Invisible and uncertain: postdoctoral researcher careers in Irish universities

ABSTRACT

In an Irish Higher Education (HE) context the careers of postdoctoral researchers (PDRs) have received little research attention. Within the international HE policy context they are positioned as important contributors to Higher Education Institutions’ (HEIs) mission to be engines of the ‘knowledge economy’. Yet, despite their importance to HEIs, PDRs experience uncertain career paths and challenging workplace conditions. This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of the working lives of PDRs in Irish HEIs. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 postdoctoral researchers. Interviews explored their pathways to employment, work practices, relationships and conditions in the workplace and the challenges and opportunities experienced. Complex and conflicting ideologies surround the role of PDRs in Irish HEIs. Though largely positive about their work practices, their lives are framed by fluid contractual relations that impact personal and family life and their career advancement. This study adds to the limited research on the working lives of postdoctoral researchers in Irish HEIs and contributes to the wider debate on best practice in postdoctoral employment. Suggestions are offered for how career development within HEIs might be enhanced for those who pursue a career as a researcher in academia.

Keywords:

• Postdoctoral researchers
• researcher careers
• Irish higher education
• researcher employment

Introduction

Across Europe, postdoctoral researchers (PDRs) work in a policy context that positions them as important contributors to the mission of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to be engines of the ‘knowledge economy’, by promoting entrepreneurship, innovation, knowledge generation and transfer (European Union 2014). In Ireland, since the 1990s, development of the knowledge economy has seen significant financial investment in research and development (R&D). This has expanded the researcher workforce required to conduct funded research. Between 2005 and 2018 the proportion of researchers in the workforce has risen from 5.9–11.6 per 1000 [EU28 average = 8.8]. In the same period, the number of (full-time equivalent) researchers has increased from 11,587–25,265; with an increasing proportion located in HEIs, from 4,440–12,421 (OECD 2020, 16, 17, 56).

Against this growing researcher workforce, some research and policy discourse has pointed to problematic issues that surround the careers and livelihoods of those who embark on a ‘career’ as a researcher in a HEI (Busso and Rivetti 2014; Chen, McAlpine, and Amundsen 2015; Dear 2010; Van der Weijden et al. 2016; Vitae 2019; Woolston 2020). The careers of PDRs in HEIs have been framed within discourses of: precarious employment (Bozzon et al. 2017; Herschberg, Benschop, and van den Brink 2018); gender disparity (Reynolds et al. 2018); problematic work-life balance (Bozzon et al. 2017; Nielsen 2017); and within critical management studies of inequalities in institutional recruitment and selection processes (Herschberg, Benschop, and van den Brink 2018).

Irish research studies on academic employment conditions and precarity have included postdoctoral researchers, though data on PDRs tends not to be disaggregated (Clarke, Kenny, and Loxley 2015; Courtois and O’Keefe 2015; Ivancheva, Lynch, and Keating 2019). Recent research that focuses on PDRs includes Ma’s (2021) preliminary study and that of O’Connor (2022) that included 13 STEM staff in one Irish HEI, 10 of whom were researchers. Both studies highlight exclusionary and exploitative practice in the employment of PDRs in Irish HEIs. Outside the Irish context, what we know about PDR careers has been documented relatively recently (Auriol 2013; Bozzon et al. 2017; Christian, Larkins, and Doran 2022; Diamond et al. 2014; Herschberg, Benschop, and van den Brink 2018; Skakni et al. 2019; Van der Weijden et al. 2016; Vitae 2019; Woolston 2020).

We suggest that in the Irish HE context, there is much more to be known about the lives and careers of PDRs – particularly those employed on fixed-term and continuing contracts of employment. This small-scale qualitative interview study of 10 PDRs in Irish HEIs aimed to gain deeper insight into their working lives and careers. It explored their pathway to becoming a postdoctoral researcher, their day-to-day working lives and the barriers and opportunities they experienced. We begin with a discussion of the policy and research literature about postdoctoral researcher careers. This is followed by an outline of the study design and methods. We then discuss the findings and implications for policy, practice, and future research.

Literature review

In 2000 the European Research Area (ERA) was established to support the free movement of researchers, scientific research and technology throughout Europe. The ERA sought to position ‘Europe [as] the most dynamic and competitive knowledge economy in the world by 2010’ [European Commission 2000]. The 2009 Lisbon Treaty formally introduced the ERA and facilitated the EU to adopt legislation that would enforce member states to implement the ERA. The investment in R&D required to achieve the ERA’s goals has generated a workforce of researchers to carry out funded research, both within HEIs and in industry. Member States were provided with a Roadmap (2015-2020) for the development of national implementation plans for the ERA agreed policy areas, including researcher development (European Union 2015). In 2021, the ERA Policy Agenda 2022–2024 continued to place emphasis on the promotion of attractive and sustainable research careers (European Commission 2021).

European R&D policy initiatives have been reflected in Irish national policies across the last two decades, from Building Ireland’s Knowledge Economy (Forfás 2004) to Impact 2030, Ireland’s Research and Innovation Strategy (DFHERIS 2022). Successive policy documents emphasise knowledge and technology transfer from academia to enterprise; the need to increase the number of researchers; researcher mobility; and the establishment of clear career paths for researchers both within and external to HE. In particular, ‘Pillar Four: Talent at the heart of the research and innovation ecosystem’ delineated in Impact 2030 (DFHERIS 2022) proposes five ‘initiatives’. Two of these are focused on ‘support for career building’ and the facilitation of researchers’ transition into non-higher education sectors through skills and training that transcend specific knowledge domains. This stance aligns with the perspective presented in the 2021 DFHERIS HE research review document. Moreover, Impact 2030 aspires to foster a research community that is more socially representative. It envisions initiatives like Athena Swan and the Higher Education Authority's access programmes as viable pathways towards this end. Though paradoxically, after almost two decades of R & D policy, there is now a renewed focus on understanding the relationship between the supply and demand of researchers. This includes those with doctoral degrees and those without, across various sectors. This shift in attention is evidenced by the discussions presented in the DFHERIS (2021, 7, 2022, 43) documents.

While the policy discourse encourages doctorate holders to transition out of academia (Neumann and Tan 2011; Van der Boon et al. 2018), they remain important as research employees within HEIs (Dear 2010; Diamond et al. 2014). In a number of countries, for example, the UK, Italy and the US, the number of contract research positions within HEIs has increased in both absolute and relative terms vis-à-vis tenured academic positions (Bozzon et al. 2017; Cantwell 2011; Dear 2010). Therein, due to ‘the neo-liberalisation and projectification of academia’ (Herschberg, Benschop, and van den Brink 2018, 309) they find themselves positioned within ‘entrepreneurial and market-like modes of production’ as a cost-effective and skilled workforce (Cantwell 2011, 111). While HE policy fora, such as the League of European Universities (LERU) and Vitae, continue to emphasise sustainable careers for researchers (Van der Boon et al. 2018; Vitae 2019), there is evidence that the HE sector lags behind industry and other non-academic employment in terms of job security and career advancement (Dear 2010; Nature 2021).

PDRs in HEIs are often framed as part of a precarious workforce, characterised by fixed-term contracts, part-time work and poor pension and leave provision (Bozzon et al. 2017; Dear 2010; Herschberg, Benschop, and van den Brink 2018; RIA 2018; Woolston 2020). Though policy fora do identify the responsibilities of various stakeholders to promote sustainable research careers (Van der Boon et al. 2018; Vitae 2019), the emphasis tends to be placed on responsibilising HEI researchers to develop themselves to avail of opportunities to work outside of academia (IUA 2019). The Irish Universities Association (IUA) considers that as the majority of HEI researchers will continue their careers outside of academia that emphasis should be placed developing researchers’ competencies for employment outside of HEIs (IUA 2019). As remarked on above, this is a view echoed by the most recent policy position on the role and work of PDRs in Irish HEIs (DFHERIS 2022).

The ERA objective of an open labour market for researchers calls for transparency and fairness in the recruitment and employment practices of researchers (European Union 2015). In response, the Irish Universities Association has developed a postdoctoral career framework (IUA 2019) in which a researcher career in a HEI is defined as fixed-term and a process of professional development. Notwithstanding that Ireland has signed up to the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers (European Commission 2005), which emphasises sustainable research careers, contradictorily, the IUA career framework includes a final stage of ‘termination’: to be ‘handled clearly and positively’.

In addition to the shortcomings in PDRs’ terms and conditions of employment, there is a lack of clarity about their role within HEIs and where they are positioned relative to other employees such as technical, administrative and academic staff (Åkerlind 2009; Dear 2010). Postdoctoral researchers engage in a wide range of non-research activities that include teaching, committee membership, tutoring, supervision and administration. Although they develop a wide range of academic skills beyond their researcher role, institutional recognition of their wider contribution remains absent (Åkerlind 2009; Ma 2021). While teaching and supervision are identified as non-research roles undertaken by PDRs, such responsibilities are not always granted to them (Woolston 2020). Consequently, they may experience challenges in developing their profile for a future lecturing career (Chen, McAlpine, and Amundsen 2015).

The autonomy and flexibility that often accompanies the postdoctoral role is valued by researchers and early career academics (Bozzon et al. 2017; Dear 2010; Nielsen 2017; Reynolds et al. 2018; RIA 2018; Woolston 2020). Nonetheless, the ‘opaque and unclear’ career paths of PDRs in HEIs can function as push factors that result in a loss of investment and expertise to the institution and wider society (Nielsen 2017, 146). Higher education institutions understand the benefits that doctoral graduates can bring in terms of skills, knowledge and prestige when they are recruited (Diamond et al. 2014) but, once they are in the system, less attention is paid to retaining the assets acquired (Dear 2010). When PDRs are recruited on a project basis, consideration is given only to what they bring to a defined project, rather than beyond it, with little regard to their overall career development (Herschberg, Benschop, and van den Brink 2018; Woolston 2020). Furthermore, while some research stresses the short-term and precarious nature of postdoctoral careers, there is less attention to those who do spend years as PDRs, with a degree of job security, but without a defined career path or promotional prospects (Dear 2010; Van der Weijden et al. 2016).

Insecure terms and conditions of employment for PDRs are often experienced at a time in the lifespan that has been described as the ‘rush hour of life’ (Baader et al. 2017, 279) when, for both women and men, decisions about family formation come to the fore (Ecklund and Lincoln 2016). Short-term contracts, lack of maternity/parental leave, pressure to engage in international mobility, and the costs of housing can all impact on their ability to achieve positive work and family life conditions (Baader et al. 2017; Bozzon et al. 2017; Chen, McAlpine, and Amundsen 2015; Nielsen 2017; Reynolds et al. 2018; RIA 2018; Van der Weijden et al. 2016).

Researchers’ work, and their responses to it, can generate feelings of ambiguity about their role. Postdoctoral and early career researchers report favourably on independence, autonomy and flexibility, such as being able to work from home, balance child-care responsibilities and having the opportunity to immerse themselves in their research (Bozzon et al. 2017; Nielsen 2017; Reynolds et al. 2018). Yet, these positive dimensions can generate feelings of guilt when decisions are made about balancing mobility and family life (Chen, McAlpine, and Amundsen 2015) and when autonomy and flexibility lead to self-exploitation (Bozzon et al. 2017). Furthermore, although there is policy emphasis on building the capacity of researchers for self-development (IUA 2019; Van der Boon et al. 2018; Vitae 2019), the nature of research is such that ‘self-awareness is at the bottom of the list’ (Dear 2010, 266).

This brief review of literature highlights the challenges facing PDRs in HEIs and underlines the gap between European policy rhetoric and national realities with regard to researcher careers. It would seem that this group of workers in higher education exists in a national and supranational context of declared strategic importance, while at the same time lacking a defined status as employees, with uncertain prospects for career structure and stability. While there has been extensive research on Irish higher education academics (Clarke, Kenny, and Loxley 2015; Courtois and O’Keefe 2015; Harford 2018; Ivancheva, Lynch, and Keating 2019; Lynch et al. 2020; O’Connor 2020), apart from the recent work of Ma (2021) and O’Connor (2022), there has been little specific focus on postdoctoral researchers. In addition, there has been considerable attention to precarious employment practices in Irish HEIs, with PDRs often included in such analyses. Such research has not fully considered those PDRs who are not characterised as precarious employees by virtue of fixed term or continuing contracts of employment. For this reason, this group merits attention.

Research design

Although postdoctoral researchers’ lived experiences of their working lives were central to the inquiry, we recognised that the study would involve a dialogue between the participants and us that would allow for an interpretation of our own experiences and understandings of the topic. Thus, a qualitative design underpinned by constructivism (Crotty 1998) was employed to examine the following research question:

How do postdoctoral researchers in Irish Higher Education Institutions experience their work life?

While a constructivist approach was beneficial to informing the topic and the conduct of the interviews, it was also important to reflect on the potential power imbalance between the researchers and participants. At the time of the study, neither author was involved in the supervision of a postdoctoral researcher but had prior experience of such a role. One of the authors had employment experience as a HEI and industry researcher of more than one and a half decades. The other author spent five years as a researcher in HEIs and local government at the start of their academic career. We did not consider that the interviews were influenced by a power imbalance due to our status as permanent HEI employees, one as an academic and the other as a researcher. Moreover, we were conscious of ensuring that in the interview participants would feel comfortable about describing their working lives as a result of our openness and acknowledgment of our backgrounds and experiences.

Methods

A semi-structured interview guide was developed, informed by key issues from the review of literature and our own experiences. It worked as a flexible tool to guide the study and to capture participants’ varying experiences and circumstances. It spanned: terms and conditions of employment, everyday work practices, relationships and conditions in the workplace, work-life balance, and career aspirations.

Sampling and recruitment

Participants were recruited through the authors’ personal networks and through snowball sampling. Approval was obtained from the Ethics Research Committee of the School of Education, Trinity College Dublin.

Our 10 participants were PDRs who, at the time of interview, had experience as a researcher in an Irish higher education institution of between 3 and 12 years. Table 1 presents their demographic characteristics.

Table 1: Participant characteristics.

ID	Gender	Nationality	Discipline	Year awarded PhD	When first PDR	Age
PDL1	Female	Irish	Physiotherapy	2013	2012	Not Given
PDL2	Male	Irish	Engineering	2007	2008	39
PDL3	Female	Irish	Sociology	2006	2007	38
PDL4	Female	EU	Food Science	2011	2010	35
PDL5	Female	EU	Psychology	2011	2012	32
PDL6	Female	Irish	Music	2010	2011	34
PDL7	Female	Irish	Biology	2006	2007	37
PDL8	Female	Irish	Genetics	2009	2008	43
PDL9	Female	EU	History	2015	2016	35
PDL10	Male	Irish	Chemistry	2001	2005	45

Procedure and analysis

Interviews were conducted face-to-face, with one via Skype, and lasted from one hour to one hour and 45 min, the average being one hour. All were digitally audio-recorded and fully transcribed verbatim. Analysis was a reflexive and iterative process and commenced with the digital audio-recording of each interview and contemporaneous note-taking (Halcomb and Davidson 2006). Transcripts were managed in NVivo qualitative data management software where the first stage of analysis involved a process of deductive content analysis to identify first-level themes from within the interview topics. These first-level themes were then subjected to an inductive process. This involved inspection of the text associated with the first level themes and further questioning of the associated text. This process was both generative and reductive. It resulted in three main themes and a number of sub-themes (Table 2).

Table 2: Themes and sub-themes.

	Theme	Sub-themes
(1)	Terms and conditions of employment	Vagueness Uncertain career trajectories
(2)	Balancing personal and professional lives
(3)	Survival Strategies	Collaboration or collusion Re-evaluation or reinvention

Findings

Terms and conditions of employment

Vagueness

The interviews sought background contextual information on PDRs’ employment terms and conditions. As it happened, this topic was interspersed throughout the narratives of their working lives. Terms and conditions of employment thus functions as an overarching theme, with sub-themes of ‘vagueness’ and ‘uncertain career trajectories’. At the start of their employment, terms and conditions were vague but, over time, this revealed the liminality of their position within HEIs’ organisational structures. When commencing a postdoctoral research contract, participants did so with enthusiasm. They were keen to do more research and to build their profile but soon became aware of the uncertainty that surrounded their employment. They reported having little clarity about their role, pay scale, opportunities for promotion, or about their duties, particularly in the context of teaching and in the supervision of postgraduate students. They recognised that teaching and supervision could be helpful for their CVs and for moving to an academic post. While some were involved in teaching and supervision, for others who wanted to gain teaching experience, this was confined to laboratory practical classes:

I was seeking teaching to get the opportunity to gain experience in teaching, because I was told that during my interviews that I have no teaching experience. And I really specifically at the beginning of my contract asked if I can get teaching roles. But they offered me only laboratory teaching and stuff which I didn’t see it as beneficial to me to progress from post doc to lecturing post. (PDL 2)

The PDRs applied for new grants whilst being funded from their current grant. They needed to be mindful of future employment, so they carried out these activities without formal recognition from their employer that this was part of their role. Their involvement in teaching, supervision and grant applications was akin to ‘moonlighting’. While most jobs accommodate a degree of flexibility, funders audit projects to ensure that they are being delivered in line with the terms and conditions of the award. However, one participant, in explaining their involvement in grant applications, questioned whether funders were aware that PDRs were involved in tasks unrelated to the funded project:

My funders, the people that pay my salary, they fund me to research; you know I’m funded 100% research. I probably should be working 100% research and I’m not … I’d say I’m working maybe 60% research and 40% other stuff, that would just come across my desk or you would be asked to do. Yeah so I’m sure the funders wouldn’t be too happy. (PDL 3)

Vagueness around the terms and conditions of PDRs’ employment is also demonstrated when they talk about pay scales as an ‘imaginary pathway’ (PDL 3). While the Irish Universities Association provides sample pay-scales for researchers, these are not mandated. For those PDRs involved in ‘grant writing their next job’ and those with continuous employment with the same HEI, it was a matter of selecting a pay level that the grant could bear. If successful, this could result in a pay increase or decrease.

Vagueness around terms and conditions of employment was exemplified through their accounts of the nature of their work. Though employed in a research-only role, their work activities were on par with academic staff: they taught, supervised postgraduate students, researched, published, sought funding and undertook administrative duties, but this work had no formal recognition within organisational human resource policies. Furthermore, unlike other academic, administrative and technical staff in the HEI, there were no formal promotion pathways for PDRs:

We’re not permanent – both the admin and the academic are permanent, pensionable members of staff and I guess the organisation invests in them and expects them to progress in their careers and then there’s ‘US’, so I suppose we ‘muddle through’ and you kind of make up your own career progression pathway but it’s not official and you’d make up your own training needs … get funding for it and just toddle along and do it but nobody’s asking you to. (PDL 3)

Other aspects of their employment conditions reinforced the liminal nature of PDRs’ position. Though they experienced inclusion within their immediate research group/team, or with a mentor, this was less so at department, school or faculty level. For PDL 10, who had worked in a HEI as a PDR for over a decade, researchers were ‘second-class citizens at every level’. He noted that despite their large numbers in his institution, they were absent from key organisational committees. This lack of inclusion was illustrated by PDR accounts of being treated not as an employee but more like a student or trainee. They spoke of having to ‘hot desk’, not having authority over their own grant and not being included in school or departmental meetings:

[you are] essentially a temporary person, you’re not a cog in the large scheme of things because the idea is that you bring in a grant, you work on your project for however many years it is and then it’s over. So you’re not considered effectively part of the department because you’re not part of their long-term plan. (PDL 9)

They do gain from US but it’s not how you feel when you’re there, d’you know. Em you just feel not really part of the institution, you know that you’re funded by the funders and your research is, your job is to do with the research. So you do it, you don’t really feel part of the institution. (PDL 3)

Uncertain career trajectories

The PDRs’ accounts depicted uncertain career trajectories: whether as researchers on fixed-term contracts or those with continuing employment in the same HEI. This presented professional and personal dilemmas. After eight years of postdoctoral employment in the same HEI, PDL 3 felt directionless:

When you’re there for a good long time like you’re not, you don’t know where you’re going and there’s no, there’s not really much career support or supervision, you know, help, to get to where you want to go. You have to figure it out as you go. (PDL 3)

PDL 2 had been employed on multiple research contracts and acknowledged his uncertain future as a PDR, but was doing his utmost to position himself for an academic job or another postdoc position. Taking an alternative and more certain career path in industry was no longer an option, as his experience as a PDR had been varied and lengthy. He would be relegated to the bottom of the ladder in an industry job.

For PDL 5, working as a PDR in a HEI amounted to being in ‘limbo’:

… kind of like a pool of people that are nowhere between jobs, without jobs because the way the postdoc is structured at {name of HEI} we’re ‘trainees’. So we’re technically trainees for six years of a postdoc training. (PDL 5)

An uncertain career trajectory impacted decision-making about important personal life events, such as buying a house, and family formation. For PDL 9 being a postdoc was ‘horrible in terms of life stages’:

For a woman it’s a little bit of a nightmare because you find yourself actually evaluating funding opportunities on the basis of whether you’ll be able to get pregnant in that position. (PDL 9)

PDL 10 described housing security as a problem faced by researchers on short-term contracts. This experience was illustrated clearly in the account of PDL 4, who had been applying for lecturing positions, but without any success, and was fearful of a future in which she would be house sharing and single:

It’s very hard, you can’t get a mortgage, the pay is terrible. So you know like I’m still sharing, and I don’t want to be in my 50s and still sharing. (PDL 4)

A fixed-term PDR position made planning one’s future difficult. This in turn impacted relationships and living situations:

I don’t know where I’m going to be next year … I can’t plan that. I mean I have a house in Dublin, I have a partner in Dublin, but I can’t guarantee anyone that I’ll actually be in Ireland next year because I don’t know if I’ll be able to get funding here. So it’s a continuous dialogue with family about what might happen next year or where I might get the next grant from or what are we going to do in the event of that (PDL 9)

Balancing personal, family and postdoctoral lives

Participants emphasised the importance of maintaining a balance between their professional and personal lives, but their employment conditions could make this difficult. They described intensive work practices from their PhD days, with long hours and weekend work, that transferred to their research job. These capacities were perceived positively: PDRs could handle extra activities like teaching and the pressure of research and publication deadlines. Nonetheless, such practices impacted negatively: work spilled over into personal and family time. For PDL 4, her intensive work practices and response to pressure were at the expense of having a social life and a relationship:

I am a workaholic so in that sense you know like I’m also myself a little bit to blame. But you know like it also kind of postdoc it’s you know kind of expects people to do long hours, . . . I’m still single and I find it hard to meet people and to do things, even with my friends, . . . I think yeah it is interfering with my personal life, definitely and, em, and I think not everyone understands it either, you know, sometimes I have to cancel drinks or whatever because you have to finish something (PDL 4)

This scenario was not the case for all PDRs: some had developed an agreeable work-life balance. PDL 3, while she disliked her ambiguous terms and conditions of employment, regarded her work-life balance positively. She liked the flexibility of her job; being able to choose hours to suit childcare responsibilities and to work from home:

They’re accommodating and they understand that people with kids can’t work late, although you do end up working late lots but you bring it home and work late from home d’you know. … from a day to day point of view the job works well. It’s a really interesting job and I really like my job.. . . Em but it doesn’t have a future because there’s no career pathway. (PDL 3)

Postdoctoral research awards often stipulate international mobility. Some participants reflected on this in the context of the impact on their family lives. PDL 7 remarked that mobility was not the ‘shiny reward it’s made out to be’, rather:

Chances are if you’re at that age you have one of a mortgage, a partner, a child, several children, an elderly parent. If you have any one of those things you can’t, you’re not mobile. (PDL 7)

PDL 7’s assessment on mobility is put into relief by PDL 2’s account. He had spent two years commuting between Ireland and another EU state whilst trying to support his family in Ireland:

I used to commute but it’s very difficult from the point of view that, I every week I have to leave the kids here and my wife she has to struggle from Monday to Thursday with them on her own and then when I’m here, I have to focus on them. So there’s lots of pressure. In the beginning it was exciting it was new and I found it really kinda novel but then, the whole commute it started taking toll. (PDL 2)

Although PDL 6 had benefited professionally from international mobility, she remained circumspect about how some research funders ‘privileged mobility’. Similarly, PDL 8 felt that international mobility did not really account for gender dynamics, as we have seen also in the circumstances of PDL 2, and was problematic when it was a requirement:

I mean it goes into the gender issue, you’re going to lose families, you’re going to lose people with dual careers, where one person can’t leave the country and you’re expecting. (PDL 8)

Survival strategies

Collaboration or collusion

The PDRs’ accounts of their working lives provided insight on how they responded to the challenges of their role. For all participants, there was a realisation of the need to be strategic; yet, this was not straightforward. Participants made frequent references to the need for ‘saying no’ but simultaneously acknowledged that this was not always possible as ‘saying yes’ to an offer to write a grant application, teach, or write a paper, even if not the lead author, could help progress their career:

I used to say ‘No’ a lot. And then in terms of my CV, my CV is purely research and that’s not going to get you anywhere. So you need the academic admin and you need the supervision, you need the teaching if you’re to get an academic post. So I suppose I’m seeking out, at this point I’ve reversed that ‘saying no’ policy. (PDL 3)

Yes, probably, yeah I mean it’s ‘collaborate or die’ isn’t that what people say! I was kind of one of these people, I don’t want to work with lots of people, but I want to work with some really good people. So I’m not willing to just take on loads of stuff and not be able to do any of it or not be able to do it right. So I’m more interested in developing strategic collaborations with people, either in areas of work that I’m interested in or in a university that I’m interested in. I would like to stay here and I only have a contract for three years so in the back of my mind I’m also thinking ‘these people might be future employers’. (PDL 1)

Other participants elaborated on the implications of taking on work that was not directly related to their research. One of the downsides was a ‘mishmash CV’ (PDL 1) or, as in the case of PDL 9 who took up an administrative position in order to pay the bills is, that ‘people will no longer see you as a researcher’ (PDL 9).

Re-evaluation or re-invention?

Participants highlighted points in their careers when they re-evaluated what it meant to be a postdoctoral researcher and their career direction. Most wanted to gain a lecturing position; however, this was difficult. As they went from research contract to contract, they reflected on their future and on the system in which they worked. PDL 5 spoke of not wanting to be ‘the victim of the system anymore. I don’t want to have those feelings of inertia and personal failure’ and provided an example of another researcher who changed career direction and was much happier as a result. This evaluation allowed PDL 5 to consider her other skills and interests and the possibility to reinvent her career.

PDL 6, after several research contracts and adjunct teaching positions similarly reflected on the nature of the system in which she worked, and the direction of her career.

I have thought about it more – personally what I want out of my working life rather than sort of allying my prospects solely to the research in which I’ve been engaged. Because when I saw how competitive that environment was, how much of a jungle it was, you couldn’t bank on it at all. That’s hard to take if you’ve given so much of your time and your energy and, as a friend of mine said, of your, of a young life as well, is given to something, like it can, you know, it can feel very personal. So I just thought no I can’t sort of marry those two prospects. (PDL 6)

Re-evaluating one’s career meant considering the options that were realistic for them. As seen earlier, PDL 2, could not return to industry as his CV had become too diverse. He had decided that a lecturing job was the only direction to aim for. Yet, over time, as PDL 6 observed, options dry up as a result of decisions taken over the postdoctoral career:

So it’s interesting how you know those personal choices which have, you know, are very independent of what the career trajectory looks like or, you know, where the CV has been to date, em they have, those sort of considerations have formed over time and now they’re sort of less negotiable than they might have been before. (PDL 6)

Discussion

This study aimed to provide insight into the working lives of postdoctoral researchers in Irish HEIs. Irish and European higher education policy frames PDRs as important contributors to HEIs’ knowledge economy mission. They are also important to HEIs for the production of research outputs to maintain HEI international rankings. While some research in other jurisdictions has considered the working lives of PDRs, there has been limited specific attention to this group of workers in Irish HEIs. Thus, this study adds to the Irish higher education policy and research literature on postdoctoral researchers; simultaneously it contributes to the international literature on postdoctoral careers from an Irish context. Transferable learning from both contexts may also contribute to policy formation in the European Research Area for the enhancement of the employment conditions of PDRs.

The PDRs’ terms and conditions of employment infused all aspects of their accounts of their working lives. Postdoctoral researcher employment terms and conditions is a prominent theme across the literature on postdoctoral employment with issues such as short-term contracts, leave entitlements, gender differences in working patterns, and the difficulties of planning one’s future (Diamond et al. 2014; Hardy, Carter, and Bowden 2016; Nielsen 2017; Van der Weijden et al. 2016; RIA 2018; Woolston 2020).

In the present study, similar issues were raised: those on fixed term contracts found it difficult to plan their future and to find opportunities to build their CV. While such issues align with those reported of PDRs elsewhere (Christian, Larkins, and Doran 2022; RIA 2018; UCU 2016; Woolston 2020), our findings provide a nuanced understanding of the personal and professional impact of PDRs’ terms and conditions of employment. Moreover, their liminality within HEIs is reinforced by HR policies that are vague in relation to pay scales, promotion, representation on organisational committees, and the duties of their post. This was the case both for those on fixed-term contracts and participants who had continuing employment with one HEI over several years. Our findings support those of Ma (2021) who highlights the lack of recognition and contribution of PDRs in Irish HEI organisational systems and O’Connor (2022) who draws attention to the impact of informal and exploitative employment practices.

The above issues have become more pronounced with the growing tide of PDRs. In the past they might have expected a pathway into academia and a permanent position, but this is increasingly unlikely (Van der Boon et al. 2018). While HEIs need PDRs to carry out funded research, they do not necessarily want them to stay beyond their contract, as demonstrated in the IUA’s Researcher Career Development and Employment Framework (IUA 2019). Not surprisingly, the main response from HEIs and HEI policy fora to concerns about PDR careers is to emphasise training, skills development and employment for roles outside of academia (IUA 2019; Van der Boon et al. 2018). This response appears to build on the 2011 voluntary EU Researcher Career Development Framework, which identifies four stages of researcher development applicable both inside and outside of academia (European Commission 2011). While on the one hand such a response may seem laudable, on the other, as the only response it detracts attention from the structural inequalities within HEI HR organisational policies and practices (Hardy, Carter, and Bowden 2016; O’Connor 2022).

Furthermore, while the IUA framework may appear attractive to HEIs, as it responsibilises the researcher to engage in training, unlike the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers (European Commission 2005), it fails to address structural issues pertaining to working conditions, stability and permanence of employment and the need for sustainable careers. It may be reasonable to encourage PDRs to find alternative careers or new research positions, but this should not be a zero-sum game; this response also results in shedding the investment in the researcher and their wider and future contribution to the HEI (Dear 2010).

In their working lives PDRs find themselves in a conflicted position, particularly when they try to balance their personal and professional lives. A fixed-term contract generates pressure to take up opportunities that might leverage another position. They are usually well-attuned to working long hours, a legacy from the PhD experience, so have the ability to take on more work (Christian, Larkins, and Doran 2022). Our findings reflect previous research on the challenges for researchers in balancing personal, professional and family relationships (Bozzon et al. 2017; Reynolds et al. 2018).

Despite the particular challenges for those PDRs with fixed-term contracts, those who ‘get stuck’ in the system are also conflicted in their role. Getting stuck, and with the full realisation that they have no prospects of promotion or pay increase, forces them to collude in an unfair system. Yet, conversely, they report favourably on the flexible nature of their work, being able to immerse themselves in research and of being left to their own devices.

To survive in the system, even for a fixed-term period, PDRs had to find ways to address the personal and professional impact of the vagueness and uncertainty of their position. Survival could mean making hard decisions about international mobility. Some questioned the value of international mobility when they discussed the wider impact on family, and the gendered ideology surrounding stipulations for, and assumptions about international mobility. Our findings highlight the gendered nature of international mobility, for both men and for women, and how researchers may choose to resist or to comply (Nikunen and Lempiäinen 2020; RIA 2018).

The participants reported various survival strategies that helped to address their liminal position. They needed to be strategic, particularly when appointed on a fixed-term contract. This could mean taking on extra responsibilities, such as teaching, supervision, or grant writing, which largely went unacknowledged, while simultaneously carrying out their contracted research position. Consistent with Chen et al., (2015), some participants experienced barriers to gaining teaching experience. Although some HEIs may encourage PDRs to engage in teaching and mentoring, this decision is largely left to individual institutions. Where career development opportunities are provided, such as through the Epigeum researcher development programme,¹ the emphasis in on professional development activities such as leadership, funding and collaboration.

PDRs face dilemmas when for the sake of a new employment contract they take a new research direction or an administrative role in order to survive financially when their grant ends. A key concern is the loss of identity as a researcher and their reputation in their chosen field. Such an outcome can result in a ‘scattered research line’ that can impact employment prospects (Herschberg, Benschop, and van den Brink 2018, 309).

Some participants reflected on how decisions taken over the course of their postdoctoral career can stymie their prospects. Over time, options dry up and there is less room to negotiate their future as a researcher. This leads them to re-evaluate what it means to be a researcher or to re-invent themselves. Arguably, for those in this situation, their actions align with the intended strategies of HEIs’ policy for researchers. It is, however, often a slow and stressful route to making such a decision.

The study has some limitations to be considered. It is small-scale and extends to just 10 PDRs employed across seven Irish HEIs and therefore its results are not generalisable to all PDRs in Ireland. It did not include participants from Institutes of Technology (IoT) or Technological Universities (TU). Further research is needed to ascertain postdoctoral employment conditions in these institutions. The majority of participants had a STEM background, which to some extent reflects the dominant source of funding for PDR opportunities. Future studies would benefit from exploring whether the experiences of PDR differ across disciplines. The study did not examine the employment practices of the PDRs’ HEIs. Given the growth in researcher development centres and initiatives, such as Epigeum, future research could examine institutional mechanisms and practices in relation to PDR employment and career development.

Notwithstanding, a novel aspect is that the study highlights not only the experiences of fixed term early career PDRs, but also those employed for a decade or more as a PDR within the same HEI. Little specific research attention has been paid to this group. Moreover, there has been a tendency to depict PDRs as an homogenous group, as a precarious workforce, and combine them in research with academic staff when the situation appears more nuanced than this.

Our study has underlined the considerable negative impact on the professional, personal and family lives of PDRs working in Irish HEIs. An important emergent issue that would merit study in the Irish context is the potential for the pressure to publish and win grants; institutional competitiveness; and uncertain career paths to create the conditions for ‘questionable research practices’ (Christian, Larkins, and Doran 2022) and threats to academic integrity.

Conclusion

In Ireland, the dominant discourse is that PDRs are engaged in career development, ultimately resulting in ‘termination’ and further employment outside of the HEI. We agree that it is important to provide opportunities for PDR career development. Nevertheless, in recent times trades unions have highlighted concerns about researcher employment contracts within the wider context of precarious employment in HEIs, a concern that also embraces positions such as ‘teaching assistants’, ‘teaching fellows’ and ‘tutors’ etc, (IFUT 2020; UCU 2016). Yet, while the issue of precarious employment among PDRs is valid, our study illustrates that, even with a fixed-term or continuing employment in a HEI, HEIs’ HR policies engender inequalities of opportunity when compared with other categories of staff.

There is a significant void and lack of ingenuity in HEI policy and practice in relation to researcher careers. The response so far has been to consider researchers as an homogenous group who simply need training and career advice. A more considered response would be one in which researcher career pathways are defined with terms and conditions of employment that are on par with other categories of staff. This, for example, could mean developing at least a five-year career framework in which researchers can progress into a research-only role; a teaching-only role, a research-administrative role, a research and teaching role or any combination of these. Such a development would require a rethinking of current funding arrangements, but we suggest that such an approach might make for greater transparency in terms of what researchers are funded to do and what they actually do.

To this end, dialogue between HEI funders, policymakers and HEIs is needed. Such action could go some way to addressing the negative impacts of working as a PDR in an Irish HEI. The development of a career framework as outlined above also requires a foregrounding of the importance of affective relations and care work (Lynch et al. 2020), rather than new managerial market-driven responses of higher education. The most recent research strategy of the Irish government, Impact 2030, promises (DFHERIS 2022, 42) – drawing on the language of equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) – that the state will ‘provide stability and consistency across funding programmes so that researchers at all career stages can progress their research interests in a planned and equitable manner’. We hope that this research can make a contribution to the fulfilment of this aspiration.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Michelle Share

Dr Michelle Share is a Senior Research Fellow at the School of Education, Trinity College Dublin and a member of the Cultures, Academic Values in Education Research Centre. She has made contributions to the field of education in research on the PhD viva experience and doctoral writing practices in Irish higher education institutions. She has also collaborated with Trinity’s Centre for Academic Practice, actively facilitating programmes aimed at enhancing higher education practice in Ireland and India.

Andrew Loxley

Professor Andrew Loxley has been in the School of Education Trinity College Dublin since 2002. A sociologist by trade he teaches in the areas of research methodology and education policy. Amongst other activities, he established in 2005 (and still co-ordinates) the professional doctorate in education and has undertaken research and written on doctoral education, higher education policy and the Irish knowledge economy. He previously worked at the University of Leeds, the Open University as a research fellow and Oxford Brookes University also as a researcher.

Notes

1 https://www.epigeum.com/courses/research/research-skills-toolkit/