On the 22nd July we were fortunate to have Professor Sheila Francis of IICD give a career talk entitled: “My career so far: where did I fail and what did I learn from it?” This was a very candid and personal discussion, so I won’t go into the specifics in the blog, but it was a fascinating insight from a highly valued colleague and mentor on how things don’t always go quite so smoothly or as planned on the academic career path (something many of us can relate to at all career stages!) It was inspirational to hear how Sheila managed these hurdles to forge a highly successful academic career in Sheffield.
The talk was split into 4 main themes: 1. Getting a fellowship 2. Getting “out of the Sheffield box” 3. Balancing career and family 4. Non-linear career paths I took a huge amount away from the session and it made me realise that although we often strive to make the most of the scientific expertise around us, we don’t always look to our professorial peers for advice on things outside of the research sphere, such as careers advice or how to manage a work-life balance. Thanks so much to Sheila for sharing her story with us.
0 Comments
Thanks to all those who came along to today's Fab meeting, where Lucy Bartrick from Research Services (RS) gave a really useful outline of the support that prospective and current fellows have at their fingertips from RS and others in Sheffield.
Applying for fellowships is a complex and often baffling process. Support is required at all stages. Lucy ran through the levels of support available from RS and the Research Hubs, through which all grants/fellowship applications are supported in the Faculty. This support includes: - application development - organising Faculty peer review - organisation of mock interviews - linking candidates with successful fellows - managing of institutional processes - clarifying funder guidelines and eligibility - costing and funder application portals (e.g., Je-S or Flexi-grant) - coordination of collaborator costings - coordination of faculty processes, e.g., equipment/match funding - collection of application documents It is an impressive amount of support at all levels, alongside training opportunities in Think Ahead (including the very pertinent The Researcher as a Manager, TRAM series of training) and peer support (in the form of Fab Network/Early Career Group/ MDH research Staff Association/Parents@TUOS/Women@TUOS). Lucy left us with some final thoughts and top tips: - talk to people early (the hosting department, HoD, RS) - have a plan of action – more than just the science alone - play the long game – applications can take a long time, so plan, write and wait - understand the scheme and consider your audience - especially important for fellowships- highlight your potential to be a leader in your field After Lucy’s presentation we had a useful discussion about the support available. A point that was raised was that sometimes the support is hard to find, and I am pleased to report that a RS support webpage is being planned with all the information/opportunities found in one place. Once this is online we will signpost on the Fab website. Please don’t struggle with fellowship applications alone, there is lots of support out there, so do contact RS via Lucy and use your peer network in Fab. In Fab we aim to provide a peer support network and there was a mix at today’s meeting of senior fellows, fellows and prospective fellows; we are lucky to have such a wealth of experience in our network for all to access should you wish. **Slides from Lucy's presentation will be shared via this website shortly. Thank you to everyone who attended today’s Fab meeting, which made use of the Wellcome Café Culture activity pack. This was a short discussion of research culture and how we can improve it. Research culture, as defined by the “Realising Our Potential” report recently published by the Russell Group comprises the “behaviours, values, expectations, incentives, attitudes and norms of a research community. It determines the way that research is conducted and communicated and can influence researchers’ career paths and mental wellbeing.”
I think that everyone in academia recognises that there are shortcomings in our research culture. Our discussions, though brief, raised a number of issues including a lack of diversity in academia and the hyper-competitive nature of our research environment, which itself leads to a loss of talent, poor mental health and can enable research impropriety, bullying and harassment. A lack of support in career progression, inadequate career pathways, deficits in training and poor management skills were also discussed. What seemed clear from this meeting is that these issues are intrinsically interlinked – for example, failing to train new PI’s can facilitate inefficient or even inappropriate working practices further down the line. One issue highlighted as an area of concern was supervision of PhD students and staff. It is clear there are wide variations in training provided or engaged with and not all are aware of the systems in place for dealing with problems that arise. Some new fellows receive this training as part of their induction, whereas other recruits may receive very little. There are also variations in the requirements of funders in this regard. While there are no doubt many good practices, and undoubtedly many of us absorb good practice by osmosis and through informal chats with colleagues, it is clear that discrepancies in training could easily undermine our research environment. At our next Fab meeting we will be hearing about new training programmes available in this regard from Lucy Bartrick of Research Services (RS) – some of our discussions may have provided ideas about what we may require and RS are keen that this is a two-way conversation. The lack of alternative career pathways outside of Fellow/Lecturer status was highlighted as a problem alongside the unsettling effect of moving from one fixed-term contract to another ahead of a permanent position. These are complex issues that require involvement of Universities, funders and beyond, but the impact on researchers cannot be underestimated, particularly as the transition to independence often coincides with the years when many researchers are considering having children and starting a family. This situation adversely affects those who take career breaks, particularly women, and therefore contributes to a lack of diversity in academia. The need for support and training to aid career progression was a topic the conversation returned to a number of times. For example, one area in which new fellows feel overwhelmed is financial management of grants – support for which may vary across the University. Writing of fellowships and grant applications is obviously key to researcher development so this was a good opportunity to signpost some of the assistance available (alongside sharing grants with colleagues during the writing process and any formal grant review requirements a department may have) – this includes the Bateson AIMS meetings at which a single page document covering the aims and objectives of a new grant can be discussed and theme grant meetings in IICD; Fab meeting sessions are also available for researchers to discuss grants at a range of stages in their development (just get in contact with a committee member to express an interest). Attendees of these meetings pointed out that simply attending these meetings as a participant (i.e., rather than presenting a grant) can provide insights into the grant writing process and aid development of this key skill. Our meeting was too brief to touch upon all the aspects of our research culture, but we are hopeful that this was a worthwhile exercise. We intend to use these discussions to inform future Fab meetings and use these conversations to shape researcher development and support transitions to independence. The Russell Group report, case studies of good practice and a toolbox to improve research culture can be found here: https://russellgroup.ac.uk/policy/publications/realising-our-potential-backing-talent-and-strengthening-uk-research-culture-and-environment/ Details of how to run your own Café Culture discussion can be found here: https://wellcome.org/what-we-do/our-work/research-culture/hosting-your-cafe-culture-discussion Results of a survey conducted by Wellcome into research culture can be found here: https://wellcome.org/reports/what-researchers-think-about-research-culture We managed to hold a remote FAB meeting this week and, while numbers of attendees were down on previous meetings, we had an excellent round table discussion about how everyone has been getting on working remotely during the COVID19 pandemic.
I’m pleased to report everyone seemed well and in good spirits and several positives were highlighted! For instance, while it is obviously very challenging to have children at home and try to work remotely (especially if they are little ones), it’s also been a lot of fun to spend more time with our kids. Often our children don’t see so much of their siblings, so it’s been great to see their relationships develop and strengthen as they spend more time playing together. One thing I certainly find is that I struggle to get much in the way of home schooling done and I often feel bad about this when I see all that is going on through social media. I guess the same considerations/caveats apply to social media now as much as in easier times– you tend to see the good moments: grant successes, weddings, sunny holidays etc… people don’t tend to post footage of themselves losing their rag at their kids, holidays ruined by rain or terrible reviews of carefully-crafted grant applications. There was a strong contrast between the experiences of those with children and those who live on their own in these strange times. Families with children where both partners work have had to adopt shift strategies to try to get some work done. Whereas perhaps the biggest change for those who live on their own is a loss of social interactions. It was great to hear about how people have been keeping in touch with their labs, colleagues, friends and families via Google hangouts etc. I’ve found myself wandering why I’ve not been playing board games across the internet with my family before this situation fell upon us! As well as social interactions, work provides an orderly framework and routine for many of us and this has quickly been dismantled. Several people discussed how they have made a new routine, but have tried not to be too hard on themselves in terms of how much progress they can make and also ensuring they factor in breaks. Mid-afternoon exercising seems to be popular and some have enjoyed more cycling, especially as roads are currently much quieter than usual. Everyone agreed the excellent weather has been very helpful and lifted their moods! For those of us who are more removed from lab work, the shift seems to have been more straightforward in what we can get on with. Getting feedback and thinking strategically about grants has become difficult, especially for those with mentors who are frontline NHS staff. Therefore it’s important for us all to communicate with colleagues and not be scared to ask for feedback and advice. Given that it’s far easier to write papers and grant applications from home than it is to conduct experiments, this crisis has no doubt had a much bigger impact on post-docs. For instance, experiments have had to be stopped at critical points, and while this is irritating if it is a member of your team, the likelihood is there are other things you can concentrate on as a PI. For some the lockdown has represented a chance to work on data backlogs though for some this is tricky owing to the computers available to them offsite, while first year PhD students may not have as much data as students who are further through – i.e there is much less for them to write up, although this will give them a head-start on those mini-theses. What has been harder to manage remotely is the supervision of lab members, with no one-size-fits-all solution. While many tools are available for communication, nothing quite beats sitting down together to hammer out solutions and brainstorm ideas for experiments. Masters students have found their projects are over prematurely (or not started at all) or replaced with computer-based tasks and training new members remotely is definitely much harder than doing it face-to-face and it makes getting the supervisor-student relationship set up that bit trickier. People have been making regular contact with members of their teams via email and video conferencing. One useful suggestion was to check in each morning via a Slack group or Google chat to see what everyone is up to for the day (and also to use this to set deadlines to keep everything moving and make people feel that they are making progress despite these challenging times). Many groups are making use of the range of courses to develop their skills (an Adobe Illustrator course seems to be a popular amongst PhD students). One positive note was how proud everyone is of the members of their team and how they are coping with this situation and the uncertainty it brings. On top of all these constraints, there are further issues that vary from person-to-person that make big impacts. For instance, a spouse who is a frontline NHS worker, partners who are teachers keeping schools open for key workers, people who are separated from family members or those of us who have been sick ourselves or lost family members. I’ve just shared a little of what we discussed, but I definitely found it helpful to share how I’ve been getting on and good to hear the successes and struggles of others. This helped me to see the bigger picture at this difficult time. It was also nice to hear about how some of us have been helping others through volunteering in the local community or getting involved in some of the direct research into COVID-19 at the University. Please feel free to comment below to give your own perspective or to share ideas. Take care, Iwan Transitioning to a permanent contract from an external fellowship - FAB Meeting 4 Summary number 22/14/2020 Fab meeting 30th Jan Heather Mortiboys led a discussion that covered independent reviews of fellows at other Universities designed to monitor progress and decide whether they should be made permanent at the end of their fellowships. Typically fellows are recruited to positions with their salaries paid from their grant awards. Sometimes an “underwrite” or promise of transition to a permanent position will be negotiated during the recruitment/application process with the host university. This is often simply stated as being subject to satisfactory progress, but there is often little monitoring of fellows and support can vary wildly, even across departments or faculties from university to university. Heather has previously been invited to take part in this independent review process. One of the ideas behind this process, which happens at a number of other Northern Universities that are part of the N8 group, is to ensure that transitions to permanent contracts are not simply a University/Departmental decision and to add transparency to this process. As part of this criteria are discussed at start of the fellowship that constitute success/expectations. Around a year before the end of the fellowship the review takes place. For the review to take place a document is prepared during fellowship that covers progress, problems, things not achieved, aims going forward etc. This can then lead to a discussion of what the University/department/institute wants going forwards. Currently there isn’t a defined situation in either IICD or Neuroscience and things tend to be covered on a case-by-case basis. Discussions are being had regarding this by senior managers at faculty and departmental level and on University committees such as FRIC (Faculty Research and Innovation Committee) and the Early Careers Group. It will be important for those of us it affects (and who doesn’t it affect? We care what happens to our fellows even if we have been through the process already, right?) to make our voices heard. As important stakeholders it is important that we feedback on suggested models – so, what is a good model? Is this the answer? Is this something we would welcome? Heather would be very keen to hear your thoughts and is happy for you to get in contact with her ([email protected]). Some of the things that were discussed included: • It’s hard to compare one situation with another as the fellowships are not all equivalent • The SRDS process is not given equal significance by different line managers, so this is helpful for some in defining expectations, monitoring progress, finding support, but less so for others • Not everyone who is partially through their fellowships were given clear objectives and criteria for permanence at the start • There is not necessarily the funding available for all fellows to be made permanent • Perhaps 12 months before the end of the fellowship is too close to the end, it could put fellows in a tricky situation regarding future employment • There could be scope for manipulation via who is appointed as external reviewers • What criteria should be covered/considered? Publications? Funding? Supervision? External visibility (talks, grant review panels, reviewing of grants)? Leadership roles? Maternity leave, illness? Teaching? Innovation? • All appointments have to go through financial case approval so even if there is a recommendation to make someone permanent it may not be approved at a higher level • What happens if someone has been promised a position and this is not carried through? • How can it be made a level playing field when fellowships vary so greatly? • Help can we help ensure fellows have a portfolio of skills to meet the department’s needs? • Would these changes/processes need Union approval, as per changes to the SRDS form? Clearly these are complicated and important discussions, so please do feedback your thoughts to Heather, your FAB reps or even have a chat with your head of department Notes based on discussions led by Lucy Lee, Think Ahead/RS
By Phil Elks, Sir Henry Dale Fellow, IICD
We had a fab FAB meeting on the 8th November in Sitran. For those who missed it, here’s a quick update… We first had a round the table to introduce ourselves. It was fantastic to see such a diversity of attendees and it was very informative to see the breadth of career stage and science that we would want to cover in future meetings. We had representation from: - Academic lecturers - Clinical lecturers - PI fellows - Post-doctoral fellows - A new fellow to the University (welcome!) - Post-docs preparing fellowship applications - Post-docs with fellowship applications pending - Post-fellowship lecturers - and even two keen PhD students It was great to meet everyone and have such a diverse group! In the second half of the meeting, Prof Alison Condliffe from IICD gave us some fascinating insights from her extensive experience sitting on fellowship/grant panels (mainly from an MRC/UKRI perspective). She gave us an in-depth walk through of the panel process and what they’re looking for in a candidate. Highlights of her talk for me included:
Alison’s top tips for success were:
Huge thanks to Alison for her time and insights! Please get in touch with any ideas or requests for future meetings. See the contact section of the website for details.
The first Fab meeting was held on 4th July (Independence Day, how apt!) We had a brief discussion on the aims of the network and feedback on the current set up. Over 20 people were in attendance , which was a great start for our network. If you came, please come next time and encourage others to attend!
Going forwards the plan is to have 3 slots in each meeting, with 1/3 given over to networking over coffee and cake, and 2/3 slots for presentations/discussions on anything ranging from sharing good practice, discussing new techniques, new data to outlines for grants and fellowship applications. In our final slot in our first meeting, Alison Twelvetrees (Neuroscience) presented her paper entitled: "The life of P.I. Transitions to Independence in Academia" (click here to visit Bioarchive version). This covers issues incredibly relevant to our network and highlights some of the challenges faced when setting up your own lab. The paper is based upon survey data from over 350 participants who had set up their own labs within the last 6 years (up to 2018). One of the major findings was that participants felt a lack of support/wanted more support as they went about setting up their labs... something we are hoping to help assist in via the peer-support Fab network. Alison and her co-authors (Sophie Acton - UCL, Andrew Bell - Sheffield, and Christopher Toseland - Kent) started the project off in part via discussions on a Slack group (I didn't know what this is... click here). Alison's Slack group is for new group leaders - if you'd like to join this group, which seems to be a good place to get a quick answer on the sort of questions new PI's face, email her ([email protected]). Alison also highlighted her role as an eLife Ambassador (click here); see also here for a number of interesting blogs from participants: link. Alison ended with a list of suggestions that might help early career researchers as they transition to independence. All sound, but I might suggest one more... Join the Fab network (or set up your own equivalent!) Looking forwards to the next meeting, which will take place early September, once folk have returned from Summer holidays etc! We are proud to announce the launch of the Fab network! Here are our aims!
The Fellowships And Beyond (FAB) Network: Terms of reference FAB Aims - To provide practical and peer-group support for researchers from post-doctoral level thorough to transitioning out of fellowships and into senior teaching and/or research positions - To integrate with Think Ahead and researcher development at the University of Sheffield - To align with Departmental and Faculty aims and strategy Membership Contract researchers from grade 7 upwards who are looking towards fellowships, hold fellowships or are transitioning out of fellowships to permanent positions. This also includes people in their first teaching and research positions (e.g., lecturers). However, all interested parties who wish to engage are welcome to attend. We will also be inviting senior staff along for specific sessions (e.g., to give career overviews). We will launch with IICD and Neuroscience initially, with plans to extend to O&M once running effectively. Overview The purpose of this network would be to provide peer support, unofficial mentoring, to foster collaborations and develop the careers of all who wish to be involved. In particular we would like the network to help shape future grant applications and provide an avenue to share good practice and integrate with Think Ahead and the programmes/opportunities it offers. The network can also be used to discuss new data and ideas, partly to stimulate collaboration or grant funding ideas or unlock challenging research questions. Members will be encouraged to seek out opportunities that can be shared with the rest of the network, including career talks from established academics, information sharing with respect to the University of Sheffield’s aims and policies from Think Ahead and Research Services (RS). Logistics and structure The network will meet every six weeks/two months for one hour. The hour will be divided into 3 x 20 min slots with 1 slot given over to coffee and networking. The remaining slots will exist to enable participants to opt in to present, invited speakers to present or for discussions. There will be a 2-week period after each meeting for participants to opt in, with empty slots to be filled at the discretion of the departmental leads (who will head hunt or come up with ideas for slots in the absence of nominations). Examples of 20 min sessions (but not limited to) Presentation of grant outlines for feedback/discussion (e.g., grants/fellowships/studentships) Discussion of data that could lead to collaborations/requires input from others Requests for collaborations Examples of new techniques/good practice Invited talks from speakers on career trajectory/promotion/grant opportunities etc Group discussions (e.g. top tips for grant writing) |
Authors
Participants write their own contributions to cover topics covered at our meetings or of use to our network's members Archives
August 2021
Categories
|