As a graduate student, I sometimes wonder what I want to do once I grow up as a scientist. Maybe I do not want to stay in the academia forever. Taking what I have learned during PhD studies “outside” is an appealing idea. Not that it has to be either or – it is also possible to shift back and forth, or combine academic work with something more applied. But what does one need to know or do to make a nonacademic conservation career? A recent Conservation Biology paper discusses the relevant skills in the real world job market and how to obtain them. At the end, you can find a list of nine recommendations to consider. What seems to be key is that one should not focus on just what is required for the degree, but also plan for obtaining the diverse set of skills that employers are looking for, and this is a matter of planning and resource allocation. But perhaps it also means that the many little things (such as teaching, organizing symposia, journal clubbing, writing a blog(!) etc.) which may sometimes seem like extra burden and slowing down the pace of the actual research, are indeed going to pay off later.

Even within the academia, not everyone is convinced that scientists should see themselves only as teachers and academic publishers. I just came across a recent Guardian article where “flipped academics” say doing science includes more than that. In their view, the ways of obtaining and processing information are going through a drastic change, and researchers should figure out new ways to bring added value with their work – transferring information to peers and students will not be enough. Research should be exposed to, and learn from, discussion and debate, especially with wider communities, much more effectively than now. After all, universities have societal interaction as their main task, in addition to research and education.

To me, there just seems to be a problem in the reward system: while the “extra” is encouraged and required to an extent, it is still mostly the length and prestige of the publication list that counts for many things. While some people who enjoy engaging and outreach succeed even without direct incentive, it would encourage many more, if it would not seem so much of a trade-off. Probably flipping is not for everyone, and perhaps not everyone needs to change. Nevertheless, I believe more explicit valuation to the “extra” could bring about a more diverse generation of scientists.

More to read:

Blickley, J.L. et al. 2012. Graduate Student’s Guide to Necessary Skills for Nonacademic Conservation Careers. Conservation Biology (Early View).

The flipped academic: turning higher education on its head. Claire Shaw, Guardian Professional 11.12.2012