{"id":1348,"date":"2023-04-24T09:06:37","date_gmt":"2023-04-24T08:06:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/socialscienceresearchfunding.co.uk\/?p=1348"},"modified":"2024-05-17T12:07:39","modified_gmt":"2024-05-17T11:07:39","slug":"postdoc-fellowships-should-i-stay-or-should-i-go","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/socialscienceresearchfunding.co.uk\/?p=1348","title":{"rendered":"Postdoc Fellowships: Should I Stay or Should I Go?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A version of this article first appeared in Funding Insight<\/a> in March 2022 and is reproduced with kind permission of Research Professional<\/a>. For more articles like this, visit www.researchprofessional.com<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is relocation always advisable for a postdoc fellowship, and what if it\u2019s not possible?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most postdoctoral fellowship programmes encourage potential applicants to move institutions, though the strength of that steer and the importance placed on researcher mobility varies from scheme to scheme. At the extreme end, in Europe, the Marie Curie Fellowships programme (not exclusively a postdoc scheme) requires international mobility for eligibility.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
“Until tomorrow, the whole world is my home…”<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

In the UK, most schemes have softened their steer over recent years. Where once staying at your current institution required \u2018exceptional justification\u2019 or some similar phrasing, there\u2019s now an increasing awareness that researcher mobility doesn\u2019t make sense for everyone and enforcing it has negative ramifications for equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI). It\u2019s much harder and more disruptive for researchers with family commitments to move institutions, and harder for those with partners who are tied to a particular location for family or job reasons. There will be other researchers who are already in the best environment for their research, and so any move would be a backward step. It\u2019s now common for application forms to allow space for both (a) personal\/EDI reasons why moving institutions is not possible; and (b) intellectual\/research reasons for not wanting to move.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

However, there is still a fear that whatever the guidance notes may say, the reality is that reviewers still expect researchers to move for a postdoc fellowship. Or that competitive pressures and limited funds may make it harder for non-mobile proposals to be scored high enough to cross the threshold. It\u2019s not obvious that an exceptional researcher with an exceptional project in a mediocre environment (for whatever reason) could be competitive against rivals who were judged exceptional across all three categories (person, project, place). Even if that researcher had very sound EDI-related reasons for not moving. It\u2019s a tricky issue and there\u2019s no obvious solution, other than a lot more money for fellowships. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s worth noting in passing that just because a reviewer has said something, doesn’t mean that the panel paid it any heed. A reviewer may think mobility ought to be compulsory, but the panel will ignore them if that’s not the scheme rule.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n