Nepotism? How bad?

[adoumamyheart]

PhD student here -

At my last university a permanent lectureship went to someone who just did a post-doc at the same university which they did straight after their PhD (at an RG type place).

The subject is a core humanity type subject , and the specialisms they were looking for were extremely broad - I'm pretty sure there would have been hundreds of applications (I know of others myself). I very rarely see jobs like that advertised. The successful applicant didn't have any proper peer reviewed publications and nothing forthcoming. They were friends with a few faculty members.

I'm sure the lecturer is well qualified, but it seemed odd that they could get a permanent job with so few publications at a fairly prestigious faculty (where many have PhDs from US Ivey League, and often well known in the field). We are frequently told its unlikely we will ever get a permanent academic job, and certainly not without reams of publications and years of teaching.

I don't want to jump to accusations - this wasn't something that affected me personally, and I feel we shouldn't do each other down. But as a PhD student, I just feel a bit down about the prospect of applying for jobs at some point, if they go to friends and former colleagues - even if you have a handful of pubs and good experience and make a competitive application ect. Is this what tends to happen?

In my experience, there is significantly less nepotism in academia than in the past, and I would say that what you are describing is the exception now, rather than the norm. The pressures of the REF mean that departments have to prioritise their REF submission over everything else. My department, for example, has had internal candidates for every post we’ve ever advertised, and the job has always gone to an outside candidate. I myself was appointed to my current post over an internal candidate.

In fact, the only good thing I can say about the REF is that it has largely stamped out the practice of making internal appointments.

By the way, I’m in the humanities too.

@name

Thanks for the reply, I find that reassuring!

In fact, the only good thing I can say about the REF is that it has largely stamped out the practice of making internal appointments

Indeed. And pretty much stopped the division within departments where some people never published & had very nice lives just teaching and doing what they called "research."

But to your immediate issue, OP: sometimes those not involved in the selection process don't have access to the full picture. I think that the sorts of comparisons you're making can eat you up, so try not to think about it: "Comparison is the thief of joy."

It may not feel like it, but there are actually many more opportunities than when I finished my PhD. But the place you're in - end of PhD, looking at the job market - is a really difficult one, I know. Envy, bitterness, jealousy - these are too easy to succumb to in your situation.

It's really tough, but try to keep true to your own work, and your own trajectory. Everyone's routes into academia are different.

@wandering

I'm not actually nearing the end of my PhD and so nowhere near applying for permanent jobs, so can't say I'm jealous or bitter - I'm coming at this from some distance, I wasn't a rival applicant! And I totally understand there are many aspects to selection. Its just that we are repeatedly told that you can't get jobs without a load of pubs (even if you have great teaching experience ect) so it just seemed odd.

Maybe this person has high quality publications in the pipeline that rival other candidates? All our recent hires have been cause for questions - people suggesting the process has been unfair cos x or y were overlooked, without having the full picture.
Who knows what has gone on at your place.
Hopefully processes have been followed correctly!

Sometimes positions are created with a particular person in mind (nepotism or a strategic move by dpts to keep good people? )

Its just that we are repeatedly told that you can't get jobs without a load of pubs (even if you have great teaching experience ect) so it just seemed odd.

Agree that the ref means that unis are paying more attention to research quality than perhaps previously, but this ^ isn't the case at my uni, which employs recent PhDs and lecturers near completion too as long as they can demonstrate via interview etc. that they're going^ to be publishing far more now qualified. Otherwise academia just stagnates, with no one ever really moving anywhere. It's much easier, I've found, to get research projects off the ground when you can call and say "I'm a lecturer at so and so" rather than "Hi I'm a student can I just".

No idea how I italicised that

I hope that they do take publications as a big factor.

As a lone parent, there's a limit to how much I can socialise, travel around doing conferences, teaching at different unis, making contacts ect.

But I can try and write and publish as much as I can.

This is not the case in my dep't although previous students who have gone on to have a good track record of REFable pubs and grants will be attractive. To get short-listed for a lecturer at our institution, you would need good pubs, grants, and to fit within research priorities- and this is screened by several members of staff in a very boring grid like-way by HR as well to make sure that it's fair. At the interview stage personal preferences are more likely to come in.

It is a bit of a lottery though, in that there are probably 100 candidates per permanent lectureship, 60 of whom properly fulfil the criteria, 8 of which get to interview and one gets the job. It may be easier where there are gaps/more need (e.g. in different disciplines, also shortage of quant scholars in the social sciences).

adoumamyheart publications are a huge part of it at my institution plus grants. Everything else is just decoration without those.

Could be worse. I recently read about one place in Italy where the dean gave lectureships to his wife, son and daughter

Actually I will say this sort of thing is THE major source of dissatisfaction in my current job (I'm not in the UK). 90% of my colleagues have been at the institution since they were undergraduates, all doing massively normcore research with the same supervisors basically on dead white males. I'm not sure it's nepotism exactly but it's certainly pretty incestuous and doesn't make for a very welcoming working environment for the occasional outside hire such as myself.

Publications are very important, but so is trust. There's a lot to be said, particularly in short-staffed departments, for taking on someone you already know can do the job, understands the department, can hit the ground running and get on with teaching well, gets good NSS scores etc. TEF is driving a lot of selection decisions in our department.