Category: Career opportunities and development

By Marcus Munafò

Marcus is Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor of Research Culture at the University of Bristol. He leads on research culture activity across the university, providing direction and vision, working across the institutional landscape, and identifying key challenges and opportunities. He is also institutional lead for the UK Reproducibility Network.

Over the years, the University of Bristol (like many institutions) has worked hard to address staff concerns about fixed term and hourly paid contracts. As a signatory of the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers, it has made significant progress in moving many of its researchers onto open-ended contracts with fixed funding, going from a peak of 62% of researchers on fixed-term contracts in 2014-2015 to 20% in 2023-2024.

Making further progress has required innovative thinking with a range of initiatives employed to reduce the uncertainty inherent in the academic career path, including career development support and promotion for Research Associates and Senior Research Associates, support for career transition to independence beyond early career through initiatives like Bristol Clear, exploring new ideas for retaining and developing research talent, as well as targeted use of University fund (e.g., piloting a career development fund for researchers), reviewing and improving the institution’s academic promotions framework at all stages in the academic career path, and focusing on providing researchers with the skills and development opportunities they need to transfer to core roles, to enable them to make sustainable employment choices.

Institutions also encounter distinct yet comparable challenges in supporting their teaching staff. Since 2019, the University of Bristol has decreased its reliance on hourly-paid teaching staff (Teaching Support Roles) in favour of more secure fixed-term contracts. Clearly progress has been made. But no one institution has been wholly successful in addressing the challenges that uncertainty of employment brings for academic colleagues and their institutions. In many ways Bristol is ahead of the majority of the sector, but we need to go further to challenge the underlying causes of this problem and find the innovative solutions that can help ensure that academic careers are increasingly secure and rewarding for future generations.

It was in that spirit that we held an event in July on “understanding precarity”, intended to foster an honest and constructive debate to identify potential solutions to a range of challenges collectively described as precarity. As noted, the word “precarity” cannot capture the subtle but important distinctions between, for example, contract status (zero hours, fixed term, open ended) and source of funding (core, external), and the event began with a discussion of what these terms mean and why they matter.

Whilst an open ended contract with external funding offers important benefits over a fixed term contract, it still brings the fundamental problem of a burning fuse – the funding will run out on a specified date, bringing a redundancy process. This issue is harder for universities to address because the problem is baked into how funding is awarded (primarily for research) and how it is used (on a specific project that then ends). This is distinct from core funding (e.g., income from students, REF-related funding, etc.), which is more predictable.

What can we do? Longer grants, and therefore longer periods of external funding, do not change the fundamental problem of a burning fuse (i.e., a fixed end date to funding) and also – given a fixed amount of available funding – would mean fewer grants and positions. The discussion was intended to generate proposals that could either be considered internally by the University, or proposed to organisations such as UKRI and other research funders. The goal was to co-produce potential solutions with those directly affected by precarity. The discussion, whilst often robust, was always constructive and positive.

Below are brief summaries of some of the themes and proposed solutions that emerged from the discussions. It is important to note that these are preliminary ideas intended to stimulate discussion and the further exploration of any ideas that may be tractable. In all cases, the pros and cons of each proposal will need to be considered, including any potential EDI impacts (positive and negative). In some cases, the proposal is not entirely within the gift of the University and may require discussion with, for example, funders to explore whether it could be workable.

It’s important to note that fixed term contracts will never be eliminated completely simply because in some cases (such as maternity cover) these are entirely necessary. Consequently, all of the proposals outlined below offer some scope to mitigate precarity further but none of them, alone or in combination, will ever remove it entirely.

Use funding for teaching to extend the funded period

One broad topic of discussion centred around teaching, and how this can be used to support Pathway 2 staff. Whilst funding available for teaching cannot be used to provide additional pay to those on full time contracts, it could in principle be used to extend the funded period. Funders typically have relatively generous terms that allow for a certain amount of teaching by those employed on a grant. However, this would require teaching opportunities to be advertised and allocated fairly, and for teaching to be captured on a workload model (meaning that Pathway 2 staff should be included on those models). Our Teaching Policy for Pathway 2 staff captures some of this, but requires comprehensive workload models at the School level and effective, proactive line management.

Include costs on grants to support a bridging fund

In some Schools and Faculties, “Pool Technician” costs are included on grants, proportionate to the total value, to support technician and other roles critical to the smooth running of facilities and other research infrastructure. Including specific costs for bridging funding could in principle be used to allow Schools or Faculties to have ring-fenced funds to extend the funded period for Pathway 2 grants, for example if they are waiting for a decision on a grant or fellowship. One challenge would be that the funding requested would probably not be used to support staff on that particular grant, but rather other staff whose contracts are coming to an end on other grants. Perhaps more of a challenge is that this would require funder approval and may require discussion with them to be workable, as this isn’t something that is allowed under most funder rules currently. There has been a lot of work ensuring the technician costs (via directly allocated costs) are fully TRAC (Transparent Approach to Costing) compliant, and this would need to happen for this proposal to be viable.

Create a new family of core funded roles

At the micro-level, grant funding is unpredictable – some grants get funded, some don’t. However, at a macro-level our grant income is reasonably stable. In principle, this could be used to underwrite core-funded Pathway 2 roles in specific areas – for example, data science – where the skills can be applied to range of grants across a range of disciplines. Individuals in these roles could be redeployed across Schools and even Faculties to support grants as they were awarded. Discussions indicated that this might be an attractive option for those Pathway 2 researchers who would like to continue to work within a University environment, but do not aspire to being a PI or Professor. In this way, it could complement the “conversion to core” model.

Offer more opportunities for “conversion to core”

Bristol Medical School has been offering a scheme whereby early career researchers can apply for conversion to core – moving to core funding and a Pathway 1 position. This is typically predicated on securing a major personal fellowship, as evidence of longer-term ability to secure grant funding (effectively under-writing part of their own salary). The process is highly competitive and best suited to those aspiring to research independence and an eventual Professorship, but creating mechanisms that allow for this transition could represent an attractive option among a wider mix of possibilities. However, the extent to which this model will work across Schools of varying size and research intensity will need to be explored fully.

Review the existing Pathway structure

The existing Pathway structure was created to offer opportunities for promotion to Professor across teaching-only and research-only careers, as well as the more traditional academic career (i.e., mixed teaching and research). However, currently the mix of open ended and fixed term contracts, and core and external funding, is strongly patterned by Pathway (e.g., Pathway 1 staff are typically core funded on open ended contracts, Pathway 2 externally funded on open ended contracts, and Pathway 3 core funded with a mix of open ended and fixed term contracts). Discussions included creating more flexibility to move across research and teaching roles, and breaking down the hierarchy that implicitly places Pathway 1 at the pinnacle.

Increase the precarity of Pathway 1 staff

Perhaps the most challenging discussion centred on the implicit differences in esteem (and explicit differences in job security) between Pathway 1 and Pathway 2 staff. It is not uncommon – rightly or wrongly – for Pathway 2 staff to feel that they are performing at a higher level than a Pathway 1 colleague next door, but their Pathway 1 colleague has the golden ticket of an open ended, core funded position that effectively means they have a job for life. The lack of movement of Pathway 1 staff created by this (excessive?) job security means that relatively few Pathway 1 positions open up for Pathway 2 staff to apply for. Of course, job security and stability is critical for genuine scholarship, but have we got the balance right? Exploring this will require bravery and trust, but again there are examples of good practice across the University, such as clearly articulating the expectations on Pathway 1 staff, and effective (and supportive) line management.

By Liam Taylor

Liam is Head of Resourcing at the University of Bristol and is responsible for hiring strategy and delivery across the institution.

Liam has previously worked in the energy sector for both the big 6 and the energy regulator, Ofgem in a range of talent focused roles.

The University is committed to the delivery of research and education of the highest quality. Continuity of employment is an important element in achieving this.

Effective reallocation of work and/or redeployment retains valuable skills and knowledge within the University, contributes to the creation of a positive work environment and meets the University’s moral and legal obligations. It should also provide the University with means to achieve a broader skills base and a more flexible workforce in the longer term, whilst accepting the need to create/recruit new skills and talent where appropriate.

What is redeployment?

Redeployment gives employees whose jobs are at risk the chance to find a new job at the University. All organisations have a statutory obligation to provide priority access to new vacancies for employees at risk of redundancy.

Who it applies to and when;

Redeployment applies to employees who are either:

• at risk of redundancy
• needing to be redeployed for a non-redundancy reason

The University Redeployment Pool (URP)

When you’ve been formally notified that your job is at risk, you’ll be added to the university redeployment pool. The pool permits access to our redeployment job board, and visibility of all new job openings before they are advertised more widely.

Changes to the redeployment process

We launched a new process for redeployment at the end of January this year, with two main drivers for this change.

Firstly, feedback from staff told us that the experience of being a redeployee was falling short of our own expectations. Some key themes covered limited access to vacancies, poor support during redeployment and a clinical feel to the redeployment journey.

Operational efficiency was the second factor. The resources required to deliver the pre-31^st January process were too great when compared to the number of individuals who submitted applications. A helpful way to highlight this is the pre-existing matching process, where redeployees would be sent roles deemed relevant to their existing skill set. This generated an application rate of just 3.3% – a figure far too low considering the amount of effort required.

We’re an organisation that takes its responsibilities towards redeployment seriously. The experience of redundancy can be a highly personal and anxiety-inducing experience, often impacting individuals who stay with the University as much as those who leave. In either circumstance, we strive for the experience of redeployment to authentically embody our commitment to mitigating redundancies, rather than an exercise in simply meeting an obligation.

Armed with this goal, the re-designed process has:

• Increased visibility of all new vacancies across the organisation through a new redeployment jobs board, restricted to redeployees. This aims to give individuals a greater degree of control over their redeployment journey through an ability to pursue opportunities outside of their current domain. A wider cross-pollination of skills is valuable for the University and the volume of opportunities for redeployment is increased.
• New dedicated support for staff in the redeployment pool. Our Resourcing Business Partners play an active role in supporting staff to find a new role. This involves providing guidance on policy and individual circumstances and advice on application writing, transferability of skills and interviewing. Our aim is to craft a more human-centred experience for redeployees that fully considers individual needs at each touchpoint and reduces uncertainty wherever possible.
• Improved guidance for redeployment, including information targeted at recruiting managers, outlining their responsibilities in considering applicants from the redeployment pool, the use of trial periods and the assessment of training needs for redeployees to transition successfully into new roles. This information can be found here.

So, have the changes had any impact in the first 6 months? In short, yes. The number of applications through the redeployment process which resulted in successful outcomes has increased to 28%, an increase from 18%. However, it’s still too early to make a full assessment – this will take place with one year’s data in hand, during February 2025. We will look at the core rate of redeployment – the total number of individuals successfully redeployed as a proportion of those put at risk of redundancy, as well as a breakdown by certain staff populations, including Pathway 2.

Redeployment as a process will continue to evolve, and we’ll use our improved data and user experience feedback as the evidence base for future change. We hope that a more iterative approach to change will help us in fine-tuning a process that has great impact on the individual, as much as the institution.