There is an ongoing buzz here in Italy about precarious work and what to do to make the life of precarious employees happier. Many young and not-so-young people are held on renewable contracts, sometimes without continuity between the end of one contract and the start of the next one. Making plans in these conditions is somewhat gloomy, and workers’ Unions are trying to fight fierce battles to secure their transition to permanent posts. Although the very mention of Union fights may give the creeps to some, I think this should be put in the perspective of the not-so-flexible Italian job market.
Let me move to Science positions for a moment. After a PhD, Italians start their bumpy road of moving from a contract to another; each contract is tightly linked to a project, much like what happens with post-docs in the USA, say, though they rarely are given enough freedom to work just on their project and are expected to contribute in many other things as well. Rather than being people-centered, the Italian research perspective is usually more group-centered, and that is one reason why Italian publications often contain over a dozen authors, much to the surprise of many, at scientific conferences, who wonder: ’Do they need that many authors for this work?’.
Since there is no such a thing as tenure-track, and no prospects – let alone guarantees – of continuity, they can’t get, for example, a house mortgage. The money lending markets are just beginning to open up to people with short-term contracts, but with everything in its infancy, it’s more an opportunity for speculation than a real service to the public. So, they start getting some real benefits only when they reach the land of permanent positions. Therefore, people around here have their rights to feel that landing a secure job is the only way they could gain access to a more reasonable life standard.
But does Italy need a new army of tenured scientific researchers? I argue that, from the perspective of scientific excellence, this is not quite what my country needs.
(Continues…just click the link below please)
-
Science in the Bel Paese
Italy has a serious scientific research excellence problem at home. Why there are so few foreign scientists in Italian Labs? Is the Italian academic job ladder closed to foreigners? Something new is happening, just may be, and I feel an urge to report it.
-
Precarious Science Jobs. Should we worry?
- Date:
- Monday, 03 Dec ember 2007 - 10:43 GMT
The very engine of scientific innovation, in many countries, comes from research based on soft-money, suggesting that if you are kept on your toes, you will be delivering the best of your potential. When brought to the extreme, this concept may explain the idea behind In Residence positions.
A few weeks ago I was invited to speak at a meeting between the local Unions and the President of the Italian Public Health Research Institute (ISS), Dr. Enrico Garaci, whose name has appeared on Nature in the last weeks due to a funding scandal.
During my short lecture, I pointed out the concepts of Tenure-track and In Residence careers. A few looked at me like I was speaking evil. It wasn’t exactly what they would have liked to know.
I argue that it is the market who should open up to the reality of, among many other things, scientific mobility and precariousness. What Italy needs, I argue without any claims of originality, is a serious liberalization manouvre, coupled to much more clarity on the very basics of scientific career progression. Nobody would even worry being on a precarious post.Last updated: Monday, 03 Dec 2007 - 10:43 GMT
-
Comments
-
An other great post Max which together with your radio appearance means that you are now officially the leader of the small hand of heroes who try to change the Italian scientific community (and of course you will be the first one to blame by the same people who love you now if/when something will go wrong……..that Italy I guess).
Seriously, you touched an other hot issue: job stability, what does it mean in Italy and in the rest of the world and what does it lead to. However, I would like to comment on more general terms. It seems that everybody agrees that the situation is embarrassing bad and we can also agree on the issues that need to be addressed. The main problem I see is that in order to cause minimum disruption (and possibly mistakes), the changes proposed are very mild; a one-small-step-at-a-time approach. As democratic and efficient this may sound, I argue it may no necessary be the best way. The Italian situation is clearly a vicious circle with the best people leaving for better environments and the mediocre waiting “in line” to start the circle again. With small changes it may take a very long time to change this situation so why don’t go for a drastic approach whatever that means a lot of small changes all together or some big and controversial. The way to do this? Give much more power to the head of the University, Department, Group etc etc. Let them decide research strategies, employ people, manage budget and so on, in a very pyramidal structure. The trick is that with power and nice benefits (you got to make the job attractive, very attractive) come also responsibilities (a word which doesn’t seem to be part of many job descriptions in Italy). Let’s make them directly responsible for the decisions they make. Each position comes with specific milestones (i.e. publications, grants and similar) and deadlines. If those are not met……..the person is forced to step down. This should create a very dynamic, competitive, free market where individual are assessed based on their skills……..like in the rest of the world.
Nicely put, Giuseppe. I think you have drafted a public referendum manifesto with your words!
From what I see, Italy is still rather far from accepting the idea that its Academia should embrace the cause of competitiveness and the principles of free market. The resistance to set things free in Italy are seen in many aspects of daily life. The bumpy road of selling our national, state-owned, airline is just one example that comes to mind. I am not sure I could agree fully when you write:
If the system has continued marching pretty much undisturbed for decades, then there must be some strong resistance to change. As in many oligarchies, there are people who benefit from what other (most) think is inappropriate, and I don’t think that the condition that we are discussing here is an exception. Perhaps, for the winds of change to be welcomed, a clear message should be sent out as to what the benefits are to everybody. It’s too obvious to you and I, and to many others, but I feel that many people just have not had the opportunity to see how things work when they really work.
Completely agree with you Max on the fact that Italy is far far away from embracing the concept of a meritocratic free market. And, as you mentioned, that is also evident in so many aspect of the Italian life style. However, if one may argue on the efficiency of the free market in a particular sector, science and research need such a market to evolve and improve by definition. Systems which promote and help the mediocre by default penalize the bright people by forcing them to a standard below their level. Again, this may be suitable for environments such as welfare and arguably education where what is most important is the average level but in science there is need for above the average individuals with above the average skills. These are the people who will improve the quality of science and make a difference not a bunch of average good technicians. As in every system, a category of people will have to suffer and in a scientific free market is the mediocre and less skilful who will be penalized (…. and they can go on an become rich and popular as veline or star in some reality show)
That is the real change in attitude that I would like to see happening in the Italian research community (starting from putting only the name of those who have really done the work on a manuscript). A bit of more money thrown in, some new positions created and some occasional law will still not prevent the smart people to emigrate towards a free meritocratic system leaving the mediocre to take advantage of the system.
Hi Giuseppe, as I was preparing my reply to your note, I read that Germany has just approved a substantial increase in public spending to support scientific research and education. Good for the Deutsch!
I agree with essentially everything you write. I can only add some more info on the problem of author inflation and gift authorship, which much to my surprise is not unique to Italy (though in our country it is, arguably, a real clot). An interesting discussion is taking place in the Ask The Nature Editor Forum and deals with joint first authorship, but goes much beyond that.
A key paper, which I have already read, distributed to some, and posted on a noticeboard opposite the snack vending machine on my floor, is this EMBO report on how a reader perceives the contribution of an author by its byline position and the total number of authors on the paper. The key sentence to me was:
Your blog is interesting blog. We offer science book. The National Institute Of Science Media Joel Ball is the President and Lead Author of the National Institute of Science Media [NISM], a leading publisher on informative and practical books on science and its various branches and other fields like business, history, etc.
for details please logon to our website The National Institute Of Science Media