Scientist Promotion Discussion Forum - Summary
Upcoming Events | ECSA Links | NCAR Links | Funding Opportunities | Job Links | Past Events
On January 22, 2001, the Early Career Scientists Assembly (ECSA) held a discussion forum addressing promotion issues for scientists at NCAR. Panel members included division and program directors as well as past and present chairpersons of the Appointments Review Group (ARG). A set of questions were devised by the organizing committee (Tammy Weckwerth, Holly Gilbert, and Bill Spotz, as well as Mary Barth, the ECSA President). These were sent to the panel members in advance, and while the discussion was free-flowing, they will serve as the structure for this summary.
- Maurice Blackmon (Director of CGD)
- Dave Carlson (Director of ATD)
- Al Cooper (Director of ASP)
- Brant Foote (Director of RAP)
- Bob Gall (Director of MMM)
- Daniel McKenna (Director of ACD)
- Tim Spangler (Director of COMET)
- Rolando Garcia (ARG/ACD)
- Sasha Madronich (ARG/ACD)
- Bill Mankin (ARG/ACD)
Job-based positions may be stagnant; the division may never need more from that position than is currently required, and so promotion is not an option. In these cases, the only avenue for promotion is to apply for a different position. More often, as a supervisor determines that the individual is capable of more responsibilities than originally required, the job is expanded. When this widening of requirements and responsibilities results in a job which more closely resembles a higher level, a formal reclassification should be undertaken and the employee appointed to the new position.
The second discussion point Bob was asked to cover was the job matrices maintained by HR. This was one of the original general questions submitted by the organizing committee:
- HR maintains a matrix of responsibilities and qualities required for each level of Associate Scientist, Project Scientist and Scientist. What is your policy on making early career scientists aware of these matrices? How closely are the matrices followed when making decisions about appointments or promotions?
Answer: HR views these matrices as "calibrating tools" for their own use. They are not "secret," but their availability is somewhat restricted. For example, while employees are free to obtain a copy of the matrices from their division office or HR, they are intentionally not posted on the web. HR is of the opinion that the divisions should submit job descriptions to HR without reference to the matrices and at that point the matrices should be used to determine the appropriate level. As such the matrices are not job descriptions. The division directors disagreed with the way the matrices are distributed and encouraged a more open policy in this regard.
- What are your thoughts as to the pros and cons of having three scientific tracks at NCAR? Do you feel that there is an apparent caste system?
Answer: It was noted during discussion that according to the HR matrices, education requirements are stricter and more leadership was expected of Scientists and Project Scientists than of Associated Scientists, and that perhaps that fact warranted different perceptions. The Associate Scientist and Project Scientist positions are currently under review.
Associate Scientist Discussion
- What is the role of the Associate Scientist in your division?
Answer: Categorization of a scientist depends on the needs of the institution and the available jobs. Associate Scientists are generally considered support staff, helping with tasks involved in a defined project and for a specific Scientist, following specific instructions. In fact, Associate Scientists used to be called Support Scientists. Unlike Project Scientists and Scientists, Associate Scientists do not have a lot of independence at the early levels (i.e. I and II), and do not act as Principal Investigators. Those at the III and IV levels assume more responsibility and work under more generalized instructions (similar to Project Scientists I and II). Associate Scientists that work independently are probably at the III or IV level.
The difference between Associate Scientists III/IV and Project Scientists I/II is currently an issue of debate at NCAR. While the salary ranges for Associate and Project Scientists are the same at these levels, according to the HR matrices, Associate Scientists (relative to Project Scientists) are (1) not required to have a PhD (or equivalent), (2) expected to demonstrate slightly less leadership, and (3) given slightly less independence associated with the job. The meaning of "or equivalent" with respect to the PhD requirement is an issue with which the center still struggles.
Funding sources do not determine Associate versus Project Scientist jobs. Often these positions are funded with outside money, and when the project ends, the job ends. There appears to be a prestige issue or perhaps promotion potential issues among staff in the Associate Scientist levels.
There was also discussion regarding the differences between Associate Scientists and Software Engineers. These categories are also somewhat difficult to distinguish between at the junior levels. Software Engineers have higher salary ranges and a difference may exist in how much programming involves science (Associate Scientists often program for their own projects, whereas Software Engineers tend to create products for other people to use). There probably needs to be an NCAR-wide discussion addressing the differences between Software Engineers and Associate Scientists.
- What should an Associate Scientist do to help him or herself get promoted up the Associate Scientist ladder, or to be promoted to a different ladder?
Answer: As part of the job-based approach, a promotion within the Associate Scientist ladder requires that a job exist or be created at a higher level than the employee's current job. If the employee has acquired more tasks at a higher level or taken on a certain job that is considered a higher level job, then it is at that time they should be considered for reclassification. Or, if a job opens up at a higher level than the current level of the employee, they can apply for that job, and if successful, be promoted. Being promoted in this ladder involves the expectations of the division and whether they have changed with respect to an employee's current responsibilities. Effective mentoring is the only way to make these expectations clear to the employee. [Note: the ECSA plans to hold a discussion forum on mentoring in the near future.]
To be promoted to a different ladder, Associate Scientists must fulfill the requirements set for the Project Scientist or Scientist positions, one of which is to have a PhD or equivalent experience. Expectations are different on these ladders, although there is some ambiguity between Associate Scientists III/IV and Project Scientists I/II which needs to be addressed by the institution. It was mentioned that an individual without a PhD likely has more room for advancement as an Associate Scientist III rather than a Project Scientist I, although there was not complete agreement on this point.
In either case listed above, getting promoted is more likely if the employee assumes more leadership and shows improvement of skills required in their current position. Performance at a high level is important because it gives divisions strong incentive to keep that employee at NCAR, possibly by moving him or her to a different project when current funds run out. Just doing the job is not enough, however, and being hired to do a specific job may not allow time to develop skills leading to the next level. The Associate Scientist would need to have the cooperation and mentoring of his or her supervisor for this to happen.
- Are you stuck as an Associate Scientist IV? Once a scientist has become an Associate Scientist IV, is it more difficult to change to a different Scientist ladder than an Associate Scientist I/II/III?
Answer: No. The criteria for switching ladders are not different for Associate Scientists IV than other levels.
- What is the policy on furthering the education for Associate Scientists?
Answer: This was not addressed in the forum, but it is our understanding that NCAR is very supportive of anyone wanting to further their education, including all scientific tracks.
- We understand that a Project Scientist is assigned to a particular project, so perhaps we could get a better definition of what a project is. Is a project strictly what is listed in an externally-funded, or specially-funded, grant? Or is there a broader definition?
Answer: Project Scientist has a very broad definition. It can be a regular or term appointment, and it can be funded by soft money or base funds. The terms of the job can be broad or specific according to the needs of the division.
The Project Scientist job category grew out of a problem in which long projects existed where it was reasonable to expect publications to be postponed until the end of the project. The new job title was in part a response to external reviews in which concern was expressed about Scientists in such situations being set up for failure. As the title implies, it is also used for people who come to NCAR to work on specific projects that depend on outside grants that are not necessarily renewable. The job classification is currently under review at NCAR, which may lead to changes or new recommendations.
- What differences exist between a Project Scientist I/II and a Scientist I/II?
Answer: The differences between a Project Scientist compared to a regular Scientist are (1) a potentially delayed expectation to publish, (2) no promotion timetable, (3) slightly less independence, and (4) slightly lower leadership expectations.
- When is a Project Scientist I ready to be promoted to a Project Scientist II?
Answer: Since Project Scientist is a job-based position, "promotion" is probably the wrong term. When the Project Scientist and his or her supervisor agree that the Project Scientist's skills and responsibilities have evolved to become more compatible with the Project Scientist II rank, as defined by the HR matrix, then the job should be reclassified, and the employee appointed to the new position. The HR matrix should serve as a guideline, but divisional needs play a role as well. This role can only be conveyed to the employee through effective mentoring.
- Likewise, when is a Project Scientist II ready to be promoted to a Project Scientist III?
Answer: This process would be similar to the I-to-II reclassification, with the caveat that a Project Scientist III requires NCAR or UCAR Director approval, a requirement which is intended to have some similarities to the ARG process. A Project Scientist III is expected to have a national reputation.
- Is promotion of a Project Scientist affected by family issues?
Answer: This issue was not directly addressed during the forum, but Project Scientists are eligible for the same flexible benefits as other UCAR employees, subject to the needs of the supervisor. Changes to part-time or flexible hours are a possibility in response to family needs. Since a Project Scientist is not "on the clock" in the way a regular Scientist is, utilizing these policies has less of an effect than for regular Scientists.
- What pathways are available for a Project Scientist to transfer to the Scientist ladder?
Answer: Scientist positions must be open to an international search. Any Project Scientist may apply for such positions when they become available . Bob Gall advised being aggressive in your own career development, which includes being aware of the job matrix requirements, working towards those goals on your own, instigating promotion discussions with your supervisor and exploring external job opportunities.
- How do you define a Scientist I/II?
Answer: Scientists must have a PhD or equivalent experience. They face the "up or out" policy in promotion. Scientists are expected to publish, are on a specified calendar, are independent, and are professional leaders. In fact, Scientists should be working to define the direction of science in the future.
- What is meant in the policy manual by the definition of a Scientist (vs. Project Scientist)?
Answer: A Scientist is on the "up or out" advancement track. A Project Scientist does not have these time constraints. A Scientist is free to develop their own research interests while a Project Scientist usually works on a specific project which may have constraints in terms of scientific freedom. Expectation to publish may be delayed for a Project Scientist compared to a Scientist.
- How does a Scientist II prepare him or herself for promotion? What's really important? Should a Scientist I/II focus primarily on his or her research to produce papers? Or should a Scientist I/II balance research projects with science committees (e.g. organizing workshops) and educational activities? What is more important: depth or breadth?
Answer: Scientists I and II are encouraged to do research, publish results, and form collaborations as a first priority rather than do community service, panels, educational activities, etc. It is most important to become established as a good researcher with good ideas and to impact the national and international community through publications. The community services will come naturally as Scientists are invited to participate. Scientists should keep an accurate listing of what they've done by maintaining an updated vita. Balancing research projects with science committees and educational activities should be more important to the II to III levels.
It is important that Scientists become well-known within the community. Thus, it is most likely that depth in one research area is preferred. If you can establish a good group of collaborators, the breadth will come as a result.
The ARG rates these factors in deciding about promotions: (1) publications; (2) impact of those publications -- the quantity of publications is not as important as the requirement that one or two of the papers create a great impact in the scientific community; (3) service -- this is a desired but not required for advancement to Scientist III.
- What is the procedure in your division for nominating a Scientist II for consideration of promotion?
Answer: We did not have time to address this question at the forum but we did receive some responses afterward. The division director makes the final decision as to which Scientist II's will be put up for Scientist III, as well as when this will happen. This is typically discussed with the Scientist II. In the case of MMM, RAP and ATD the senior scientists from the three divisions (a group that "looks" like the ARG) have an annual meeting to give a recommendation to the division directors as to whether or not the Scientist II should be put up for advancement. It is believed that all divisions are similar in this procedure.
- One of the surveys performed within the last couple of years showed that women Scientists who were appointed at the Scientist I/II level advanced to the Scientist III level at a 38% rate, while their male counterparts matriculated at a 67% rate. What are your thoughts as to why there is this striking difference? A related question was: is promotion of a Scientist affected by family issues?
Answer: It is hoped that NCAR will be moving to a more family-friendly institution in the future with new management. It was suggested that one of the reasons that female Scientists haven't advanced at the same rate as their male counterparts is due to the history of the science track being a male-dominated track without family responsibilities. Maurice said it's time to change this trend and one way to go about it is to "stop the clock" for up to one year for Scientist parents with new babies. This could be done for both new fathers and new mothers on the science ladder.
- One of the issues brought forth in the APS report is that NCAR should reconsider the "up or out" policy. There have been some suggestions of removing the term limitation of the Scientist I/II so that the Scientist can work at his or her optimal pace. Another possibility is to consider promotion after certain merits have been achieved (e.g. 15 1st/2nd authored papers, and certain amounts of community and educational activities). What are your thoughts on the up or out policy?
Answer: Brant explained that the policy was in effect to match the universities' obligation to the employee as to long term commitments. Bob Gall explained that the "up or out" policy keeps scientific staff moving ahead and that stopping the clock can be used for several reasons. Sasha asked that we consider the 8 year period of time as sufficient to the employee's commitment. Rolando expressed support for the system as currently structured, because it balances the need to select only the best candidates for Scientist III/IV with the recognition that people have a life outside of work (by allowing the clock to be stopped). He believes the divisions have a big role to play in not misleading people who may have only a marginal chance of advancement to Scientist III.