Ulrike Felt, Maximilian Fochler, Ruth Müller Department of Social Studies of Science

1. Planning Lives in the Life Sciences?! Young researchers' construction of past and future biographies as a governmentality project Ulrike Felt, Maximilian Fochler, Ruth Müller Department of Social Studies of Science University of Vienna www.univie.ac.at/sciencestudies Ulrike.felt@univie.ac.at Conference, The Politics of Knowing, Prague, 28. 11.2008

2. Background: Too few or too many scientists? Different perspectives on a system in change Policy perspective (e.g. EU):More „knowledge workers“ needed=> Advertise science as a career choice=> Prevent „brain drain“ Reflections within science:„Are we training too many scientists?“Feeling of growing competition of more candidates for less positions

3. Planning vs. „Simply being good“ • Increasing needs and offers to young researchers to plan their careers and organise their lives accordingly; creates the idea that if one does planning well then it will work out • Upholding the myth of „in the end the good scientists win“; this is reinforced by excellence programs/awards and the accompanying rhetoric (see e.g. ESOF session by Nobel Prize Winners) Biography as more holisitic sense-making practice both on an epistemic and social level Career as a technical structure of norms to follow to stay/succeed in science

5. The Project: Living Changes in the Life Sciences • Aim: Trace how ethical and societal considerations gradually reshape the culture and practice of research in the life sciences • Field: Life Science Research (Green, Red, White) in academic contexts in Austria • Core research dimensions:Work Cultures, Socialisation, Epistemic Practices, Institutional Framings, Life Sciences & Society • Biographical approach aims at understanding their “sense-making practices”, reconstructing historical timelines (perceptions of important changes and ruptures) & grasping generational differences • For this presentation: Focus on PhD & PostDocs; 17 interviews

6. Research questions and approach • How do young researchers narrate their lives in the Life Sciences linking past and future? • Investigate the relation between career and biographical accounts • Identify where and when frictions occur • Question what this means in terms of relations between researchers and institutions • We will distinguish in our analysis two “moments” in their narration • the narratives on transitions between phases as they reveal important ways researchers implicitly perceived differences between the phases • what it means to be in such a phase (PhD & Post Doc) • Prospective & retrospective dimensions

7. Narratives on Transition (1) by PhDs and Post Docs PhD’s narratives: • Selection is marginal as a narrative • Assessment criteria: motivation, inherent skills; less: prior formal achievements • „plenty“ of positions with no obvious hierarchical differences made between them Post Doc narratives: • The above mentioned is reconstructed as naive Lableader Master PhD Post Doc 3 1 2

8. Narratives on Transition (2) by PhDs and Post Docs Master PhD Post Doc Lableader 2 • Strong discourse on strategic choice between Post Doc Positions of different quality • Mobility as an obligation • Selection: • Best case: produce formal output in the PhD phase • Second best: if too little formal prerequisites, then moving along the social networks of the PhD supervisor • Moment of „crucial choice“ in terms of research topic • Talking about leaving

9. Narratives on Transition (3) • Imagining Transition • Highly selective on two levels, however the relation between them remains opaque • Formal output criteria (frontstage) • Informal social resources (backstage) • Talking about coming back “home”/leaving the field • Partly ambivalent narrative about new possibilities and restrictions Master PhD Post Doc Lableader 3

10. Narratives on being a PhD Little explicit prospective elements beyond the PhD phase Epistemic components: • Thick narratives on phase of learning • Tinkering & trying things out; the practice itself is seen as central Social components: • „Everything is ok now“ narrative: both private life and work do not have all too fixed schemes  flexibility is possible in both Master PhD Phase Post Doc Lableader 1

11. Current and prospective narratives on being a PostDoc Master PhD Phase Post Doc Phase Lableader 2 • Stronger reflection about prospective consequences of current actions; actions taken are assessed with regard to the competitive situation one is in Epistemic components: • Formally validated output is at the centre and epistemic choices are oriented towards it • Institutional affiliation becomes a central ressource and is assessed by its quality as a productivity context (renommé of lab/university and colleagues there; visibility in the community) • Central moment with regard to epistemic choice – Innovation vs. Risk • Social components: • Compulsory mobility – leaving the PhD lab and the social networks • Questioning the relation between the social and the epistemic (sacrifice vs. investment); relation between the social and the epistemic is strongly framed through the idea of career

12. Prospective narratives on being a lableader • Biographical aspects become important; strong account on potential deception • Epistemic components: • Boundary work: create something of your own • wish that the mere career considerations move to the backstage and epistemic & social biography building becomes central • Social components: • Being able to „come back“; desire for stability • Sustainable relation between the social and the epistemic Master PhD Post Doc Lableader 3

13. Retrospective reconstructions Reassessment of the PhD phase in the light of current experience – generally seen as naïve Past choices haven’t considered the requirements of “career” sufficiently Epistemic components: • Epistemic choices are re-framed in terms of risk (instead of learning) • PostDocs narrate very little continuity in their epistemic work – especially if they have been rather mobile Social components: • Marginal; if at all romaticising the relation between the social and the epistemic in the PhD Master PhD Post Doc Lableader 1

14. Narratives of change • Running through all these accounts is a rather clear narrative on change in the research system; implications are individually felt from the late PhD phase on. • While the PhD is imagined by most interviewees still as a more local phase, globalisation of research and competition sets in at the Post Doc level • Strong narrative of growth of the research system, which is also mediated through new technologies (e.g. access to the „flood“ of papers on one‘s own topic) • Account of a strong ideology of mobility, with growing ambivalent feelings about what it means Young scientists’ perception of change, internationalisation and growth underpins a strong sense of competition along standardised international rules.

15. Imagining competition Two levels: • Epistemic competition: • small number of „known“ competitors • Who is able to publish ahead? Only being first is a central value • Career competition: the metaphor of the marathon • Many „anonymous“ competitors • Unclear who the relevant competitors are, and what performance is needed to outpace them • Only few „competitors“ in one‘s own social network are visible  Tendency to rely on simply fulfilling the norms: importance to be prepared and not to miss out a window of opportunity

16. Talking about leaving • Transitions lead to ponder the expected match between their prospective visions of a life in science and their own biographical expectations. • Especially in transition to the Post-Doc-Phase, a considerable number „talk about leaving“, because ... • Attractive and sustainable careers in science are only perceived as likely for the „truly excellent“ • „Doing“ a career is irreconcilable with building a family and social networks • Work culture is seen as highly competitive and individualised, not as a collective endeavour • Scientific careers are seen as leading away from actual „bench work“ • Women perceive themselves / are perceived as more „affected“ by these issues => strong gender dimension in „talking about leaving ...“

17. Tensions between individual and institutional perspectives • (Austrian) Institutional contexts are seen as changing: • ambivalence towards the wish of having a stable position • Increasing importance of „academic performance audits“, job security tied to success in these assessments • However, „local“ institutional practices and networks remain important; uneasy relation to the transparency invoked officially; • Institutions are seen as demanding and monitoring the production of auditable output, as sanctioning the failure to do so, but as less likely to offer „rewards“ in case of good performance. Hence, current institutions are perceived with ambivalence  relation between individuals and institutions is constructed as mutually instrumental

18. Tensions which matter: When biographical ideals meet career practices • The norms and logics of career are the primary touchstone for evaluating past, present and future epistemic and social choices. Implicitly or explicitly, all expect that „playing the career game“ is the best strategy to stay in science. • „Staying in the game“ and „being ahead of the competition“ seem to be the prime values institutionalised in the norms. In correlation with career progress, we find less and less references to other value orientations, neither on a personal biographical (e.g. solving certain epistemic puzzles), nor on a systemic level (e.g. science as a collective effort to tackle societal problems …). • Biographical ideals are deferred to a later stage – mostly to the group leader phase which is normatively expected to “provide room” for this. • However – given the institutional context - , group leader positions are realistically expected to continue the rules and frameworks of career, with little to no margin for more biographical projects. This leads to cynicism, because institutional structures are seen as violating a central implicit agreement of the “career game”.

19. Concluding observations: Beyond single narratives What are implications of our observations on the dynamics of careers/biographies in times of change on a more systemic level? • While career as a set of guiding norms may maximise formal auditable output, this does not equal to a sustainable increase of innovative knowledge production. Rather, epistemic risk is discouraged and paths beyond the mainstream are less travelled. • In the ever longer phase of strong career competition, very little value-structure beyond “being first” may be discerned. This may explain the growing incidence of deviant behaviour, such as in cases of the fraudulent use of data. • Current career paths are perceived as not sustainable on both an epistemic and social level in the long term. This may render science as workplace unattractive to many, and may hardly be countered by a policy lip-service on the importance of “more scientists”. • Our material shows that this is especially true for young women scientists, as the values and rules of career on average seem to have a better fit with biographical expectations commonly gendered as male.

20. Thanks for the attention