A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF THE CAREER DECISIONS OF ASTROPHYSICISTS: RELOCATION, LIFE-WORK BALANCE, AND REPUTATIONS (ASTROMOVES)

Project Information

ASTROMOVES

Grant agreement ID: 892944

DOI

10.3030/892944

Project closed

EC signature date 11 March 2020

Start date 1 June 2020

End date 29 December 2022

Funded under

• EXCELLENT SCIENCE - Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions

Total cost

€ 224 933,76

EU contribution

€ 224 933,76

Coordinated by

THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
United Kingdom

Periodic Reporting for period 1 - ASTROMOVES (A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF THE CAREER DECISIONS OF ASTROPHYSICISTS: RELOCATION, LIFE-WORK BALANCE, AND REPUTATIONS (ASTROMOVES))

Reporting period: 2020-06-01 to 2022-05-31

Summary of the context and overall objectives of the project

ASTROMOVES is a study of astrophysicists and their mobility, life-work balance, intersectional identity, and career decision-making: How these influence each other is the focus of ASTROMOVES. Of interest, and currently not studied, is if astrophysicists’ decision-making includes perceptions of scientific reputation, reputation of discrimination/bullying, family friendliness & career enhancement, along with how each astrophysicist ranks these. Increasing the number of women and member of underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) is a longstanding EU goal, information on how they are navigating their careers provided by ASTROMOVES can be informative for retention efforts.

To be eligible for this study, scientists needed to have completed their doctorate, finished one postdoctoral position, and completed a second career move post-PhD, this amounted to two career moves post-PhD at the very minimum. For scientists aspiring to have a research career, the standard path is to have two postdoctoral positions before obtaining a permanent position, this can amount to between six and ten years in temporary positions. The second criterion was that the scientist need to be European, have a doctorate from Europe, or have had a position in Europe post-PhD. This is consistent with the European focus of the project as well as gathering information on how living and working in Europe influenced their careers. With both criteria, if they wanted to be part of the project they were not turned away.

Work performed from the beginning of the project to the end of the period covered by the report and main results achieved so far

The COVID-19 global pandemic significantly slowed down data collection in terms of interviews, the interview protocol was redesigned to use the Zoom platform for interviews with autotranscription. The expectation was that all 50 interviews would be completed during the first 6 months of the project, instead only 4 interviews were completed during that time, and slightly more than 30 interviews were completed by the end of the 1st year of the project. Another effect of COVID was that the interviewees talked in detail about how the Pandemic was affecting their lives and their emotional well-being, opening up another line of inquiry in relation to emotional and mental health.

I completed 36 workshops, trainings and professional development sessions online during the 1st year of the project and a Senior Leadership course.

The major findings for career decision making is that the first position post PhD if they have options, they will choose the best scientific fit and are more open to going abroad. For the second position - they tend to have formed romantic relationships and/or started families, thus the second move tends to be a family decision with possible geographic limitations. When asked about if their intersectional identities effected their careers and how they navigated their careers, most answered ‘yes’. There was some avoidance of places that were known for bad social environment (toxic), harassment and racism, but very few of those interviewed mentioned these. Recording emotions was important to contextualise their experiences and most felt some level of annoyance, anger and resentment about not having control of their own futures, having to move so much and low pay. Mental health emerged in conjunction with COVID but mental health and physical safety emerged for those that have experienced being stalked. Females were more likely than males to have been unemployed and/or on unemployment since obtaining their doctorate. Most of the scientists interviewed are married with their own homes. Most of the scientists interviewed admit to having some imposter syndrome, most have considered leaving the research track – some as early as while still doing their PhD, and most had been warned that obtaining a permanent job can be a long process and not guaranteed. Those that have permanent positions had two or more postdoc positions prior to getting their permanent position. Heterosexual women and those that identify as LGBTIA have held slightly more positions abroad than heterosexual men.

ASTROMOVES results were 5 presentations, 2 invited talks and 1 keynote at women in space conferences; 4 colloquium/seminar talks in the USA/Europe/UK. Documentary film clips were shown in 4 colloquium/seminars and at 1 planetary science conference

Progress beyond the state of the art and expected potential impact (including the socio-economic impact and the wider societal implications of the project so far)

The evidence of impact of ASTROMOVES started with the data collection. When I presented preliminary results to astrophysics audiences, more astrophysicists would volunteer to be interviewed for the project. Different from snowball sampling, the astrophysicists recommended themselves rather than others. This can be interpreted to mean that they felt that they had something significant to add to ASTROMOVES while at the same time trusting that their interviews would be interpreted with care. ASTROMOVES paid particular attention to intersectional identities including gender-sex identities. It may be the first study of astrophysicists that have a large enough population of LGBTQIA members to do some comparing and contrasting, though the statistical comparisons done did not yield significant differences between the three gender-sex populations. ASTROMOVES does include members of underrepresented groups including Eastern Europeans, people of African, Middle Eastern and Asian descent, those that identify as Mixed, people no longer doing research, adoptees and those from lower socioeconomic classes. These are represented in ASTROMOVES but not in enough numbers to do statistical comparisons. The intersectional identities that emerged from the research and were not intentionally selected are the adoptees. The majority of interviewees are middle class men of European descent which is reflective of the astrophysics community, but ASTROMOVES has a lower ratio.

Similarly, those that have seen drafts of the ASTROMOVES films already have requested that copies be made available for them to use as part of classroom teaching. The films are designed to reach audiences in high school and older. It can be inferred that audience members find value in the films and that they are a good teaching resource. As the other films are completed, I will make them available for classroom use as well.

The precarity and financial vulnerability of women scientists stood out. During COVID matters were worse, since several women ended up unemployed as job searches were frozen or abandoned. In contrast, several men spoke about how they were given opportunities to continue to work until they were able to secure their next position. Thus, the men had opportunities to bridge what would have been a gap in employment and possibly unemployment. Some men did become unemployed but proportionately women were more likely. As an actionable item, departments should be conscious that such bridging opportunities are offered equally to men, women and LGBTQIA members.

One theory is that scientists that do not have a strong sense of belonging and/or suffer from Impostor Syndrome are more likely to leave the research career track. However, this was not true for the ASTROMOVES population, rather the most cited reasons were to remain in the same place geographically and/or to have a higher salary, a third was to have reasonable work hours but this was not mentioned as many times as the first two reasons. There is not a clear action item, rather a comment on the long-term impact of belonging not being a predictor of resilience

astromovestitle-001.jpeg