The Coercive Control of Postdocs

Some of the most vulnerable people in the desolate landscape of UK universities are postdocs. Nowadays, few independent research fellowships are available. Instead, many postdoctoral positions are project-related, supported by a grant obtained by the Principal Investigator (PI)

Postdoctoral research associates (PDRAs) often spend most of their time on semi-directed work on the PI’s project, but they are also expected to develop their own ideas and independent research activity. This is very important for the PDRA’s future prospects after the grant has ended.

Now the relationship between PI and PDRA can work well. After all, it is in the interests of both to get it to work. However, the power of seniority and a tenured position can easily lead to coercive control and abusive behaviour. Contracts can be terminated irrespective of productivity, further employment made conditional on direction of research or even undermined by unfair or abusive behaviour. This leaves individuals vulnerable to the opinions and vagaries of the PI, interfering with research independence and creativity of ideas and people.

The 21 Group often receives queries from PDRAs along these lines:

This is the first PDRA I have been employed on after my PhD. I have worked at this University of X for ten and a half months. 

At my six-month review, my PI stated there were no concerns, but after I recently emailed saying I was unhappy with aspects of management of the project, the PI brought me into a meeting with two other academics and told me there were significant concerns about my work.

This meeting took place 6 weeks before the end of my probation period (1 year) and I have now been given an inordinate amount of work to complete in this 6-week period to pass my probation. I did point out that the PI had said that there were no concerns at my 6-month review. The PI said this was just an unfortunate misunderstanding 

I can list several instances of inappropriate behaviour by my PI, including aggressive communication, undermining by belittling me in front of colleagues, dismissing my work. I have witnessed other colleagues being bullied by my PI. The current students and postdocs all agree privately that the PI is a bully but they are scared to say anything as they want jobs after this. 

If the PI does fire me, does any justification have to be provided? Meaning, my performance thus far has been perfectly fine including the six-monthly review, so the PI doesn’t have grounds to fire me. Is this legally defensible? Could I challenge the PI? Is there a 3rd party review process in these things?

Sadly, the best advice is to leave the University of X and find another PDRA as soon as you can (though we appreciate this is extremely hard in the current funding climate). There is no other effective way of resolving this situation. The unfortunate truth is PDRAs are in a weak position and have little or no protection. They have even less protection than graduate students who can at least complain to the vapid Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIAHE).

If the PI says he or she cannot work with the PDRA, then the university will back the PI and terminate the contract. If the PDRA raises a grievance with the University’s Human Resources department, then they will find in the PI’s favour irrespective of any evidence. We recommend PDRAs should raise a grievance if they feel strongly — otherwise the whole rotten system will never change — but they should also be mentally prepared for a gruelling process & unfair outcome.

Any legal action would be difficult or impossible. For example, you usually need to have worked for your employer for at least two years before you can lodge a claim for unfair dismissal at an Employment Tribunal.

The only (low value) card in the PDRA’s favour is the funding agency that is providing the money for the position. Funding agencies such as UKRI or Wellcome Trust or CRUK all do have anti-bullying policies, though ineffectually monitored. A PDRA should write to the funding agency about poor treatment by a PI.

Now, the funding agency will most likely not do anything other than express mild support. They may perhaps write a letter asking for an explanation. However, this will certainly greatly concern the PI. If the PI gets a reputation at the funding agency for mistreating PDRAs, then this will affect future grant applications by the PI.

Over-reliance of career progression on single individuals, coupled with the serious power imbalance between a senior PI and a junior PDRA, puts those vulnerable to bullying, harassment and discrimination at serious risk.

There is academic research on abusive supervision by PIs by Sherry Moss and Morteza Mahmoudi here. They found “An overwhelming proportion of participants reported either experiencing (84%) or witnessing (59%) abusive supervision, or both (49%). While a majority of perpetrators were male, they were proportionately no more likely to abuse than females. Perpetrators were more likely from the highest-ranked institutions and they were most likely PIs.“

The percentages are shocking. This is not a small problem. The system needs urgent reform to give greater protection to PDRAs from abusive supervisors.