ECRs: Positioning Yourself for a Fellowship

Kay Guccione

Last week Dr Kay Guccione (Sheffield) spoke to the Early Career Researcher Network about the difficult task of positioning yourself for a fellowship when you’re just starting out. Her insights came from a project she had undertaken, ‘Fellowship Ahoy!’, which looked at the key behaviours of those who had been successful in securing a fellowship.

“I was frustrated at hearing people who had worked really hard say, ‘I was just really lucky’” she began. ‘It’s not all about luck, individual agency is a major component in recent models of academic and researcher development.’

Early Career Researcher Network: 2015-16 Programme Announced

Making links, forming networks

The ECR Network exists to offer mutual support to academics at the beginning of their careers. The sessions below will run in the Spring Term, and complement the Grants Factory workshops and Graduate School research development training programme. There will also be an opportunity to meet others informally and share the highs and lows of getting started in academia; more details on this soon.

I’ll send more detail about these events closer to the time, but do make a note in your diary if you plan to come along. To whet your appetite I've included links below to notes I took when any of these sessions have been run previously. 

Grants Factory and ECR Network Events: Spring Term

Welcome back to the new term!

There is a full programme of workshops, talks and events this term as part of the Grants Factory and ECR Network. All of them are free, and refreshments will be provided. There will be more detail on each of these nearer the time but if you already know which ones you want to attend, do get in touch.

ECR Network 2014-15

I've finally finished preparing the programme of events for Kent's Early Career Researcher (ECR) Network.

The ECR Network exists to offer mutual support to academics at the beginning of their careers. The sessions complement the Grants Factory workshops, and provide advice on establishing your career.

There will also be opportunities to meet others informally and share the highs and lows of getting started in academia.

Spring Term 

• How to Win a Postdoctoral Fellowship:   Thursday 29 January2015 
• Getting Published: Targeting the Top Journals and Writing Book Proposals:   Thursday 27 February 2015, 12noon-2pm 
• Coping with Rejection:  Wednesday 4 March 2015, 12noon-2pm 
• Using Social Media to Support your Career: Friday 27 March 2014, 2:30-5:30pm 
• How to Overcome ‘Imposter Syndrome’:  Wednesday 8 April 2015, 1-4:30pm

Summer Term 

• Alternative Funding for Research:  Wednesday 20 May 2015, 2-4pm
• Getting Recognition: Promotion & Pay at Kent:  Date TBC

Details of some events (such as the time and venue) are still to be confirmed. The events are open to all at the University of Kent. Contact me for more information, or if you would like to take part in any of these events.

ECR Network: Social Media and Academia

19 Feb, 2:30pm-4:30pm

Darwin LT3

Dr Nadine Muller

Technology is changing the way we access information, and how we communicate. Nowhere is this more apparent than in academia. Social media sites, such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter, and blogging platforms such as Blogger and Wordpress, are increasingly being used to raise profiles, to disseminate research, and to make links with potential collaborators.

Is it possible to embrace the new technology without compromising your integrity or short-selling your research? Dr Nadine Muller is a Lecturer in English Literature and Cultural History at Liverpool John Moores University, and has demonstrated how to use social media and blogs effectively. She has written on life as a New Academic, as well as highlighting her own research, and is followed widely on Twitter.

The event is free and open to all staff, and there'll be tea/coffee. Whilst this session is intended primarily for early career researchers (ECRs), more senior staff who are new to social media are also welcome. Do let me know if you plan to come along.

There will also be an opportunity to chat to Nadine informally at the ECR Social at the Dolphin in the evening, from 7pm. 

Strategic Approaches to Getting Published

Prof Sally Sheldon opened last week's Early Career Researcher Network meeting by exhorting the audience to think strategically about publication. It was easy, she suggested, to be flattered by invitations to write chapters. But these can divert you and eat up your limited time. Try to keep in mind the direction in which you want your research to develop, and what publications will help to build your profile. 'Everyone should have a publication strategy, and should review it every year or two,' she said.

Balanced Publication Portfolio

ECRs should try and develop a balanced publication portfolio. You don't always need to be targeting top journals, and sometimes you need to balance several factors:

• Audience: who do you want to appeal to? Should you be thinking beyond your narrow disciplinary boundaries, or focussing more intensively on it?
• Impact: do you want the findings of your research to be felt outside of academia?
• Career Progression: will the publication help in the development of a strong CV?
• REF: will the publication be a strong, positive contribution to your discipline?
• Timing: do you need to get something out quickly, or work longer on a discipline-changing piece of research?
• Co-authorship: would co-authorship help or hinder your publication record?
• Open Access: will be increasingly important for the REF, but is it worth considering to help with your citations?

What Do Publishers Look for?

Richard Hart, Chief Executive of Hart Publishing, took over to talk about his experience as an academic publisher. In his 30 years in publishing he has seen a decline in traditional monographs. From a high in the 1980s when more than 2000 were published annually, the market has slumped so that now a tenth of that number are produced. Monographs are seen as esoteric and small scale, and in many disciplines journals are favoured.

Generally, publishers are interested in text books, or books used for professional or scholarly reference. A proposal now needs to offer a touch of brilliance, or something that might be of interest to either a broader readership, or a specific (and long term) niche. 

If you do want to write a monograph, it has to be for the right reasons: you need to have a passion for the subject, and this needs to be reflected in your proposal. Your first monograph can be career defining, and it pays to get it right. You shouldn't do it as a way of making money.

Revising your Thesis

Many ECRs assume that their theses will transfer easily into a commercially produced book. This is often based on their examiner's comments, but it is a rarity for theses to make the transition. If you are considering it, you need to:

• think about the methodology section. You don't need a long, detailed explanation here. This was for the examiners. The average reader won't be interested;
• similarly, strengthen your introduction and conclusion;
• cut out repetitious linkages;
• if your research is unorthodox, decide on your message, and emphasise it throughout;
• update it, and add new chapters;
• consider making the title 'Google-friendly', so that it is descriptive of the research and will be easily found on the internet;
• find an appropriate publisher, who has published in your area, produces good quality books, and that your colleagues would recommend;
• above all, the publisher is concerned about commercial viability. Is your research something that would appeal broadly or long term?

Thus, for a book proposal you should:

• describe your book in 300-400 words;
• explain your methodology;
• give a critical literature review, to show that you understand the field, and how your research differs from what has gone before;
• include a detailed table of contents, a brief CV, and a sample chapter;
• if it's a thesis, include the examiner's report, and explain any plans to revise it;
• and finally, an estimate of when you will finish writing it.

When the publishers receive the proposal, they will initially evaluate it. This is very brief - a matter of minutes - and what they're looking for is whether it is something that excites them. If it does, they will send it for peer review, and you will be given the opportunity to respond to any comments that come back from this. Approximately 20% of proposals get through to peer review. If they do go ahead and publish, you should expect roughly 3-5% of royalties.

Choosing the Right Journals

For the final part of the session, Prof Mick Tuite (Biosciences) outlined what defines a 'good' journal, and how you can increase your chances of being published in them.

The idea of 'high impact' journals goes back to the fifties. It's a somewhat controversial system, and is based on the average number of citations over a two-five year period. The system is open to abuse, and varies widely between disciplines. However, it is still seen as a rough and ready indicator of esteem. 

Mick began by showing a video made by Karin Dumstrei, Senior Editor at EMBO Journal.

In it, she highlights five tips to getting your paper published:

• Choose a project that excites you;
• Tell a good story;
• Select the right journal;
• Avoid the three 'don'ts', namely: dont' overstate your case, ignore others, or hold back data;
• Be responsible with your data - i.e. say what you see rather than what you want to see.

Mick added to this by saying that high impact journals tend to have a broader audience, so you need to:

• avoid jargon;
• concentrate on the message;
• write shorter articles (eg Science articles are generally 3-4 pages);
• avoid too much detail. Additional data can be provided in 'supplementary material'.

Whilst all articles need to overcome a number of significant hurdles, Mick highlighted the importance of a good covering letter. These have become key, as they summarise why your article is right for the journal you're targetting. Take time to get this right. Keep it succinct, but explain the novelty and importance of your research, and why you are approaching that journal in particular.

Mick finished by outlining six tips:

• Title: make it engaging but keep it short, and avoid technical terms;
• Story: structure your article round a good, cohesive, logical 'story';
• Step Change: emphasis what makes your research important. Talk about 'step changes' rather than 'incremental progresssions';
• Cover Letter: 'sell' your article;
• Feedback: get as much critical evaluation as possible;
• Rejection: never take no for an answer.

This final point was echoed by all the speakers. Rejection is an inevitable part of the process. Don't be discouraged, but take on board comments and criticism and keep trying.

All the slides from the session will be available on the Grants Factory SharePoint site shortly.

ECR Network: Strategic Approaches to Getting Published

12-2pm 27 November 2013

Venue TBC

Getting published is the cornerstone of a successful and sustainable academic career. A good publication record will have an impact on your promotion, but also on your chances of getting external research funding. In this workshop, Prof Mick Tuite (Biosciences) and Prof Sally Sheldon (KLS) will be joined by Richard Hart (Hart Publishing, Oxford) to discuss some of the key issues you need to consider when seeking publication, including:

•  Choosing the right journal;
•  How articles are selected, and what makes an article attractive to an editor;
•  Responding to reviewers’ comments;
• Writing a book proposal and securing a contract;
•  Dealing with co-authors;
•  Managing your portfolio, and knowing when to say ‘no’.

The session is free, open to all staff at the University of Kent, and lunch will be provided. However, do let me know if you are planning to come along so I can make sure the room and catering are sufficient. In addition, if you could let me know what your position is (permanent or fixed term, academic or researcher, and approximate time since doctorate), that will help Mick and Sally pitch the session appropriately.

ECR Network: Planning your Career

Whilst some early career researchers might have a very clear and definite idea of where they want to be in five, ten or twenty years time, others may be less sure. Even those with certainty might not know how to make it happen. This session, the first ECR Network event of the new year, will be led by Prof Sally Sheldon (Kent Law School) and Dr Simon Black (Human Resources/School of Anthropology & Conservation). Both have had very different careers, and between them represent a number of different issues, from juggling the needs of family with the demands of your career, to dealing with workloads whilst keeping your eye on your long term goal, to making the most of opportunities, even if they’re the ones you might not necessarily have initially chosen. As well as a researcher in his own right, Simon is Learning & Development adviser for HR, with particular responsibility for the development of researchers, so can advise on the support the University offers in planning and developing your career.

The event is free and open to all, and tea/coffee/water/biscuits will be provided. However, do let me know if you intend to come along so that I can get an idea of numbers.

Balancing the Conflicting Demands of Academia

The final Early Career Research Network meeting of the year focused on how to balance the conflicting demands of academia. The fact that the room was full suggested that this was something that was close to the heart of many starting out. However, the speakers, Profs Gordon Lynch and Sarah Spurgeon, made it clear that the issue doesn't disappear with seniority; like parenthood the challenges and demands change, but they never go away.

In the first part of the session, participants talked together in small groups about the main tensions in juggling different parts of their jobs. When these were fed back it was clear that there were a number of common themes: balancing immediate and pressing deadlines with long term research work; frustrations with unnecessary and inefficient administration; unrealistic demands of some students; knowing your limits and knowing when (and how) to say 'no'.

'There's no simple algorithm for dealing with these,' confessed Sarah, and the rest of the session was an opportunity to share strategies for coping. Not all of these would work for everybody, but achieving a successful balance is about working out which of them would work for you.

• Try to work out which pressures are individual, and which are the result of the structure or institution within which you work. Having recognised this distinction, consider what can be done about them. You will have more control over the individual pressures (see the next point), but sometimes you can facilitate collective change if enough people suffer from the same pressures and are able and willing to work differently.
• Work out which of your tasks are essential and which desirable, and concentrate on the first.
• Get a sense of perspective: how much work do others have? If they have less, are their tasks more consuming? If everyone's pressured, is there any possibility of working more intelligently, or sharing workloads? (see the first point).
• Try to double up tasks, especially between research and teaching. For example, if your research project requires a literature review and you have some control over your teaching programme, try and include an element  that would require you to undertake a literature review to inform your teaching.
• Create email-free periods of work time. Modern technology has made periods of intense concentration increasingly difficult to find. By carving out a period each week which colleagues and students know as a period when you won't respond to emails, you can regain time for proper thought.
• Look for external funding to buy out your time to do things that you want to do. 
• Think more strategically about managing your time. For instance, if you want to keep weekends sacrosanct, you might have to sacrifice weekday evenings to keep on top of work.
• Have a broad career strategy, which is important to you but is informed by local, national, and international contexts.There will be times when it might make sense to go part time. Accept them, and recognise them as temporary and transitory.
• Have a plan which has many strands. Don't rely on a single strand of research, which might depend on a single grant, but consider what other options, what other interests you have, and be prepared to change between them as your life changes.
• Set realistic goals over different time scales and review them regularly.
• Get help from the right people. Having supportive mentors and colleagues is invaluable.

Sarah concluded by saying that ‘most importantly, it is difficult to get this right and, in my view, however glittering the careers of others may appear to us, I firmly believe nobody achieves the perfect balance all the time.’

ECR Network: Relationships with Senior Staff

The next Early Career Researcher Network event will take place next week (Wednesday 13 March, 12-2pm, Cornwallis SR6), and will look at ‘Relationships with Senior Staff’.

What? You want me to take all your lectures
and seminars again?

ECRs have very different experiences of working with senior staff. Some have had very supportive mentors and managers, who guide them and help them, lightening their teaching load, discussing and developing their research plans, and providing funding so that they can attend conferences etc. For others, the experience is less positive, and some feel that unreasonable demands are being made of them, resulting in a sense of isolation and burnout.

Led by Prof Dominic Abrams (Psychology) and Prof Ray Laurence (SECL), this workshop will explore how you can best develop positive relationships with senior staff, and what to do if you feel that the expectations of others are unrealistic.

The workshop is free and open to all, and lunch will be provided. However, places are limited so do get in touch as soon as possible if you wish to come along.

Notes from a Mock Panel

'Save me from my friends'. Never truer than in the bearpit
of academic peer review

I took part in the University's PGCHE research funding module today, which took participants through a 'mock panel'. This is always a useful exercise as it gives potential applicants a feel for the issues that peer review panellists are having to grapple with in real life.

There were about thirty participants, and we divided them into five panels: one of humanities academics (looking at AHRC applications), two of social scientists (looking at ESRC applications)  and two of scientists (looking at EPSRC applications).

In preparation I did some reading around the ESRC process, and I'll write these up in a post shortly, but in the meantime it's worth noting some of the key points that came out of the session:

• Firstly, no matter what your discipline, you can spot the weaknesses in the applications. This is interesting: I chaired one of the social science panels, and all those who took part were in disciplines that were very different from those of the applicants. Nevertheless they picked up on a lot of the weaknesses, and were pretty accurate in the ranking of the applications.
• Secondly, seniority matters. We pretend it doesn't, but if a PI has an impressive CV, we're more likely to let some vagueness in the application slide. This was a bit disheartening for the ECRs present. However, I pointed out that two of the best applications under consideration were from ECRs who had overcome this difficulty by either have a strong, robust and well thought through project design, or had more senior co-investigators on board to give it gravitas and reassurance. 
• Thirdly, time is short. You imagine the panellists have all the time in the world to consider your application, but time's snapping at their heals. Decisions need to be made, compromises struck, and the agenda moved on. You - as the applicant - have to help the introducers by giving the the information they need to support your application in a format and place that they can grab it quickly. Cut to the chase: what's your research question, why's it important, why's it timely, why are you the person to answer it, how are you going to do it, and how are you going to disseminate it.
• Fourthly, confidence shines through. If you believe in yourself and your research, it really helps. Don't be tentative, uncertain or - let's be frank - academic. You need to sell your proposal, and to do so you've got to believe in both its worth, but also in its achievability.

Grants Factory: Developing Collaborations

The slides and handout from Wednesday’s Grants Factory event are now available on the SharePoint site, here. I’ll write up some notes and add them to the blog shortly.

The next session will be an ECR Network event on ‘Developing Collaborations’. Run by Prof Jon Williamson and Dr Peter Bennett this will look at some of the issues around working with others, particularly on interdisciplinary projects. Funders are increasingly keen on encouraging collaborative research, but what are the pros and cons of this way of working? The session will use Jon and Peter’s experience to explore issues such as identifying a collaborative idea, forming productive links, and managing a complex project.

The session will run at 12pm on 16 January. As ever, it’s free and refreshments will be provided. Do let me know if you would like to come along.

Grants Factory: Designing a Realistic Research Project

28 November  2012, 2-4pm

Cornwallis NW Seminar Room 6 (Directions and map here)

The next Grants Factory event is aimed at early career researchers (ECRs), but is open to all. Led by Prof Peter Taylor-Gooby (SSPSSR) and Prof Elizabeth Mansfield (SMSAS), it will look at how to construct a realistic research project.

Designing a research project can be a daunting prospect, and issues you need to address may include choosing the right methodology, selecting participants or including appropriate material, addressing ethical issues, managing staff, identifying milestones, working with collaborators, and disseminating your findings. Profs Taylor-Gooby and Mansfield have had considerable experience in designing projects in very different areas: Taylor-Gooby works in social policy, Mansfield in applied mathematics. However, their experience will be relevant to academics in all disciplines.

The event is free, and refreshments will be provided, but do let me know if you intend to come along.

The full Grants Factory programme is available on the SharePoint website, together with slides and notes from all recent events.

ECRs: Planning a Personal Research Strategy

The Vice Chancellor, Prof Dame Julia Goodfellow, launched the University’s Early Career Researcher Network last week by reiterating how important new academics were to the long term health of a research intensive university. In front of a packed room the VC stated that the University was keen to support ECRs as they developed their careers and started to take on leadership responsibilities. Kent already provided a range of formal training courses, but this Network was the opportunity for ECRs to share their experiences, to focus on common issues, and to discuss with and learn from senior colleagues.

Prof Darren Griffin and Jenny Billings then looked at planning a personal research strategy. Their contrasting careers demonstrated that it was difficult to generalise about this, but there were common themes. Darren had had a very ‘traditional’ academic progression, from PhD, to RA, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Reader and Professor. Jenny, on the other hand, had had a career outside of academia, and was now working in a self-funded research centre.

ECRs needed to think about how they would be judged by their peers, and to plan for this. As Darren put it, ‘perception is reality’. If you are seen as the leading expert in your field, or a successful grant getter, or someone with great impact, then a virtuous circle is formed, and perceived success leads to further success. He outlined ’10 commandments for getting ahead in research’, which included taking opportunities when they presented themselves (including adapting your research interests slightly to fit with current priorities), building good relationships and allowing team members to shine, and using both failures and successes to build future research.

The group then opened up to discuss their experiences. The issue of time management was common, and Jenny made it clear that ECRs needed to be both flexible and assertive, and be willing to negotiate with others. Developing an academic career was hard work, particularly at the beginning, but being positive and persistent did pay dividends. Both Jenny and Darren encouraged ECRs to remain firm; for instance if a senior colleague said that they didn’t have much time to talk, ask them how much time they did have, and work with that. Knock on doors, and don’t be afraid of rejection.

Slides from the session are available on the Grants Factory SharePoint site, and this will be added to over time. The next ECR Network meeting will take place on 17 October, and will focus on ‘Getting Published in Journals’. It is being led by KLS, but all are welcome. If you want to come along, drop me a line.

The Launch of the ECR Network

This year, as part of the Grants Factory, we are launching an ECR Network. This will give early career researchers the opportunity to meet and discuss issues that are relevant to them, as well as hearing from more senior staff about their experiences. The first two events are as follows:

4 Oct: Planning a Personal Research Strategy (Keynes Seminar Room 4, 2:30 – 4:30pm)

This event will be introduced by the VC, Prof Dame Julia Goodfellow, who will discuss what support there is and should be across the University for ECRs. This is an opportunity to talk about your experiences, and think about what would help in the development of your career.

This will be followed by an informal talk by Prof Darren Griffin (Biosciences) and Jenny Billings (Centre for Health Services Studies) about developing a personal research strategy. They will cover issues around strategically planning and developing your research, balancing idealism with realism, and how to cope with the unexpected.

  

17 Oct: Getting Published in Journals (Senate Chamber, 9:30 – 11:30am)

Organised by KLS but open to all, this event will look at how to improve the chances of getting your articles selected for publication in journals. A panel of academics with extensive publishing experience will cover issues including:

·         How articles are selected for publication

·         Choosing a journal

·         Disseminating a thesis

·         How to improve the chances of your article being read

·          How to deal with referee comments

The panel will be chaired by Prof Sally Sheldon (KLS), and consists of Prof Rosaleen Duffy (Anthropology), Prof John Mingers (KBS), Prof Tim Strangleman (SSPSSR), and Prof Jon Williamson (SECL). 

These events aimed at ECRs, including Research Associates and Assistants (RAs), but are open to all academic staff. The events are free and refreshments will be provided.  Do let me know if you intend to come along so that I can get an idea of numbers.

The REF and Edited Books

There was an interesting piece by Prof Andy Miah on the Guardian Higher Education Network blog last week, which looked at what academics should be doing at this late stage to bolster their outputs for the REF.

Prof Miah started by recognising two points: firstly, time is short, so there's a limit to what you can still publish; and secondly, there is wide variance between disciplines as to what is regarded as prestigious or good. Journal articles are regarded much more favourably in the STEM subjects, for instance, than they are in the Humanities, where there is more of a tradition of monographs.

The focus of his piece, however, was edited books, which he described as 'the biggest loser' in RAE2008, when very few were submitted. This was because editing does not equate to research, but also because there was some ambiguity over the peer review of book chapters, and the difficulty in getting book chapters cited. But these volumes are not without worth: they offer a useful way for early career researchers (ECRs) to be published, as the process is often more flexible and supportive.

Will this mean, therefore, that there is a certain amount of discrimination against ECRs in REF2014? On balance I think not: whilst this is the implication of Miah's argument, most ECRs worth their salt will have been able to publish up to 3 outputs within the time, without having to factor in a book chapter. From the preparatory REF meetings I've been part of it's certainly not been to big an issue. However, it is worth highlighting it: the more entrenched these assessment processes become, the more they will affect behaviour, and the more likely that a time will come when edited volumes are a thing of the past.

That's fine if that's what everyone wants, but we shouldn't stumble into it blindly. If the academic community and the publishing industry see the worth of edited books then they need to make sure that some allowance is made for them in the REF. Otherwise academics will continue to prioritise journals and monographs, and edited books will wither on the vine.