Careers in Research Online Survey

Transcription

1 LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY Careers in Research Online Survey 2013 Dr Katryna Kalawsky Research Staff and Student Development Officer Contents 1. Background Analysis Participant recruitment at Loughborough University Response rate Demographic information of respondents Research career of respondents Recognition and value Recruitment and selection Support and career development Loughborough University institution specific questions Equality and diversity Summary

2 1. Background The Careers in Research Online Survey (CROS) is designed to gather the anonymous views of research staff (i.e. Research Assistants, Research Associates and Research Fellows) in UK Higher Education (HE) institutions about working conditions, career aspirations and career development opportunities. The CROS is run biennially using the Bristol Online Survey (BOS) and provides institutions with the opportunity to compare their results to previous years to monitor change (improvement/deterioration). Institutional results can also be compared with the UK aggregate of benchmarking groups (such as the Russell Group and the 1994 Group) to see how Loughborough University measures up against the national picture. Furthermore, CROS data can be used to evaluate and compare progress in relation to the implementation of the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers, achieving and maintaining the HR Excellence in Research Award, Athena SWAN submissions, and submissions of the Research Excellence Framework. 2. Analysis Comparisons between four CROS surveys (Loughborough 2013, Loughborough 2011, the Russell Group* and the 1994 Group**) were undertaken where possible. As in previous years, differences in responses (i.e. differences from Loughborough in 2013) of 5% were considered as a point of interest and are outlined in the report below. It is important to note that frequencies generated from BOS were recalculated if they previously took into consideration responses such as not applicable. Similarly, to abridge the analysis, categorical responses were on occasion merged into one response (for example, strongly agree with agree and strongly disagree with disagree ). 3. Participant recruitment at Loughborough University Recruitment for CROS participants at Loughborough University in 2013 was staggered over a 15-day period. The following channels were used to attract interest: Loughborough University Research Staff Bulletin Loughborough University Research Staff Blog Loughborough University Research Staff Association An to the University s Associate Deans of Research An to the University s Athena SWAN Silver Champions School/Department plasma screens Loughborough University s electronic notice board 2

3 In an attempt to increase participation, entry into a prize draw to win one of five 20 Amazon vouchers was included in the CROS advert. 4. Response rate Out of an expected 329 research staff (as of 1 st April 2013), 107 (32.5%) responded to the CROS at Loughborough University this year. Whilst this response rate was 8.6% lower than the response rate in 2011 (a plausible consequence of having a data collection period that was nine days shorter than in 2011), it was similar to the response rate of the 1994 Group (36.9%) and significantly higher than the response rate of the Russell Group (25.7%), which is reassuring. 5. Demographic information of respondents a) Age Since 2011, there has been an increase in the number of researchers aged at Loughborough University (31.1% in 2013 vs. 21.8% in 2011). There are also more researchers at Loughborough University aged than compared to the 1994 Group and Russell Group (31.1%, 15.4% and 23.8%). However, there are fewer researchers aged between at Loughborough University than compared with the 1994 Group and Russell group (22.6%, 34.7% and 33.1%), and there has been a decline at Loughborough University since 2011 in the number of researchers aged between (6.6% in 2013 vs. 17.6% in 2011). It is plausible that this trend could be attributed to natural progression within academia (i.e. researchers joining the research and teaching job family), or it could be that Loughborough does not cater for those who want to progress in research only jobs. b) Gender No differences were observed in the number of male and female respondents at Loughborough University between 2013 and 2011; in both years there was a near 50:50 split. However, there were significantly more female respondents from the 1994 Group and Russell Group (48.5%, 56% and 55.4%). c) Nationality The majority of respondents in all groups were a UK/British National. However, there has been a significant decline in UK/British National respondents at Loughborough University in recent years (65.7% in 2013 vs. 71.9% in 2011). 6. Research career of respondents a) Length of time as a researcher Most respondents of the CROS 2013 at Loughborough and in the Russell and 1994 comparison groups had been a researcher for 10 years (26.4%, 27.9% and 29.5% respectively) suggesting that there is a relatively large proportion of senior 3

4 researchers within several Higher Education Institutes. The second most popular research length at Loughborough was 1-2 years (21.7%) whereas in the Russell and 1994 comparison group it was 3-5 years (26.2%. and 26.4%). b) Length of time at current institution Over half of the respondents at Loughborough this year had been at the institution for up to 2 years (54.8%), which was significantly more than the Russell Group (48%) and the 1994 Group (46%). Conversely, significantly fewer respondents at Loughborough had been at the institution between 3-5 years than compared to the Russell Group and 1994 Group (16.3%, 25.6% and 25.6% respectively). However, a similar proportion of respondents in all groups had been at their current institution for more than 6 years (28.8%, 28.1% and 25.8% respectively). c) Number of individual contracts held at the current institution Most respondents at Loughborough this year were on their first or second contract at the institution (69.8%). The same trend was observed in 2011 (65.1%) and when compared to the Russell and 1994 Group (65.1% and 62.8% respectively). d) Type of employment The vast majority of respondents at Loughborough this year were employed on a fulltime contract (85.7%) which in terms of financial security is very positive but could be interpreted negatively with regard to flexible working. Whilst a similar trend was observed in 2011 (81.1%) and in the Russell and 1994 Group (87.1% and 78.6% respectively), significantly more research staff at Loughborough this year had a fulltime contract when compared to the 1994 Group (7.1% difference). e) Contract type Most respondents at Loughborough this year were on a fixed-term contract (68.3%). The same trend existed in 2011 and in the Russell and 1994 Group (67.6%, 80.9% and 76.5% respectively). Although only a small percentage of respondents at Loughborough had the job security of an open-ended contract (29.7%), this was a significantly greater proportion than the Russell and 1994 Group (17.6% and 21.3% respectively) which is a positive for the University. However, it is important to note that as 36% of Loughborough research staff are on open-ended contracts (data obtained from Human Resources as of 1 st April 2013) this group is slightly underrepresented in the survey results. Therefore in the Loughborough CROS results the views of long-term employed staff are better represented than in the Russell/1994 group results. 7. Recognition and value a) Contributions The majority of respondents felt that their contributions to the following activities were valued by the University: 4

5 Grant/funding applications (63.8% agreement) Knowledge transfer and commercialisation (66.7% agreement) Managing budgets and resources (58.3% agreement) Publications (73.3% agreement) Public engagement with research (68.8% agreement) Whilst this is encouraging, care must be taken to ensure that Loughborough University does not become complacent but instead maintain and/or improve its levels of agreement. For example, although the majority of researchers felt that their activities relating to publications were valued by the University, the level of agreement was significantly lower when compared to researchers in 2011 and the Russell group (73.3%, 81.5% and 82.4% respectively); suggesting things have slipped at Loughborough in recent years. Similarly, whilst the majority of respondents felt that their contributions towards grant/funding applications was recognised and valued, some felt that because they cannot be a Principal Investigator on a proposal (even though they have written it), they do not receive credit at a departmental and organisational level: As a part-time and non-permanent member of staff I cannot be PI on grant applications, even when they are all my idea and I have written it. I personally have contributed to15 proposals/eoi in the last 5 years. Four of these I have written in full (or close to 80%) and three have been funded totalling over 1.6m. Unfortunately this tactic which is regularly employed, leaves researchers unrecognised at a Dept, School and Organisational level with PIs taking on a superhuman status Unfortunately, just over half of the Loughborough respondents this year (53.1%) did not feel that their contribution towards peer reviewing activities was valued by the University. A similar trend was observed in 2011 and across the benchmarking groups (49.7% and 52.2%) suggesting improvement is still needed. Improvement is also necessary in the following activities, since there was very little difference between the percentages of respondents who felt that their contributions were or were not valued by the University: Supervising/managing staff (48.4% agreement) Supervising research students (50% agreement) Teaching and lecturing (50.7% agreement) Furthermore, for the same activities listed above, significantly fewer respondents felt that their contributions were valued in comparison to those in 2011, the Russell Group, and on one occasion the 1994 Group, which again suggests improvement is warranted: Supervising/managing staff (48.4%, 54.8% and 55.5% respectively) Supervising research students (50%, 72.6% and 61% respectively) 5

6 Teaching and lecturing (63.3%, 58.2% and 62.3% respectively) b) Equal Treatment On the whole, the vast majority of respondents at Loughborough University felt that (as a member of research staff) they receive equal and fair treatment to other members of staff in the following areas: Training and development opportunities (89.2% agreement) Opportunities to attend conferences and external meetings (85% agreement) Requests for flexible working (91.8% agreement) Terms and conditions of employment (76.5% agreement) Visibility on websites and staff directories (81.6% agreement) However, most respondents (73.6%) this year felt that other members of staff at the University receive preferential treatment with regard to opportunities for promotion and progression, which is disappointing and needs to be addressed. Whilst a similar trend was observed amongst the Russell and 1994 benchmarking groups (56.9% and 60.8% respectively) significantly more research staff from Loughborough University felt disadvantaged, and significantly more so since 2011 (59.8%). Example quotations expressing concern that there is no promotion pathway for a researcher at Loughborough University are provided below: Little opportunity exists for promotion of research staff. Everyone is encouraged to take the teaching route. There doesn t seem to be a progression pathway if lecturing is not an ambition. As a Higher Education institution there is no career path move from researcher to senior research like there is from lecturer to senior lecturer. You are not valued for your research and can only gain promotion and pay rises with new research funding that requires a senior post and then you have to apply for the post even though you have brought the funds in. Totally unfair system. In terms of opportunities to participate in decision-making processes, just over half agreed that they received equal treatment to other members of staff at the University (53.1%). Although this trend was mirrored in the Russell and 1994 Groups (52.8% and 51.6% respectively), significantly more respondents in 2011 felt that they received equal treatment to other members of staff in this area (60.5%). Consequently, the recent reduction is a concern. It is important to note that some staff, as indicated by qualitative feedback, often feel that staff from the research and teaching job family see themselves as being superior to staff from the research job family: 6

7 I do not believe other colleagues in the Department fully appreciate the contribution I make. To an extent, this is understandable as long as my job title is RA, I will be perceived as such, irrespective of my personal contribution and my responsibilities As staff from research centres in the department do not teach they appear to be viewed as having a lower status than lecturing staff who are viewed as the academics Depending on the department, some researchers in the University are very much treated like second class members of staff or are grouped with the research students where only academic staff are referred to as staff c) Research community The majority of Loughborough respondents felt integrated into their department s research community (67.9%) and their wider disciplinary research community (63.3%). However, more effort is needed to make research staff feel integrated into the institution s research community (51.9%), particularly since the level of agreement has declined since 2011 (67.3%) and is significantly lower than the Russell and 1994 benchmarking groups (67.6% and 71.8% respectively). Further evidence to support the need for better integration/recognition into the institution s research community is shown as follows: I don t think the wider university has any concept of what we/i do. I would hazard a guess that the institution (outside my line manager) does not know me by name, does not know the research I am doing d) Staff appraisal In the past two years, most research staff respondents at Loughborough University did not have an appraisal (64.4%). Whilst a similar trend was observed amongst the Russell and 1994 benchmarking groups (58.3% and 52% respectively), significantly more respondents at Loughborough had not received an appraisal. This was in spite of Professional Development Reviews (PDRs) being University policy for all research staff. Therefore, it would be reasonable to suggest that audits should be conducted within each Department/School (if not already done so). The most common reasons why respondents at Loughborough had not yet had an appraisal are as follows: They had not been invited to have one (41.4%) They had only recently been appointed (27.1%) They were on probation (12.9%) For those who had undergone an appraisal during the past two years, only half found the overall process useful, which was significantly lower than in 2011 and when 7

8 compared to the Russell and 1994 benchmarking groups (59.3%, 56.8% and 58.8% respectively). With regard to specific elements of the appraisal, few found the following useful: Ability to highlight issues (47.2% useful) Helping to focus on career aspirations (40% useful) Helping to identify strengths and achievements (48.6% useful) Leading to training or continuing professional development activities (51.4% useful) Leading to changes in work practices (26.5% useful) Reviewing personal progress (50% useful) On most occasions, when compared to 2011, the Russell group and 1994 group, significantly fewer staff at Loughborough found the following elements useful: Ability to highlight issues (47.2% vs. 63%, 65.6% and 66.2%) Helping to focus on career aspirations (40% vs. 59.3%, 56.8% and 58.2%) Helping to identify strengths and achievements (48.6% vs. 59.3%, 61.2% and 62.3%) Leading to changes to changes in work practices (26.5% vs. 31.4%, 32.9% and 27.3%) Reviewing personal progress (50% vs. 59.3%, 67.1% and 69.6%) Conversely, whilst the majority of staff at Loughborough did not find elements leading to training or continuing professional development activities useful, it was considered significantly more useful than in 2011 and when compared to the Russell Group (26.5% vs. 31.4%, 32.9%). e) Knowledge and understanding The vast majority of respondents at Loughborough this year had not heard of the following: Concordat for engaging the public with research (70.8%) Concordat to support the career development of researchers (61%) Concordat to support research integrity (73.8%) European HR excellence in research (70.8%) Similarly, just over half of respondents at Loughborough had not heard of the following: Vitae Research Development Framework (55.7%) Athena SWAN (52.4%) RCUK Pathway to impact (53.3%) 8

9 Furthermore, in comparison to 2011 (if the question was previously asked), the Russell Group and the 1994 Group, significantly more respondents this year at Loughborough had not heard of the following: Athena SWAN (52.4% vs. 39.8% - Russell Group) Concordat to support the career development of researchers (61% vs. 27.5% - Loughborough 2011) European HR excellence in research (70.8% vs. 64% Group) RCUK Pathway to impact (53.3% vs. 45.8% Group) In contrast, whilst the majority of respondents this year at Loughborough University had not heard of the following, significantly more had when compared to the Russell Group and/or the 1994 group: Vitae Research Development Framework (55.7% vs. 58.9% and 65.7%) Concordat to support research integrity (73.8% vs. 79% - Russell Group) Encouragingly, only a small percentage of research staff at Loughborough had not heard of the Research Excellent Framework (14.3%) and a similar trend was observed when compared to the Russell and 1994 benchmarking groups (17.8% and 12.5%). Likewise, over half of respondents at Loughborough this year had heard of Vitae (56.6%) which was significantly better than the Russell and 1994 Group (42% and 48.8%) but significantly worse in comparison to 2011 at Loughborough (72.3%). 8. Recruitment and selection a) Application process The job application process at Loughborough ensures that prospective applicants are well informed about vacant positions, with the vast majority of respondents having received the following: A written description of the job (92.6%) Details of qualifications needed (91.2%) Details of specific post holder skills (85%) Details of transferable/personal/management skills (76.5%) Furthermore, in comparison to the Russell and 1994 benchmarking groups, the application process at Loughborough appears to be more informative, with significantly more applicants receiving the following: A written description of the job (92.6% vs. 85.5% and 85.5%) Details of transferable/personal/management skills (76.5% vs. 66.8% and 66.1%) 9

10 b) Induction process The vast majority of research staff at Loughborough found the induction to the institution (63.6%), department (66%) and their current role (84.1%) helpful. Whilst a similar trend was observed in the Russell and 1994 benchmarking groups, the institution-wide induction is significantly better at Loughborough (63.6% vs. 54.4% and 53.8%). It is important to note that not all new research staff are new to the University and their Department. Therefore, information needs to be tailored accordingly: When a researcher who has been in the University for many years, needs to attend inductions, it s quite a waste of resources Departmental induction was not very useful as I was familiar with the department from years of studying here 9. Support and career development a) Career development The majority of respondents at Loughborough this year agreed that they are encouraged to engage in personal and career development (74.5%), and that they are able to take ownership of their career development (84.9%). A similar trend was observed amongst all comparison groups. In comparison to the Russell and 1994 benchmarking groups, significantly more research staff at Loughborough keep a formal record of their continuing professional development activities (60% vs. 52.9% and 48.5%). However, few have a career development plan (49%, 51.9% and 49.1% respectively) which could be explained by the feedback received in regard to the appraisal process (pages 6-7). b) Training activities A number of respondents at Loughborough had not undertaken, but expressed an interest in undertaking, the following professional development activities: Research impact (61.8%) Public engagement (59.8%) Knowledge exchange (57.6%) Supervision of doctoral/masters students (56.9%) Leadership and management (56.3%) Career management (51.5%) Communication and dissemination (49%) Personal effectiveness (46.5%) Research skills and techniques (46.1%) Collaboration and team working (41.6%) Ethical research conduct (40.6%) 10

11 Teaching/lecturing (37.9%) Although percentages are low (apart from equality and diversity training), when compared to the Russell and/or 1994 benchmarking groups, significantly more respondents at Loughborough University had undertaken training activities in the following areas: Career management (22.6% vs. 14.7% group) Equality and diversity (63.7% vs. 22.6% and 23.5%) Ethical research conduct (31.7% vs. 22.7% and 24.3%) Leadership and management (20.4% vs. 14.8% group) Personal effectiveness (23.8% vs. 17% group) Research impact (25.5% vs. 15.4% and 18.9%) Teaching/lecturing (39.8% vs. 30.3% and 28.7%) Since 2011, there has been a significant decline at Loughborough in the number of those who have undertaken training activities in the following areas: Career management (22.6% vs. 34.9%) Personal effectiveness (23.8% vs. 40.7%) Research skills and techniques (40.2% vs. 53.7%) c) Working with others The majority of research staff respondents at Loughborough have undertaken or expressed an interest in undertaking the following activities: Collaborating with others outside the UK (61% and 31.4% respectively) Mentoring and supporting other researchers (40% and 47.6% respectively) Collaborating in research with external organisations (75.2% and 20% respectively) Supervising undergraduate or postgraduate research projects (49.5% and 41% respectively) Working as part of a cross-disciplinary team (64.8% and 32.4% respectively) Undertaking an internship/placement outside Higher Education research (13.5% and 51% respectively) Most of the percentages above indicate that Loughborough has several opportunities available for research staff to work with others. However, it would appear that despite a demand, there are few opportunities available to allow research staff to undertake an internship/placement outside High Education research which should be addressed. Significantly more research staff in the Russell and 1994 benchmarking groups than at Loughborough had undertaken the following activities: Collaborating with others outside the UK (61% vs. 66% and 66.7%) Mentoring and supporting other researchers (40% vs. 46.8% and 45.6%) 11

12 Supervising undergraduate or postgraduate research projects (49.5% vs. 57.5% and 54.8%) In contrast, significantly more research staff at Loughborough than in the Russell and/or the 1994 benchmarking groups had undertaken the following activities: Collaborating in research with external organisations (75.2% vs. 62.8% and 66.3% respectively) Undertaking an internship/placement outside HE research (13.5% vs. 6.9% group) Working as part of a cross-disciplinary team (64.8% vs. 58.4% and 57.8%) d) Research and financial management The majority of research staff at Loughborough have undertaken or expressed an interest in undertaking the following activities: Managing a budget (40% and 41%) Planning and managing a project (55.8% and 34.6%) Writing a grant/funding proposal (57.1% and 35.2%) Whilst similar trends were observed in the Russell and 1994 benchmarking groups, significantly more research staff at Loughborough have planned and managed a project (55.8% vs. 50.6% and 48.9% respectively). e) Engagement and impact The majority of research staff at Loughborough have undertaken or expressed an interest in undertaking the following activities: Engage with policy makers and end users (41.3% and 44.2%) Knowledge exchange (39.4% and 52.9%) Participate in public engagement activities (32.7% and 46.2%) Teach or lecture (63.1% and 20.4%) Whilst similar trends were observed in the Russell and 1994 benchmarking groups, significantly more research staff at Loughborough have taught or lectured (63.1% vs. 48.1% and 56% respectively). However, significantly fewer research staff from Loughborough have participated in public engagement activities than those in the 1994 group (32.7% vs. 43.9%). f) Communication and dissemination The majority of research staff respondents at Loughborough have undertaken or expressed an interest in undertaking the following activities: Presenting work at a conference orally (84.8% and 14.3%) Writing up research for publication as first author (80% and 20%) 12

13 Whilst similar trends were observed in the Russell and 1994 benchmarking groups, significantly more research staff at Loughborough than those in the Russell group have presented work at a conference orally (84.8% vs. 78.3%). 10. Loughborough University institution specific questions a) European HR Excellence in Research Award The vast majority of research staff (78.1%) were not aware of the European HR Excellence in Research Award. Consequently, the majority of research staff (62.9%) would not include the award in their selection criteria for a prospective employer. b) Careers and Employability Centre The vast majority of research staff (74%) had awareness of the services provided to by the Careers and Employability Centre. 11. Equality and diversity a) Commitment to equality and diversity The vast majority of staff believed that Loughborough University was committed to equality and diversity (90.1%) which was mirrored across all comparison groups (93.7%, 90.5% and 87.2%). b) Work-life balance Whilst the majority of respondents were satisfied with their work-life balance (68.9%), which was similar to the Russell Group (71.1%) and 1994 Group (67.7%) there has been a significant decline in recent years at Loughborough since 2011 (75.2%). c) Equal Treatment The vast majority of respondents felt that staff (i.e. not just research staff) at Loughborough University are treated fairly (regardless of personal characteristics such as age, ethnicity, disability or gender) with regard to: Access to training and development (93.1% agreement) Career progression and promotion (72.5% agreement) Day to day treatment at work (88.3% agreement) Participation in decision making (78.5% agreement) Recruitment and selection (82.7% agreement) Reward (77.4% agreement) Although a similar trend in all areas was observed across all benchmarking groups, since 2011, fewer respondents felt that staff at Loughborough University are treated fairly with regard to: Day to day treatment (88.3% vs. 93.8%) Recruitment and selection (82.7% vs. 94.5%) 13

14 Reward (77.4% vs. 86.1%) Overall, participants agreed that staff at Loughborough University are treated fairly irrespective of: Age (86.7% agreement) Disability (98.8% agreement) Ethnicity (95.7% agreement) Gender (83.2% agreement) Gender identity (98.7% agreement) Nationality (93.6% agreement) Pregnancy and maternity (90.8% agreement) Religion and belief (100% agreement) Sexual orientation (97.6% agreement) However, it should be noted that whilst 83.2% agreed that staff are treated fairly irrespective of gender, it is actually the lowest agreement figure out of all the characteristics listed. In addition, several respondents made comments about females being underrepresented within the institution: Women are cut out of decision making and Senior Management posts Although there is no discrimination based on gender in a day-to-day capacity, within the University, there is a big difference in the number of women who hold the most progressed roles, e.g. profs 12. Summary a) Changes at Loughborough University Since 2011, there have been several significant changes for research staff at Loughborough University: Negative changes Fewer respondents feel that activities relating to a) publications, b) supervising/managing staff, c) supervising research students; and d) teaching/lecturing are valued by the University. More respondents feel that other members of staff at the University receive preferential treatment with regard to opportunities for promotion. Fewer respondents feel that they receive equal treatment to other members of staff in opportunities to participate in decision-making processes. Fewer respondents feel integrated into the institution s research community. Fewer respondents have received an appraisal, and of those that had, fewer respondents found the overall process useful particularly with regard to a) ability to highlight issues, b) helping to focus on career aspirations, c) helping 14

15 to identify strengths and achievements, d) leading to changes in work practices; and e) reviewing personal progress. Fewer respondents have heard of the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers. Fewer respondents have heard of Vitae. Fewer respondents have undertaken training activities in a) career management, b) personal effectiveness and c) research skills and techniques. Fewer respondents were satisfied with their work-life balance. Fewer respondents felt that staff are treat fairly with regard to a) day-to-day treatment, b) recruitment and selection; and c) reward. Positive changes Of those who had an appraisal, more respondents found elements relating to training or continuing professional development useful. More respondents found the institution-wide induction helpful. b) Differences between Loughborough University and other Higher Education Institutions Negative differences Fewer respondents at Loughborough than in the Russell Group felt that their activities relating to publications were valued Fewer respondents at Loughborough than in the Russell Group and on one occasion the 1994 Group, felt that their contributions in a) supervising/managing staff, b) supervising research students; and c) teaching/lecturing were valued More respondents at Loughborough than in the Russell Group and 1994 Group felt that other members of staff receive preferential treatment Fewer respondents at Loughborough than in the Russell Group and the 1994 Group feel integrated into the institution s research community Fewer respondents at Loughborough than in the Russell Group and the 1994 Group had received an appraisal Fewer respondents at Loughborough than in the Russell Group and the 1994 Group found the appraisal process useful Fewer respondents at Loughborough than in the Russell Group and the 1994 Group found the following elements of the appraisal process helpful: a) ability to highlight issues, b) helping to focus on career aspirations, c) helping to identify strengths and achievements, d) leading to changes in work practices; and e) reviewing personal progress. Fewer respondents at Loughborough than in the Russell Group or the 1994 Group had heard of a) Athena SWAN, b) European HR Excellence in Research and c) RCUK Pathway to impact 15

16 Fewer respondents at Loughborough than in the Russell Group or the 1994 Group had a career development plan. Fewer respondents at Loughborough than in the Russell Group and the 1994 Group had undertaken activities in a) collaborating with others outside the UK, b) mentoring and supporting other researchers c) supervising undergraduate or postgraduate research projects and d) public engagement. Positive differences More respondents at Loughborough than the 1994 Group had a full-time contract More respondents at Loughborough than in the 1994 Group and Russell Group had an open-ended contract More respondents at Loughborough than in the 1994 Group and Russell Group found appraisal activities relating to training or continuing professional development activities useful. More respondents at Loughborough than in the Russell Group and/or the 1994 Group had heard of a) Vitae s Research Development Framework and b) Concordat to support research integrity More respondents at Loughborough than in the Russell Group and the 1994 Group found the job application process informative with regards to receiving a written description of the job and details of transferable/personal/management skills. More respondents at Loughborough than in the Russell Group and the 1994 Group found the institution-wide induction helpful. More respondents at Loughborough than in the Russell Group and the 1994 Group keep a formal record of their continuing professional activities. More respondents at Loughborough than in the Russell Group and/or the 1994 Group had undertaken the following activities a) career management, b) equality and diversity, c) ethical research conduct, d) leadership and management, e) personal effectiveness, f) research impact, g) teaching/lecturing, h) collaborating in research with external organisations, i) undertaking an internship/placement outside HE research, j) working as part of a cross-disciplinary team, k) planning and managing a project, l) teaching/lecturing and m) oral presentation. c) Overall strengths at Loughborough Research staff perceive that contributions to the following activities are valued by the University: Grant/funding applications Knowledge transfer and commercialisation Managing budgets and resources Publications Public engagement with research 16

17 The majority of research staff report equal treatment to other members of staff in the following areas: Training and development opportunities Opportunities to attend conferences and external meetings Requests for flexible working Terms and conditions of employment Visibility on websites and staff directories Research staff felt integrated into their department s research community and their wider disciplinary research community Research staff have knowledge and understanding of the Research Excellence Framework The job application process of research staff positions at Loughborough University is very informative The research staff induction at an institutional, departmental and job role level is helpful Research staff are encouraged to engage in personal and career development. Research staff at Loughborough are likely to keep a formal record of their continuing professional development activities Research staff have awareness of the services provided to them by the Careers and Employability Centre Research staff believe that Loughborough University is committed to equality and diversity Most research staff are happy with their work-life balance Majority of research staff feel that they are treat fairly in comparison to other staff with regard to: Access to training and development Career progression and promotion Day to day treatment at work Participation in decision making Recruitment and selection Reward Research staff feel that they are treat fairly irrespective of: Age Disability Ethnicity Gender Gender identify Nationality Pregnancy and maternity Religion and belief Sexual orientation 17

18 d) Areas for improvement at Loughborough More recognition and value needs to be shown by the university for contributions made by research staff in the following activities: Peer reviewing Supervising managing staff Supervising research students Teaching and lecturing More opportunities are needed for research staff to participate in decisionmaking processes. More opportunities are needed for the promotion and progression of research staff. More effort is needed to make research staff feel integrated into the institution s research community. There is a need to address perceived superior attitudes of research and teaching staff towards research staff. There is a need to improve the usefulness of appraisals/pdrs for research staff There is a need to increase the number of appraisals/pdr s for research staff More awareness needs to be raised of the following UK initiatives: Concordat for engaging the public with research Concordat to support the career development of researchers Concordat to support research integrity European HR excellence in research (award) Vitae Vitae Research Development Framework Athena SWAN RCUK Pathway to impact More research staff need to be encouraged to have a career development plan. There is a demand for more female role models/representation. Induction processes/activities need to be tailored to meet the needs of those enrolled. e) Areas that warrant further investigation Why has there been a significant decline in the number of research staff aged between since 2011? Given the relatively large proportion of senior researchers at Loughborough in terms of their experience, does the University adequately address their needs with regard to training and career development opportunities? How do open-ended contract figures for Loughborough University relate to other HEI s (non-survey respondents)? Also are all those eligible to be on an open-ended contract on an open-ended contract (i.e. does the university follow its own policies?) 18

19 Given that having a PDR is University policy, do the Schools/Departments audit the number of PDRs that are conducted each year for research staff? If the answer is no, how will the University address this? Comparisons with other HEIs and the 2011 LU CROS survey results show that fewer research staff feel their activities related to publications are valued. It would be helpful to clarify exactly what that means and investigate ways of addressing the issue. For example, is it that research staff who write publications are routinely not listed as first author, or even not listed at all? If this is the problem research staff are referring to, then PIs, COIs and RAs should be trained about appropriate protocol on how to list authors on publications. *Russell Group composition (n = 5583) Cardiff University Organisational Development; Durham University; Imperial College London; King's College London; London School of Economics - Web Services; Queen Mary, University of London; University College London; University of Bristol Personnel; University of Cambridge; University of Edinburgh; University of Exeter; University of Glasgow; University of Leeds; University of Liverpool; University of Manchester; University of Nottingham; University of Oxford; University of Sheffield; University of Southampton; University of Warwick; University of York **1994 Group composition (n = 384) Goldsmiths University of London; Institute of Education University of London; Lancaster University; University of East Anglia; University of Sussex 19