From Recruitment to Retirement: Research Infrastructure Staff Views on the Diversification of Scientific Career Paths at Universities in Sweden in 2024

Participants

The participants in this study included research infrastructure staff working at SciLifeLab with varied levels of university training and a broad range of titles. Two thirds of SciLifeLab infrastructure staff hold a PhD, and job titles for these positions include data stewards, lab managers, systems developers, research engineers in technology design and technology services, scientific officers, bioinformaticians, team leads, administration and coordination roles.

Survey and workshop structure

The workshop was carried out at the 2024 SciLifeLab Facility Forum, a semi-annual research infrastructure meeting that invites all employees across all technology platforms, plus operational, data management, and training units. Workshop sign-up was available to all Facility Forum participants, with a maximum of 65 seats, and was designed to consist of three components; 1) a survey conducted prior to the workshop, 2) the workshop presentation, and 3) real-time feedback from the workshop participants. Participants were advised before proceeding with the survey that all responses collected would be anonymized and only be presented in aggregate if there were enough responses to reasonably assure anonymity. In submitting the survey, participants gave informed consent to their responses being presented in this way, and during the workshop participants were informed that the collected responses would be published after the workshop. Participation in all aspects of this study was voluntary.

To tailor the workshop to the perspective of those attending, the pre-workshop survey was distributed beforehand by email to all registered participants, and a response rate of 25/65, or 40% was achieved. After receiving responses, free text entries were coded to remove identifying information and shown in aggregate as part of the workshop presentation. During the in-person workshop, further questions were posed to the larger group of participants with the assistance of Mentimeter (Mentimeter AB, Sweden), followed by smaller group discussions. Realtime responses were coded to remove identifying information and are presented alongside the survey results here.

Pre-workshop survey and presentation

The pre-workshop survey was designed to understand the community demographics and current views on scientific career paths available to research infrastructure and core facility staff across universities in Sweden. To do this, questions were formulated with input of the 2019 survey by Stefan Nordlund,⁹ surveys of early career researchers in Sweden,¹² global survey of core facility staff needs,⁴ as well as the pillars of the Technician Commitment.⁵ Of 27 responses received prior to the workshop (two respondents held more than one job title), the most common positions reported were Bioinformatician and Staff Scientist (including variations of Research Engineer, Researcher, and Senior Research Engineer, Figure 1A). Of the respondents, 88% held a permanent work contract, with the other 12% holding employment contracts of 1-2 years ( Figure 1B). This distribution is similar to what has been reported for European staff scientists in other surveys.⁴ While seven Swedish universities were represented in the survey data, the participants were heavily weighted towards Uppsala University and Stockholm University ( Figure 1C). Participants from Stockholm-Uppsala area universities made up 68% of pre-workshop survey participants, consistent with 67% of all registered participants from a total of 11 institutions.

Figure 1. Pre-workshop survey results.

Responses to the online survey compiled by question. Number of participants who responded was 25 out of a possible 65 (40% response rate).

A-D) Distribution of responses to pre-workshop survey questions on demographics and views on career paths in Sweden.

E) Menti response during in-person workshop (56 responses). This question was posed following presentation of results A-D to the participants. Ten responses of ‘Yes’ indicated they had also responded to the pre-workshop survey.

F-G) Distribution of responses to pre-workshop survey questions on future development and resourcing.

A series of twelve statements on career progression were posed in the survey, and responses grouped generally into clear agreement or disagreement with the statement ( Figure 1D). Generally positive responses indicated that Sweden and SciLifeLab are attractive places to work (Q3, Q4), that positions are stable, recognized, and visible (Q6, Q7, Q11, Q12), and that continuing education and training are supported (Q8). Generally negative responses indicated that both the career paths and metrics required for progression in a non-academic track career in Sweden are unclear (Q1, Q2, Q9), and that information is lacking on opportunities designed for the experts in these careers (Q10). Collectively, this suggests that a non-academic track position at a university in Sweden is attractive and stable but is associated with uncertainty in career progression. Finally, when the larger group of in-person workshop participants were asked if this picture was accurate to their situation, the majority of responses agreed (50/56, 89%, Figure 1E).

While staff scientists reported a lack of knowledge on or possibility for career progression, this was not associated with a lack of intrinsic goals or motivation, or a lack of support in continuing education and training. Survey respondents were asked what goals they were actively working towards and a variety of targets were reported ( Figure 1F), with the largest number of responses being improving technical skills (33%). While many responses indicated uncertainty over career development, only 10% of responses indicated uncertainty over goals. When asked if there were opportunities or resources staff scientists needed for career development, 46% of responses indicated the need for a clear career path or the possibility for career progression ( Figure 1G), compared with 17% responses indicating a need for further training or mentorship, and 38% responses of not needing or being unsure if further resources were needed. These results illustrate facility staff as a motivated group that are facing a situation where meeting goals and advancing skills are not necessarily associated with career progression.

Workshop presentation of survey results and career paths progress 2019-2024

During the in-person Facility Forum workshop, a summary of career path development at Swedish universities was presented to the participants and later made freely available. A timeline of career path development for technical staff was presented to participants ( Figure 2A), beginning with Stefan Nordlund’s recommendation of a two-step career path for staff scientists at Swedish universities ( Figure 2B). The career path structure approved by KI in 2023¹⁰ was also presented ( Figure 2C), as well as more branched paths that have been suggested for universities in Sweden based on work in the UK, including the Technical Specialists Promotional Pathway Pilot at the University of Warwick.¹³ Following this presentation, the workshop participants were polled for feedback on these career paths. Responses were split between positive and negative ( Figure 2E). While 47% of responses were positive, indicating the view that non-academic track career path development in Sweden is progressing, 53% expressed concerns about insufficient progression in compensation, concerns of how career paths are to be implemented over existing staff structures, and questions of equity in national institutions employing staff from universities with different career path structures (including SciLifeLab). Importantly, 12.5% of responses noted that career paths in Sweden have only so far been addressed for PhD graduates, and that staff scientists holding other degrees are currently excluded from the formal career development process.

Figure 2. Presentation of timeline of career path development in Sweden.

A) Timeline of career path development in Sweden, starting from URFI survey.

B) Diagram of the two-step career path suggested in the URFI report.⁹

C) Diagram of the branched career path implemented by the Karolinska Institute.¹⁰

D) Diagram of a potential branched career path for Universities in Sweden.

E) In-person response to the proposed career paths (64 responses from 55 participants).

Feedback on career progression from workshop participants

As most Swedish universities plan to integrate career paths for staff scientists, a discussion was held to identify the skills, knowledge, and competencies essential for career development beyond the academic tenure track ( Figure 3A). When asked which skills were most important in the development of staff scientists’ careers, technical skills were ranked most highly, followed by communication, core skills (social and character skills), and management abilities ( Figure 3B). Publications was a relatively rare response, although publication quantity and quality are frequently used as indicators. Teaching and collaboration were also relatively rare responses, indicating a need to recognize these efforts and incorporate them into career structures in order to support organizational growth, as planned for at SciLifeLab through agreements such as CoARA.⁸ When polled about which career progression metrics the workshop participants would like to develop in, the primary response was leadership & management skills ( Figure 3C), suggesting the development of a management strand¹³ may be beneficial to diversifying career progression structures.

Figure 3. Current career progression needs.

A) Presented diagram of possible career progression metrics for infrastructure staff.

B) In-person Mentimeter, 64 responses from 43 participants.

C) In-person Mentimeter, 85 responses from 47 participants.

D) In-person Mentimeter, responses from 53 participants.

E) In-person Mentimeter, 50 responses from 42 participants.

Finally, when asked if they had applied for a program, fellowship, or grant available specifically for research infrastructure staff, 66% of workshop participants responded that they had not ( Figure 3D). The primary barriers to pursuing professional growth for scientific staff were insufficient information and limited time ( Figure 3E), while several responses highlighted a scarcity of opportunities, some noting that applying for them provided little benefit without a well-defined career path structure.

Preregistered data analysis

This study was not preregistered at an independent registry.