Science Job appointments in Italy. Winds of change ahead?
Massimo Pinto
Thursday, 13 March 2008 22:43 UTC
In Italy, science posts in Universities and National Labs are assigned based on open national selections. Put simply, and according to many voices, concorsi, as they are named, may not be exactly open, with the selections being designed to fit a specific candidate’s profile, who is to win the post, no matter who else shows up at the selection (exceptions may apply). These procedures may generate more frustration than benefit, as presented in a TV documentary produced by Rai3, an Italian public television channel. Recently, these alleged malpractices in assigning science posts through concorsi have also resulted in court cases and in the creation of dedicated information websites1. Currently, the rules of the game are being re-discussed in the Italian Parliament.
What rules may best prevent malpractice?
This forum is open to your opinions.
1 A semi-comprehensive list may be found here.
-
Replies
-
Do you know of any game where it is not possible to cheat?
Rules are necessary to discourage people from taking short cuts and obtain unfair advantages and it is indeed necessary to redesign new rules as things in our society change but in my opinion the issue in the Italian research employment is with the people in charge (most but not all of them).
In theory, concorsi, interviews and other evaluating processes may all work very well in creating a dynamic and meritochratic system IF the people running it do their job properly. Unfortunately most of the people empowered to offer job opportunities let their personal affairs, political connections and alternative motives interfere with their judgment (either for personal benefit or for inaptitude). I feel that these people will always try to walk around the rules whatever rules or system is in place. What is more depressing is that these people occupy prestigious roles in our Universities and are therefore responsible for the moulding of the future generation of University leaders. Let’s redesign the rules but for god sake, let’s get rid off the rotten people (if you want names I have a few). Massimo mentioned all the concorsi which end up in court cases…......but do you know what is the outcome? If something illegal is found out, the concorso is done again. Great but what about the people doing the illicit? Why are they not removed from their position or prevented to take part to other concorsi? -
Giuseppe, I think that the point you underline in the end of your comment is the core problem. In fact, the italian system is – theoretically – good for many reasons, but don’t have enough instruments to react against the rotten apples. Here is where Italy needs a rapid improvement.
Which are the paths in this direction?
-
I may have mentioned this in an earlier post, Marco, but I strongly believe that many things would get better in Italy if people will be held responsible for their actions. Somehow because of the heavy burochracy, the strong family base society or whatelse, in Italy is easy to distribuite or better cancel responsabilities when something goes wrong.
Back to the original post, the university leaders who can offer a research position (whatever via a concorso, interview, good look or 6th sense, to me they are all valid points) should be directly responsible for the work of the appointees. Precise milestones and aims can be set (these can be decided by the university/school heads who on their turn will respond to the University Rettore, the ministry of education and so on) and if they are not met everybody from the appointee to the head of the School/Minitry will be penalized (in proportional parts). So, for example, the appointee will be fire (yes fired, I know this is a word hardly ever used in Italy), the project leader who employed him/her will not be allowed to offer an other position the following year, the School head will have a harder time to convice the Rettore to have an other position to offer, the Rettore will not get that much money from the State for the University and so on….
Simply put: give people freedom, power AND held them responsible for what they do. -
The best rules to prevent malpractice, it has to be said, are no rules at all. I admit my exposure to Italian politics and bureaucracy is limited to a few instances in the 1990s – so my view may be outdated – but as a general comment it has always seemed to me that European academics (I did my doctorate in Paris) are encumbered and not assisted by the formal systems that are at work there. Italy, in particular, would quite simply be better off with much less government involvement and more private enterprise and funding in these matters. And just so that I am clear, I am referring to the structure and activities of the academic institutions and national labs.
So, in short, I think the problem is systemic and pervades the entire European academic structure.
-
Dear friends, I agree partially with all of you, but completely with Steven Ericsson-Zenith’s statements. Firstly, I am a 76-year-old researcher in physical semeiotics, involved by MI outcome, thus at the END of my career. I have never worked in a government institutions. Well! In my experience the greatest obstacle a researcher is facing is to work in a field not politically correct! In other words, if a researcher is looking for something that may hinder the business of pharmaceutical industries , e.g., he will never accepted in a good position of work. This accounts for the reason that medical advances, posted in famous websites, as The Lancet, Nature, Science, a.s.o., in my country are OBSCURED after their posting voluntarily. May I present only one example? Oncological Terrain and OT-dependent INHERITED Oncological Real Risk! Not All individuals can be involved by malignancy. As a consequence, why All subjects have to undergo to cancer Primary Prevention?
-
Thank you Steven: clear concept I completely agree with. You mentioned the involvement of private enterprises, that should be more present in the italian research. Again: I agree. But I can’t see how to get from the present situation to a more evolved and competitive one.
Would anybody indicate the very first step in this direction? In your opinion which is the first thing goverment should do? What can or should the italian scientific community do?
-
I think that Giuseppe sketched an interesting operational plan, by writing that one should give power but, concomitantly, hold people responsible for their choices, at multiple levels, ranging from the new appointee to the University Rector.
With a focus on Assistant Professors, which in Italy are called Ricercatore, a way ahead may be to introduce a tenure-track system. At the moment, the winner of a concorso at the level of ricercatore gets his post and undergoes a theoretical probation period of three years, after which he gets confirmed as a permanent ricercatore, which is equivalent to stating that he gets tenure at the level of Assistant Professor.
However, a (full) professor recently told me that he may have heard once or twice, in his career, about a ricercatore on probation not making it to tenure. And in those cases, the candidate did not even get fired; he just went for another shot later on. In summary, Italian ricercatori get tenure as soon as they step in the University, to become untouchable. Clearly, there is quite a big chunk at stake.
The culture of permanent jobs is very solid in Italy and it’s going tough to introduce positions which may result in job losses. I spoke about this in my blog before.As Steven points out, we are not alone. France has a similar system with the Chargé de Recherche, which, correspondingly, are highly competitive. And yet…many foreigners win those positions. Are the French more respectful of the rules than Italians are?
-
Since 52 years I am working as FREE, individual, Researcher, so that I cannot know directly the real condition of those colleagues who have a scientific post Universities and National Labs. However, I have been told that they are in trouble! In his blog, Massimo Pinto wrote: “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….” All clear!
Here is a consequential consideration: in my opinion, under these conditions, the most gloomy task is especially that regarding the field of research. How is it possible, for instance, that a PRECARIOUS researcher could be allowed to study the enormous differences existing between CANCER, DIABETES, famous screening and the intriguing Primary Prevention, performed on individuals at INHERITED Oncological, diabetic, Real Risk, rationally selected by their General Practioners hopefully since BIRTH?
-