I was just wondering if anyone had any experience of taking a non-university job after they finish their PhD and then successfully returning to university based research afterwards?

I've been offered a job at a government agency/quango type place, which involves appraising research and bringing it together to develop policy. It's a well paid role, great location, some scope to learn stuff and network, apply some of my existing skills without being overburdened with new stuff. It would give me a bit of post-PhD recovery time in which to knock out some thesis-related papers, and I might even get a paper or two related to the job out. It could well give me some head space to make sure that the next move I make is the right one, or alternatively the time to put a decent fellowship application together without as much stress as if I was on a short term post doc contract.

But.... I just have this niggling doubt that if my first role after the PhD is not a university based post doc that it'll be frowned upon for subsequent post-doc opportunities/fellowships. I'm fortunate to be in a field where there are actually a decent number of jobs (and growing) and I'm pretty confident that if I went straight for a post doc now I'd get one. But for various personal reasons it might work best to take this other job and then return to the fray 12-18 months down the line when various circumstances are more suited to it. I just don't know how it would be perceived though.

In reality the kind of work I would be doing would not be conceptually that far removed from my PhD work, it just wouldn't involve primary research. It *shouldn't* count against me. But I can imagine that a more traditional academic prospective employer might not view it that way.

Any advice?

You're in the same boat as myself HazyJane my current job (whilst related to my field) is not in academia, but I intend to keep my options open and return to university afterwards.

I've spent a long time asking people and researching this and the short answer to your question is YES you can take the job and then return to academia. Having said that, it would be desirable if your job is related to your academic field and of course if you have publications out. You won't be frowned upon by subsequent post-docs if you can establish that your postdoc research relates to your work in the quango. As you know, I chose to take the job, and whilst I'm happy so far with my job, I know that it's only a 9 month contract (unless they retain me) and have been considering postdocs. Given that I'm an economist and my job relates to my speciality it wouldn't be an issue.

A current lecturer at one of my old unis got his PhD, worked at a bank for 3 years, and came back to academia and is now an Associate Professor. It can be done. Given what you've mentioned, I say go for it- I went for it and so far 1 month in I'm loving it: it's a different experience and has given me a new means of looking at issues I've investigated during my PhD.

I'm just starting my PhD however I have worked in the development field with consulting firms, government agencies, and UN organizations. I can tell you from an academic perspective it will give you a better optic on your field as you will see the inner workings "from the other side"...i.e. the implementation / operational side of policy. Not to mention all the other intangible skills you will pick up working in the office environment. You will be a better academic for it. In my field, its painfully obvious which academics have not worked a day in industry and it is to their determent.

Thanks both. The job has some overlaps with the kind of things I've done in my PhD - the main issue is that it's more secondary research than primary, and I won't get to use some of the quantitative skills I've developed.

See, this is something I feel *should* be the case. It *should* be seen as valuable to have these other kind of experiences. I'm just not sure if it will be, particularly as it's likely to be clear that at this stage I actively chose not to pursue a traditional post doc as the first thing post PhD.

Thanks both. The job has some overlaps with the kind of things I've done in my PhD - the main issue is that it's more secondary research than primary, and I won't get to use some of the quantitative skills I've developed.

See, this is something I feel *should* be the case. It *should* be seen as valuable to have these other kind of experiences. I'm just not sure if it will be, particularly as it's likely to be clear that at this stage I actively chose not to pursue a traditional post doc as the first thing post PhD.

Whether it's more secondary than primary research doesn't really matter IMHO, and if it's not as quantitative I'm sure you can always find other ways/dimensions that you'd develop during the job to make you a better-rounded researcher. Insofar as Fled's comments are concerned,

I agree with you HazyJane that this is quite subjective at the end of the day: I'd appreciate it but someone else may not. Unfortunately there isn't much you can do unless you know who'll review your postdoc application and his/her opinions. What matters most to a postdoc is the ability to perform high-quality research that could lead to several publications if not a book, and in most fields today (social sciences like mine or otherwise), there's an increased predilection towards mixed-methods research (qualitative/quantitative). I have a strong quantitative background but can honestly say mixing that with qualitative methods made my PhD all the better, and I used that as an argument during my job interview and that convinced my unit manager.

Easiest thing to do is
1) look at your field
2) see what kind of skills researchers in your field generally possess
3) see how your job would help you either develop or reinforce some of these skills
4) mention this when you'll apply to postdocs.

That's going to be my plan anyway if I don't stay at my job.

Agreed with everything said here. However, unfortunately it seems that aspiring academics being encouraged to simply produce quality research for its own benefit. Of the undergrads and post-grads you will end up teaching, I think you should have more to offer than your last publication as most of them wont end up in the academy, hence (my humble) opinion that the more rounded you are, the more value you bring to the teaching component of your career, even at a Russel Group institution.

To be fair however, as a lecturer there is ample opportunity to flirt with industry through consulting.

But like Incog said, what you personally think, and what search committees value more highly may be quite different.

The cynic in me would go further and say that aspiring academics are being encouraged simply to produce lots of research, regardless of quality.

One of the reasons I decided to enquire about this job is that I knew that one of the post doc opportunities available to me sounded fine on paper but could well end up generating a lot of dubious papers in a short space of time to appease 'collaborators' who were mostly looking to boost their CVs. If I'm going to do post doc research, I want it to be good quality and purposeful, not just churning out stuff for the sake of it.

I think I need some breathing space from academia to reflect on how to be a good researcher without getting bogged down with the extraneous processes.

You said it all HazyJane. I guess that's the price to be paid for that 1st permanent Lectureship.