Post Tenebras Lux

Post-grad and post-doc training (a naïve melody) June 14, 2009

Having now got marking exam scripts and project reports out of the way (for the time being, at least) I am actually beginning to get enough oxygen to be able to think. This explains the extended hiatus in posting.  Fortunately, I notice I am not alone in suffering this although post doc ergo propter doc seems to manage much better than I.  That said I still have 10 post-grad projects to supervise, which is rather like herding cats given the characters involved: one lad was meant to start in January, only turned up in June. An easy mistake to make, I guess…

Nonetheless, there has been some good news in the meantime and we are hiring various staff members as well as trying to scout around for that elusive winning grant. Both of which combined to set me thinking about staff development, both my own and those in my charge (both now and in the future). Part of this, if I am going to be honest, is that it is no loner enough to simply ask for a post doc or a PhD studentship on a grant. You have to show how they would benefit from the time spent in your lab. How are you going to provide training for them and what training will they get. Looking back on my career to date, aside from the standard training that is along the lines of “this is the equipment you will use, this is how you use it”, I can’t say I was particularly well supported. Not that I feel that this did me any harm, per se, as this was the prevailing wind in academic circles and I was able to concentrate of my research, but I can’t say it was particularly constructive. I don’t remember any offers of training during my PhD, which may or may not have been a while ago, and in my last post-doc, despite the fact we received frequent email missives from HR, I was actively told that I would not be put on a number of training events as I was not a member of academic staff. Remember, this was personnel who said this, not my line managers. Thanks for defending my future career progression guys. The university shall not be named, but lets say that it is probably the most northern of these isles.

So where are we now?

At my current institution, PhD student training seem to be largely the responsibility of the supervisor, which to an extent is fair enough. I send my students to the usual group and inter-group seminars where they are expected to talk and discuss the work of their peers. The university expects students to audit their skills at regular intervals and draft an outline of where they think they need specific training or where there are gaps in their skills. Although I strongly defend this (many of the students and supervisors feel it is an utter waste of time) it stops well short of helping the student or supervisor with bridging any skills gap that has been identified. At the moment, it would appear that aside from a one-off induction session, the skills audit and a yearly ethics day, little is offered at the institutional level. This may change as it looks like there will be a range web-based staff development courses soon to be rolled out by the post-graduate office. I will probably return to this at a later date when I get a chance to see what is on offer. I am not holding my breath as I suspect that “on-line” was seen as a cost effective way of doing “something”. Call me a hoary old cynic if you wish.

So if PhD student training appears on the radar of the university, post docs seem to fall continually between the cracks. I cannot figure out what is actually available for post-doc career progression. Given that most post docs and junior researchers tend to be on short-term or fixed-term contracts, I find this is somewhat unjust. We are about to enter into a period where post docs will be expected to:

1. get results
2. publish said results
3. aid grant writing to prolong their contracts
4. assist teaching
5. supervise projects
6. run the lab

All the while on short-term contracts? It does seem to be a bit like modern academic slavery if you ask me. I am not aware of any relevant training that is currently offered that would mean that they finished their contracts with additional skills or knowledge apart from the usual possible list of papers (but if you are on, say, a one year contract, is it likely that you will have a long list of papers published in that time period?).

It is not just my institution who are guilty. I would imagine that the vast majority are culpable. Imperial College sounded like they had an excellent set of courses the last I heard. Credit where it’s due.

Part of the reason for this will probably be down to the fact that I don’t believe my institution knows what a post doc does (again, I may be being cynical). In addition, one could raise the question, what would actually be beneficial for post doctoral researchers? What training should be provided? What will be their next career move? What would be useful for future employers? Even if we do not answer these specific questions, it seems that, at the very least, any future employment would involve project management and some form of supervision of staff and/or students. It shouldn’t be beyond the wit of your average university to be able to provide such training, especially one with a business school. Or am I being naïve?