Meta-research: Justifying career disruption in funding applications, a survey of Australian researchers
- Queensland University of Technology, Australia
- University of Technology Sydney, Australia
- Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Abstract
Background: When researchers' careers are disrupted by life events-such as illness or childbirth-they often need to take extended time off. This creates a gap in their research output that can reduce their chances of winning funding. In Australia, applicants can disclose their career disruptions and peer reviewers are instructed to make appropriate adjustments. However, it is not clear if and how applicants use career disruption sections or how reviewers adjust and if they do it consistently.
Methods: To examine career disruption, we used surveys of the Australian health and medical research community. We used both a random sample of Australian authors on PubMed and a non-random convenience sample.
Results: Respondents expressed concerns that sharing information on career disruption would harm their chances of being funded, with 13% saying they have medical or social circumstances but would not include it in their application, with concerns about appearing 'weak'. Women were more reluctant to include disruption. There was inconsistency in how disruption was adjusted for, with less time given for those with depression compared with caring responsibilities, and less time given for those who did not provide medical details of their disruption.
Conclusions: The current system is likely not adequately adjusting for career disruption and this may help explain the ongoing funding gap for senior women in Australia.
Funding: National Health and Medical Research Council Senior Research Fellowship (Barnett).
Data availability
All data and code are openly available here https://github.com/agbarnett/career_disruption
Article and author information
Author details
Funding
National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1117784)
- Adrian Barnett
National Health and Medical Research Council (APP2008313)
- Susanna Cramb
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Ethics
Human subjects: Ethics approval was obtained from the Queensland University of Technology human research ethics committee. All participants provided informed consent before completing the survey.
Copyright
© 2022, Barnett et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 1,707
- views
-
- 156
- downloads
-
- 7
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Citations by DOI
-
- 7
- citations for umbrella DOI https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.76123
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Meta-research: Justifying career disruption in funding applications, a survey of Australian researchers
eLife 11:e76123.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.76123
