The path to professorship is long, rocky and confusing. Why?
-
Loading... - Sabina Daniels
- 24 Aug 2021
- 1066 Views
- 0 Like
- 0 Comment
The road to becoming a fully-fledged academic can feel long, tough and filled with disillusion. A study by The Royal Society found that only 3.5% of students that complete a PhD secure a permanent research position at a university. Of those lucky few, only 12% (or 0.45% of the total) make it to professor level.
During my first academic position, I wanted to become one of these fortunate few. So I visited the university’s HR advisor and asked her – naively – what I would have to do to eventually be appointed professor. Her answer was frank: “I have no idea.”
My group leader, a professor, couldn’t help either and told me that “there is no clearly defined path that will get you there”.
The university agreed to investigate the issue, and later introduced a set of criteria to define what was expected of academics at different levels.
But those criteria were set so high that it was impossible for anybody to achieve them – including the professors themselves. At the same time, the head of department continued to hire academics from outside the organisation that clearly did not meet the criteria. It seemed that the criteria only applied for academics trying to progress their career within the department.
I realised I didn’t stand a chance in this environment, and moved to another university.
That’s when I realised that there are structural problems at play. Universities have no real motivation to promote anybody. The primary needs of the organisation, such as teaching students, are met by junior staff already. Promotion criteria tend to stipulate that academics must demonstrate that they’re working at the higher tier before they can apply for a promotion to that level. So why would a university promote them, when it’s already getting the labour it needs without having to pay for it? They can decline promotion applications, leaving academics to blame themselves – not the university – for their rejection.
If an academic were the ideal candidate for promotion, how would anyone tell? Many criteria are defined in such vague terms that it makes it impossible to objectively measure them. One university I worked for said simply that evidence of outstanding competence should be “easy for the [promotions] committee to distinguish”, without describing how it might look.
Vague criteria make it difficult for any promotion committee to do their job objectively, and can leave promotions open to political power play. An academic who has made themselves unpopular with management, by challenging their policies, can easily be denied promotions.
It strikes me that universities are missing an opportunity to use promotions criteria to guide academics in their careers and to make the process more objective.
It’s jarring that institutions which are dedicated to the pursuit of objective truth fail so miserably at objectively measuring the success of their staff. Defining specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound (SMART) criteria should be within reach. Yet this assumes that the organisation has an actual interest in guiding and promoting its staff. Which in many cases it does not.
Obscure promotions criteria and fierce competition come at a price. To become part of the lucky 3.5% you need to truly dedicate yourself to the cause, and many of us have sacrificed the chance to have a family or to have a solid network of friends . This makes us highly vulnerable whenever we experience setbacks at work. Is that really the right culture to foster among staff?
