Tags
Ah January! The crisp (read: bloody freezing) Saskatchewan air, the start of a new academic term, and the time when many of us start thinking about our upcoming field season. All the joys of animal care protocols, collection permits, access permits, and hiring field assistants.
Call them what you will (I prefer “field technician”), but chances are most of us would be floundering (or perhaps even dead) without them. Seasonal field staff provide a great resource to scientists and grad students, and the experience the techs gain is often very important for their own professional advancement and development.
But here’s where I have a problem: if these people are so valuable (i.e., most of us couldn’t do our research without them, for scientific, logistic, and/or safety reasons), why are so many field positions volunteer positions?
The way I see it, there are two main arguments for hiring volunteer field technicians (spoiler alert: I don’t think either is valid). The first is financial. It’s simply just too expensive to hire n field techs at $x/hour (or day, or month) to accomplish what we want to do (which is important scientific work). I’m sure factory owners in pre-industrial Europe said the same thing when employees started asking for an 8-hour work day, or 5-day work week, or honest pay for an honest day’s work.
The second is that the experience is SO AMAZING that most people actually pay to experience it for themselves, so volunteering (but having your expenses covered) is a great deal. This sort of rationalization is the same as above. Imagine the look on someone’s face when I tell him or her that my stable-isotope lab is SO AMAZING that most people pay for their samples. You, I will tell my prospective volunteers, can come in for free to prepare my samples – isn’t that great?
From the tech’s perspective, volunteering (or “interning”, which is where they receive far below minimum wage under the guise of “experience building), could be attractive in that it gives them some valuable experience in a field they likely want to pursue. It’s the old “date before you marry” argument that techs should get to know the flavour of the work before committing to it. But can this not all be done with appropriate pay?
We hire technicians for their expertise and ability to complete a job; not paying them for it undermines their professionalism, and scientists’ ethical standing. Yes, funding is limited, and yes it can be expensive to travel to and work in some field locations. But this does not excuse not paying someone for a job.
It also selects out many who would not take a volunteer “job” because they need to work during the summer to pay for tuition, keep rent on an apartment, or have other financial obligations. It’s a very small minority who can pick up and not get paid for 2-4 months (let alone do it again the following year). This was certainly the case with me. During undergrad, I signed up for a weekly e-mail of bird-related jobs (you can here, and also see here). It struck me how many of these sounded like wonderful studies in neat locations, but had no (or very low) pay. A few even asked me to provide all my own equipment (tent, sleeping bag/pad, food, etc.). I was being asked to functionally move somewhere new, stay for 2-4 months, and not get paid.
If you wouldn’t “hire” a volunteer to fix your car or your house, why would you hire one to collect the scientific data on which your career is built? And if you want to hear just how absurd the practice really is, listen to this [**satire alert**], but replace “government employee” with “field technician”.
Terry McGlynn said:
I’m appreciating going through your archives.
I’ve often used volunteers by competitive application, but their motivation for doing the job well is because it gives them access to a mighty cool opportunity (working in a rainforest in a way that they couldn’t otherwise – and some expenses could be paid).
But I think that most volunteers are working for people who themselves aren’t getting paid. Grad students who are only getting a stipend or paid for teaching aren’t getting compensated for their research. So, they’re not going to pay their assistants when they themselves aren’t earning anything, either! A well funded project that pays its researchers may well be flush to pay for techs, but most volunteers that I know are working for grad students on their theses, right?
Alex Bond said:
Thanks Terry. I see it as not working for the student, but for the PI. I’ve acted as a labmate’s “tech”, and she as mine in the field, but I’ve always paid my other non-student technical staff. It was always less than I was being paid, but it was a fair wage considering the other things we covered (food, lodging, travel). But I still maintain that you get what you pay for (to some asymptote). And as I mentioned in the post, recruiting volunteers selects out those that have other obligations.
As you point out, the problem is systematic of the entire “field research-industrial complex” (to coin a term). If we can’t pay our grad students a living wage, field techs have no hope. Why this culture of over-worked under-paid staff (students) being expected to pump out papers for top-tier journals even exists is beyond me.
Andrew Jackson said:
both are good points.
From the PI perspective, I would personally always be cagey about running a research programme that was dependent on volunteers or particularly undergraduate students year on year to build a dataset. This is not to say that you can’t get quality and trustworthy volunteers, especially if demand is high as Terry points out above.
Turning to the un- or under-paid volunteer. I guess one could look at their internship as continued eduction, which is often something someone pays for, and pays a lot. I have recently started getting students looking at one or two year MSc courses to consider doing a string of interships in good labs instead. The cost would likely be comparable once travel, rent and subsistence is factored in, and you get to keep your student fees of €6k – €9k per annum. Granted you don’t get an official degree at the end of it, but depending on your career plans this might not be necessary. Indeed, some excellent experience, good networking and a good reference from a PI could go a long way for e.g. phd applications. I also think that sometimes it lets you go to places you would otherwise not see, and in that way the benefits might be well worth it. Of course you might find a MSc with such field trips or projects as part of their programme, but a few months working closely with a team on a piece of “real” science (rather than what can often be a pet project if its part of a UG or MSc degree) might be worth an awful lot in the end.
Not quite sure what i think to be honest. One thing is for sure, if we had to pay them for employment law reasons, we would see an awful lot less science done, and what would be done would be by very few, well funded labs. After all, many PIs put in hours at the weekend, or at night, without extra pay or “time in lieu”.
Pingback: On trainees, money, and diversity | The Lab and Field
Pingback: Now accepting submissions: CrapWildlifeVolunteerJobs.tumblr.com | The Lab and Field
Mel said:
I was a non-traditional student, meaning that I didn’t start college until my mid-twenties. I didn’t have mom and dad to keep me afloat while I was earning my bachelor’s, and I had to work and pay bills as well as attend class, do assignments etc. I desired experience and networking opportunities in my field of choice, but volunteering my time (there was absolutely no free time for me in those years) was unrealistic. I longed to be a part of these awesome research projects I would see advertised in the internship center. I wished I could drop my entire life for the opportunity to have these experiences. The problem was, if I went for them, I’d lose everything.
In the end, what these internships do, is provided valuable experience and networking opportunities to students who are already set up for success by virtue of their parents’ success. Students who struggle to put themselves through school graduate and then must compete in the job market with other graduates who were able to make important connections and gain necessary experience. This system is setting many bright young people up for failure.
Thanks for this blog. I think it’s important.
Rob Knell said:
Here’s a fine example – not only are the field assistants expected to cover all their travel and subsistence, they have to pay for research permits, national park fees and field equipment as well. Unbelievable.
http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/jobs/listings/3953
Pingback: BB94 – Rallying for Rails with Auriel Fournier
Pingback: 2015 by the numbers | The Lab and Field
Daragh Kervick said:
Hi Alex!
I really enjoyed this blog and as a zoologist who has done a lot of volunteering and still cannot get paid work I am extremely frustrated with this whole volunteering scene.
I have recently started blogging for a website called Conservation Careers and I was hoping to interview you and hear more of your opinions in this area. If you could email me at daraghkervick@hotmail.com that would be great! I hope you are interested in doing this as I really think this is a topic that needs to be brought to light and addressed.
Thanks for your time and really hoping to hear from you soon.
Daragh
Pingback: Volunteer field techs are bad for wildlife ecology: the response | The Lab and Field
Pingback: The Lab and Field