Is the narrative CV dead already?
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 ...