequences of such change has already led to mass exodus of talent to more lucrative endeavours. All of the advantages of working in academia have pretty much disappeared, whereas none of the advantages of working in industry have been adopted by universities.
Competitive and toxic nature of the workplace, together with a small number of job openings.
Particularly for female researchers it is difficult if they are planning on having children or if they have other caring responsibilities. The culture in academia is very focussed on publications and formal output where often the circumstances can mean that there is little chance for this. Furthermore, time off because of caring responsibilities will often mean that they are viewed as working less or less hard and overall career progression will take more time compared to male counterparts. Knowing this from an early point on, many do not strive for an academic career. Another point being post-doc work where often there is only a limited time (many of just 6 or 12 months) where the insecurity in finances and job as well as location mean that they are unavailable to people with caring responsibilities or even in committed relationships and they often place an additional mental strain on people. Constantly worrying about the next job or making the most of the 6 month post-doc and working extended hours will cause lower overall performance and increase burn-out and other issues further down the line. The overall mentality of seeing working 60+ hours per week is harmful to students and researchers at each level and in academia widely accepted. A push towards a 9-5 working week will make people feel less like they are constantly under-performing and allow for a better work-life balance. Pure attendance and being present does not make good research. There is a huge proportion of academics that feel the need to point out how they are better than everyone and often recite working hours and things like that.
Too much work for a position that is very uncertain. As a woman, it would take too much time and sacrifice to pursue a career in academia. Most partners would not be willing to move around or understand how academia work and the amount of work it requires. I do not think that getting older and wanting a family helps either. As woman, we have a "set time" to have children and this interferes with advancing in the career. After my PhD, I decided that my most important part of my life is my personal life rather than the career. I have given up too much already for academia and with time and, now with COVID, realized I needed to be happy with the people I love and care about.
A lot of postdocs feel they have been sold a lie, that there isn't a career at the end of this slog. Most people don't have the energy to work themselves to the bone to become a PI.
Current lack of career progression opportunities
Very unstable career, get prompted (very competitive) or get fired. Being good at the job you have is not enough to keep it.
I can only speculate on the reasons why this is occurring, but I feel there is very little racial diveristy at the senior academic level at my institution (senior lecturer and above). This would suggest that there are barriers preventing progression for BAME early career researchers. I have also personally witnessed women postdocs ultimately leave academia, after missing out on opportunities due to being on maternity leave. I could be wrong, but I feel like a lot of opportunities in academia require flexibility in work hours that is incompatible with childcare, penalising many young women working in research.
Career pathways is a real issue. The chances of moving onwards in academia is small and I have friends who have been doing postdocs for 10+ years waiting for a position to come up
The real issue is the lack of funding, also to support early career researchers.
From recent limited experiences within my institution, what has been the number one demotivating issue affecting my desires for a career in academia has been the ruthless redundancies mid-pandemic based off research impact & grant income. Academia is always sold as a culture of research freedom away from the financial constraints of industry. However, the further into my academic career I go I become increasingly aware of the hostile working environment , short term, high risk, working contracts. The financially driven, high citation parameters that define a successful academic breeds competition, lack of collaboration, and de-motivation.
Lack of information regarding career progression and unnecessary stress related to obligations outside of research. Additionally a lack of funding and health and safety restrictions (i.e. students being unable to train in our department to handle compressed gas) causes unnecessary delays to much of the research which in turn causes more stress and uncertainty when deadlines are looming.
Feeling accepted or heard. I can see that although our research groups meetings are very inclusive, our voice as PhD students is not heard as much as other academics.
You have to go where the research is, which involves moving cities/countries, often for short contracts for only a couple of years. This can make it very difficult for ECRs to settle, especially those looking to have a family.
The intimidated environment of academia maybe? The competitive atmosphere all the time, where people cannot show they do not know something.
"work-life balance" - always feel like there is more to do, little reward/recognition
workload, job security, competition (need to do hot topic science, need to publish in high IF journals which sometimes encourages hype over depth)
Too many people chasing too few permanent jobs. This has resulted in an extremely competitive environment.
The large number of PhD students who want academic jobs compared to the number of permanent posts available, leading to insecure employment in short term postdoc contracts for extended (&gt; 5 yr) periods.
I think a more fairer way to appoint new academics and provide them with support, in terms of studentships and laboratory equipment would help.
People feeling as though they don't belong. I've worked in a number of different departments and at a number of different labs. When you're in a good working environment it makes it very clear in retrospect, how bad the bad environments are.
No clean definitions of Early career researchers. Luck of funding. Lack of opportunities for development when you are funded for a specific project from a specific PI. No room for progression.
The ridiculous culture of metrics and hyper-competition. There is bucketloads of objective data proving that it stifles innovation, destroys mental health, and it is a model that has been completely abandoned by the private sector (philanthropy, venture capital) where broad portfolios of investment are encouraged in the full knowledge that most science leads nowhere but that brilliant science is unpredictable. It also hugely discriminates against minorities, and most especially mothers. To family members and friends in other professions, it is widely viewed as absolutely bonkers (and I am on of the lucky ones! I have an appalling work-life balance - it is 12:33am as I fill this in and approach the end of my emails for the day before I plan to do one bit of marking before bed - but do absolutely adore my job). Despite all this, it persists.
Opportunity to progress and job security
Feeling burnt out and not listened to can make it extremely difficult to know you are valued, and that is a large issue.
COVID restrictions and the lack of opportunities for encouraging early career researchers to stay in academia. More local roles need to be made available given that travel is restricted.
too many fixed term contracts, little employment security, focus on research excellence to the exclusion of all other aspects of the role in recruitment,
Academic culture promotes work-a-holic status. Short term fellowships and expectation to move around to gain experience make it hard to see how anyone wants to stay in academia.
The lack of available positions and the limited funding for those positions.
Lack of stability, not many research opportunities
Supporting work and family life. Making them feel like they belong and are good enough without having to be arrogant or aggressive in their nature. Proper training to allow them to transition to PI - managing a team, managing grants, etc.
Queer visibility, networking, support - we are humans first, scientists second. White fragility - it is impossible to have meaningful conversations with our white colleagues if they refuse to listen. Cultural taxation - the burden of instituting systemic change disproportionately falls on persons of marginalized identities, reducing their energy and effort toward those tasks that are valued and rewarded by academia.
Availability of permanent jobs for early career researchers.
Fear of colleagues having better credentials. Only having career opportunities which are different to your chosen subject, and in a career which is unfulfilling. Perhaps there may not be much support for preparing students for a career from the university.
This can be Career Development opportunities. As for me, I don't have a background in STEM but join the interdisciplinary research team. It will affect the career choice whether to stay in academia in STEM or join other department.
Missing representativity and support for people from backgrounds different from the norm.
The expected work / life balance and the lack of security in maintaining academic jobs
The environment can be very toxic in certain areas. There is a clique culture, as well as a culture that prides itself on working long hours and doing nothing but work. Most PhD students I have met have left academia due to the latter.
The focus on publishing papers to be able to succeed. Not all projects are able to produce papers at the same rate, some projects don't work out as planned. Neither reason means an individual is a lesser scientist, however with such a focus on this type of output, many oppertunities are simply out of reach (grants, conference invitations, jobs etc) and can as a result severly limit career progression
Having to move around for Post Docs. Difficulty in getting a permanent position.
Hostility and an over use of 'competitive environments'. Everywhere I have been prior to my current position required you to be as competitive as possible to succeed. This made a lot of people I know leave STEM for other careers. Not to mention, STEM does little to promote diversity.
I think a lack of funding, and therefore new opportunities is the biggest issue. A lot of people closer to retirement stay for a very long time in roles, preventing people moving up lower down the ladder.
Job stability is poor in academia and jobs in industry are more stable; allowing for a personal life to root and develop.
Lack of opportunities and feelings of value given to early career researchers
Not feeling good enough/low key imposter syndrome making people feel they cannot succeed
The uncertainty of the future - having to uproot many times to chase halfway around the world for different postdoc positions, and then still having very slim chances of ever getting a permanent job. I don't want to be in my thirties still with no permanent job and earning nowhere near what my partner / friends are making.
There is a slightly toxic environment in the higher levels of academia with a large amount of irrelevant steps that do not promote career progression
I think a big deterrent from staying in academia is the often restricted career and salary progression, especially considering the level of qualifications required for these type of roles (PhD, post doc, etc) and the amount of work expected (research, teaching, administrative tasks, writing grants...). STEM-related jobs outside of academia often offer better career and salary progression, as well as a better work/life balance.
The two body issue, and the issue of childcare. Although these haven't affected me yet I've seen them severely impact the careers of women I look up to
Temporary contracts and the difficulties of finding a permanent position.
The fact that an early academic career consists of many short-term contracts (post-doc positions) that typically seem to last from 6 months to 2 years (sometimes with extensions advertised as possible). This creates stress and makes stability/family/support networks impossible to maintain.
It can feel overwhelming as an Early Career Researcher because there's this weight of expectation to 'become an academic', whereas for me, I chose to study an EngD for other reasons. There are naturally multiple routes one can go down after completing a doctorate, and 'staying in academia' is just one of them. A clearer understanding of how to stay in academia might help more people stay there.
Obviously dealing with the issue of harassment is extremely important. Many good ECRs will be lost because of this.
Either existing lack of diversity and therefore lack of role models; or the expectation that early career researchers will do short-term postdocs for several years before getting a permanent job.
Luck (or perhaps foresight if you are charitable) in choice of research field; support from more experienced peers.
I would guess research funding and postgrad recruitment are difficult areas; I see ECRs I know struggling to keep up the pace of work at the point where fellowship grants are coming to an end for them.
Working in an area of research that is considered sexy, and thus has funding opportunities
The ability to free up enough time to develop and perform research activities is becoming increasingly more challenging.
Small number of permanent jobs available. Difficult to balance career and personal life (especially with kids etc). Salary low compared to industry. Necessity to move frequently.
Fallout from Brexit: academics (as others) want to feel valued, needed and respected, but Brexit has placed uncertainty on some academics' job security and made them feel unwelcome
The late age of being settled, now the norm is PhD + one or two postdocs spells.
Large numbers of PhDs graduating, few permanent jobs going.
very high workloads, very high competition for academic positions, then very high competition for funding - so much time is spent writing proposals that will never be funded. Expectations on teaching also increasing (increased use of technology, increased resources for students - all good but another time-devouring task).
quite possibly avoiding academia in the first place, or, working in academia in a different country.
Transition from PhD / PostDoc to exponentially increased workload of academia is challenging. Levels of internal support from University for research are reducing (e.g. studentships), so now imperative to get your own research funding. I have been told by senior colleagues that academic promotions are essentially solely based on research funding (despite "official" criteria suggesting otherwise). Impossible to complete all teaching, admin, and research tasks during contracted times, but would suggest naivety if taking on an academic job and not realising this. However, sacrificing all time to a job may not be for everyone, so could affect retention / progression for some.
Achieving sufficient experience to stand out amongst candidates for jobs/positions
Researchers who get support (funding, etc) early in their career get a head start which their peers may find impossible to make up, and that support depends on how well connected an ECR is, rather than their talent or ability.
Lack of clear perspectives for permanent jobs
This is a difficult question. There will only ever be permanent positions for a tiny fraction of those who do PhDs/Post Docs, last time I looked less than 1% of PhDs will get permanent positions in Universities. I think this needs to be much clearer from the start and there needs to be lots more support for progression into a range of careers, not just an expectation of an academic position. I have seen people start PhDs and Postdocs with an expectation that they will automatically fall into an academic position at the end and this is simply unrealistic and leads to disillusionment. The question is how do we nurture researchers into positions in many different fields, without destroying the hopes of those who want to be academics. I'm not sure I know the answer to that. There is without a doubt a leaky pipeline in STEM where some people are more put off than others by the insecurity of multiple post docs, the expectation to travel as well as a macho culture in specific fields like organic chemistry. Universities can do some things to improve this, but without a total overhall of the entire funding landscape there will be no change. Equally it is not feasible to carry out world class research if we only have the tiny number of PhD and PDRA who will then match to the number of academic positions.
Not sure if the most important, but I think there is not enough encouragement and support to think and plan for your personal life, and work-life balance - e.g. people who want to have a family leave but keep postponing it because their research requires so much work, travel, etc. You feel that you end up putting your life "on pause" for years for a potential future reward that might not even ever come.
Universities base entry on grades over innovation and ideas. People from diverse backgrounds will have diverse and innovative ideas, however, they are under more pressure to meet the entry requirements. More needs to be done to evaluate the suitability of a student on what they think and why, rather than how well they can remember information which may have little relevance to them. These students are discouraged from entering academia and STEM, and we are all the worse off for it. Case and point: My university would not have accepted me for an undergraduate program. I now teach 3 modules to students studying that program whilst conducting extremely innovative PhD research in an area which has not previously been explored. I say this with some certainty: getting to this point has been much more challenging and littered with obstacles than for those students whose parents were able to buy their grades, however; my research is no less innovative or important.
Being treated with fairness and honesty, regardless of gender/ethnicity etc..
too many applicants / too few positions.
the way academia works entirely. it is a big problem
We need more money to give more PhD students the chance to do postdocs.
The fact that academic careers in STEM are insecure and/or competitive. Fixed term contacts do not provide financial security or flexibility to suite families and partnerships, while secure jobs are difficult to come by and over-working is encouraged or necessary to secure them.
Too much focus on staying in Academia as opposed to leaving university to work in STEM. Also a good work-life balance seems to rarely be visible - everyone seems to have a lot of focus on their work before anything else.
Large inflow of students with small outflow of older academics, less and less funding, especially in pure mathematics
No stable future prospects. No other job requires you to uproot your whole family every few years.
Fixed term contracts offering little stability. Particularly for women - when will I be able to be secure in taking maternity leave? The pressure for academics to move around the country or even abroad which does not suit everyone, particularly women or ECRs with family commitments.
Opportunities for skills development, establishing a network of potential colleagues.
Visibility of progression and opportunities
The post-doc process, which generally requires moving cities or countries several times, is very difficult for many people, but especially those with certain disabilities, medical needs, or who have or want to have a family.
Personally, the attractiveness of career in academia due to high competiveness, effect on mental health and the problems of balancing career and family (for women). Generally, the effects of any type of discrimination that is visible in our society and also happens in STEM.
For all, the need to work long hours and overtime to keep up with a competitive environment. For women, the difficulty in combining pregnancy and career.
I think it has always been difficult for young researchers to affirm themselves and earning trust/credibility alongside seniors/managers.
I think that the way post-doc careers are structured is probably not very effective at retaining people. The system strongly encourages people to seek a series of fixed term contracts, often moving universities (and country's) between each and the next. While this mobility can be exciting and give a chance to explore the world a little the problem is that for people in long term relationships with partners who do not want to move (or are unable to due to there own work) it makes things tricky. Doubly so for those with children or other family. The second weakness of the system is that even skilled researchers can find themselves "missing a rung". Grant applications and job applications are never fully under the control of the applicant and I suspect many skilled researchers have left science because a spate of unlucky applications left them without a next contract. However as far as I can tell there is no shortage of people to fill positions (perhaps slightly the opposite), so retention is not a problem in that sense. (IE if more people were retained there would need to be more positions to retain them in.)
The group and line manager are the main things that are affecting my career progression. Having a supportive line manager plays an important role in career progression from my point of view. Secondly, the colleagues in the group is very significant to work collaboratively.
STEM research is still male dominated. There are few role models/mentors in HE that are female, and the majority of professors are male. There is still unconscious bias against women in STEM.
In Spain, where I come from, it is the salary, it is not high enough for the level of studies. In the UK I have no idea, I haven't had to worried about that yet.
I feel like I'm lost in a world I don't really understand and no-one has time to help me
A lack of job security, having to renew contracts every few years. Additionally, not having supervisors who encourage you to stay or find a place for you.
Opportunities to take the research to an application level, in any way.
Unconscious bias come to mind most of all, and expectations to move often between jobs/countries until you have a permanent post. It is not a single one thing, it is a cultural mindset and lots of expectations on how a successful career should look like or proceed, which is still tailored around a single bread winner with a flexible partner to support it. Attending conferences (in person) is overrated, and giving lots of invited talks (in person) was so far overrated. But most of all, many women do not even see themselves going into a research career in STEM. You cannot become what you do not see. You also do not want to choose a career that you do not see as desirable. And this is less a problem of role models in my eyes now. I think a big problem is the negative press about how you have to struggle if you want to be a successful minority background researcher in STEM. I would have not chosen this career if I would have known what expects me in terms of unfairness and discrimination (worse in Germany than here, but still...). No one is that stupid. I noticed only when it was "too late" and I had fallen in love with research and academia. Women and others nowadays do not have that luxury. At the beginning of my career I thought women are simply not interested in math which is why there were none, naive yes, but a blessing.
Retention in universities specifically: In engineering there are well paid job opportunities with open ended contracts for PhD qualified reserachers. Universities need to offer similar opportunities for the best post-doctoral researchers to be competitive. Many in engineering are not desperate to become academics but would like to continue working in universities as researchers and universities need these people A viable, secure research-based career path is needed to improve retention. I don't think there is a major problem with PhD qualified researchers leaving the engineering field completely.
1. Better support for academics/researchers returning from maternity leave. 2. More secure jobs at postdoc level.
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion of women, LGBT+ and minority ethnic people. We need to focus all of our support on these groups, and make efforts to recruit and keep them.
For early career researchers, I think peer support and sponsorship (not necessarily money) but established researchers who recommend and introduce you) are very important. I have been very fortunate so far with the workplaces I have been in. They may not have been perfect, but on the whole reasonably fair and supportive, respectful environments compared to some stories I hear from friends in nominally similar places...
Unclear pathways for progression and unfair metrics for success. In particular, the opportunities that become available depend a lot on subject area, support from supervisor(s) and luck. The precarity of postdoc positions means that typically only those with sufficient financial and social privilege apply while other good candidates are attracted to more secure careers. Furthermore, it can take a long time for work to be published and gain recognition, but researchers have to apply early for their next position, which means that the application process favours candidates who have been part of successful collaborations in popular areas of research.
There needs to be much more recognition of the challenges women with children face - given that men are still able to progress their careers without reference to children!
Fixed term contracts, poor pay and not really being seen as 'true' academics.
There needs to be a proper ECR career path. Universities need to develop the equivalent of Assistant Professorships, that do not necessarily lead to "tenure" but give a young academic a fair chance to get it, and have a definite end point so that not getting tenure is also a clear event allowing the person to move on.
A trusted, like-minded mentor who can help navigate the system
Mental health - many researchers struggle with imposter syndrome and can feel pressured to work harmfully long hours.
One needs to have a minimum level of scientific knowledge in the field required. It can be pretty difficult to catch up when lacking fundamental knowledge or even to be aware of it and know that it is hindering progress.
Funding, especially in a new (1992) university.
Too many ECRs/postdocs and too few permanent positions. An economy of churning out PhDs in ever increasing numbers is unsustainable, and pressures on academic staff to publish more, and bring in more money exacerbates the situation.
I'm not sure I'm qualified to try and answer this
It is not clear what I should do to get an academic position. Let's take the following tasks: publishing papers, networking, teaching, organising events. Which of these is more important? Do I need to get at least W papers published, X people known, Y courses taught, Z organised events? What are the minimum values for W,X,Y,Z? I would like to have a clear roadmap, with clear requirements. Otherwise, I feel I could spend time, money, and energy to try to achieve a goal that is unrealistic. Another important issue is that the whole peer-reviewed system is broken, at least in my humble opinion. I don't understand why some editors have so much power, why we need to pay to both publish papers and read papers (when peer-reviewers work for free...). It is also inefficient in terms of time, because it can take more than a year to publish a reviewed work. Things like "the number of published papers" and the "h-index" are strongly overrated. I would be much more happy to stay in a system where publishing a paper is more writer-friendly than it currently is (and maybe also more ethical)
The promise of job security and work-life balance.
You need to do focus groups to get more info on this.
There is a lack of flexibility built into the academic pipeline when it comes to measuring success, based around publications and grants, which disenfranchises so many talented scientists from continuing in the field. I think this affects under-represented groups disproportionately, since many of us have taken nontraditional routes both into and through our careers. I am currently on a different contract type, Teaching and Scholarship from my colleagues (who do not treat me any differently) and this affects the kinds of responsibilities and roles I am permitted to take within the Department. I participate in seminars and write papers, but this is on my "unpaid time" I am not allowed to apply for grants because it is unclear how to cost it. Same but different. Colleague but outsider. and this is solely because my department/universities in the UK in general refuse to acknowledge that the main reason those of us on these contract types are in the field is because we are scientists/mathematicians with additional valuable skills to bring to the environment (and a higher proportion of people on these contracts are underrepresented).
My best guess is workload as a whole. This will disproportionately impact those e.g. with caring commitments but the whole sector runs on the "do more with less" model and everyone is squeezed.
Being an international researcher, I am finding it difficult to find any funding councils for my research.
Academia is hard. In my case what I found most difficult was the lack of job safety, the unspoken pressure to delay having a family, the stress/pressure, toxic competition and toxic work environment
A postdoctoral career is difficult; especially when put on a fixed-term contract for a project that is has just started, thus no guarantee of success but expected long hours. Depending on the work at hand, it may require you to do more than a standard postdoc task. This is difficult considering the fixed postdoc salary. It is also dependent on the university facilities and infrastructure. If the facilities are not functioning well, it limits the capability of the research work, thus furthering the lack of guaranteed success within a postdoc. At least in academia, the former is tied with funding, thus additional work needed to seek and apply for funding, with some funding needing to satisfy the funder's aims (i.e. if funds come from a company/industry), thus potentially deviating from initial areas of interest/expertise.
Too many old academics, they get all the funding and distribute poorly. Academia is an ‘Old boys club’ and no hope for anyone new, unless you’re an Oxbridge grad. Wouldn’t recommend to anyone.
Fixed-term postdoc contracts with virtually no chance of it becoming a permanent lectureship. I have a mortgage to pay - I can't live on fixed-term contracts forever. So there is no incentive to stay in academia sadly.
Academia is often described as "publish or perish". This leads to people focussing on research so they can publish papers rather than novelties that will actually improve their field. This is an issue for me as I want to focus on lecturing after my PhD, not research. However, all metrics used for recruiting and progressing in your career are based on publications
The barriers to establish a career feel huge at the start - you are an unknown, no published work. I think a huge barrier is the reduction of academic achievement to the individual, and how they can be quantified. Where did you study? How many first author publications do you have; how many citations do they have? This seems almost absurd, given the historical context of science as collaboration - but perhaps inevitable given the tendency (and capacity) to remember individuals over group efforts. I think there needs to be an expansion in what an academic career can look like, beyond the traditional path - to allow people, regardless of their circumstances and life goals, to participate in academia sustainably, and be sure of their belonging.
Comparing the atmosphere of a student office with other offices with academics, the environment and atmosphere is completely different. Students have a community and can talk to one another. Academics are holed off in offices in a rather traditional take on the research workplace. There is a very somber atmosphere surrounding academia, and you can see the look on a lot of academics faces that their mental health suffers from the very nature of their work. It seems the "big" academics get bigger and the smaller ones end up moving on from a lack of support due to the cutthroat nature of research that I have observed.
I think as long as you are towing the line, getting your work done, making progress AND/OR noticeable showing effort - asking for help etcetera, the most important thing is getting on with people. I think performance is generally the main issue only if you are extremely bad or extremely good
understanding of the Job - what is involved, how a career can be made,
For staff on temporary contracts, job opportunities. The removal of the retirement age has not helped, as much staff investment in universities is dependent on the replacement of retiring (generally very expensive!) staff. For permanent staff, workloads is a major issue, particularly in administrative duties. This can e.g. impact on research and hence on ability for career progression. Retention is an issue not so much in terms of retention in academia, but rather retention in the UK when working conditions, research funding etc are often better abroad.
Permanent employment. A ridiculous level of competitiveness. Funding models.
I think making it less of a 'you've got to be super smart' message and changing that perception to be 'you've got to be super curious'. This will attract brighter and more interesting characters to contribute to knowledge. I know countless people who could easily add to the academic community in a positive way but never even think of it because they aren't top of their class. In my opinion anyone can do a PhD, they just need to be interested in the topic, hard-working and curious. And that's a lot more people than currently consider the academic life.
The existence of extended non-permanent positions - this is a disaster for woman wanting to have families
Disparity of opportunities among academic staff. Career progress as an academic is predominantly (if not entirely) based on research activity - however, variably in the amount of time, space and opportunity staff are afforded to develop this critical aspect of their career is significant. How can an academic only allowed to spend 5-10% of their time on career development activities possibly compete with an academic free to spend 80+% of their time on the same career development activities?
There are hardly any jobs to get into, for the ones that are there you have to kill yourself to be good enough to get them and even then, it is probably the people who have worked for the known academics in a field that get those jobs. Researchers are used as disposable up until they are faculty members.
Career security and lenght of post-doc contracts.
The specific nature of funding for non "key" areas of science is if it isn't in an attractive area the work will not get funded it means that research becomes 1 dimensional in it's approach and new areas of interest are less likely to be found. calls for more open funding are needed without specific targeted subject areas.
lack of ethnic diversity lack of representation influences undergrads from pursing further education/career in research disproportionate pay
Negative stigma that leaving academia is a failure needs to be corrected. STEM work is not exclusively an academic endeavour. Better engagement with industry to demonstrate that there is a place outside HEA research
Inclusivity events, hiring with a positive bias to give role models for younger researchers to see themselves staying in STEM
I think at times the environment can be a bit overwhelming - people who want to work excessive hours can set a precedent to others, and while not necessarily in my group, I know there still exists an expectation from many supervisors to work quite long hours. This may not be a concern for working in STEM careers generally, but may be off-putting for those considering academia/PhD - especially those with outside commitments like caring responsibilities.
The current state of academia in regards positions of postdocs and above is an environment not conducive to diversity. There seems to be an attitude that women and other minority groups have the ability to apply for these roles therefore academia is fair, however there are only few accommodations made to address the nuanced issues face by such groups which may lead to improved retention and career progression. Cultural changes will benefit everyone, including those currently flourishing in academia but it's those individuals with the most influence that aren't doing the work to improve diversity. There needs to be more research on why people leave academia as well as better mental health support and guidance for those starting out.
Short-term nature of employment at the postdoc level affects retention. The much larger numbers of PhD positions than academic positions affects retention. The overall system where, in order to be retained, you need to progress (e.g. move on from PDRA to lecturer rather remain a researcher; lack of staff scientist roles).
Difficulties of dual career partnerships
Being given the space and time to develop new research ideas and grants without being swamped with admin and teaching
An understanding that not everyone can be an academic, and that research in STEM can happen in many places not just in Universities. Accepting that an academic position is not the ultimate career would help avoid burn out and disappointment.
Job stability and career security. No junior T&R staff member has been promoted in my department in the last 10 years.
Job security. Having worked outside of academia I am now of the opinion that true permanent jobs are rare, most are 'open-ended contracts' in reality, but they still have a pull for young academics.
- the pyramid of many students, less phd students, fewer postdocs, very few permanent reserach position not as professor, and less professors; adding to this: fixed term contracts - difficult to get promotions as postdoc at my work place
the process is not transparent. The career progression for ECRs is almost non-existing.
I think pay in consideration to the workload. I am working as hard as when I was a Senior Manger, but I only get 80% of the benefit. Also the University seems (is) well behind industry with regards to the provision of equipment to work with. This is very odd, as the amount of money generated by an academic member of staff (teaching and research income) far exceeds the amount of money generated by and industrial staff member of similar skill. So staff leave to get better pay (and benefits), better kit and a proper development path with performance related bonuses (I used to get a manager provided performance bonus every year).
I think there is not enough appreciation for quality of research over quantity and that we get mixed signals. We are told to engage in things other than producing papers (such as public engagement, teaching, collaborative working events) but only your papers matter to move forward in your career and young academics are not able to capitalise on those the effort put in other acrivities, thus publishing those who engage in other experiences after believes the people who encouraged them to do so.
Disillusionment, and lack of impact. Publishing papers does not equate to impact, but doing anything else is not valuable in terms of career progression. In extreme cases the pressure to publish can lead to bad science. The general lack of structure, clear roles and purpose in academia is also a problem.
Slightly lacking of funding opportunities.
Career progression recognised for being good at research in and of itself instead of money being the most important driving factor for University.
I took a PhD after a year in industry and it's now 7 years after my undergraduate degree. As a postdoc, I earn less than the typical graduate scheme pays and I have less job security. This makes me anxious when I think about starting a family, about buying a house and all of the things that my friends are doing because I can't be sure that I will have an income in 12 months time. I find it demoralising that friends work less hard and earn significantly more while receiving more praise and encouragement than I can expect in academia.
The lack of stability and poor work/life balance are not compatible with family life
REF hiring practices have totally skewed the hiring market in my area. Related, many postdocs and PhDs are hired to ensure career progression for PI, but there are very limited future opportunities for most of these researchers in academia.
Being acknowledged for your teaching and admin to the same level as bringing in research awards. You have to work very long hours to achieve your tasks and to focus on teaching new modules, compared to established academics who can adapt their lectures slightly each year rather than having to start from scratch. I don't think this is recognised and it puts a lot of pressure on early career academics.
Security and stability of positions, i.e. the amount of moving between positions that may be required.
The precarious nature of postdoctoral contracts, lack of effective mentoring at that stage, a perception of being a failure if you don't get a lectureship by 35, a perception of being a failure if you leave academia, widespread imposter syndrome.
Lack of support for women who want to have families and continue to progress. This requires real systemic change in addition to a maternity leave allowance. Support has to continue through the early years when external child care is expensive and parenting is extremely effortful. Either that or there should be formalised structures for returning women to academic research after a break to have a family, not a pitiful handful of inadequate fixed-term fellowships. Lack of role models for BAME and other underrepresented groups.
That the system strongly rewards factors other than academic merit - particularly an Oxbridge background, and association with 'star' academics and senior staff of influence.
Job security, short term contracts. Pressure of the competitive environment constantly wanting to get more and more done in the same amount of time.
short term contracts - no location or job stability.
Lack of stability & short term contracts make it seem nearly impossible to choose where to live and work, and especially if you want to be in the same place as a partner or other important people in your life.
Not being inclusive! Not caring about others beyond making yourself look good and being cliquey and harsh towards others
STEM is an extremely selective set of fields, and it selects for intelligence, conscientiousness, and risk-tolerance, above all else. These are highly valued traits in a huge range of lines of work, so someone with an IQ of 140, who can sustainably work 50 hour weeks without burning out, and who can handle the chance of failure has a raft of other options. Some of these options are lucrative and stable. The people I graduated with are computer programmers, lawyers, or work in big tech, among a number of other things. Once you have a good STEM degree, and especially once you have a STEM PhD, you just don't have to settle for 30 grand a year, and slow career progression.
The work-to-reward ratio. I live with 2 other PhD students, and the main issue we all feel we have with our PhDs is the amount of work we put in is not worth the small and usually infrequent pay-offs. We're paid essentially the minimum wage (or less when we put in more than 40 hours a week, which we all frequently do), but without the perks or protection of full-time employment (e.g. paid holiday and sick days, pension, ability to get a mortgage or loan). We all realise that the ultimate reward is the PhD at the end of the 4 years, but the stress up to that point often feels like it is not worth it.
Insulting pay Unrealistic expectations of commitment for virtually no hope of progression to tenure, which is all anyone wants.
I think there are not enough permanent positions and the permanent positions that do exist are rarely vacated.
The lack of opportunities, there seems to be very few postdoc opportunities compared to the number of PhD graduates. Also the living contract to contract life is not attractive to everyone, having to move around and get a new job every 12-24 months is not particularly attractive.
The career prospects are terrible, and the private sector offers much more security for better pay doing easier jobs. Maybe not working on your own research in the private sector, but there are jobs which aren't a million miles away, and I'm willing to take that small hit for the large benefits it brings
An honest and impartial review of critical theory (in all its various guises), it's true nature and the damage it causes is desperately needed. It is currently used as a universal lens to view and review much of what I see happening on the macro level in academic culture. Like a parasite it slowly kills the host until there is nothing left bot a shrivelled husk. I hope that this is realised before it does too much more damage.
Improving work/life balance and reducing the importance of travel for career progression.
Genuine support from senior leaders & penalties for those who do not support career progression either through active behaviours (bullying, pressure etc) or passively (ignoring issues).
Ease of getting a permanent job without having to move to the other side of the world.
It feels like you have to be at least one and ideally all of (a) brilliant, (b) lucky and (c) willing to move literally anywhere to stay in academia, and the only one we can really affect ourselves is (c). But moving often while all our friends settle down has a cost - probably a more obvious cost to those who come from groups not well represented in academia, who are perhaps more likely to need/want a support network outside.
Too much reliance on fixed term contracts and therefore constantly needing to move. This is not conducive to having a partner or family.
I can only speak of obstacles for women but I think this applies more generally. The system is set up to bring in lots of ECRs (more ECRs means more promotions etc for the higher ups) but of course there's a bottleneck and the vast majority will not make it through. Fair enough this is a known fact but how much harder is it for a woman (or BAME etc) to push through that bottleneck? Especially one who has taken time out to have children. Some would say too hard. Which means you can have a reasonable diverse group of postdocs which doesn't translate through to professorial level. So it's less about retention and more about being chewed up and spat out of the system. In terms of career progression there's nowhere to go in academia and so you end up overly yet under qualified and having to start from scratch in another sector.
Universities assign too much value to how much funding a member of staff brings. Obtaining funding for research has become sort of a lottery due to the very low success rates.
Support for those starting a new career, which largely comes down to funding. Retention is about reducing crazy workloads before acdemics are burnt out.
seeing expectations of overwork - standard working hours tend to over 50-hours a week and many work even more.
Lack of job security and lack of diverse representation in leadership roles
I need to find a job as soon as possible, I can't afford to wait around for a suitable postdoc
The broad scale of STEM even within just the biological sciences can cause a person to swerve widely from opportunity to opportunity giving the person no real footing in the next position as the job before may have been entirely different. Indecision will not/has not helped with this.
Lack of funding. I think a lot of ECR's are put off academia because in order to get anywhere there is a huge pressure to raise money to pay for your own position, and it seems like this is essentially how it works for years. It's not difficult to see how a career outside of academia, where you have a stable salary and a permanent position (and are not judged entirely on the number of publications you churn out), is quite desirable for post-doc level people.
Very few short term contacts for post docs and the expectation you will just move anywhere for them. I don't feel like the government really values science - they say they do but funding opportunites for subjects that aren't neccessariliy profitable or related to business are small. Additionally UKRI initially said they wouldn't give PhD Covid extensions and we can just adapt. It is ludicrous and a reflection of the importance of reserach in the UK. They have now retracted this and are offering some additional funding but I don't feel supported or valued as a researcher. I earn up to 5 times less than friends my age and have no pension scheme and cannot afford many things I would like to. PhD wages attract younger people straight from MSc level due to the terrible wages and career progression. This attracts a straight and obvious career progression - however as a mature PhD student I took the time to get to know myself and what I am passionate about and I think this is important. You can tell the difference between a PhD student who is just doing a PhD and someone that really really wants to do it and specifically chose to do it. They are often the older candidates.
Funding and competition. Lack of long term contracts and high pressure to publish.
Low salaries for PhD students and fixed-term contracts for post-docs. This means not everyone has the financial ability to be able to take on either of these roles.
Uncertainty of job security, fixed term contracts. Overloading the ECR with too much teaching and then telling them they need research to progress
Money (the lack of it), and years of uncertainty/pressure. Both of these factors will impact adversely on equality, diversity and inclusion.
Short term positions and job insecurity; inequalities that emerge once women have had children and the difficulty in balancing child care with a profession that is inherently competitive.
The continued requirement to move for more and more short-term positions. This is not feasible for ECRs with families in particular.
I feel like non-Europeans do not have the same opportunities and are recruited differently.
The short term nature of contracts and even after obtaining a longer term position the continous requirement to justify your existance by obtaining grant money (one of the reasons I suspect I will move into teaching and assist research groups rather than attempting to start my own).
Fair opportunities and being helped to find, co-author and write grants and fellowships.
A system built upon short term and cheap labor. Job security is next to zero for many. I do well in terms of grants/papers (as good science underlying these), yet still on fixed term contract. I know others, often female, who I would say are brighter and better academics than I who are in the same boat, or worse. It's a terrible stage of life (as typically at the point of escalating partner/family/elderly caring responsibilities) to have such poor job security. I always support my students post award, but I do not encourage them to stay in academia as I think their work-life balance and careers can be better developed and protected elsewhere.
Fixed term contracts - how can you plan for the future when you're being strung along on short term contracts? (And this come after years of insecure 'work' as a PhD researcher - they should be full time members of staff and have employment rights, sick leave, and maternity rights. It's years of limbo before a chance at an insecure academic job)
People who are different and who try to do things differently (in the broadest sense) are not respected (at Strathclyde).
I see a number of ECRs just giving up in their academic careers as they feel unsupported, in some cases bullied, and struggling with the move from post-doc onwards. We need to provide a more secure environment for these researchers to build their own careers without the constant stress of funding running out
Role models - academic leadership should reflect the make up of the UK population in its gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic background, etc. I say this because turkeys will not vote for Christmas - STEM will not change to become more inclusive if academic leadership isn't refreshed.
Lack of fair access to research funding. It is NOT a level playing field and the academic in-crowd know how to game the system, resulting in poor outcomes for younger staff. This is exacerbated by implicit bias in the predominantly white, straight, middle class men that dominate the academic in-crowd. These people have very little real appreciation for the barriers that are put in the way of young female, BAME, gay researchers, and/or those from disadvantaged backgrounds. There is a tendency to feel "well I managed, why can't you" without understanding what it's actually like for others. UKRI systems simply entrench this bias (e.g. lack of blind review; poor quality of training for reviewers; 2-day panel meetings in far-flung places effectively putting a barrier in the way of those with children to participate).
Balancing work and family life is an issue, but increasingly, I think the greatest issue is the bias in peer review (both in journals and in grant applications). All peer review should be anonymised by the individual and by the organisation. So, no information on background should be given when assessment of science is occurring.
Overcoming the bias towards people who are friends with professors who make the decisions. Overcoming bias towards Oxbridge graduates.
Having a good work-life balance, being surrounded by positive people.
Lack of self-confidence. I cannot speak about racial discrimination but as a woman, I would say that not being confident in one's capabilities and societal pressure are the main issues preventing career progression in STEM.
I think a more diverse array of people in STEM would help everyone feel like they belong and create a more inclusive atmosphere?
red tape that stops real work/research getting done.
Extreme inequality in funding. Funding bodies give the lion's share of money to prestigious universities and "star" researchers, leaving many others with nothing. Having no funding is a hopeless situation that makes people quit. Meanwhile I have heard people at prestigious unis complaining about how many projects and phd students they have to manage. They are drowning in money.
The availability of positions for ECRs to move to/between.
I think competitive Research Fellowships should be the main way to an open-ended academic contract. However, (some) Universities might welcome the funding from fellowships, without really committing to a long-term support of the Research Fellow. I think a University that agrees to host a 3-year (or longer) fellowship should be obliged to offer an open-ended career at the end of it, conditional upon clear objectives. Otherwise, the Research Fellow is left in a very difficult position.
Lack of allies, support, and role models from diverse backgrounds
A culture which simply does not value the work academics do. It overworks people for relatively low rewards and the traditional counter-acting benefits of job satisfaction and security are no longer there.
Stable employment conditions- not being reliant on short-term grants. Research funding is now a lottery and cannot be depended upon in the medium-longer term.
Short term contracts, lack of understanding from University management about lab research and career progression, warm words but lack of action on most topics about improving the situation, a university system that seems increasingly opposed to research seeing it as a drain on resources.
Being valued as a person and being offered a future where you are able to progress
There should be staff scientist positions avaiable for those researchers that don't want/can't be PI.
Ability to attract research funding. Ridiculously competitive and many good ideas are going unfunded causing people to leave the career early.
increase diversity to provide role models for ECRs
Recognition. Job security. Job availability. Support for CPD. Pathways for progression being clearly defined. Better line management.
Offering better job security, longer contracts, promise of future employment
Possibly money? In my research area, Computer Science / AI money can be a lot higher taking professional software dev jobs etc. Academia also has a slow working pace and career progression that may not suit everyone.
It's crazy how many hours you have to work in academia for a very low salary (when compared to a similar position in industry). Outside of academia, more STEM industry is needed.
Researchers in STEM are required to produce publications in quantity, which prevents time investment in quality research such as long-term and disruptive experimentation, which would be more professionally satisfying and fulfilling.
Support from senior academics. What I mean here is as little as answering questions, providing example paper work when filling forms etc. facilities
Maternity/parenting impose a drastically different life at home which affects productivity at work and mobility. In terms of productivity, I find not having enough time to work on Grant applications that would help me gaining research independance. Since I am a mother I do not travel nearly as much for work as I used to before. This unfortunately can get in the way of networking and generating new collaborations. All this said, I am a very happy mother and I would not change anything to my current work and personal/family situation. I would rather continue feeling this way than changing my life work/balance in hope of progressing my career to a higher level.
There appears to be minimal appreciation of staff in the STEM field. Considering the importance of STEM in our education system and the shortages in effective STEM educators; there appears to be minimal appreciation of good educators to entice persons to apply for roles in this area and indeed stay in roles when they get them.
Lack of academic freedom, being forced to work/research in areas to meet the goals of senior academics rather than your own whilst at the same time receiving contradictory advice to become independent.
Old boys club especially in Engineering. Although I have seen the same in Chemistry where despite women making up the majority of roles all the higher paid jobs are filled with men
Number of available jobs. Oversupply of PhD students leading to PIs being spread too thin to do deep work.
The main issue for early career researchers is the funding environment which promotes short term contracts.
Elitism across red brick/Russel group universities and the culture that is embodied within academics that that pass onto their students. This message of "we are the best and everyone else is stupid' needs to stop. It's a barrier to great minds entering academia and a barrier to the general public accepting academics advice.
I think it is the pressure of the requirement of research outputs in the first few years of career.
Maybe there is a bit of a divide between those early in their career and those in senior positions, and it can feel like it is impossible to connect with them and that makes the gap between those positions feel so large. This could make it difficult for some to progress
Family planning, and a lack of security with respect to short term contracts. The toxic work culture of overtime, and the emphasis on grants and publications over other, less measurable contributions to science.
Opportunities to network and meet with others helps with progression
There isn't sufficient career trajectory for the technically skilled in University structures, people who want to research rather than teach. It's no wonder people leave for the private sector, they're actually willing to pay commensurate salaries for technical expertise!
Salary. A PhD student can barely take care of himself, let alone of children, whereas in industry a STEM graduate can, even early on, make enough money to support himself and a family.
Possibly it is unclear as to what needs to be done to progress up the ranks
They need time and funds, and a friendly, fostering mentor. This combination is rare.
Short-term contracts und funding insecurity
Job insecurity caused by use of fixed-term contracts
Lack of stability, lack of defined career ladder, generally poor support for parental leave/caring responsibilities (despite the all the talk and policies about this, in practice it is not allowed for), levels of stress and poor work/life balance in available role models, 'academics never sleep' mentality, poor monetary rewards compared to other sectors (I worked in industry before returning to academia for personal geographical reasons and took a 30-50 % pay cut).
I believe a radical change should happen in academia for everybody to have a real opportunity to thrive. There are still many issues that have not been dealt with.
In the academic life style you are expected to leave your current place of work every 2-3 years and under take research elsewhere. Having to periodically uproot your entire life and only settle down later in life is financially, mentally and physically exhausting. It is not a fair trade off for the years of hard work and dedication that is required to get qualifications in the STEM fields.
Number of (paid) positions - there is a lot of competition without much to separate most people, and there are a large number of excellent people who fall out of STEM simply due to this. Getting funding for a PhD was a big struggle and wouldn't have been possible without it. We should be investing more in STEM at all levels to support those who want to stay in it
Job insecurity - arguing for your job every few months/years is exhausting and, if you are on a work visa, expensive. The attitude that research must be your primary driver in life which promotes a poor work life balance - this seems to be improving at the lower levels of academic life but isnt at the higher levels.
Number of positions post PhD especially with regards to number of permanent contract positions.
Encouraging young girls and women to join STEM at earlier ages. Funding opportunities for research projects and PhDs limit the attractive topics available to research.
There is no career stability for ECRs in academia - fixed term contracts/ needing to move around for postdoc positions
Short-term contracts and the need to move around constantly.
Difficult to know - the start of this survey seemed to infer it was for anyone working in STEM, but there have been several questions that are only appropriate to researchers. I do not have a research component to my contract so I don't lnow how to answer this
The lack of perspective to combine work and life and self-imposed limitations due to a lack of role models/societal acceptability.
The co-inciding in time of the key time for establishing an independent lab group, and for starting a family. This means (many) men shoot ahead and (some) women cannot catch them up, and in the long-term, these inequalities are built upon, resulting in women being channeled into more teaching heavy roles, and men recieving awards and fellowships and this then informing unconscious bias... etc etc.
The lack of available full time permenant contracts.
The constant pressure to get more research contracts has to be a real turn off for some early career researchers.
Academic cohesion and inclusion in collaborations
The contractual rules and regulations and security of securing longer term funding.
Lack of jobs to move in to immediately after PhD, this won't be helepd by the way that universities have committed financial seppuku by complying with mad government diktats over an endemic cough which could have been handled the way swine-flu was.
Demand for those skills in the economy driving well-paid employment opportunities.
Attitudes of established academics on hiring committees, grant panels, peer review colleges, etc. People who are comfortable with what they know and have not been taught to challenge themselves at every step to see whether they are being fair. The influence of networks and who you know.
Support and mentionship especially for under-represented group
Job insecurity after the PhD (I can't believe most people after the PhD are immediately cut out to *lead* a group, but this means you have to do a string of insecure postdoc positions which are incompatible with building up a life for yourself) and the fact that the only way to stay is to become a group leader (not all great academic scientists are also great at leading people so they become miserable).
diversity actions are reported post-factum but not much is happening around diversity during recruitment, with the justification that the process is based solely on merit (hard to audit this). Yet, in the last two years, for three new academic positions in my department, there was only one woman shortlisted. Meritocracy is a blanket everyone is using to hide their business-as-usual practice
Recruiting diverse backgrounds is a problem. Supporting early career researchers and helping them think about careers and writing grants etc is poor. Not enough grants and positions for the number of postdocs. You can’t be an eternal postdoc, the system doesn’t support it.
The system. Job insecurity. The fact that we have to work on fixed term contracts until over 30s. We work hard to get group leader positions which give only a security for 5 years. That is not even a tenure-track position and the university is kicking you out after 5 years of hard working.
My partner and I have discussed having children, but I have no clue how this is possible in an academic career. Between short-term contracts, lack of an ability to really save money in the way that I think we would in other professions, and moving between different countries where we have no support network, I don't see how it seems feasible. I also fear that I will burn out as there are so many reasons I am frustrated with the academic system, and though I like the work and think that I would be a good supervisor to others and good at generating scientific knowledge, I don't know if I can do it without collapsing from stress and frustration.
There are not enough open positions for people who apply. It is hard to gain certain experiences/skills if you don't have access to the required equipment or because training days are cancelled until further notice because of covid.
From my view, it's the competitive spirit. It doesn't even to be about the field any more. You didn't work until 8 pm every night??!! Wow, you won't get anything done. Everyone is challenging each other on who works the most! Why?! Where does that come from? Is it really something to brag about? I find it disgusting.
We see a lack of diversity in academia because we aren't getting diverse applications, not because application committees are discriminatory. More outreach for programs and grants needs to be done by top-tier universities to draw in these underrepresented groups.
child care. Stable careers past the 2x postdoc point so that you don't need to move into a different area if you can't or don't want to be a PI. For how much work a PI has it is crazy there aren't more positions to share the work more equally, or co-PI positions. Many successful groups are run by married couples and this is not a coincidence.
Seeing growth in your career prospects as an academic
work-life balance, publishing culture, number of graduates in relation to permanent positions
A well organised, supportive research group with a clear structure
many short-term research contracts, coupled with an expectation that researchers can/will move and travel globally in order to be competitive in job applications
Grants and careers are given based on prior success, hence feedback loop that requires you to associate/align with previous successes
Representation. How can I get that far if no one else has ever achieved such a position from my background.
Lack of education on the different possible paths to follow in STEM and how to get there, other than traditional lectureships and professorships or a business start-up.
Being able to step on students to get on their papers - honestly most of the postdocs I've seen move into permanent positions are the ones who are not nice people and who take credit for work that isn't theirs
The internship I had before my PhD paid a salary of more than 3x my PhD stipend. With bonus, the take home pay from that job, had I joined full time, would probably be 4x just in the first year. Factoring in the fact that there's no stipend progression, but significant pay progression over 4 years in the job I considered, the financial disparity is insane... In my home country, a PhD is seen as a job, and the pay is roughly 2x what I'm getting. I'm still very happy with my decision to pursue a PhD, however, I do think that the salary gap between a PhD and pretty much any job of a similar caliber is a significant demotivating factor, and I could only imagine the disparity getting worse with seniority. I could imagine that the temptation to 'sell out' would probably become too great after my PhD, and would probably be the reason I left academia.
Security of employment and the lack of will from Universities to lobby research funders and government to deal with the issue.
There are very few academic posts and too many applicants to fill them. Alternative career paths need to be encouraged. There should be more senior researcher posts available within academia and clear career progression. I ended up as a support scientist as a result of doing three postdocs. After this "industry" would not consider me for a position.
Metrics that reward indvidualism and are bad proxys for academic impact (citations, journal impact factor), and completely meaningless in terms of teaching and mentoring qualifications - these metrics incentivice strange, antisocial behaviour rather than academic rigour. This are then the figures determining the academic environment. Indivudals are hired based on research "outputs" (using metrics so flawed that their "objectivity" is recognised almost universally as flawed). Worries over box-ticking for the REF and so much other funding being tied to research outputs determining the survival of Universities eclipses most other considerations.
I have not experienced any explicit discrimination in the UK workplace, but underlying micro-agressions and just general contempt for my ideas or value really makes work difficult at times.
Insufficient amount of funding, support and positions at universities to retain all who would like to continue (and would be suitably qualified/skilled to do so). Too much instability and uncertainty compared to a job in the industry.
Short term or fixed term contracts. Postdoc contracts should be 3-5 years minimum. THere also needs to be a permanent career category in academia for those who want to do serious academic science but not be a PI.
Lack of diversity in research. Lack of inclusiveness. Poor support system from supervisor.
What career progression? There are very few permanent positions, but the number of PhD students increases which means that there are potential applicants for postdoctoral positions. The problem is precarity and lack of job security so, eventually, talented individuals who love STEM leave because they see new future.
Insecure, teporary contracts; not enough independent fellowships or opportunities to build an independent research group; excessive focus on quantity (counting publications) rather than their quality and novelty by grant panels
Probably the overall level of competition in academia. I find it exhausting and demoralising constantly trying to get ahead, and that's even with the field being biased in my favour (me being a straight cis-gendered white man).
I don't think academics in the UK are well paid.
Short-term contracts with minimal support as to what the next step might be - no long lasting job security allowing the researcher to settle down in one place for their family or other commitments.
Moving around between countries and hostile visa/immigration policies.
What is frequently a long period of career insecurity with frequent moves during the PhD and postdoc years. This is particularly challenging for dual-career couples, who will very often need to either live separately or decide whose career to prioritise.
Sexism is still present in some areas. I recently applied for a position at a higher grade at a different institution that's close by (where I did my PhD and had contacts, I really wanted the job, it was an excellent opportunity, I was qualified and experienced in the area), I was offered an interview at the lower grade only (though this would have meant a £5k pay drop, being at the top of that grade already in my current role).... I know from my contacts that the person who left had the same/similar experience skill/set as me (I looked them up!) and was on a grade HIGHER that I was applying for. I suspect if I was a man I would've been offered the interview (and position TBH) at the grade I applied for it at. I really wanted that job (REALLY wanted it!) but I was not prepared to lose salary and my integrity!
Support for researchers who face hurdles or have less privileged backgrounds, especially those lacking financial resources to buffer lack of job security and common expectation of mobility.
the worst thing everywhere is ego. some people in higher levels than some of us do not want to heard that sometimes they are wrong. They do not notice that this happens at every level, everyone can have a good idea!
Lack of industrial experience makes many academics incapable of achieving decent careers outside academia. I have had to make more than I PhD redundant over other staff with way lower qualifications due to their poor business orientation.
Egos. Like Big Egos. And those who simply won't retire but cost twice as much as a newly appointed lecturer.
There is no clear scheme for progression and it all depends on how much budget the candidate can bring in.
Inclusion and recognition. Fighting for inclusion is generally left to those feeling excluded in some way (i.e. the minorities) such that their peers have more time for research, which is the primary (if not the sole) element by which grants and promotions are awarded.
Short term contracts / lack of job security.
Fixed term contracts are so short, that it is so difficult to uproot your life again and again with no sure progression. I worry that I will end up being in the same position in a decade's time.
Fear and uncertainty about the future. Low self-esteem and confidence.
Again, the nature of science. It should be tough, because that's how it advances and, to be honest, not all of us are made for this. Of course, racism and cruel behaviours need to become eradicated.
The expectation that one is able to relocate at short notice. Having a life and responsibilities outside of work immediately puts one at a disadvantage.
Lecturers only hire people they know for postdoc and strong similarity in PI's and majority of his group member's ethnicity
The necessity to move and live on short contracts with no stability does not work for me, and I think it puts off a lot of other people as well
Difficulty to get into academia and find a permanent position
A stable work contract and a more reasonable work/life balance going forward.
The fixed lengths of contracts, we do not know if we'll be able to stay at the same institution after our contract ends. Our only realistic option, if we want to buy a house to avoid wasting money on rent, is to either become a lecturer (which reduces the part of the job we enjoy, i.e. research) or to move into industry. The pay is also much lower, at least in Computer Science areas, in academia than industry.
PhD supervisor relationships- these are hard to navigate and there can be a clash of interests, often leading to PhD students feeling overwhelmed and unfulfilled. In a lot of cases it is not possible to really get to know your supervisor before starting a PhD. We should normalize switching PhD supervisors if there is an academic who is a better fit to be your mentor and project supervisor (incase you meet them at a conference or other networking event)
Other peoples' attitudes. This translates to lack of understanding, support and communication between ECRs and those higher up the career ladder.
Changing the academic culture so that it doesn't encourage/demand following a destructive lifestyle of long hours, no rest, guilt for not doing everything intended and feeling like at the whim of senior academics.
I would say that especially for women a huge issue is having children and still managing an academic career. I know some female academics and only a very low proportion of them has children. The teaching load is too high. For me this is one of the main reasons for thinking of quitting academia and move to an R&D position in a company. The working hours in academia are not the normal '9 to 5' which makes it difficult to manage anything outside the job/have a private life
There are too many short-term posts and too few long term posts. The research-council funding system is entirely set up to fund research projects as cheaply as possible and Research Councils/UKRI take very little responsibility for creating permanently funded posts except in a very small minority of posts. On the other hand very few professions now have "permanency" any more.
Opportunities for permanent positions. The 'valley of death' in the unstable postdoc years is incredibly stressful.
the financial sacrifice is a major issue as you don't earn a competitive salary and often have significant debt, the workload demands limit social life and for women the ticking biological clock, babies do affect your career prospects.
Discontinuity of research funding. There are more opportunities for permanent staffs to get research grant than early career researchers (ECRs). So, there is a need for ECRs to rely on others to get the opportunity to develop and progress in their career.
Aside from supervisors, and the freedom to pursue research in the best way for the individual - the opportunity to exchange ideas with others in the field and feel included and valued.
There is a toxic culture in academia that continues to be perpetuated because there is less oversight than in other fields. Also there is a pervasive attitude that if someone who is now a PI had a tough time during their own PhD and fellowship positions, that's how it ought to be and therefore they will make sure their own students have a tough time. Someone should enjoy doing a PhD - they've chosen to continue in research presumably because they love and are enthusiastic about the topic - but the negative attitude of senior staff members makes it very hard to maintain that enthusiasm, and therefore people leave for jobs that bring more satisfaction and less misery.
There still exists an inner club, although there are more women in it these days - there are people who know and understand the system and then there are people who don't know. Whether that comes through privilege - like having academic parents, or the right kind of supervision - if you are lucky enough to receive it, you can do well (as long as you work hard of course).