The U.S. faculty job market survives the SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic

  1. Ariangela J Kozik
  2. Ada Hagan
  3. Nafisa M Jadavji
  4. Christopher T Smith
  5. Amanda Haage

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to identify the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the academic job market and the ways in which faculty job applicants altered their applications in response to a changing academia.

Design/methodology/approach

The data presented here is the portion relevant to COVID-19 collected in a survey of faculty job applicants at the end of the 2019-2020 job cycle in North America (spring 2020). An additional “mid-pandemic” survey was used in fall 2020 for applicants participating in the following job search cycle to inquire about how they were adapting their application materials. A portion of data from the 2020-2022 job cycle surveys was used to represent the “late-pandemic”. Job posting data from the Higher Education Recruitment Consortium (HERC) is also used to study job availability.

Findings

Examination of faculty job postings from 2018 through 2022 found that while they decreased in 2020, the market recovered in 2021 and beyond. While the market recovered, approximately 10% of the faculty job offers reported by 2019–20 survey respondents were rescinded. Respondents also reported altering their application documents in response to the pandemic as well as delaying or even abandoning their faculty job search.

Originality

This paper provides a longitudinal perspective with quantitative data on how the academic job market changed through the major events of the COVID-19 pandemic in North America, a subject of intense discussion and stress, particularly amongst early career researchers.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1101/2022.05.27.493714v2 on bioRxiv
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.05.27.493714: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.05.27.493714v1 on bioRxiv