A Strong and Resilient Research System is Built by Valuing People

Background

The last major round of reforms of the New Zealand research system started in the late 1980’s and ran through the early 1990’s. These reforms brought in New Public Management(1) (also sometimes called corporatism, managerialism, or neo-liberalism) as the basis of how the new system would operate. To get a sense of what researchers thought of this new system as it was at the beginning and after the first 10 (out of 30) years under it we offer these quotes:

“When the history of science in this country comes to be written, the six years between 1986 and 1992 will appear barren and traumatic ones – ones principally of discouragement to scientists. “
E.G. Bollard (1992)(2)

“I would not see a scientific career as compatible with human existence, at the present time. Scientists lead a bloody miserable life”
Sir Peter Gluckman (2001)(3)

“At the beginning of my study I thought the major concern of scientific workers would be intellectual property and the commodification of knowledge. When I started talking to people I quickly discovered that this was not an issue at all. Staff were worried about something much more mundane but of much more consequence – their survival.”
Lesley M. Hunt (2003)(4)

While these quotes speak of science and scientists, if one substituted research and researchers the sentiment (and lived experiences) would remain essentially the same. One would hope that the situation had improved in the last 20 years, in which case this would be a more pleasant piece to read (and indeed write). Not only are conditions still poor for our researchers, but our research system itself has suffered from the last round of reforms. We will take stock of the current situation for researchers. Then look at ways to improve both the working lives of researchers and the research system along with them.

(Under)Valuing Knowledge Producers

Different kinds of researchers use different tools and approaches, but creating new knowledge is what makes it research. Most other activities in life do not create knowledge. Many researchers' first taste of doing research happens when they are Master or Doctoral (PhD) scholars. In fact, a requirement to earn those degrees is writing a thesis that demonstrates that their work resulted in something novel (or new). It is from new knowledge that we better understand the world around us and improve the condition in which we all live.

Researchers at this early stage are under-valued and over-worked (a common theme as we will see). The average pay from PhD scholarships is below minimum wage. The time it takes to do the work necessary for a PhD is often longer than the three-year scholarships(5). Too often they receive no pay during the time between the end of the scholarship and completing their research. The situation is similar or even worse for Masters scholars. In 2021, there were a number of researcher led efforts to increase the pay of these emerging scholars. One of those was addressed at the Royal Society’s Marsden Fund.(6) That effort was successful, to a point. The Marsden fund increased the pay for Doctoral scholars funded by it’s grant to minimum wage starting in the 2022 rounds. In the meantime, cost of living increases resulted in a rise in minimum wage. That rise starts before the next Marsden round, leaving those scholars earning less than minimum wage, still. This comes as no surprise to those pushing for better pay.(7)

After completing a PhD, researchers find themselves competing for what few positions are available. There are many fewer positions (most not permanent) than there are those seeking them. This puts our early career researchers in an unstable situation, both professionally and personally. A term often used to describe this situation is precarious. The group of people in a precarious situation, are sometimes called the precariat. In 2021, a group of researchers surveyed the academic work force and produced Elephant In The Room: Precarious Work in New Zealand Universities.(8) In brief, New Zealand has a pool of highly trained researchers who are in unstable employment conditions, sometimes for decades. Often with multiple short term contracts with the same employer in one year. These researchers lack the benefits one has with permanent employment of any type.

For those who do gain a permanent position, the situation is still not what many kiwis might reasonably think it ought to be. Most researchers are expected to fund their own salaries from grants in a system that has been hyper-competitive for over 30 years. That kind of competition can lead to a culture where bullying is a career advantage.(9) The institutions (universities and crown research institutes) in which mid and senior career researchers work have expected all staff (including researchers) to do more as a result of repeated rounds of cost cutting measures and down-sizing. Everyone is too busy, all of the time - leaving little time and energy to do their core activity: deep, considered thinking about a topic or issue (which is fundamental to research). The almost continuous restructuring and redundancies in our research system over the last decade show that permanent positions are not really permanent. A recent study in Australia demonstrated that wage theft is common in universities there. (10) It does not appear to be any better here.

Similar things happened across all segments of government as the New Public Management system rolled out across ministries and departments. At the same time, the same approach was being applied in the business sector. Much of what we write about here will be familiar to almost any Kiwi in almost any job. Implementing the ideas in the next section would help everyone, not only researchers.

Towards Valuing People

How do we get from the system we have to one that builds a strong, resilient research system? We do the things that will build a research work force with stability in employment and which supports professional growth starting at the earliest stages of research careers. In 2005, the European Commission published a single, short (36 page) document containing the “European Charter for Researchers and a Code of Conduct for Recruitment of Researchers”. (11) We suggest adopting the recommendations and requirements in this document for our research system. We quote only the first 4 to provide a base for the reader to start with.

That Member States endeavour to undertake the necessary steps to ensure that employers or funders of researchers develop and maintain a supportive research environment and working culture, where individuals and research groups are valued, encouraged and supported, and provided with the necessary material and intangible support to enable them to fulfil their objectives and tasks. Within this context, particular priority should be given to the organisation of working and training conditions in the early stage of the researchers’ careers, as it contributes to the future choices and attractiveness of a career in R&D.
That Member States endeavour to take, wherever necessary, the crucial steps to ensure that employers or funders of researchers improve the recruitment methods and career evaluation/appraisal systems in order to create a more transparent, open, equal and internationally accepted system of recruitment and career development as a prerequisite for a genuine European labour market for researchers.
That Member States - as they formulate and adopt their strategies and systems for developing sustainable careers for researchers – take duly into account and are guided by the general principles and requirements, referred to as The European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers outlined in the Annex.
That Member States endeavour to transpose these general principles and requirements within their area of responsibility into national regulatory frameworks or sectoral and/or institutional standards and guidelines (charters and/or codes for researchers). In so doing they should take into account the great diversity of the laws, regulations and practices which, in different countries and in different sectors, determine the path, organisation and working conditions of a career in R&D.

The Institute of Agrifood Research and Technology in Catalonia adopted these practices and was awarded the “HR Excellence in Research” by the European Commission in 2015. The two key plans that were highlighted by the European Commission were IRTA’s Ethical Code(12) and IRTA’s Equal Opportunity Plan(13). We could learn much from the approach this institution has taken. More about how they value people is available from their web site. (14)

Adopting a version of the European Charter for Researchers and A Code of Conduct for Recruitment of Researchers would go a long way towards improving our research workforce, their working conditions, and the research system itself. Purging the system of bullying and related behaviour is also clearly necessary. Re-enabling a research culture of idea exchange that was central to research prior to the introduction of New Public Management and the secrecy it instilled will ignite innovation. These actions are not the kind of tinkering around the edges that has characterised the middling reforms in since the last major system wide reform. They are part of the fundamentals. To paraphrase Troy Baisden in 2. A New Paradigm to Deliver Prioritisation: Towards Collaboration(15), the system will resist "change unless a major transformation can be designed." The ideas presented here can be part of that design.

References

Hash Tags

#CC0

#SubmissionSnippet

#ResearchWorkforce

3 1