The qualitative inquiry, in which individual narratives of male and female physicists were collected, provides us with a rich, comprehensive and diversified image of current work environments and work conditions in different European localities of physics. Sociological studies on academic and research work environment usually analyze individual evaluations through the prism of job engagement and organizational commitment. While the first dimension sheds some light on one's devotion to the essential aspects of the work, the latter emphasizes willingness to remain a member of the institution and to contribute to its development. When it comes to the narratives gathered under the framework of GENERA project, the majority of the physicists' evaluations point out high level of job engagement, often correlated with a perception of physics as “hobby”, “passion” and a discipline that has to be accompanied with a personal enthusiasm.
The main challenge related to such engagement concerns blurred and changeable boundaries of the work, often impacting work and personal life reconciliation.
Organizational commitment of the research participants is reviewed in much more diversified way. Due to a growing number of administrative responsibilities (e.g. related to supervising or research grant management), teaching and teaching-related obligations as well as new roles of the researchers (e.g. related to dissemination of the results or leadership), the interviewees often demonstrate nuanced and ambivalent attitudes towards the research institutions they work for. Interestingly here, not all of them express a sense of belonging to the workplace, sometimes scientific collaboration goes beyond a parent research organization due to difficulties in social interactions with colleagues and supervisors.
While talking about their positions, roles and commitment to the workplace, the respondents often underscore a general overload in terms of tasks and responsibilities, an importance of supervisors and leaders in pursuing one's career and a permanent lack of time and resources (especially financial) for conducting inquiry.
Another important dimension of the work environment assessments concerns psychosocial aspects of the workplace, often defined as those related to an appearance and specificity of stress factors, coping strategies in stressful situations and sources of social support. Interesting here is that studies of the psychosocial work environment often try to explain “how job demands and social structures and interactions in the organization influence the psychological well-being of employees”. Such a perspective thus can bind together macro- and meso-levels of social relations and orders with personal and individual facets of the employees' welfare. This way of analyzing the impact of work conditions will be applied to GENERA data.
The following section discusses crucial dimensions of work environments and conditions with special attention given to gender aspects and precariousness of the employment. Structurally this section is divided into a general description of work conditions, an elaboration of the respondents' evaluations of work environments, and an analysis of changing roles of the researchers.
While describing their workplaces, the interviewees focus on several different aspects related to their employment. At the forefront they usually underlined an importance of unlimited accessibility of equipment and financial resources necessary for conducting research, an access to various sources of scientific inspiration (e.g. seminars, workshops, supervision and mentoring), a type of contract and a satisfaction with respect to salary.
The collected reflections, evaluations and opinions can be divided into two separate paths. The first one embraces mainly positive reviews of work conditions whereas the second path concerns critical evaluations regarding their current workplace. What is interesting here is that the latter opinions were more often expressed by female than male researchers. In some regional contexts such negative reflections in this respect were almost absent (e.g. Romanian, Spanish, and German) while in others they dominated to a certain extent the narratives (e.g. Polish). A duality of the evaluations has been revealed in other studies: researchers are often satisfied with their jobs in terms of “intrinsic motivation”, related to the job itself. But they as well express dissatisfaction when it comes to work conditions as “their work environments are getting less favorable under the managerial reforms”. In other words, scientists like their job, but not necessary work conditions available to them. Among advantageous characteristics of the work conditions observed in the GENERA study are:
More critical perspective on working conditions contributes to a discussion on a situation of younger researchers within the academic or scientific worlds. It's worth noting that a fair share of the interviewees was employed on the basis of time-limited contracts. The problem of a lack of stability was noticed in various organizations and regions. Although some of the interviewees admit that they understand a general policy of science institutions to support mobility and knowledge exchange by offering a short-term contract and encouraging physicists to “be on the move”, they also observe ambiguous or disruptive implications of such approach for a family and personal life (read more in Mobility, migration…).
It is emphasized that a post-doctoral period can be particularly challenging when it comes to negative consequences of job security shortage and stress related to it. Similar reflections appear in the realm of PhD students' situations, in which they not always receive sufficient financial support and have access to social benefits during the PhD programme (e.g. in Poland where PhD students are often not employed, young female researchers after giving birth do not have access to full-paid maternity leave) (read more Career paths…). Furthermore, the lack of stability and efforts to gain job stability, can lead to a permanent competition with others in a similar situation.
Other studies have documented different facets of changing academic portrait by showing that “academics under this form of managerialism are fragmented as the university hires part time rather than full time academics, and provides contract based employment rather than tenured positions”. Such a fragmentation may also critically influence on the processes of shaping a collective identity of physicists. Some of the interviewees were hired on the basis of a research grant they applied for.
Critical reflections embrace as well accessibility of office spaces and laboratories and equipment. The problem of underfinancing research organizations and universities not only hampers an individual scientific development, but also hinders knowledge sharing and developing new ideas in a broader sense.
It is worth noting that sometimes the equipment accessibility might be influenced by informal and personal relations. One of the respondents describes her current position in the department through the gender lens and the prism of a conflict with one of the faculty member. According to her, an access to the equipment could be hampered by the discord in the future.
Furthermore, the study demonstrates difficulties in financing research from research organization or university funds. Shortages of financial resources make academics and researchers seek for new potential sources of financial support. The responsibility for assuring research funds is often shifted from an employer to an employee as researchers become primarily responsible for the preparations of grant applications and more generally speaking - for ensuring finances for the inquiry. Such situation may also bring about several other disruptive consequences:
A separate issue emerging in relation to working conditions was flexibility understood as, on the one hand, freedom in shaping one's own research scope, design and implementation and planning a work day, on the other hand as the ability to meet the requirements of the academic labour market (e.g. openness to mobility or frequent change of place of employment). It is worth noting that both aspects were assessed ambivalently. When it comes to the first understanding of flexibility, an individual agency in deciding about e.g. working hours was in many ways highly appreciated as it facilitates work and personal life reconciliation. Positive evaluations were given primarily by parents (mostly mothers).
But, as the latter citation shows, noticing various challenges regarding flexibility of working hours also appears in the narratives. First and foremost, such critical reflections concern unclear and fuzzy boundaries of work life. In such argumentation flexible working schedule sometimes makes that work never ends. According to the respondents, a deep commitment to work, staying longer than officially expected in a workplace, working during weekends and holidays become “a new normal” of excellence in science (cf. Sinderman, 1985).
This new normality of flexibility and overworking at the very same time may also have a negative influence on social relations in a workplace as according to some interviewees researchers start to assess each other in terms of their involvement and presence at work.
The second understanding of flexibility means that a physicist has to adjust his or her career and plans to the academic market, for example by accepting a possibility of changing a workplace after having a short-term contract, being mobile in general (see the section on Mobility, migration…), living in instability in terms of a job contract, a need of self-financing by applying for research grants. Such flexibility most often appears in the realm of younger scholars, for whom post-doctoral programs shape their career paths.
These two understandings of flexibility may influence psychosocial aspects of the physicists' well-being as they were often described as stressors in every-day work life.
The work environment in the report is defined primarily in relation to the main characteristics of social relations, hierarchies and interactions between an employee and an employer, as well as among researchers. It also includes a social atmosphere in the workplace and a presence of the stress factors and their impact on individual well-being. Given the importance of individual well-being for pursuing a career and for work and personal life reconciliation, psychosocial facets of interactions with colleagues and supervisors seem to be crucial. Although the majority of the interviewees support the very idea of collaboration, some of them reveal certain tensions emerging between perceiving a career as something achieved together, through close and intense cooperating with each other, and seeing a career only through individual goals and achievements. It was underscored that in spite of an official demonstration of collaboration, in fact everybody “fights for their own position”.
Such reflections led us to think how physics is perceived by the interviewees in terms of collaborative vs. individual dimensions of their work and to what extent this profession is based on competitiveness.
Close collaboration was often perceived as an essential characteristic of physics due to the experimental aspect of the discipline present in many interviews. Some of the interviewees underline that this aspect of work springs from the core of the physics research to which various people with diversified skills, knowledge and capacities have to be involved. Only theoretical physics is perceived as more individualized in terms of every-day work. Among positive results of the team work the interviewees mentioned knowledge and skills exchange, making contacts with other researchers, a possibility of joint publications. An additional value of cooperation within e.g. a faculty lies in building a sense of a community between physicists.
Besides such a formal collaboration related to research grant projects, some of the respondents shed some lights on informal, personal aspects of team work by showing an importance of a good atmosphere in a workplace. According to them friendly environments may enhance scientific achievements as well.
One of the characteristics of physics, often taken for granted, is the assumption about collaborative nature of the research work, especially in the realm of experimental science. A level of cooperation is enhanced by the grant system which requires close partnerships between different research organizations, but also often demands collaboration within one institution. Collaboration with external groups and institutions is usually evaluated positively and goes beyond the boundaries of the discipline.
Collaboration is also reviewed as an evident challenge in two visible contexts. The first one concerns personnel disputes in the group of researchers and the lack of systemic solutions to their mitigation. In this situation, the researchers often feel isolated and reluctant to make further attempts for cooperation. This also has a negative impact on their careers, because for this reason they give up, for example, the submission of grant applications.
The second aspect concerns the impact of competing with each other during cooperation. For some respondents, competition is a part of a scientific career and is perceived as a “natural” part of the physicist's work. Such defined competitiveness refers to, for example, the number of publications, successes in obtaining grants and other scientific achievements. But the collected narratives also show the negative aspect of competitiveness, in which unjust behavior and actions occur. It is often forced by the systemic situation, for example when postdoctoral researchers compete with each other for permanent employment.
When it comes to gender dimensions of collaboration, in the majority of the interviews this aspect of working together remained invisible in two ways. The first invisibility means that the respondents didn't mention any aspect related to gender and collaboration as they didn't look (consciously) at the team work through the gender lens. The second way concerns a situation in which gender was not perceived as an important facet of collaboration, but rather as a transparent factor.
Only in a few cases this dimension becomes visible and perceived as influential. These situations often refer to conflicts and discriminatory practices (“men think that we are stupid too”) at the workplace. The following citation also shows that lack of sufficient language skills may lead to creation of an inner circle of people on the basis of their nationality/same language within a department or a research group. This can seriously hamper cooperation between researchers and intensify existing stereotypes.
Both female and male interviewees underline changing roles and job description when it comes to being a physicist. Although not all of them experience teaching responsibilities (this applies only to academic positions with didactics), being a leader or having administrative duties, “a growing workload” appears in almost every interview. A broad sociological portrait of being a physicist emerging from the GENERA study reveals a growing plurality of roles and tasks faced by both young and senior researchers. The younger generations of physicists (e.g. during a postdoctoral program) underline that they do not have face too many administrative or supervision-related obligations due their positions within the scientific world. However, their fragile and unstable employment conditions force them to undertake additional research and publishing activities in order to ensure themselves a good employment in the future. Senior researchers repeatedly present their workload through the lens of responsibilities concerning a supervision of younger colleagues, teaching, administration, reporting and managing of research projects, and applying for research grants. Yet, some of them demonstrate their agency and autonomy in rejecting or avoiding some of the non-research-oriented tasks.
Furthermore, the portrait is also diversified in terms of gender dimensions. Female researchers more often than men indicate a need for a greater appreciation and recognizing a value of teaching as well as accentuate challenges and difficulties related to reconciling their work with personal life. The overwork was discussed during the interviews in terms of three important contexts: administrative responsibilities, teaching and a new emerging role of a researcher, in which he or she becomes a manager.
As mentioned above, younger researchers usually do not complain about administrative responsibilities as they do not play a leader role in the institutions.
The problem of overload with duties becomes more visible in senior researchers' narratives. Dealing with administrative responsibilities (e.g. periodical reporting, counseling) leaves a little time for the research. Some of them perceive these tasks as somehow “natural” or obvious obligations related to their age and experience.
Overworking with bureaucratic tasks concerns as well managing research projects, in which principal investigators are not only responsible for coordination and conducting inquiries, but also for meeting all report-related expectations. While in some cases the research organization may offer sufficient support in project management, in other the responsibility is shifted to the researchers.
The issue of the excessive workload appears not only in the context of administrative responsibilities but also in the realm of teaching obligations. A number of the interviewees demonstrate a lack of balance between time devoted to teaching and to conducting research.
Some of the respondents underscore the fact of teaching not being recognized as part of the scientific excellence. In a few contexts (e.g. Poland, France) being a teacher and a supervisor is presented as overwhelming, yet important part of one's professional career. However, successes and achievements in this regard, are often not included in regular evaluations of the individual scientific accomplishments. Such situation has been named by one the research participant as “schizophrenic” - on the one hand there is an organizational demand regarding teaching, and on the other scientific achievements embrace only (or mainly) research-related activities.
It is worth noting that in some contexts (e.g. in Poland) it's impossible to receive a professorship only in didactics, although at the same time a great involvement in teaching is demanded.
A repetition of the narratives, in which the interviewees accentuate a shift in a role of being a researcher allows us to claim that due to expanding bureaucracy in higher education systems and research institutions, financing research through grant systems, and relatively new science objectives (e.g. popularization or dissemination of the results), physicists as other professional scientists have to face proliferation of roles and new management accountability. Such situation reveals that physicists more and more often become managers as they are obliged to manage working time, teams, financial resources and their own careers (cf. Sinderman, 1985).
Such changing role of a researcher leads to many tensions appearing within a role itself. The researcher is no longer just a researcher or a scientist. She or he has to learn new competences and skills related to e.g. project management, paper work, cooperation with business etc.
Some of the interviewees underscore that in spite of multiple obligations, they have a certain capacity to organize their working week in a satisfactory way. More nuanced analysis shows that it is related to both regional contexts and character of the workplace (whether it is an academic institution providing teaching or a research organization).