Search

In this, the second iteration of our continuing 'Harbingers of Change' project, over 160 early career researchers (ECRs) from eight countries were questioned about their scholarly communications. Three repeat in‐depth interviews were conducted over 2 years of the pandemic to chart changes in attitude and behaviour. This paper provides interview findings (and an extensive literature review) regarding the role played by social media platforms. It was prompted by an initial review of the data that highlighted significant changes in the attitudes and behaviour of Malaysian ECRs, especially in respect to WhatsApp. Data were provided from several open‐ended interview questions about social media, a few interviewer prompts for individual platform names, and, indirectly, from 'mentions' of individual platforms in answers to a range of questions about scholarly communications. Findings were: (1) 15 platforms were mentioned in respect to a range of scholarly activities, most notably visibility and reach; (2) Twitter (now X) was the most mentioned, by half the ECRs; (3) 'churn' is a notable observation, with large gains and losses in mentions occurring between interviews; (4) large differences between countries, with Malaysian ECRs very much leading on the adoption of social media and largely responsible for the rise of WhatsApp, French ECRs showing little interest, and China a different space where WeChat reigns supreme and foreign platforms are blocked. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Investigates whether junior researchers believe that the scholarly communication system is changing in a significant way, whether they have contributed to the changes they envisaged, whether the pandemic has fast‐forwarded change and what they thought a transformed system might look like. The data are drawn from the Harbingers‐2 project, which investigated the impact of the pandemic on the scholarly communications attitudes and behaviours of early career researchers (ECRs), employing repeat interviewing with around 170 science and social science junior researchers from eight countries. The article focuses on the findings of the last of three rounds of interviews, with comparisons made with the first round, held 18 months earlier, when the pandemic was most active. A majority of ECRs thought that there had been significant changes in the scholarly system, and a large minority thought that the pandemic was responsible. Most of them wanted a system that was more open in terms of open access and open data, with a third taking personal action to bring about change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points: 170 early career researchers interviewed three times over 2 years, have uniquely contributed towards a stress test of scholarly communications and cracks have been identified.The perfect storm created by the convergence of millennial values and the pandemic appears to have fast‐forwarded the cracking process, perhaps, for the good.The cracks in question are: (1) peer review; (2) reputational assessment; (3) unethical/questionable practices; (4) collaboration; (5) networking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After two‐years of repeat interviewing early career sciences/social sciences researchers from around the world about their work life and scholarly communications in pandemic‐times, the Harbingers‐2 project is in a position to release quantitative data on the pandemic's overall impact. The data comes from around 50 questions asked in the third and final round of interviews with 147 early career researchers (ECRs), which had a codifiable element to them (such as yes, no, do not know). The 19 scholarly topics covered include: pandemic‐related research; research funding; changes to the workplace/working from home; pandemic‐incurred stress and anxiety; teaching; employment security; career progression; mentoring; assessment (including metrics); collaboration; searching/finding information; ethics; networking; informal communication; publishing; sharing; pre‐prints; outreach; and scholarly transformations. The main findings are that in six broad aspects of ECRs' work‐life and scholarly behaviour, more than 50% of ECRs were impacted by the pandemic, with remote teaching having the greatest impact. By way of comparison, in another six aspects there was little change, least of all when it came to sharing activities. Among the countries studied, Malaysia stood out as being the most impacted, and of the disciplines it was the medical sciences and the soft social sciences most impacted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This paper describes the impact of external crises, i.e. the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, inflation and the reform of science and higher education on the work of early career researchers. Methods: The respondent group comprised early career researchers in humanities, theology and art. A qualitative analysis of free statements provided in the first round of in-depth interviews was performed. The Polish project (2023-) is a continuation of two international Harbingers projects, which included longitudinal interviews with early career researchers and dealt with changes in technology (2016-2018) and the pandemic (2020-2022). Results: Quotations from the interviews conducted in spring 2023 were used to describe the impact of external crises on the work of early career researchers in the three fields of science. The interviewees usually mentioned being overworked, sometimes - undervalued and, less frequently - the feeling of professional burnout. Financial problems of the young generation of Polish scientists were also brought up. Value: An attempt was made to characterise the conditions of work of Polish early career researchers in art, humanities and theology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In order to take account of the impact of the pandemic on the already changing scholarly communications and work-life of early career researchers (ECRs), the 4-year long Harbingers study was extended for another two years. As a precursor to the study (featuring interviews and a questionnaire survey), currently underway, an analytic review of the pertinent literature was undertaken and its results are presented here. The review focuses on the challenges faced by ECRs and how these compare to the ones more senior researchers have to tackle. In the examination of the literature three general questions are posed: Q1) What are the identifiable and forthcoming impacts of the pandemic-induced financial pressures felt in the Higher Education sector on ECRs' employment and career development prospects? Q2) What are the identifiable and forthcoming pandemic-associated disruptions in the pace/focus/direction of the research undertaking? Have any disruptions been predicted to exert an impact on ECRs' research activities, and if so, with what scholarly consequences? Q3) How is the work-life of ECRs shaping up under the virus-dictated rules of the 'new normal' in the research undertaking? What challenges, if any, arise from the changes in practices identified, and what might their potential consequences be for ECRs? The broad conclusion of the study is that the literature leaves little room for doubt: junior researchers are already disproportionally affected by and bear the burden of the ongoing pandemic-incurred hardships and they are likely to remain similarly impacted when more trials, still unfolding, materialise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In order to take account of the impact of the pandemic on the already changing scholarly communications and work-life of early career researchers (ECRs), the 4-year long Harbingers study was extended for another two years. As a precursor to the study (featuring interviews and a questionnaire survey), currently underway, an analytic review of the pertinent literature was undertaken and its results are presented here. The review focuses on the challenges faced by ECRs and how these compare to the ones more senior researchers have to tackle. In the examination of the literature three general questions are posed: Q1) What are the identifiable and forthcoming impacts of the pandemic-induced financial pressures felt in the Higher Education sector on ECRs’ employment and career development prospects? Q2) What are the identifiable and forthcoming pandemic-associated disruptions in the pace/focus/direction of the research undertaking? Have any disruptions been predicted to exert an impact on ECRs’ research activities, and if so, with what scholarly consequences? Q3) How is the work-life of ECRs shaping up under the virus-dictated rules of the ‘new normal’ in the research undertaking? What challenges, if any, arise from the changes in practices identified, and what might their potential consequences be for ECRs? The broad conclusion of the study is that the literature leaves little room for doubt: junior researchers are already disproportionally affected by and bear the burden of the ongoing pandemic-incurred hardships and they are likely to remain similarly impacted when more trials, still unfolding, materialise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]