Anyone want a general chat?

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

By which title I mean, of course, that I am procrastinating and if I can't rise above it I'd love to drag you all down with me.

What are we all doing this term, and how's it going?

I'm trying to kick my book proposal into shape after yet another set of comments. I've lost track of how many times it's been 'nearly there' but I think it really is nearly there. Honest.

Hello all, also procrastinating - I'm editing a paper for resubmission elsewhere after I fell out with the original journal author, and have discovered I didn't write the results that clearly (oops).

Going to a conference in a couple of weeks with DCs and DH in tow. He's panicking he says about amusing them (it's to a city we've been to, and we went briefly once with DCs and for a couple of days without, so he should have a clue what to do - he'll be fine).

On another related issue - can I ask if any of you work PT and have school aged DCs? I'm currently PT with one preschooler but am uming and ahing about what to do when the preschool DC goes to school.

shove, I'd find that hard. I'm really struggling to write a grant at the moment - I'm so close, but now I need to revise to feedback and make a whole bunch of size-limited text pieces. And, yeah, get costings done. (I should be doing that right now! Will not spend too long posting, promise...)

Also interesting observation about revisions. I've been very disappointed in some revisions I've seen as a reviewer. Although I also find that when I set out to change things, I end up making less different than I thought. Although I have completely reworked some papers, and have been very pleased by the result. Just I'm still surprised how much text from the old version still works.

An opportunity has come at my Uni for an admin role that I didn't even know existed. But it meshes really well with some thoughts I've had and things I've wanted to make happen. I first saw it and thought "Yeah, no, too much for me, especially with my health". But then I got to chatting with someone about one of those things I wanted to make happen and asked, "Is that something role X would do?" and the answer was yes. And the more I think about it, the more keen I am to pursue it. I could back off my first year responsibilities (which I love, but especially wrangling the staff is a real headache) and take up this instead. Especially if I could get these things done I want, as part of another role, instead of on top of what I already do. So now I've gone from "yeah, no" to "oh, no, how many people will I be in competition with this for?"

Am I being unrealistic here? Is stepping into admin a one-way street? I need to talk with the Dean and find out what is involved, but I understand that the workload wouldn't be much more than first year (perhaps less). So I could keep my (struggling) research going. But would it make that even harder to restart? I'm not sure what I think of this. Yet am simultaneously really excited about the idea.

Is it a role in which research would be expected (like, say, Dean of Students, where it's a 1-2 day release from your current role)?
Or is it a truly full time admin role like, say, head of the Research Office? If the latter it probably is one way.

Oh, missed this last page.

godstopper - yeah, that's totally normal, I'm afraid. Some reviewers just don't read that carefully. (I've been disappointed by fellow reviews I've seen on papers I'm a reviewer on! Some of them seem really off base at times). It is tough to respond to, but I usually write something like "It is unclear where the impression that x has no work on y comes from, as we are currently collaborating on y. I have revised the text to make x's stance on y more clear." or similar...

I don't PT, worst, but I'm curious about how it's working for you - do you actually work the hours you're contracted, or a lot more? Most here I know work a lot more (some as much as FT hours! I remember someone telling me that they realised all they did was negotiate themselves a paycut). We've got a male member of staff gone to 50%, and I'm really curious how it works for him.

Well, my username was thought up when I was 0.6 and that was really a position where I thought I wasn't giving my DC the best and I also wasn't able to get enough work done.

I do find now I'm 0.8 that it's not too bad, helped by only having DC2 on my day off (and DC2 is young enough to nap).

Like most academics I don't just work 9-5 on my working days - but the non-contracted hours that I work are almost exclusively urgent matters/finishing stuff I'm in the flow of, after the DC have gone to bed. With the age and personality of our DCs I couldn't put in a full day at the weekend even with DH around, except for the occasional open day/travel. It just isn't fair on DH or the DCs.

We now have an email contract between colleagues (don't send outside working hours) and students (they actually pay more attention to me not working certain hours than other colleagues, I find). It's not 100% but it helps.

I do obviously also work on non-contracted days for conferences/travel and either I arrange childcare or DH takes a day off.

However I do not and cannot work on my day off as a regular thing (no email except maybe checking for urgent things I'm waiting for a response to, after bed, I don't set my phone to download that day, and I definitely don't sit at the computer working on a document) because I cannot do that with a DC around. I know some people can - and some people have competitive BF-while-writing or toddler-sick-in-office stories. But my DCs are not old enough to amuse themselves and except for when VERY tiny have never been reliably quiet enough for me to work when they are around.

DH also works PT (he's in a govt job, technical stuff) which helps more now e.g. having one day I don't have to dash for the nursery pickup. I suspect he also wants to carry on PT when DC2 starts school but he wouldn't feel as guilty as me about doing 0.8 and having the morning to himself! Also, his job is a bit more flexible - so if a DC had a hospital appointment he could just say "I'll do the morning of my day off instead" whereas I have (some of you may remember) a really irritating HR/HoD who doesn't like that, plus of course I might already have a lecture that day etc.

worst - I'm reasonably sure research is expected to continue, and I don't even understand how these things work (like a 1-2 day release! that's an interesting idea - so you sort of go PT on your position and take up 20-40% time with the role? I spend 40% of my time on first year currently.). The announcement about the position didn't say anything about that, just what you'd oversee. The current incumbent appears to have continued publishing recently. I'm trying to set up meetings with my mentor and others in my dept before I meet the Dean. I guess I'm wondering what it means about progression - am I shifting more towards moving into the centre/admin as opposed to concentrating heavily on research? And what does that mean for opportunities to get to Prof? I suppose a lot of that will be Uni-specific too (we just got new promotion criteria - they keep changing, how will I even know what to aim for!).

Oh, thanks for the info, worst. Interesting. I guess my problem is that I do generally work 9-5pm due to my health. Working at night is almost impossible, unless I intend to take the entire next day off to recover, which would sort of defeat the purpose... I have done that for grant deadlines, and can push myself 2-3 days in a row, but then need a good week to recover. So 40 hours off for an extra 16 at work or so isn't the best of deals.

No, I can see that it might not be. I don't work at night every week by any means, and if I do it's very limited (owing to DCs sometimes refusing to go to sleep and to me also being knackered). If I work an extra day one week and take it off the next week, it's only one day - and it's more for the DCs than for me.

However I also take about one day a month AL without the DCs to avoid burnout - this basically eats up all my AL and for family holidays (few and far between) I end up taking unpaid leave. I was ill a while back (depression) and was offered a further reduction of hours but this is kind of a compromise.

Now I've said that, maybe a day to myself would be good for my mental health! The alternatives are FT, with DCs almost always in after school club; or working till 1 one day a week (a couple of hours to myself) or till 3, maybe 2 days a week (no time to myself but potentially more relaxed DCs.)

Worst I work 80% - three days a week I finish at 2 pm. I work about 40 hours a week for contracted hours of 28. The reason I do part time is so I can refuse meetings after 2pm, and my objectives for promotion are reduced accordingly.

I pick up from school those T three days, and I won't give that up unless it is really absolutely necessary. It is fantastic - I've made friends, DC can have play dates or just all go to he park after school. But also crucially, my DS can sleep at 6pm - he struggled a lot in reception and it would have been awful for him to go to afterschool club every day.

Thanks big that's really encouraging. I think that might be what I'd like to do. I would anticipate refusing on site meetings and most teaching after 2 or maybe 3 (we run a 00-50 teaching hour and school is not too far). I'd swap days for out of town meetings I think. I think I'd probably have to work normal hours on staff meeting day (it's always on the same day).

2nd sounds awful, I don't know enough about that route to getting FHEA as I got mine after doing the PCAP course automatically so not sure what you have to achieve bar what I did for that. Can you get feedback on why and resubmit?

How bizarre 2nd. I'm doing mine now - did your mentor comment on your pieces along the way (blog) or did you do a presentation?

Worst - don't get me wrong, working part time is hard and I'm hanging on by he skin of my teeth! But I am still getting out grants and papers, albeit less. It's galling to see full time younger colleagues go past me. But the way I see it is I'm still in the game - it might take me 7 years longer to make it to the top, but I'm still getting there, and in the meantime I get to do school pick ups. BUT this depends on your field and your department head, teaching load etc.

God - one thing you REALLY have to realise here is that referees are not God. In fact, many of them are total wankers who are out to get some kind of perverse high from slating papers (there are some people who just get off on the idea that they are Guardians of The Field). Just because their comments are given to you anonymously in an official email does not stop them wankeraceousness from seeping out of them at every turn! Feel free simply to discard the ridiculous comments - you can bat them away - and focus on the ones that really tell you something. (The only use for terrible referee comments is that they tell you where a really, really stupid reader is not going to understand your paper, necessitating that you crack out the Fisher Price language at those points).

murmuration - Argh, grant writing. How can SO much information really be necessary at a preliminary stage? I swear to God, it's some kind of endurance test! In terms of admin - I don't have any direct experience but DH really does. A couple of thoughts:

• I'm not sure it's possible for ordinary mortals to avoid admin if they want to be promoted these days. There's pretty much a hierarchy of roles in departments that have to be fulfilled, and doing these efficiently, competently and with grace is increasingly as important as writing a way of getting on. If you can find an admin role you actually like the look of, go for it!
• We live in a world where departments are divided between those that have already made extensive, neoliberal reforms and accepted a greater admin load those that have not. The latter are increasingly vulnerable and I fear will not be able to stave off pressures for much longer, except perhaps in Oxbridge. In my institution, there is increasing scrutiny of departments that aren't recruiting or getting in grant income.
• Many academics don't actually know the financial status of their department in any detail, and only have a vague sense of how the division of roles may be different elsewhere. It is worth finding out these things because you can pretty much predict your future by them (in my institution, a couple of social science departments are about to get the book hurled at them - all the signs are there, but the academics are not reading them).
• The brutal truth is that a world where things are becoming more constrained, the only way of being indispensible is ensuring that you 'pay for yourself' with grant income, competent admin and 4* REF outputs. It's a lot of pressure.
• All that said, there is a point at which you have to decide where you want to draw the line in terms the of admin/research balance, and what kind of career you want to have. I think, increasingly, people are actually finding they enjoy the admin/project work more than the writing (which feels more exposed) and are taking routes in those directions. If you need to write and research for your wellbeing (or illbeing!) you can still build that in, however - but you do need to self-promote and get yourself bought out.
• The big admin jobs - from Head of Department upwards - are terribly hard work when done properly, and that work is often unseen, unrewarded, and unthanked. It takes chunks out of people, both individually and at home.

I agree with everything above. Look at how your department (field) is going and try to map out your path in it.

I also agree that many academics (not just social sciences) are in denial about the changes in progress.

Thanks murmuration and shove. I think that's v. true about referees hiding behind nasty comments - certainly, it's a tendency in my discipline with philosophers who like to think of themselves as especially clever because they can take apart every premise in an argument. One comment I felt was v. fair, and I need to think about how to address it before sending it back out.

The following day another paper rejection arrived without comments. This journal has a policy of not sending comments to authors and has an acceptance rate of about 7%. I think, at this point where pubs are essential, I need to look at journals with less forbidding acceptance rates - not ones that publish anything, but not ones that reject almost everything either.

Present plan is: revise one rejected paper (the one I can bear to look at) whilst writing another one for submission towards the end of April. Then I've got the summer for a larger project.

I'm applying for one job that seems vaguely sensible (a fellowship). Beyond that, there are no jobs. I've now made the decision to only apply for teaching ones within a sensible travelling distance as, often, the pay is less than brilliant and these jobs will eat into research time. I realize this limits things, but for me right now, it's all about pubs (I've got the lecturing experience).

Sometimes I have a real concern that all of this will break my mental health ... I can't be the only one.

god - I think some referees feel that they are 'performing' to the editors of the journal, and put a lot of time and attention into what they are seeing as a kind of behind-the-scenes showing-off. The reality is that their comments are often barely read by editors, and seldom remembered, so take comfort in the fact that their wankery has all been for nothing and do not take it to heart. This is all about taking what is actually useful to you out of the process. You are allowed to ignore shittiness!

In terms of resubmission, I would go for journals with a reputation for being supportive. Often this has nothing to do with standards, and everything to do with editorial attitude. Some editors will really take time and patience over early career academics, others see brutal rejection as a rite of passage. It's only dick-waving alphas who mistake the first for 'lower standards'.

I realise this is ridiculously obvious, but there is increasingly a 'game' with papers where it's important to stake out exactly what your contribution is in the introduction. These are aimed not so much at referees but at REF reviewers who may not be at all familiar with the intricacies of your particular area. If you need pubs, and you need them to be well-rated for the REF, it's worth playing this game.

shove, thanks for all that info. Have read it a few times and am still processing.

Saw my mentor today, who said that taking it on would definitely make my research harder to get going again. But I also feel like it's been 5 years... what if I continue as I am, not getting funding, doing my current roles, which already take a great deal of time. This would at least be taking a step forward. The one thing that concerns me is I have another wild ambition, and for that he said they really want people with strong research programmes. And I'm doing things along those lines already and really enjoying it. The next opening for another step in that direction for me is in 3 years. Not something I can apply for. You have to be identified by the powers-that-be. But I'm on reasonably good terms with some of the relevant powers-that-be.

Ugh. Wait three years and see if my research picks up? And hope this position comes around again if not - I've never seen a call like this before, I didn't even know they 'asked about' for these things. Maybe they're only doing so because they didn't have someone obvious to ask...Submit a bunch of grants now before the admin job would start? Perhaps I wouldn't even get it if I put myself forward. And I'm agonising over nothing.

2nd you make me nervous. Am just going through HEA application at the moment and kind of did not imagine anyone is unsuccessful. Sounds very unfair. We have to do it to apply for promotion at our place. Bah!

murmuration- can you do both? Keep a foot in the research and develop the admin role? Or would the admin be all-absorbing?

I think it ultimately comes down to the kind of career you want to have, in a way! What does your heart say??

I realise this is ridiculously obvious, but there is increasingly a 'game' with papers where it's important to stake out exactly what your contribution is in the introduction. These are aimed not so much at referees but at REF reviewers who may not be at all familiar with the intricacies of your particular area. If you need pubs, and you need them to be well-rated for the REF, it's worth playing this game

This isn't ridiculously obvious to me! Could you say a bit more about it- I usually do try to say what I'm going to contribute in there, but I get the feeling I could be doing this better/more.

We call it the REF paragraph. Have a look at the published criteria of your Panel and the sub-Panel for your UoA. Then think about how you can make the case in your article, essay, or book about how the specific research findings in your piece align to the REF criteria.

It's actually not a bad thing to do generally anyway - we should all be aware of how our particular bit of research fits into the broader field and how it changes it.

And anyone on a research contract & likely to be submitted for the REF has a professional duty to be familiar with its requirements.

Up good advice! One of my difficulties is that the type of work I do which is interdisciplinary and much in demand with funding bodies doesn't fit well in my department's REF panel and a lot of university departments jumped ship out of this panel last time around. It's not just my problem, there's lots of us in applied areas who sit uneasily on their panels and we haven't decided as an institution how this is going to be handled next time around (or what will be allowed).

I'll consider putting in a REF paragraph into those most likely to be addressing that panel!