The Importance of Being Mobile

A comment on a blog post reads:

....the musical chairs that us academics play in our careers serves to disseminate our knowledge.

I agree that mobility is important in the career of most academics. Indeed, most of us have studied and worked at several institutions.

I was reminded of this comment yesterday, when I was asked to fill in a EU questionnaire on the mobility of researchers. One of the multiple-choice questions on the form read: "How often should a researcher move at different stages in her/his career?" (I was asked to answer this question since I claimed that mobility is important in the career of a researcher.) For instance, how often should one move over a four-year period at the early stages of one's career? I assumed that this question was referring to the first four years after one's PhD, and my answer off the top of my head was 1-2 times. (What I really meant was twice, but I thought 3-5 times was too much; the rationale being that one should be mobile at that crucial time in one's career, but that being overly mobile might cause too much overhead---especially if this involves changing countries. Later I looked back at my movements in the period 1991-1994 and realized that I actually moved 5 times myself.)

What is your opinion? Is mobility important at all stages of one's career? And how often should a researcher be mobile during the first four years of one's career?

Athugasemdir

[Arnar Pálsson, 21.2.2008 kl. 14:04]

There are two angles that I want to comment on. First, as the question is posed, then mobility involves relocation of scientists to different institutions and/or countries. This is crucially important in my opinion, because it eads to broader knowledge, vision and translates into more relevant research. In my opinion, one should not complete a bachelor, doctorate, post doctorals in the same institution, and without question try to get a job at yet another academic establishment. 

Going abroad is more important than switching institutions.

As to how often one should change "real" jobs, then I agree with Luca, that some mobility is good, but it could get disruptive, if for instance someone relocates every 4 years. That can barely be an indication of a stable and productive lab.

The second point concerns the benefits of mobility. The greatest benefit from relocation is exposure to different transect of the scientific discipline (and often related fields) that can translate into novel ideas, new solutions to old problems and collaborations. 

There is another way of achieving this exposure, by having a job at a very good instution, that brings in for lectures and symposia a sample of great thinkers and scientists, both young and established. Thus those fortunate to work at such institutions do not need to move, they can tap into the current of knowledge by checking out the weekly departmental seminar. Us working Iceland experience but a trickle of this current, and can only taste its sweetness on sabbaticals abroad or international conferences.

[Luca Aceto, 21.2.2008 kl. 22:32]

Good points as usual, Arnar.

A very reliable source told me that in Israel, one of the countries whose impact on science is much larger than its size, they have the following rule: You must spend a sabbatical period of at least two years abroad after your PhD before obtaining employment at an Israeli institution. This ensures, at least in part, the exposure to different schools of thought, lines of research and problems you are referring to in your comment. Also, it helps Israeli young researchers build a network of research collaborations at a crucial time in their career, and tends to prevent a highly in-bred academic society.

With several Icelandic institutions aiming to graduate PhD students, in-breeding may become a problem. I can tell you that the danger of in-breeding was one of the key topics of discussion we had with the accreditation committee that evaluated computer science at Reykjavík University. I am happy to say that they looked happy with our plans to tackle this problem, and I cannot wait to see the outcome of the PhD accreditation exercise .

I also agree with your last paragraph. However, I believe that we can/should do more here to create a lively academic environment for our students and for ourselves. Of course, this would be easier if the Icelandic government (via Rannis) decided to do the right thing and fund centres of excellence in various areas of scientific research. Those centres would have the funding to bring in foreign PhD students, postdocs, and guests aplenty---ensuring the exposure of our own PhD students to a flow of ideas and new knowledge. I think that this is the only way to improve on the existing situation.

Something can be done on a shoestring budget (see, for instance, what we try to do at ICE-TCS), but there is only so much one can hope to do by making our guests pay their own way to Iceland. (At the moment, this is pretty much the only way in which our research centre can support a pretty good flow of guests.)