"Colleagues are essential in the liberation of the words of doctoral students victims of abusive situations" |lareCherche.fr

Research - Your book is the result of an online survey on the working conditions of young researchers.It shows, through three immersive testimonies and dozens of others including extracts, a certain number of abusive situations, of dysfunctions.Which ?

Adèle Combes - There is first of all what comes from the sexual sphere.It can be an unwanted comment on the physical;intimate, intrusive, on personal life;sexual blackmail, or reprisals following the refusal of a romantic or sexual relationship.And this can go as far as rape or attempted rape.In my investigation, nine people, in this case only women, say they have been the victim of rape or an attempted rape during their doctorate, by their thesis director, by a site director, by colleagues...

Then there are sexist situations.It is, for example, to estimate that a woman would not be able to repair a machine that has broken down in a laboratory, but asking her to bring coffee or spend the broom after a day of manipches;refuse to give the floor to doctoral students, or cut them to them when they have it;Or even refer researchers who succeed in their gender, by discrediting what they say, or by questioning their skills, explaining, for example, that if they have obtained a position, funding, it is becausePositive discrimination, because we want more women in research ...

But abusive situations with sexual or sexist connotation are only one aspect of the dysfunctions that I note.The book evokes all forms of abuse of power that can be encountered in research: sexual harassment and sexism therefore, but also moral harassment and, more broadly, psychological violence, such as work theft,'Abandonment / The absence of supervision or, to the other extreme, coping, unjustified and non-constructive criticisms, cries or insults, the refusal of the right to disconnection, the prohibitions for taking leave, etc..

This dysfunction list, you established it at the end of a survey carried out thanks to an online questionnaire.Explain to us what this one was.

At the start, I told myself that I was going to create a short, informal questionnaire.But by discussing with people I had contacted on social networks, I realized that this phenomenon of harassment, that I thought I was confidential, isolated - a kind of fault with no luck in certain rare laboratories -,was not at all.Certainly - and I insist -, for many doctoral students, this period is going well.But, for many others, it is an abusive experience.And I wanted to better understand this phenomenon, and also quantify it.

By dint of research, I ended up finding a questionnaire, established in the mid -1980s by a Swedish psychosociologist, Heinz Leymann, which made it possible to quantify psychological violence at work.I reused it by adapting it and adding questions specifically adapted to abusive situations that we can meet in the world of research: typically, we appropriate all or part of my work, we change myPlace where I am withdrawn from the list of authors from an article, I am forbidden to attend congresses, etc..In the end, my little questionnaire that I wanted without much pretension turned into a questionnaire of 200 questions!For the most part, these are conditional questions: we answer yes or no, and if we answer yes, this opens up other questions intended to deepen the theme (specify the type of violence suffered, the authors (s))of these violence, the frequency of this violence, etc..)).

How did you make sure of the relevance of your questionnaire?

It is true that, not being a professional of psychology or sociology, I felt the need to have the opinion of qualified people.This is why I collaborated with the doctopus association.Doctopus is an association of doctors in psychology who are aware of these survey techniques.They reread the questionnaire, checked the questions and advised me on certain aspects.Typically, it was they who told me that it was necessary to add the definition of moral harassment and sexual harassment according to the law.Or, for all the people who have reported health problems, problems and harassment actions that fall under the law, they advised me to add to the occupational doctor in the questionnaire, the hygiene and safety committee or a lawyer.

How many people have answered this questionnaire, and what was their profile?

1877 people completely completed it.The majority of them are women: around 63 %, compared to 36 % of men and less than 1 % of people declaring themselves as non-binary [people who identify neither strictly man nor strictly woman, but betweenboth, a mixture of the two, or none of the two, editor's note].All specialties are represented, with an almost perfect balance-almost 50-50-between respondents from sectors in so-called human sciences (SHS, law, politics, etc..)) and those from sectors in so -called "hard" sciences (physics, chemistry, mathematics, agronomy, geology, health, etc..)) (a distribution fairly close to reality, where there are 53 % of doctoral students in exact sciences, life and health and 47 % in human sciences, social and society according to 2019-2020 statisticsof the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation, Editor's note)).Doctoral students form the most numerous category among the respondents, but there are also doctors, many of whom have completed their thesis in recent years.I would also have wanted to have the return of more people who abandoned their doctorate or have been dismissed, because it seems very important to understand the reasons for this phenomenon far from being negligible in France - we are talking about a rate25 % abandonment, all specialties combined.Unfortunately, they only constitute 2% of respondents.This sub-statement means that a whole section of the difficulties can have been undervalued ...

Why did you make this questionnaire anonymous?

This is a question that trotted me in my head really long.The main reason that made me opt for this solution is that, having already started to do interviews to collect testimonies, I could very clearly observe self -censorship, a fear of indulging in their faces and beingThen victim of reprisals.And so, I realized that if I was doing a nominative questionnaire, a lot of people were going to self -censor or just not answer.Anonymity was a way for me to put people in confidence.

Do you not fear that it could have distorted your investigation?

I know that anonymity can be problematic: you can use it to answer everything and anything, to blacken the table or, on the contrary, to embellish it.I started from the principle that, even if it is a questionnaire that takes about half an hour to fill out.If there are people who want to lose half an hour of their lives, with the sole purpose of distorting the results, it is their choice.But I think it is a phenomenon on the margin and that offering victims the possibility of engaging with confidence goes beyond this tiny risk of false testimonies.

Let's go back to the dysfunctions you have identified.To what extent are they widespread, according to your study?

25 % of respondents to the survey report having undergone a situation with sexual or sexist connotation at least once during their doctorate and 20 % say they were victims of moral harassment. Ce sont des chiffres importants mais ils concordent, par exemple, avec l’enquête publiée par la revue Nature, en 2019, où l’on comptabilisait un total de 21 % des doctorants (sur plus de 6 300 répondants du monde entier)) déclarant avoir vécu du harcèlement durant leur doctorat.

To the 20 % who claim to have been confronted with moral harassment, are added 10 % who are not sure.It is an interesting statistic, in what it shows that, in my opinion, a lot of training to do on what moral harassment is, what are unacceptable situations in the world of work.For example, it is still difficult, in the world of research, to consider abusive the fact of being denied leave after several months of restless work.This is partly due to the fact that this environment is demanding, competitive.It is a sector of excellence from an intellectual point of view, and it must remain so.The problem is that, sometimes, under the pretext of this intellectual requirement - essential -, do doctoral students an extremely strong psychological and physical requirement.It is a dangerous shift, against which we must fight.

You have also measured the impact of these abusive health situations, especially psychological, of young researchers.What is it?

I was very surprised, even shocked, to see how much health can be impacted during the doctorate: 33 % of respondents to my questionnaire thus replied that they had experienced an episode of depression, from Burn Out, declared specifically during the doctorate!When I made the level of this figure, I even wondered if there was not a problem. Mais quand j'ai vu ensuite les études à l'étranger, en Belgique par exemple, où une enquête publiée en 2017 dans la revue Research Policy montre que 32 % des doctorants (sur 3 659 répondants)) sont à risque de développer des troubles psychiatriques, notamment une dépression, finalement mes chiffres sont cohérents avec la littérature internationale…

How to fight against these different types of abuse?

Even if the law of silence is still strong, there is hope, speech begins to free itself.And in this perspective, there are a number of resource people who allow young researchers undergoing abuses not to sink entirely.First of all, there are doctors and psychologists who are on campuses, even if, as the recent report of the Nighlitne association, whose mission is to provide psychological support to students in difficulty, wesorely lack of qualified personnel to intervene with students.These resource persons are also, often, colleagues: doctoral students, postdoctorants, holders, a co-child of thesis, etc..For me, it was also extremely important, through this book, to show the role that these colleagues can have in the management of these abusive situations.These people must, in particular supervisors and holders, understand how essential they are in the release of speech, in sanitation and in the humanization of research, in obtaining more ethicsIn this environment too.I also believe that holders who are benevolent - again, there are so many!-, must go beyond this role of intellectual guide and psychological support;They must stop staying neutral to protect their careers, their funding, their collaborations, the network for which they are part and which they depend - this vision of the network, it is in the process of gnawing - and taking risks to help peoplein distress.

This brings me to tell you about the thesis monitoring committees, which are responsible for assessing, in interviews with doctoral students, the conditions of their training and the progress of their research.You repeatedly insist, in the book, on the fact that there is something that does not go in their functioning.Where is the problem ?

Thesis monitoring committees, compulsory since a 2016 decree, are, on paper, an excellent idea.This mainly concerns the scientific aspect: it is very good that external people give advice on the project, help him to refocus it if necessary, because sometimes, when you are the head in the handlebars, it is difficult to takeheight, hindsight.It is on the human side that these committees can be problematic.First because the members of these committees are most often chosen by thesis directors.Now I noticed, through my questionnaire, that this could constitute a brake on the release of speech: around 28 % of people who felt a conflictual situation or a certain suffering during their doctorate did not dare to speak about itAs part of their thesis monitoring committee, due to local reports, the lack of independence, which existed between the members of the committee and the supervisors (s).

How do you not know How to Fill Out A Deposit Slip?!Send Help.

— natalina kazimir Sun Jul 30 16:59:37 +0000 2017

So there is a self -censorship problem.There may also be a listening problem: the members of these committees must hear what they are told.Researchers are great specialists in their research project but not necessarily people trained in human resources, in human relations simply.Now it is not because we are excellent in our field that we are going to be able to listen to distress or problems that some doctoral students or young researchers will bring us.So there may be a training problem.One can also wonder if this is really the role of a team leader, a supervisor of researchers from another university, to take into consideration, in any case to listen, and to analyze the problemsrelational of a doctoral student with another researcher.

What do you propose ?

I think, once again, that the starting intention with these thesis follow -up committees was very good.But it is simply necessary to improve it.We must go to the thesis monitoring committee "2.0 ", where this committee will focus on the purely scientific aspect of thesis monitoring.As for the human, psychological slope - in itself, a thesis can already be very complex, and therefore can have a strong psychological impact, apart from any relational conflict, apart from all financial precariousness -, it must be entrusted topeople who are trained in human management, psychology, who have the codes to be able to provide help.This means, for me, that this follow -up must be taken care of by professionals who are completely independent of the supervision of the thesis.

There is an aspect that we have not really talked about yet, it is the financial aspect. Votre livre regorge de témoignages de jeunes chercheurs se trouvant dans une situation pécuniaire difficile, et qui sont donc obligés de cumuler un ou plusieurs emplois en plus de leur doctorat pour (sur))vivre.What do you think are the solutions to solve this problem or, at the very least, to resolve the precariousness that many young researchers must face?

The financing of all young researchers is in my opinion the first thing to set up.We hear a lot of people - including the president of the CNRS - say that the doctorate must be recognized as a professional experience.I completely agree !And besides I fight for that.Doctoral students are not students, they do a job and this work is to carry out research.We should therefore pay all persons in doctorate, offer them an employment contract with a decent salary (currently, a doctoral contract concluded before September 1, 2021 is paid 1,758 euros gross per month at least; a decree published within the framework ofThe new research programming law fixes the minimum for those concluded from September 1, 2021 to 1,866 euros gross monthly; this amount will be increased to 1,975 euros gross monthly for contracts concluded from September 1, 2022, editor's note)).Today, France has around 70,000 doctoral students.However, the Confederation of Young Researchers assessed that less than three in four doctoral students benefit from funding for their doctoral project, and only a third party in the disciplines relating to letters, human and social sciences.In terms of figures, this means that there are almost 15,000 doctoral funding missing, which corresponds to the salary of 5,000 doctoral students for three years.

All doctoral students must therefore be remunerated and have an employment contract.They must also benefit from decent social rights and working conditions, such as the right to disconnect or recovery of additional hours / days worked.

The national network of doctoral colleges recently published the report of its survey on doctoral training in France (see below)).The former president of the European Research Council, Jean-Pierre Bourguignon, supported in particular by French and European learned companies, has appealed to the organization of an international conference on the situation of young researchers.Do you have the feeling that things are moving in the right direction, in institutional level, concerning doctoral students and young researchers?

Yes, I think it moves in the right direction.Lately, for example, the dean of the Lyon 2 law faculty has just been laid off for supposed facts of sexual violence.In the same way, the management of the National School of Paris has laid down its director of studies of letters for supposed facts of sexual harassment on students.In both cases, I find that it is a strong signal on their part.It is also the signal of growing mobilization on the part of the members of the Higher Education and Research Community.Now, if we are talking more and more about problems of sexual harassment, there seems to be a void with regard to moral harassment, psychological violence, theft of work, scientific ethics...The more we talk about these abusive situations, the more the balance of power will balance, and the more we can tend towards a research which is really humanist, which is really ethical, which focuses only on scientific truth and which is undone of the little onespolitical games and pressures to maintain a certain image.So, to summarize: yes, it goes in the right direction, but we must not weaken because what we acquire may be very quickly defeated.

Interview by VincentGlavieux

Photo credit: Clément Bonnier © Flammarion

Supervision, financing, follow -up committees ... What the first national survey of the national network of doctoral college says

Hasard du calendrier, quelques jours avant la publication de livre d’Adèle Combes, le réseau national de collèges doctoraux (RNCD)) publiait le rapport de sa première enquête nationale sur la formation doctorale en France.Presentation of some figures from this study, as a comparison and/or lighting of the data collected by Adèle Combes:

Diffusée entre le 1^er septembre et le 15 octobre 2021, l’enquête a permis d’obtenir la réponse de 11 545 doctorants inscrits en doctorat en France en 2021, « soit plus de 16% de l’ensemble des doctorants (70 400 doctorants étaient inscrits en doctorat en 2019))»» comme le précisent ses auteurs.A much broader sample than that brought together by Adèle Combes: almost 10 times greater, and only made up of doctoral students.

In the RNCD survey, there is a perfect balance between the number of men's respondents and the number of female respondents: 50-50. Un ratio très proche de la réalité, si l’on se fie aux chiffres du Ministère de l’enseignement supérieur, de la recherche et de l’innovation (Mesri)), qui recense 51 % d’hommes et 49 % de femmes parmi les personnes inscrites en doctorat.As a reminder, Adèle Combes counted 63 % of women respondents, 36 % of men's respondents and 1 % of respondents declaring themselves non-binary.

45 % of respondents to the RNCD survey are in a "science and technology" course and 22 % in "life and health sciences", or 67 % of the total;16 % of respondents are in "society sciences, law, economics and management" and 17 % in "humanities, letters and languages", a total of 33 %.Figures far removed from reality, if we believe the Mesri: 53 % of the total number of doctoral students in France are registered in exact sciences, life or health;and 47 % in human, social and society sciences.In Adèle Combes' book, the ratio is 50-50 on this criterion.

67 % des doctorants ayant répondu à l’enquête du RNCD déclarent que leur expérience du doctorat correspond « tout à fait»» (20 %)) ou « plutôt»» (47 %)) aux attentes et à la vision qu’ils en avaient avant de commencer.Conversely, 11 % expressed their disappointment: 8 % answered "rather no" to this same question, and 3 % "not at all".22 % of respondents did not rule.

Adèle Combes' book points to the difficult financial situation in which some doctoral students find themselves. Le rapport du RNCD, qui a interrogé les jeunes chercheurs sur ce point, signale la grande disparité des situations de financement selon les grands domaines de recherche : si plus de neuf doctorants sur dix doctorants bénéficient d’un financement dédié à la préparation de leur thèse (contrat de travail ou bourse)) en sciences et technologies (97 %)) et en sciences de la vie et de la santé (92 %)), la proportion chute à 62 % pour les doctorants en sciences de la société, droit, économie et gestion et même sous la barre des 50 % (48 %)) en humanités, lettres et langues.

"62% of doctoral students benefiting from dedicated funding [...] believe that this funding is sufficient, but 29% are sometimes in difficult situations and 6% of them are regularly in difficult situations," said the RNCD.This is particularly the case for certain foreign doctoral students: "The scholarships are generally fixed in the currency of the country of origin and, over a period of 3 years, sometimes 4 years, monetary fluctuations can put these doctoral students in difficulty", detailsThe report.Who suggests: "An insurance mechanism against these fluctuations could be welcome.»»

For those preparing their thesis without dedicated funding, the financial situation is appreciated very differently depending on whether one has a main activity prior to doctoral entry (secondary school, doctor, etc..)) (88 % des personnes de cette catégorie estiment leur rémunération suffisante)), que l’on compte sur des vacations et/ou des revenus irréguliers (la proportion tombe alors à 44 %)), ou que l’on fasse appel à des ressources personnelles ou familiales (43 %)).

78 % des doctorants ayant répondu à l’enquête du RNCD se déclarent assez satisfaits (30 %)) ou très satisfaits (48 %)) de leur encadrement doctoral.Conversely, 11 % are unhappy: 7 % are quite dissatisfied and 4 %, very unsatisfied.The remaining 11 % does not rule.

Comme le relève le RNCD, ce niveau d’appréciation de l’encadrement doctoral est fonction de l’année de doctorat : plus on avance dans le temps, moins celui-ci est élevé : « Si 86 % [des doctorants] se déclarent satisfaits ou très satisfaits de leurs encadrants en 1^re année de doctorat, ils ne sont plus que 76 % en 3^e année et environ 70 % entre la 4^e et la 6^e année de doctorat.Correlatively, the dissatisfaction rate increases. Il passe de 4 % en 1^re année à 13 % en 3^e année et atteint 18 % en 6^e année.»»Globalement, néanmoins, cette expérience reste très positive.

Les raisons du mécontentement, elles, peuvent être liées à « une impression de ne pas assez développer [ses] connaissances et compétences (11 % des répondants)) ou de ne pas être suffisamment en responsabilité (5 %))»». « Des causes qui peuvent se retrouver dans tous les milieux professionnels»», relèvent les auteurs du rapport, qui identifient aussi « quelques facteurs de difficultés plus structurels ou plus spécifiques au doctorat»».Among them, co-embedding: "This one is highly appreciated by doctoral students, they emphasize, but provided that the supervisory team is understood and coordinates well.This invites the thesis directors and the follow-up committees, in the event of a co-supervision, to be attentive to the good coordination and the understanding of the supervisory team.»»

Asked about the thesis monitoring committees, which are also one of the issues reported by Adèle Combes as part of her book, respondents to the RNCD survey who have already had the experience of it for 82 %of them (6 % dissatisfied, 12 % neutral opinions)). Un niveau d’appréciation qui connaît des variations notables selon que les doctorants ont eu un droit de regard sur la composition de leur comité ou non : 89 % de ceux ayant eu leur mot à dire se déclarent ainsi satisfaits (8 % se déclarent neutres et 3 % insatisfaits)), contre 68 % chez les doctorants qui n’en n’ont pas eu l’opportunité ; le taux d’insatisfaits passe alors à 13 % et celui des avis neutres à 19 %. Ce qui fait dire au RNCD que le droit de regard est « une disposition jugée très favorablement par les doctorants»».

Le RNCD relève par ailleurs une certaine déception des doctorants concernant la mission des comités de suivi qu’ils jugent la plus importante (avant même l’évaluation de l’avancement des recherches)) : identifier des situations de dysfonctionnement et, le cas échant, alerter. Un hiatus contre lequel le RNCD recommande lui aussi de lutter, en « [fournissant] un guide (…)) de suivi aux membres du comité pour qu’il ne se concentre pas uniquement sur les travaux de recherche et réponde à la totalité des attentes des doctorants»».

V.G.