Research domains
This experiment applies to research and education institutions where researchers need to submit an application to obtain permanency (i.e., Tenure).
Context and considerations
For Team Tenure to work, a few elements may need to be considered: - Broad topic is chosen based on strategic needs of the institution - Need to create a group of job descriptions that cover the needs of such a group, to specify the personnel needs of that topic - The group would obtain permanency, but a decision needs to be made on whether individuals also obtain permanent positions as a result - It may be necessary to build a team covering the strategic needs and goals of the team, and enabling a stable group structure as opposed to an individual - Structure should be built based on the needs of the institution
Must fit strategic needs of the institution - following normal tenure committee procedure
- Maybe need different guidelines/procedures than traditional tenure (also for runtime of ongoing tenured group)
Who is the right person/group to say who the right people are for the team?
- Strategic/central evaluation vs. letting the group leader pick their team**
- Aims to find a leader with a co-interest with the institution to have a stable team (vs. a high-turnover group of ECRs focusing on productivity) - different leadership
Like funding scheme for team - define the composition of the team in the proposal itself (e.g. potential job ads - how do you find the right profiles to fit in the team)
- E.g. 1 lead profile + 2 other profiles fitting the needs of the project - more of a separate hiring process
- After first period of funding is over, can apply for successive phase - have to show why they fit together, and why the team works as it does
Think about the profiles that are needed to cover the group’s goals
Topic should be broad, and not too specific
- Should be also more thought-through than a typical grant/group
- E.g. creating a mini-interdisciplinary center - fostering collaboration between domains
Important to think about the model of tenure that the institution wants
- Is this temporary/permanent for the people inside?
- How will the team look?
- Is there evaluation during/after?
- Is there an ending of the group? If so, where do we want them to land?
PI needs to be a better leader in such a group - longer term perspective for the people
- Need to take care of your team better
- Damage done is worse compared to a “short-term” project
Challenges and mitigations
Several questions and challenges may result from implementing Team Tenure. The few questions below may help stimulate a discussion on these challenges and in building strategies to mitigate them in your context.
- Everyone wants to be a leader.
- Note: It it possible that this is mitigated in the long run, the advantages of being a recognised team member with security reduce the unequal advantage of being in a leadership position, reducing the general desire for a leadership role.
- People don’t think in terms of the team, rather think about the people they already have/want
- Need to have blue sky thinking first?
- When the job description fits the project/group, it’s generally more creative/broader - not a checklist of a person who is already there
- Needs of the topic can change, topic can also become irrelevant/shift drastically
- If the topic is broad, there might be ways to pivot/shift
- Can you run an effective team with only tenured people? How do you manage/create fresh idea generation/innovativeness
- In the tenure, require things that boost this - e.g. cross-sectoral/domain mobility
- Make sure they are constantly challenged/exposed to new or different things
- What if a person drops out of the group? Who’s the backup?
- Job descriptions for each role should be prepared at the beginning, can be updated as the group moves forward
- How do we develop people who aren’t leaders but want to do different roles?
- Career development “go beyond your bubble”
- How do we encourage/fairly incentivize people who want to remain in a non-leadership role?
- Develop career tracks for different roles
- Need very strong leaders in these groups - not just scientifically focused, more able to lead their team well - different type of person
- Hiring of a PI needs to be mainly based on leadership more than research outputs
- Continuous and recurrent training, reflective leadership, etc. to maintain this
- If no end to the group, and the topic is super broad, you create a new “research institute”/unit in your environment
- If you start with a long-term but still temporary thing, then the topic/team has developed away from the initial idea. Need to be reflective on the purpose/goals of the group
- If the team is successful, need to ask “why is this not a typical group that has always existed”
Evaluating success
The following achievements may help determine whether the experiment can be considered a success.
- Engrained as a team in their focus areas - have a set of projects/funding chains in place, activities in internationalization/teaching/etc.
- For the institution/group - achieving more as a group than as if the group wasn’t there or project based funding or something more traditional
- Career development for people in the “more junior” positions
- Stability for people in traditionally non-tenure position, for those that don’t want to be a PI
- If the team is successful and looks like a traditional research group/institute (with funding/success measures/etc.) - what do you do with this
Relevant resources and literature
This section includes resources, literature, and reports relevant to this specific experimental idea (if available).
Comments/lived examples