“We are seeking a highly motivated candidate…”
Academics have to go through an awful lot during their respective undergraduate, postgraduate and PhD degree programmes, as well as all the other developmental experiences they go through. So the industrial level subconscious undertone of constantly questioning our character (e.g. motivation levels) is a constant kick in the teeth. But more than this, it exacerbates the emotional, mental and physical health issues that are already deep rooted in the industry. Dr. Robert Seaborne speaks about this in our latest article.
“...after all of this, I have someone who doesn’t even know me question whether I am ‘motivated’ or not. ”
‘We are seeking a highlight motivated candidate…”
How often, when trawling through the rather bleak academic job market, do you come across this phrase. It must be the most frequently ‘copy and pasted’ pieces of text within the job market in our industry. Its plastered on the majority of job adverts. It’s the opening line on most social media posts regarding the job vacancy. And, if you are fortunate enough to get with in a hairs length of getting the job itself, it will undoubtedly have been mentioned, on numerous occasions along the way – the actual interview being the pinnacle of that.
When on the job market after my PhD, I became so used to seeing this (and similar phrases) that they soon became the norm. I barely blinked when reading it. It was as if it was the only opening line a job offer could use.
And at the time of looking, I had gone through a 3-year undergraduate degree programme. I then opted to transition straight into a 1-year full-time master’s degree, specialising further into the science theme with which I was so interested. I worked incredibly hard to obtain the skills, experience, knowledge, and characteristics to stand me in good stead for a potential PhD programme – not to mention attaining the actual results which would convince others that I was a suitable candidate for doctoral study. Successful at this, I then worked my fingers to the bone, worked (literally) night and day, 7 days a week, to the point where my mental, physical, and emotional health became compromised, to make sure that the research I was doing and the work I was producing was to the best of my capabilities. I took on excessive amounts of extra work (teaching, tutoring, peer-reviewing, running workshops, experimenting with side projects etc.) to continue to try and develop as a person, as a scientist, as a teacher and, fundamentally, as an academic. Not only all of this, but I did it surviving on the absolute bare minimum in financial remuneration (I abstain from calling it a ‘salary’ or a ‘wage’ – in the UK at least, £13k a year is not a salary for a person working somewhere between 60-80 hrs a week depending on the status of their workload at any given time.) that allowed me to literally just scrape by from month to month. I did all this knowing that the job market in the industry is horrifically fickle. With contracts for post-PhD persons being as little as 3-months to a usual maximum of 3-year fixed term, leading to a highly turbulent and tumultuous post-PhD career prospect.
And then, after all of this, I have someone who doesn’t even know me question whether I am ‘motivated’ or not. Does this sound like someone who is anything other than ‘highly motivated’? Would someone who was anything other than ‘highly motivated’ have continued this path that is so fraught with obscurity and barriers? Of-course it doesn’t.
Does this story sound familiar? Does it resonate?
If so, why not leave a comment at the bottom of this article, or contact us directly here. If you are interested in writing an article, just drop us a message!
So why, as an academic industry, have we decided that it is ok to question just how motivated a young career scientist/academic is? And if you investigate this subject further, you will see, as I have so often, that it isn’t just about how ‘motivated’ candidates are for job roles. If you search through job vacancies, post-doc fellowship applications, in speaking with those hiring, search through social media or even hear speakers at conferences advertise positions in their institutes/teams, you will notice the sub-conscious questioning of various personal characteristics. Your fundamental interest in the scientific subject. Your level of passion. Your devotion to your career. Willingness to work ‘above-and-beyond’ (this one is a classic) the duty. The list could go on.
The main problem with this underlying subconscious questioning of an academic’s character that litter the industry, is that it helps to exacerbate some of the toxic culture, mental and emotional turbulency that we experience. I have felt this, personally. After completing my PhD and going through a lot of ‘up and downs’ during it (I wrote an article about exactly this, here), I then spent several months being rejected from fellowships, grants, postdoctoral positions and research assistant jobs. All of these (or a good majority) wanted to hire a ‘highly motivated candidate’. So, when rejected from these positions, I very quickly began to develop doubts as to whether I was motivated. Whether I was passionate. Whether I was prepared to work hard at my career. In a mind that was already quite muddled and fogged up, because of my taxing PhD studies, I couldn’t see rationally just how ridiculous these statements were. At the time, I began to worry that maybe i wasn’t the ‘type of character’ that was needed to make it in academia.
“ I very quickly began to develop doubts as to whether I was motivated. Whether I was passionate. Whether I was prepared to work hard at my career. In a mind that was already quite muddled and fogged up, because of my taxing PhD studies, I couldn’t see rationally just how ridiculous these statements were. ”
After finally being successful at interview, I then spent the next 6 months to a year trying to prove to everyone (and, especially, myself) that I was ‘motivated’ (etc, etc, etc). All this meant was that I re-doubled my efforts on my work. Working ever more prolonging hours in the lab, at my computer. Trying to read all the papers in my scientific discipline. Seeking extra work both within and outside of my department/institute. Continually convincing myself that this is what was needed of me, so I could be seen as one of the ‘highly motivated candidates’ within academia. I soon slid down slippery slope of excessive working at the consequence of my mental and physical health, and while it certainly wasn’t the biggest nor only factor in this happening, it certainly was a contributor.
The truth is, it is all false. I genuinely believe everyone is motivated within academia. The landscape of it can be harsh at times. The hurdles incredibly high. The setbacks incredibly big. And the rewards (extrinsic) rather scarce. If we weren’t motivated, then we probably wouldn’t be here?
My main issue then, is why do we continually question an academics (often young academics) motivation level? Or passion, devotion, willingness etc. Why don’t we assume, given what they’ve had to go through to get to the position of applying for a post-PhD job, that they have all these things. And why don’t we begin by hiring persons based on the qualities, skills, and assets they currently have as well as the ones we know they can develop.
Why don’t we drop this facade of ‘highly motivated candidate’ attitude? Its outdated and rather toxic.
If you liked our article then we would welcome feedback and support. Sharing this article far and wide would really help! If you are interested in writing an article for us, want to learn more about our speaking and mentoring events/programmes or simply want to get in touch about something else, follow the highlighted links. We are also on twitter @Insideacademic and on instagram as @inside.academia.
written by: Dr Robert Seaborne
twitter: @RobbySeaborne
edited by: Dr. Robert Seaborne
