How to succeed at a postdoc whilst surviving with MH challenges, Aspergers &etc?

[CrumbledPostItNote]

I've just secured my first postdoc: only six months on a zero-hours contract, but in my ideal field and a fantastic department nevertheless. I know there'll be likely few onward career prospects, so I just want to really enjoy the job for what it is, for now.

Every job I have ever done in the past (in a variety of fields, this is my first in academia) I have totally and utterly messed up, due either my strange behaviour, complete absence of interpersonal skills or through inadvertently making myself a magnet for bullying. Throughout each episode I received lots of "help", which always ended with me being told that I should simply accept myself as too disabled to work: given the benefits system nowadays, and given that I like working, I don't want to do that - especially as I now do have the perfect job.

So, I mean, how? How do I do this?

Academia is full of "odd balls" so you will fit right in. I swear 1/4 of the academics are on the spectrum. There will be staff welfare help and inclusion programmes. It is however a very stressful career option and in my experience, fellow academics aren't always as understanding as they should be

Use your neurodivergent super powers to do the research really well.

It's likely to be very flexible in terms of working hours; use that to your advantage to work however makes you most productive.

In my experience, a PI is interested in you doing the job well, not being good at small talk. Depends on the PI obviously.

Take responsibility for your own mental health. Exercise, good diet, routine, meditation, healthy soul-feeding leisure activities. Don't make it the problem of your PI. All they want is someone capable to get on with doing the job, and they are far more likely to recommend you for future work if you can be that somebody. I am sure they are supposed to care about your mental health, but actually, dealing with that wasn't on their timetable when they planned out the grant. So I'd advise you not to make it their problem.

I'm an academic who is also diagnosed aspergers. Ime I'd concentrate your talents solely on research rather than teaching and research - I do the latter and I'm desperate to get back to research full time - indeed I'm prepared to leave academia to do so.

I've had a few lecturers with aspergers. Youl be fine just be as open as you feel is necassery and youl be great!

Aspy traits are so common in academia that the rest of us have to fake it in order to fit in. There's a high chance you'll love it.

As others have said, there are quite a few diagnosed and undiagnosed members of staff likely to be in your department already. I would be really upfront with your line manager and also get an assessment from disability services/HR to support you (even if you do not personally think of yourself as 'disabled' in this sense). I'd tackle it head-on so that all communication is hopefully straightforward and if any issues come up, this means you and your manager can talk it through.

Not everyone wants to disclose, I completely understand that, but if you are likely to need help then letting everyone know from the start is easier.

I have PhD students and people working for me with MH difficulties and the same applies for that. Upfront communication (not all the time, just when relevant) is helpful.

Thanks you all. I found the above advice immensely helpful, especially @ommmward - however, my neurodivergent superpowers (with which I had initially totally astounded them with my writing output) have now totally run aground. At first they were so impressed by me that they extended me by another six months. But now, all three papers and a grant application have been rejected by multiple journals/funders and I have nothing to show for my involvement in the project whatsoever. I've been working on my acting skills and on preserving me professional demeanour and appearance of self-dignity, but I have a meeting with the PI tomorrow specifically about lack of output - and I don't know what to do or say. I want to resign to avoid them seeking my inevitable meltdown. By as my OP explains, I have zero and zilch onward job prospects. And I daren't "seek help" because I know I'll only be "encouraged" to relinquish all hope of working and to apply for ESA/PIP instead.

Presumably these papers are not your sole output? I would be working with my post-docs to produce joint publications- and there are indeed often rejections along the way. Similarly grants are very very hard to get and to expect a one year post-doc to not only write but obtain one would not be the expectation in my sector. I am not sure what to advise at the meeting, you sound like you have done fine in terms of quantity- but perhaps need some help with rewriting which the PI should absolutely do- what is their name on the paper for if they aren't rewriting/contributing.

You seem like you have set a very high standard for yourself and are berating yourself for failing. I know tonnes of post-docs who don't have even that much to show for a one year job and still get their next post (I am thinking of one right now). You have been productive, you just need a bit of steering with papers etc- a sensible PI would be able to do that, and you should keep working with them on publishing that work over the next few months if you can.

I don't see why this is the end of the road myself, but you seem very sure about that.

What I meant to say is-surely you are not producing sole authored papers, so how about those other authors step up and you all work together on a rewriting/publishing strategy. That's what I would expect. I would go in with that mind-set, not a 'I'm about to be sacked' mindset- but equally if there is no more money then it may be they can't keep you on for now for reasons other than output.

The papers and grant proposal were all coauthored with the PI. But I don't think I quite understand how much input a PI should have. All of the other postdocs in the department are spiffy young dudes and pretty girls quite literally young enough to legally be my children. It feels so unnatural to be competing with them for the PI's time and support, especially as they have prospects and I don't.

Arrrrgh name change fail

Rejection is a part of academia for everyone.

I have a list of journals for each paper and as soon as I get a rejection I cross out the journal and move onto the next one (of course I take corrections into account, but often there is no feedback whatsoever). In my experience there is no rhyme or reason to rejections. Sometimes papers get accepted at the first place I try, sometimes it takes many, many rejections for a paper to find its place.

Research grants are even more difficult. There is intense competition and the grant is a complex project, evaluated on many different aspects, not just on the contribution of a post-doc.

I suggest you develop a plan for the future and present it at your review with assurance. Resubmit your papers to new journals and suggest a new avenue for the research, e.g. another funding body, a new collaboration that would make it more interesting, etc.

From your update and how you talk about yourself, I think your lack of self-esteem may hold you back. You need really thick skin to deal with the inevitable rejections of academia.

That's helpful to hear - thanks. But what I don't get it, like how much rejection is normal?

It might be helpful to you to hear about other people's experience of rejection. I once spoke with the wife of a very well known professor in my discipline. She told me that he had been submitting his best known article to journals for 10 years before it got picked up by one of the best ones. I was really shocked. In my discipline acceptance rates for journals are 2-12% which I know in theory but hadn't quite understood what it means in practice.

I used to give up after 2-3 rejections, sometimes sooner. Now I keep submitting until the paper is accepted or I change my mind about the ideas in it.

As for research grants it is even more competitive and success depends on a lot of factors that Post Docs cannot control, e.g. previous record of research in this area by the center, inter-disciplinarity, potential impact, research esteem factors, value for money, etc.

Yes, that's helpful to know: thank you. Journals in my field seem never to publish any stats on their acceptance rates, but I'm sure more experienced colleagues will tell have some idea anecdotally. I suspect that I may have overestimated my chances.

For grants, success is between about 5-15% depending where it is submitted, the competitive best ones on the lower side.

Top journals are probably around 10-20% papers published, in my field anyway. I have been trying to get into one particular journal for ten years and not quite succeeded, I have had three rejections from it and a whole heap from elsewhere. That said, I'm pretty strategic these days and if I get a desk reject from a well-known top journal I usually put it somewhere I know it will get accepted as it's tiring reformatting things to go different places.

Rejection is more normal than success, your PI should have a good idea of whether your work is publishable quality.

The age and nature of your colleagues is irrelevant, many of them won't continue in academia anyway, so stop comparing yourself to them and do work actively with your PI to understand how to move these papers to journals likely to publish and resubmit the grant elsewhere (but remember, if you look at the stats, you might submit 2,3,4 times and still not succeed with grants, it's a stupid system but not personal to you).

My best advice is that if you want a career in academia, you should focus solely on that and ignore every other distraction on the way. Paper rejected? Resubmit. Grant rejected? New grant. Colleague is overachieving? Ignore or co-author with them. Academia is a surprisingly brutal work environment nowadays.

OMG you are all being so fantastic in your time and kindness. I will resubmit the papers, I think.

I think the amount of sheer rejection is surprising. My PhD students are often surprised my papers get harsh reviews or rejected sometimes, and they often find publishing the first one or two very difficult as they are not expecting the rejections or the quite long detailed critiques that come back as reviews! Talk with your PI about how to get these outputs out.

Wait, how long have you been there and you've written THREE paper manuscripts AND a grant???? I want a postdoc like you!!!

Seriously, this is not failure mode at all. You want to look at the reviews from the papers and resubmit. If you got any reviews from the grant, same thing - and even though there are often "no resubmission" rules, I've discovered these are a lot more flexible than I had thought. LIke, changing 1 aim of 3 is a "new" grant.

My general approach to papers is to aim one "level" up with the goal of learning from the reviews provided in the rejection, and a mild chance a win :) Rejection is so, so common. Turn those rates around - grants are 85-95% rejected, papers 80-90%. I have a 174 folders in my 'grants applications' folder. I did NOT get 174 grants. More like 4. (and some are tiny grants - I did also get a handful of several £K wroth grants too)

I suggest going into that meeting with the attitude that you really want to get published and what advice does the PI have and how could they support you?

Wait, how long have you been there and you've written THREE paper manuscripts AND a grant???? I want a postdoc like you!!!

Ummm, I've written four - the fourth is still under review. Is that OK then?

It sounds like a lot to me, I'm in social sciences, I understand sometimes science papers are written faster and more of them- talk to your PI about expectations/outputs and how you can get some of them published (it sounds like the one still out to review might fly).

I hope I behaved acceptably at the meeting. I'm aware that I was stimming a bit visibly (an aspie thing - like hand flapping or similar) - if they had noticed, would that have been so bad? The whole team were very kind and affirming. But without any publications, they say they cannot extend my contract any further. Does that sound likely to be a genuine reason?

This was a short initial post-doc and they extended once. They may not have the money or may not feel compelled to keep you on. Either way- you have done a lot in a very short temp job, and hopefully you might eventually get some publications out of it. Most people I know have had more than one post-doc job.

I don't think it's so much whether you could stay in the field- but would you want to stay in academia? Did you enjoy the work or did the anxieties over publication rates/competitive side get a bit much?