5 ms·

I think it's also worth clarifying that there are more than one style of RSE. The name came about to describe those researchers/postdocs working in research gro

I think it's also worth clarifying that there are more than one style of RSE. The name came about to describe those researchers/postdocs working in research groups whose contribution was more to the software than to the writing of research papers. For them, the incentive structure wasn't there as they were being measured on papers written, not "research improved". By giving them the name RSE, it recognises that they are playing a different role in the group and perhaps need different metrics. At this time, they are still in research groups, experts in their field, having likely done a PhD in the particular domain. These are still RSEs and there are lots of them around (probably more than there are in central groups). The recent trend is for universities to provide central RSE groups (either by core-funding or being costed onto grants in parts) which operate more like consultants. This allows a route in for people who do not have a PhD or a background in a particular field, and can support many smaller projects across the university. For example at Bristol, we have a combination. We have a lose federation of "embedded" RSEs and some "RSE group" RSEs (funded through various grants) who work together to learn from each other, teach around the uni and provide a support network. This group was able to be formed due to a fellowship from the government back in 2015 (the same fellowship that allowed Paul to start his group at Sheffield). It's important to remember that anyone who is doing "research software engineering" is an RSE, even if it's not their job title.

physicsguy 4y ago
Just wondering what you think about the progression routes for RSEs? A big problem as I see it is that someone not in the first wave of RSEs (who are now mostly in leadership positions across the various research intensive Universities groups) basically gets stuck with no appreciable career growth. You can probably get to a permanent job in the 42-50k salary band as a “Senior RSE”, which seems to be used for people even without that much experience to try and bump up the salary, but beyond that it would be very difficult to jump to the band above without staying in the same role for ~5+ years and hoping that someone left. At that point you’re obviously at top of automatic increment band and don’t get a meaningful pay rise for a potentially number of years. I thought it was very unlikely that there would more jobs at that level because when bidding for time on grants, academics don’t want to pay someone external to their team more than they pay their own post docs, and heard comments to that effect from academics themselves. For centrally funded positions it’s even harder, having seen my old group lead battling to try and get even 32-40k positions approved. So in my mind, there’s a big problem where someone ambitious could job hop into an easier and better paid job in industry. Why wait a really long time to get promoted when you could leave and get paid more than the top of the next salary band anyway?

physicsguy 4y ago

Just wondering what you think about the progression routes for RSEs? A big problem as I see it is that someone not in the first wave of RSEs (who are now mostly in leadership positions across the various research intensive Universities groups) basically gets stuck with no appreciable career growth. You can probably get to a permanent job in the 42-50k salary band as a “Senior RSE”, which seems to be used for people even without that much experience to try and bump up the salary, but beyond that it would be very difficult to jump to the band above without staying in the same role for ~5+ years and hoping that someone left. At that point you’re obviously at top of automatic increment band and don’t get a meaningful pay rise for a potentially number of years. I thought it was very unlikely that there would more jobs at that level because when bidding for time on grants, academics don’t want to pay someone external to their team more than they pay their own post docs, and heard comments to that effect from academics themselves. For centrally funded positions it’s even harder, having seen my old group lead battling to try and get even 32-40k positions approved. So in my mind, there’s a big problem where someone ambitious could job hop into an easier and better paid job in industry. Why wait a really long time to get promoted when you could leave and get paid more than the top of the next salary band anyway?