Careers in Research Online Survey (CROS) University of Portsmouth Results and Analysis

Transcription

1 Careers in Research Online Survey (CROS) 2013 University of Portsmouth Results and Analysis Report prepared February 2014

2 Research staff from 68 UK institutions were asked for their views on working conditions, career aspirations and career development opportunities as part of the Careers in Research Online Survey (CROS) conducted between March and May For the purpose of CROS, research staff are broadly defined as individuals whose primary responsibility is to conduct research and are employed for that purpose. At the University of Portsmouth () 71 researchers from across all five faculties filled out CROS. This report presents the results from CROS 2013 and compares these to the CROS 2011 results, and to the UK 2013 aggregate. Overall, results were in line with the UK aggregate. In some areas, scored better than the UK average, for example in understanding of the Athena Swan Charter for Women in Science and in feeling valued for contributions to publications and public engagement. An area of weakness at was the perceived usefulness of the Professional Development Review (PDR), which was rated as less useful in each of the areas surveyed when compared to the UK aggregate. Further, only 51.6% of research staff reported having participated in an appraisal in the last two years, with over 30% of those who had not participated indicating this was because they had not been invited to do so. At and across the UK the CROS survey revealed a lack of familiarity with initiatives relevant to research staff, including Vitae and the Researcher Development Framework. Key recommendations The University needs to improve uptake and access to the PDR process for research staff. This may include supporting supervisors to ensure research staff are invited to take part in the PDR process. Mechanisms to improve the usefulness of the PDR process for research staff also need to be reviewed and improved. More research staff at compared to other institutions reported having spent no time on training and development activities. Alongside this finding, 50% of research staff were interested in undertaking training or development in career management, knowledge exchange, leadership and management, personal effectiveness, research impact and supervision of doctoral/masters students. Efforts to provide and promote training and development activities to research staff in these areas should be progressed. Research staff generally reported satisfaction with their work- life balance, however, questions included in the survey that asked specifically about the impact of the time- limited contracts revealed that over 75% of research staff feel that looking for new contracts impacts on their career, personal well- being and their ability to achieve research goals. Career support that enables research staff to plan their careers over a longer- term and ensure fair access to promotion and opportunities should be considered. Efforts to promote and increase awareness of initiatives and their relevance to research staff should be undertaken. 2

3 1. Introduction CROS has been running since 2002 and gathers anonymous data about working conditions, career aspirations and career development opportunities from research staff working in UK higher education institutions. Data from CROS is intended to inform the implementation of the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers and improve our understanding of the needs and views of research staff. Vitae have published a report detailing the UK aggregate results of CROS and it is anticipated that CROS will be conducted biennially. At, CROS was first carried out in Where possible data from CROS 2011 has been compared to the CROS 2013 data and the comparison is presented in this report. Differences in the questions asked and format of the answers between the two surveys precludes direct comparisons for many sections of the surveys. Questions specific for were included in the version of the CROS 2013 survey completed by research staff (section 9). 2. Who responded? Approximately 200 research staff were asked to complete CROS submitted completed surveys 2, and 16 began but then abandoned the survey; data from abandoned surveys was not included in the reported results. The overall response rate at was therefore 35.5%. This is an improvement over the 30% response rate at for CROS 2011 and compares favourably with the UK- wide CROS 2013 response rate of 26%. Background attributes of the CROS cohort: 45.1% were females, 39.4% were male, while 15.5% preferred not to indicate their gender or did not answer the question. 49.3% were UK British Nationals, 33.8% were not (of these 66.7% were EU nationals) and 16.9% preferred not to or did not answer the question. 1.4% considered themselves disabled, 84.5% do not and 14.1% preferred not to or did not provide an answer. 79.1% worked full- time and 20.9% work part- time. 87.7% have fixed term contracts 10.8% have open ended contracts, 1.5% are unsure. Table 1: Breakdown of CROS cohort by faculty CCI HSS PBS Science Tech Did not indicate faculty number of respondents % total respondents 7.0% 5.6% 8.6% 42.3% % 14.1% Table 2: CROS cohorts experience as a researcher <1 year <4 years <6 years <11 years Experience as a 17.4% 47.8% 71.0% 88.5% researcher Experience as a researcher at 26.1% 65.2% 84.1% 94.2% 1 Careers in Research Online Survey (CROS) 2013 UK aggregate results 2 Completed surveys include those where an occasional question was missed. To account for missed questions % were calculated using the number of responses to each question. 3 Respondents from the Schools of Biological Sciences (15.4%) and Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences (8.7%) form a significant proportion (24.1%) of the total CROS cohort. 3

4 Figure 1: Age profile of CROS cohort 7% 5% 3% 6% 25 and under % 16% 27% % or older Figure 2: Main source of funding for current position 18% 7% 9% Charity funded EU/EC funded Ins`tu`on funded 8% Research Council 5% 5% 32% UK industry UK government 16% Other No answer Table 3: Number of individual employment contracts at % 22.4% 9.0% 9.0% 14.9% Table 4: Total length of current contract 6 months or less 7-12 months months 17.0% 17.0% 42.6% 21.3% 2.1% 4

5 3. Perceptions of value, recognition and integration Research staff were asked whether they felt valued and recognised for their contributions to nine research related areas (Fig. 3), whether they felt that they were treated comparably to other staff (Fig. 4) and how well integrated into the research community they felt (Fig. 5). In each of these areas, researchers responses were in line with or exceeded the UK aggregate. Research staff were also asked if they were satisfied with their work- life balance (Table 5). responses were in line with the UK aggregate, with the majority of respondents agreeing to being satisfied or very satisfied with their work- life balance. Figure 3: Strongly agree/agree that my contribution is valued and recognised Grant/funding applica`ons Knowledge transfer and commercialisa`on ac`vi`es Managing budgets/resources Peer reviewing Publica`ons Public engagement with research Supervising/managing staff Supervising research students Teaching and lecturing Figure 4: Strongly agree/agree that you are treated the same as other staff Access to training and development opportuni`es Opportuni`es to aeend conferences and external mee`ngs Opportuni`es to par`cipate in decision- making processes (e.g. commieees) Opportuni`es for promo`on and progression Requests for flexible working Terms and condi`ons of employment (excluding any fixed- term nature of contract) Visibility on websites and staff directories 5

6 Figure 5: Strongly agree/agree that you feel integrated into the research community You are integrated into your department's research community You are integrated into your ins`tu`on's research community You are integrated into your wider disciplinary community Table 5: Satisfaction with work- life balance Strongly agree/agree that I am satisfied with my work- life balance % 68.1% 69.8% 4. Usefulness of the PDR process, development and career support At, 51.6% of contract research staff reported that they had participated in an appraisal in the last two years, or since starting their current position, compared to the all UK figure of 59.5% (Table 6). In CROS 2011, 56.8% of research staff reported that they had participated in an appraisal in the last two years (Table 6). Reasons for not participating in an appraisal are shown below in table 7. Research staff that had been appraised in the last 2 years were asked to rate the usefulness of the process. At, usefulness scores were lower in each category than the UK aggregate (Fig. 6). In most areas usefulness scores were also lower then the 2011 CROS scores (Fig. 6). Table 6: Staff reporting that they had been appraised in the last two years % 51.6% 59.5% Table 7: Reasons for not participating in an appraisal You are on probation 10.5% 9.4% 10.9% You ve only recently been appointed 26.3% 25.0% 29.7% Haven t been invited to do so 57.9% 31.2% 37.8% Haven t arranged this 5.3% 6.2% 6.0% Not eligible 0.0% 9.4% 5.2% Other (*not an option in 2011) * 18.8% 10.4% 6

7 Figure 6: Usefulness of the PDR process (excludes n/a responses) Overall For you to highlight issues Helping you focus on your career aspira`ons and how these are met by your current role Iden`fying your strengths and achievements Leading to training or other con`nuing professional development opportuni`es Leading to changes in work prac`ces Reviewing your personal progress Development and training Research staff were asked how many days they had spent on training and development in the last year (Fig. 7). 29.7% of research staff reported having spent no time on training, this is higher than in 2011, when, at, the figure was 24.4%. Overall, in the 2013 UK CROS aggregate 20.6% of research staff had spent no time on training or development activities in the last year (Fig. 7). More than 50% of researchers were interested in undertaking training or development in career management, knowledge exchange, leadership and management, personal effectiveness, research impact and supervision of doctoral/masters students (Table 8). At, research staff felt that they took part in professional/career development planning in line with the UK aggregate (Fig. 8). Figure 7: Time spent on training and development in the last year 0 >0-3 days 4-6 days 7 or more days 7

8 Table 8: In which area have you undertaken or would like to undertake further training or development? Have undertaken activity Have not undertaken activity but would like to Career management 11.4% 19.9% 58.6% 54.0% Collaboration and team working 20.3% 24.6% 43.5% 41.2% Communication and dissemination 36.2% 31.9% 37.7% 41.3% Equality and diversity 29.0% 26.6% 24.6% 21.2% Ethical research conduct 29.4% 24.8% 33.8% 29.9% Knowledge exchange 22.4% 14.3% 50.7% 51.3% Leadership and management 14.7% 19.3% 55.9% 53.2% Personal effectiveness 15.9% 21.0% 55.1% 47.6% Public engagement 18.8% 18.6% 46.4% 51.1% Research impact 17.4% 17.5% 71.0% 62.9% Research skills and techniques 43.5% 41.5% 40.6% 39.2% Supervision of doctoral/masters students 30.0% 28.8% 51.4% 48.8% Teaching and lecturing 32.9% 31.9% 45.7% 45.3% Figure 8: Strongly agree/agree that you take part in career development planning You are encouraged to engage in personal and career development You take ownership of your career development You have a clear career development plan You maintain a formal record of your con`nuing professional development ac`vi`es You use the Vitae Researcher Development Framework to support your con`nuing professional development ac`vity 8

9 6. Knowledge and understanding of relevant initiatives Research staff were asked about their knowledge and understanding of various relevant initiatives (Fig. 9-17). Research staff at reported being generally more knowledgeable of Athena Swan Charter than research staff at other institutions (Fig. 9). With the exception of the research excellence framework (Fig. 15), research staff at and across the UK had little awareness of national initiatives including, Vitae and the Researcher Development Framework (Fig ). Figure 9: Athena Swan Charter for Women in Science Figure 10: Concordat for Engaging the Public with Research Figure 11: Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers Figure 12: Concordat to Support Research Integrity 9

10 Figher 13: European 'HR Excellence in Research' Award recogni_on Figure 14: RCUK 'Pathways to Impact' Figure 15: Research Excellence Framework (REF) Figure 16: Vitae Figure 17: Vitae Researcher Development Framework (RDF) 10

11 7. Recruitment and selection Research staff were asked about the process surrounding their recruitment into their current role (Tables 9, 10) and the usefulness of the induction they received (Fig. 18). In line with the UK aggregate, research staff found the local induction into their role more useful than either the institutional or departmental induction (Fig. 18). Table 9: How research staff found out about their current post By word of mouth 25.4% 24.1% I am the grant/fellowship holder 7.9% 6.7% I saw it advertised/listed 31.7% 44.0% I was named on the grant 7.9% 7.7% I was redeployed 0.0% 3.0% I don't know/can't remember 1.6% 0.6% My previous contract was extended 19.0% 8.4% Other 6.3% 5.5% Table 10: What research staff were provided with during the application process A written description summary of what the job entailed Details of the qualifications required of the post- holder Details of the specialist research skills required of the post- holder Details of the transferable/personal/ management skills required of the post- holder Yes No Don t know Yes No Don t know 78.3% 8.3% 13.3% 86.0% 9.5% 4.5% 76.7% 11.7% 11.7% 87.3% 8.4% 4.4% 78.7% 9.8% 11.5% 83.2% 11.0% 5.7% 61.7% 16.7% 21.7% 67.3% 17.4% 15.3% Figure 18: Usefulness of induction process Ins`tu`onal induc`on Ins`tu`onal induc`on Ins`tu`onal induc`on - all UK 2013 Departmental induc`on Departmental induc`on Departmental induc`on - all UK 2013 Local induc`on Local induc`on Local induc`on - all UK 2013 very useful/useful not very useful/not useful not offered offered but not taken up 11

12 8. Your roles and long- term aspirations Research staff were asked if they had undertaken a variety of tasks in the areas of working with others, research and financial management, engagement/impact and communication and dissemination (Tables 11-14). If the researcher had not undertaken work in the specified area, they were asked if they would like the opportunity to do so (Tables 11-14). In most areas responses from research staff were in line with the UK aggregate. Tasks undertaken by 10% fewer staff than the UK aggregate were planning and managing a project and writing a grant/funding proposal. Table 11: Working with others Have done Not done but would like to do Collaborate with colleagues outside the UK 58.6% 66.2% 37.1% 29.7% Collaborate in research with external 58.6% 65.3% 37.1% 29.8% organisations Mentor and support other researchers 52.2% 46.7% 39.1% 40.1% Supervise undergraduate or postgraduate 52.9% 58.0% 38.2% 31.3% research projects Undertake an internship/placement 11.6% 9.2% 46.4% 42.4% outside higher education research Work as part of a cross- disciplinary team 50.7% 59.3% 39.1% 33.8% Table 12: Research and financial management Have done Not done but would like to do Manage a budget 30.4% 37.9% 50.7% 42.9% Plan and manage a project 38.2% 51.3% 52.9% 41.5% Write a grant/funding proposal 40.0% 54.4% 51.4% 38.1% Table 13: Engagement and impact Have done Not done but would like to do Engage with policymakers and end users 25.0% 29.0% 41.2% 45.1% Knowledge exchange 44.6% 32.2% 44.9% 50.5% Participate in public engagement activities 38.2% 39.5% 45.6% 40.0% Teach or lecture 52.2% 51.5% 31.9% 31.2% Table 14: Communication and dissemination Have done Not done but would like to do Present work at a conference orally 84.1% 80.6% 11.6% 15.7% Write up research for publication as first author 71.0% 78.7% 24.6% 19.1% 12

13 Research staff were asked about their long- term career aspirations and expectations (Table 15). More research staff aspired to work long- term in a primarily research and teaching post in higher education than the UK aggregate. Table 15: Long- term career aspirations and expectations Area I aspire and expect to Area I expect to work in work in the long term Career in higher education % 42.9% 43.5% 35.4% primarily research and teaching Career in higher education % 33.5% 21.7% 25.2% primarily research Career in HE - primarily teaching 0.0% 1.3% 1.4% 1.7% Other role in higher education 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 1.9% Research career outside higher 11.4% 8.5% 13.0% 10.1% education Self- employment/running your 2.9% 2.8% 2.9% 1.6% own business Teaching career outside HE 1.4% 0.2% 1.4% 0.6% Other occupations 2.9% 4.0% 0.0% 7.2% Don't know 4.3% 5.4% 15.9% 16.3% 13

14 9. questions In questions added to the UK survey research staff were asked about their involvement in the Research Staff Forum (Table 16) and their career outlook (Tables 17, 18). Table 16: Involvement in the Research Staff Forum I attend Research Staff Forum Meetings I know who my Research Staff Representative is I find research staff events helpful 47.8% 65.2% 49.3% Table 17: Future career outlook The short term nature of my contract impacts on my personal wellbeing Looking for new contracts impacts on me achieving my research goals Looking for new contracts impacts on my career I am confident that I will obtain future employment after my current contract ends 77.9% 78.8% 84.8% 58.8% Table 18: At what point in current position do you look for another contract? I am always actively looking Before the last year of my current role In the last year of my current role In the last few months of my current role After my contract has ended 30.5% 10.2% 32.2% 20.3% 6.8% 14

15 10. Equality and diversity Researchers were asked if they believe their institution is committed to equality and diversity. At, 89.9% agreed with the statement, an improvement over the 82.3% that agreed with the statement in CROS 2011 at. The UK 2013 CROS aggregate figure was 85.8%. Researchers were asked if they had felt discriminated against in their current post. At, 12.5% felt they had been discriminated against. This was similar to the 2011 CROS figure of 12.8%. Across the UK aggregate, 9.7% of researchers felt they had been discriminated against in their current post. Respondents were asked if they believe staff at their institution are treated fairly regardless of ethnic background, gender, religion or belief, sexual orientation, disability or age in relation to five areas (Fig. 19). Respondents were also asked to indicate their agreement that staff at their institution were treated fairly irrespective of nine legally protected characteristics (Table 19). Overall, was in line with or above the UK aggregate. Figure 19: Strongly agree/agree there is fair treament Access to training and development Career progression / promo`on Day to day treatment at work Par`cipa`on in decision making Recruitment and selec`on Reward Table 19: Strongly agree/agree there is fair treatment Age 85.5% 79.7% Disability 83.8% 77.4% Ethnicity 84.1% 82.6% Gender 82.6% 76.8% Gender identity 76.5% 70.7% Nationality 84.1% 82.7% Pregnancy and maternity 76.5% 68.9% Religion/belief 83.8% 79.5% Sexual orientation 80.9% 75.6% 15