Over the years, YERUN has been actively contributing to the European conversation on research careers, advocating for more sustainable, attractive, and inclusive pathways for researchers. This edition of the Sparks of YERUN shines a light on that work.
To open the conversation, we spoke with Karen Vandevelde, HR Director at the University of Antwerp, whose insights reflect both a deep understanding of institutional responsibility and a bold vision for cultural change in academia. In this interview, Karen addresses the warning signs emerging globally and offers thoughtful reflections on what it will take to build a talent ecosystem that truly supports researchers at every stage.
A recent article in Nature highlighted that PhD research is in decline in the US. Graduates are less and less interested in doing a research degree. Should we in Europe also be worried?
The Nature article is important reading for all of us, but we need to remember it focuses on the US case. As in many other parts of the world, PhD level researchers have limited bursaries or low salaries, and very little social protection in terms of sick leave, maternity leave or pension contributions. In those circumstances, starting PhD research means you are taking risks at a time in your life when other responsibilities increase. Many early career researchers do not have that luxury because you become or remain dependent on your parents, your partner, a second job or the loan from a bank.
Europe has done a great job in prioritising attractive careers and emphasising adequate working conditions but this does not take away the fact that early career researchers embark on a career which is characterised by insecurity. We should take the message as a warning that investing in a knowledge economy is a continuous investment and requires us to look at career choices not from “our” point of view as a university but from the perspective of researchers themselves. We may think we are attractive as employers, but if R&D companies, service industry or other non-academic job provide more attractive careers to graduates, we are no longer investing in the next generation’s talent.
If we as universities continue to request free labour and working overtime, encourage diva behaviour or tolerate abusive power relations, early career researchers absolutely do the right thing in choosing other career paths. The passion to pursue knowledge and the freedom to organise your own work are a privilege and are great reasons to work in academia, but even these privileges have their boundaries. Many people do not put up with the sacrifices that are required to pursue an academic career… and perhaps we have been confusing “being prepared to make sacrifices” with “being passionate”. It is probably easier to recognise and reward sacrifices (being internationally mobile despite family commitments, exhausting ourselves to publish a lot, travelling to conferences to expand our network) than to define excellence or to recognise the potential to contribute to the mission of your university.
That leaves us, working in academia, with the responsibility to “check in” regularly with our research community – established academics as well as early career researchers. Their brilliant minds are our goldmine so we need to treat every one of them with care, respect and appreciation. Even when we still have dozens of applicants for an academic job.
If career opportunities for researchers vary so much from country to country, what are the key elements of success for a good talent ecosystem?
An ecosystem requires fertile ground, diversity and room to grow. In the contents of talent ecosystem, the first one means that you need a basic level of investment in R&D. You need resources in terms of funding for research and well-trained people who can push knowledge to the next level. Next, you ensure there are jobs for highly-skilled people or at least a climate that welcomes research entrepreneurship. That is your fertile ground, but it needs air and water. Refer back to ecosystems in nature: you need rainfall in order for plants to grow, but a stop-and-go policy can be compared to months of drought which makes the soil hard and rigid. The next heavy rain will cause more damage than good because the water cannot infiltrate the soil and flushes away any fragile plant, building or animal that made its home in that ecosystem. Similarly, a big financial injection without a sustainable follow-up plan is going to have little effect.
Second, diversity. An ecosystem approach must recognise that governments, funders, research performing institutions and other employers all have different roles to play when enhancing researchers’ careers. They need to agree on a strategy to invest in R&D and must make connections, interact, exchange views, build trust. Even when resources are scarce, a small, sustainable investment, regulation or procedure that is carefully selected, can be more effective than well-intended initiatives from one of the stakeholders that is not fully thought through.
And finally, you need to invest in quality training and skills development. In the 20th century the pace of life was slow enough to simply “learn by doing”. Today is different. Universities are competitive environments, we are pushed to deliver results much faster than before and our world is changing constantly. Our established academics need leadership training because the challenges of supervision and coaching are huge. Members on selection committees need to learn to recognise skills and potential because we have stopped the practice of hiring the people we know already. Early career researchers need to acquire project management skills, resilience, collaborative work methods and using AI effectively because the way we do research has changed and careers have become more unpredictable. If Europe wants to stay top of the game in the knowledge economy we need to embed this culture of learning so that we can continue to raise the bar – not just pushing the boundaries of science itself, but also questioning and improving the way in which we do science.
Leadership is a key principle in most work environments. How much of a priority is this in universities?
Leadership is the Achilles’ heel in many universities. Unfortunately I still often see that professors expect authority without responsibility, perhaps because academic freedom is easily confused with the freedom to do what you want. Authority without responsibility means that you want to have a say in everything, you want the power to make decisions, but you want none of the responsibilities that come with these decisions. This mindset is continues to be tolerated and even encouraged in certain academic environments. For example, if you want full autonomy in hiring a PhD researcher, it is your responsibility to select a good candidate, to coach them and to help them become an independent researcher. You can’t simply dismiss this responsibility when they don’t succeed and blame everyone around you. You need to take ownership and dare to question yourself if your approach was really the right one. Perhaps you should have involved other panel members for a more balanced assessment, maybe your feedback was ineffective or your research environment not supportive. Taking responsibility means that you reflect on your leadership role, learn from experience and act upon the insights that come with it.
Luckily, there is change in lots of organisations and definitely amongst the younger generation of academics. But the culture change is not structural – not yet. It depends on inspiring individuals in the role of rector, president, or vice-chancellor who encourage leadership develop in their own organisation and acknowledge that academics need to invest time and effort in. The change needs to come from inside the academic environment. Otherwise, it will just be perceived as an element of “corporatisation” of universities. This resistance is understandable, but it should never be an excuse to disregard professional standards in collegiality & supervision.
Thank you, Karen!
Karen’s reflections highlight the urgency of building research careers that are truly sustainable and supportive. Her perspective is a reminder that lasting change depends not only on policy, but also on culture, leadership, and day-to-day practices within our institutions.
At YERUN, we are proud to work alongside colleagues like Karen in advancing this objectives. Through continued collaboration, we will keep advocating for research environments that value researchers, foster talent, and make academic careers a viable and rewarding choice.
