Misc

The narrative CV was supposed to be the great equaliser. A chance to move beyond the blunt metrics of h-indices, publication counts, and journal impact factors. A chance for researchers to tell a story. This would help bring to life the messy, non-linear, deeply human realities of a career in academia. On paper, the idea was noble. In practice, I suspect something else has happened entirely. I say suspect, because I am not aware of any research that has assessed whether the narrative CV has improved or hindered progress to date. The Promise When UKRI and other major funders began rolling out narrative CVs, the rationale was compelling. Traditional CVs had long been criticised for rewarding a narrow definition of academic success: more papers, bigger grants, higher-ranked journals. This format systematically disadvantaged early career researchers, those who had taken career breaks, researchers working in applied or interdisciplinary fields, and anyone whose contributions didn't fit ...

When academics leave academia, the reasons mirror most career transitions: the misalignment between personal values and organizational culture becomes too great. But academia has a particular way of manifesting this misalignment. It promises freedom and autonomy, the ability to pursue questions that matter to you, while simultaneously creating conditions where that freedom feels increasingly illusory. I'm not talking about workload modelling or administrative creep, though those matter. I'm talking about something more fundamental: academia's unique relationship with control, or rather, the illusion of it. The Predictable and Unpredictable in Academic Life Here's what we can predict in academia: the pressure to publish will continue to exist. The volume of output will continue to grow at a seemingly impossible rate. Quality will remain variable as a result. What we cannot predict, and what many struggle to accept, is nearly everything else. Which journals will accept yo...