Accessibility Tools
Supporting and developing our next generation of researchers is of fundamental importance if we want to guarantee Europe’s competitiveness in a global economy. We need to tackle job insecurity, improve the management of career expectations and ensure manageable workloads.
Early-career researchers (ECRs), while already at a critical juncture in their professional lives, now face a rapidly changing higher education sector. Navigating this is both exhilarating and precarious.
This period, typically consisting of the doctorate and the first five years following it, is characterised by the dual imperatives of establishing a distinct research identity and securing stable employment. For many, these years are pivotal for building a publication record, which still serves as the primary currency in academia. In addition to research and publishing, administrative duties and teaching responsibilities are necessary for professional development.
The high stress levels associated with balancing research, teaching and administrative duties can diminish the quality of one’s work and personal well-being, making it difficult to sustain a long-term academic career. Constantly proving oneself can be daunting, particularly in environments lacking mentorship and support. ECRs may also face unique challenges related to job security, as many hold temporary or precarious positions. This lack of stability can make it challenging to plan for the future and can contribute to financial and personal stress.
If universities want to be attractive employers, ensuring an adequate workload and mentoring for early-career academics, including transparent perspectives for careers inside and outside of academia, is a prerequisite. The question is why these clear needs have not yet been met, and what challenges universities face in this regard.
From the perspective of ECRs, the call for long-term career opportunities is understandable. But why are decision makers at universities not more creative and less risk-averse in providing these?
Different chain of employment contract regulations in European countries, which govern the extent to which short-term contracts can be repeated, were intended to lead to more permanent contracts. However, in practice the opposite is often happening, leading to even more precarious employment for ECRs when universities do not have the means to offer a permanent position.
For decision makers, the question is how many ECRs can be offered long-term career prospects and under what conditions. Funding is mostly short-term and every university needs a certain number of temporary positions in order to fulfil the core task of training young scientists. The more permanent positions for ECRs are created, the more the question of intergenerational (in-)equity inevitably arises, as most of universities are not growing.
Science thrives on fresh ideas, but cohorts of senior researchers on long-term contracts may have less incentive (or inspiration) to develop them. That leads to the next questions: how do permanent contracts affect the excellence of an institution? If there are more scientists on permanent positions and therefore fewer positions for young researchers, such as doctoral candidates, will there be unintended consequences? How will more permanent employment contracts affect mobility? And will early or mid-career researchers on permanent contracts be willing take on the next career step (tenure-track), which may again require a fixed-term contract or a qualification agreement in order to obtain a professorship?
While universities need to attract and retain young researchers with long-term contracts, there are intrinsic challenges associated with permanent employment. Apart from the unintended consequences outlined above, there is another key aspect. In contrast to the private sector, universities hardly have a culture of terminating employment. Funding is always limited, and making longer-term commitments is therefore risky for decision makers.
Until joint solutions are found, universities will be reluctant to award permanent contracts. As such, providing long-term career opportunities in order to attract the brightest minds for the future is a complex issue for universities that can only be resolved in cooperation with the government, funding organisations, trade unions, university staff etc.
Multiple academic career phases or experiences such as a thesis defence, the highly competitive nature of research positions, repetitive job searches for fixed-term contracts, applications for tenure-track positions and grants, and many more, can be extremely stressful. It is important to consider how academics at different career stages can be supported by their institutions.
Furthermore, it is our responsibility to clearly state how ECRs are assessed, especially because the assessment criteria are currently under discussion, including in the international context through the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) Working Group on Academic Career Assessment. Additional aspects to be considered in career assessment may include, but are not limited to, entrepreneurship, research impact beyond traditional bibliometric indicators, innovation in teaching practices and outreach activities such as citizen science. But how can we ensure that this is not overburdening of ECRs with ever more tasks?
Those taking on new supervisory or teaching roles should be given the opportunity and time to participate in training aimed at identifying and supporting ECRs. This training should also be offered to established researchers in a supervisory role, as they can also foster understanding of generational changes and the needs of ECRs. It is essential for supervisors to reflect, including within training programmes, on their own experiences with high workloads, lack of mentorship and temporary employment contracts. This will allow them to better support the professional development of ECRs, foster positive mental health among their colleagues and act as a role model. Moreover, ECRs should be made aware of the assessment criteria for a scientific career. Instruments such as appraisals and periodic progress meetings for doctoral candidates must become standard, including timely, clear and transparent feedback.
Alongside supervisors and mentors, well-equipped and accessible internal services play a key role in fostering sustainable and attractive academic careers. They may do so by offering workshops for career planning or research mentoring, and pedagogical training programmes, for example.
To conclude, a reform of academic career management that prioritises the needs of ECRs is required. It should aim to create a more equitable, inclusive and rewarding environment, reflecting the holistic mission of universities and fostering a culture of respect and recognition while expanding excellence. This will only be achievable through the close cooperation of all relevant stakeholders such as leadership, administrative and scientific staff within universities, governments, funding organisations, trade unions and wider society.
