next »

[cameandwent]

I see the designations "early career" and "early career researcher" bandied about a lot in the UK academic context, particularly on job ads, but I'm not particularly clear on what precisely "early career" means. My sense is that it does not include graduate students (even ABDs, but correct me if I'm wrong), but when do you cease being early career? I've met UK people in my field six years post-PhD with two books in print, and yet they still call themselves early career researchers. Any clarity would be much appreciated!

[britmom]

In a job advert, this will more than likely refer to early career status in the REF (Research Excellence Framework). See here: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2011/02_11/#dl, paragraphs 85 and 86. It can include grad students if you have a job (ie you land a position before finishing your PhD). However, in the current economic climate, the chances of you getting a permanent position without a doctorate is teensy. If you want to stand any chance at getting a job at a UK University, you need to know the ins and outs of the REF.

The research councils also have their own definition of early career research status. Each one has different criteria.

Generally, the important point is how many years someone has been in post (or sometimes how many years since they got their doctorate), rather than how many books they've published.

[britsci]

The research councils also have their own definition of early career research status. Each one has different criteria.

Generally, the important point is how many years someone has been in post (or sometimes how many years since they got their doctorate), rather than how many books they've published.

In my field (sciences), the number of years post-PhD is the deciding factor.  The dividing line is not precise, but I reckon that "early career" includes all but the most long-serving postdocs, and excludes all but the most junior lecturers.

European funding (eg. Marie Curie) sometimes uses a different definition, in which an "early-stage researcher" is one with less than 4 years research in total, i.e., including all PhD students, and an "experienced researcher" is one with more, which can be a source of confusion.

[britmom]

The research councils also have their own definition of early career research status. Each one has different criteria.

Generally, the important point is how many years someone has been in post (or sometimes how many years since they got their doctorate), rather than how many books they've published.

In my field (sciences), the number of years post-PhD is the deciding factor.  The dividing line is not precise, but I reckon that "early career" includes all but the most long-serving postdocs, and excludes all but the most junior lecturers.

European funding (eg. Marie Curie) sometimes uses a different definition, in which an "early-stage researcher" is one with less than 4 years research in total, i.e., including all PhD students, and an "experienced researcher" is one with more, which can be a source of confusion.

Yes, I should add that I'm in the Arts and Humanities. As far as I know, the definition of early career researcher in the REF, however, is the same across all disciplines.

[cayenne]

However, in the current economic climate, the chances of you getting a permanent position without a doctorate is teensy. If you want to stand any chance at getting a job at a UK University, you need to know the ins and outs of the REF.

I'm starting to think that the chances of any junior scholar being submitted to the next REF, period, is teensy. For example I'd like to think my PhD thesis research is 'internationally excellent', but let's face it: would my employer want to risk it?

In my field (sciences), the number of years post-PhD is the deciding factor.  The dividing line is not precise, but I reckon that "early career" includes all but the most long-serving postdocs, and excludes all but the most junior lecturers.

How many years would that be, in your opinion? Just curious.

I've been thinking about the rather imprecise use of 'early career' in my social sciences field lately as well. Your comment about how it generally includes postdocs but not lecturers strikes me as telling; it does sometimes seem to be sign of a failure to launch.

EDIT: Sorry, I should have mentioned that I've been seeing more people in my department going straight from PhD student to lecturer, as opposed to PhD student to postdoc.

[science_expat]

Regardless of these differences, I think BritMom got it right in her first post. Early Career Researcher in a job ad almost certainly means meeting the REF definition for ECR.

Of course, you could always ring HR and ask.

[britsci]

In my field (sciences), the number of years post-PhD is the deciding factor.  The dividing line is not precise, but I reckon that "early career" includes all but the most long-serving postdocs, and excludes all but the most junior lecturers.

How many years would that be, in your opinion? Just curious.

I've been thinking about the rather imprecise use of 'early career' in my social sciences field lately as well. Your comment about how it generally includes postdocs but not lecturers strikes me as telling; it does sometimes seem to be sign of a failure to launch.

Probably less than about 6-8 years post-PhD, one would still count as an 'early career' researcher.  My own vague feeling is that if you are still waiting for your first independent position / tenure-track job / lectureship, and that seems reasonable in terms of your CV & experience etc, you are early-career.

Regardless of these differences, I think BritMom got it right in her first post. Early Career Researcher in a job ad almost certainly means meeting the REF definition for ECR.

Of course, you could always ring HR and ask.

I agree that the only way for the OP to be sure what a specific job ad means is to ring and ask.  The REF definition of 'early career' is limited only to academic staff, rather than research staff like postdocs, which other funders might think of as early-career researchers.

[adamc]

Hey!
I guess I always assumed that where you are in your career depended on how well you think you are doing and where you want to go. For me, I'm exactly where I want to be for the rest of my career, so as soon as I decided that, I stopped defining myself as an early career researcher. I love my job so much, and I like to encourage others who think they may be interested in the social sciences to check out this site (http://obssr.od.nih.gov/index.aspx), which has lots of recent studies that make a very interesting read. Also, if you are thinking about going to school to study social sciences, check out my website (socialsciencedegree.net) for more information about the many schools that offer programs in the social sciences.

[zyzzx]

I agree that the only way for the OP to be sure what a specific job ad means is to ring and ask.  The REF definition of 'early career' is limited only to academic staff, rather than research staff like postdocs, which other funders might think of as early-career researchers.

I am going to resurrect this in hopes of clarification of 'early career' and postdocs for the REF. I've read the REF guidelines (pasted below) and am having trouble with the definition of an "independent researcher." I've been a research only postdoc (not in the UK) since before Aug. 2009. I work largely independently of my supervisor, but I do have a supervisor and am completely dependent on him/his grants for funding and half my salary. He is not an author on at least one of my papers from my postdoc. Does this make me independent? Or does the lack of independent funding and the fact that I have a supervisor make me not independent?

I have a UK interview next week, and would like to be able to talk intelligently about what I could submit for the REF. I do have four outputs to submit, but it seems that the early career designation would let me be a little more flexible and only submit the very best outputs.

who started their careers as independent researchers on or after 1 August 2009. For the purposes of the REF, an individual is deemed to have started their career as an independent researcher from the point at which:

a. They held a contract of employment of 0.2 FTE or greater, which included a
primary employment function of undertaking ‘research’ or ‘teaching and research’, with
any HEI or other organisation, whether in the UK or overseas, and

b. They undertook independent research, leading or acting as principal investigator or
equivalent on a research grant or significant piece of research work. (A member of
staff is not deemed to have undertaken independent research purely on the basis that
they are named on one or more research outputs.)

[science_expat]

Point b is also about whether a person qualifies for the REF - post docs generally don't. If you get a lecturer post than its not an issue.

If you've moving now from a postdoctoral on someone else's grant to a lecturer, you probably are an ECR

[zyzzx]

Point b is also about whether a person qualifies for the REF - post docs generally don't. If you get a lecturer post than its not an issue.

If you've moving now from a postdoctoral on someone else's grant to a lecturer, you probably are an ECR

That is good to hear - I am interviewing for a lectureship, so hoping to move on from being a postdoc.

Thanks!

[wegie]

Zyzzx, the only way I can see that you wouldn't qualify as an Early Career Researcher would be if the other half of your salary was coming from grants that you wrote and on which you were the named principal investigator. Assuming that the half of your salary that isn't coming from your supervisor is from your university/department, you're pretty much certain to qualify as an ECR.

Good luck with the interview!

[suomynona]

I have been trying to figure this out too. From what I understand so far, for REF purposes, ECR status allows you to get 'deductions' from the 4-output threshold expected of non-ECRs. Meaning if you got your first research job, according to zyzzx's posted definition above, between August 1 2009 and July 31 2010, you can qualify for the REF in 2014 by submitting 3 outputs rather than 4. If between those same dates 2010-2011, then you can qualify by submitting 2 outputs. If on or after August 1 2011, by submitting 1 output. So the ECR definition seems to be a way of allowing participation from those who haven't had as much time in a young career to build up to 4 high-quality outputs.

What I wonder is, job market being as it is, will universities go for ECRs when they can still likely find mid-career researchers with 4 solid outputs to pick for submission from among other pubs? I also wonder whether the UK postdocs advertised for ECRs and 'career development' will actually go to those of us who just finished up the PhD and are in dire need of our first career development opportunity.