Future of Higher Education Funding: Statement to Oireachtas

On Tuesday 8th March, I gave an opening statement on behalf of the Irish Research Staff Association at a Roundtable discussion on the Future Funding of Higher Education at the Oireachtas, at the Irish government building. Here it is:   

Text of Speech  

  

My name is Andrew Allen and I am the Chair of the Irish Research Staff Association, which represents salaried research staff in Higher Education.   

  

Táim bródúil as a bheith anseo inniú chun labhairt ar son daoine atá ag obair i réimse an taighde in Éire.   

  

Research is an investment that consistently makes returns that are greater than what we put in. Studies from the Science Foundation Ireland, Indecon and University College Cork estimate that for every euro invested in research, society reaps a benefit of three to five euro back to the economy. Research staff bring funding into universities, contribute to internationalisation of higher education, help to inform evidence-based policy and, although this is often under-recognised, contribute to teaching as well.  

  

Strategic investment in research is of benefit to various regions across Ireland, and investment in research capacity across our universities, new technological universities, IoTs and other HEIs across all regions will be a great local, regional, and national economic stimulus.  

  

Research careers in HEIs are currently characterised by precarity, with research staff generally being employed on fixed-term contracts tied to specific research grants. The high turnover of research staff within the HEI sector means that experience is often lost from this sector. Research staff can also end up devoting a significant amount of time to chasing research grants where only a small number of candidates will succeed. Given that Ireland has a demonstrable track record for producing long-term research (e.g. the study on which I am employed, The Intellectual Disability Supplement to the  Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing), we should avoid precarity becoming part of policy.  

  

Coming from a background in psychology, I’m glad to see that mental health is on the agenda. A systematic review and meta-analysis found that job insecurity is associated with higher risk for depression and anxiety (Llosa et al. 2018). Precarity reduces the health and well-being of research staff, and their productivity with it. It harms not only individual researchers, but research groups and programs who have higher brain drain.  

   

In order to inform any policy making decisions regarding research and innovation it is firstly important to develop an accurate method of data collection regarding the numbers of research staff that is universal across all HEIs on the island of Ireland. Data on gender, ethnicity, international/ national status, level of seniority and contract type must be tracked over time and should include career outcomes of the researcher. Where there is aggregated data, it should be made easily available, to the greatest extent permitted by data protection law. Research staff should be able to communicate with large numbers of their peers quickly and easily, in order to maximise the potential for collaboration and avoid duplication of research effort. 

  

In terms of policy, research career frameworks are important for research staff. At the moment, a number of policies have been proposed that take an “up or out” approach, whereby research staff have to progress to a higher level within a relatively short period of time, or exit the system. Why is this problematic? Let’s look at the “up” part of “up or out”: Career progression is a good thing, but there is a lack of funding in place for research staff to progress.  So, they use increasing amounts of labour hours, paid for by the taxpayer, chasing increasingly competitive grants that they’re less likely to get. Research staff who are generally least able to absorb risk, are the ones who take on the bulk of the risk. And what about the “out” in up or out? Some researchers may wish to stay within a particular role at a given level, drawing on years of experience to perform high quality research, but risk being pushed out of the system when we take an “up or out” approach. The Higher Education Research Group has previously proposed a funded research framework in the late noughties; this is a model we should bring back.  

  

A possible solution to enable research staff to continue contributing to academic research is for funding agencies and HEIs to put in place staff scientist positions (and equivalent positions for arts and humanities), thereby creating alternative attractive career progression routes within academia. A report from the National Research Council (2014), for example, recommends raising the salaries of research staff to “appropriately reflect their value and contribution to research”. Unless the career prospects for early career researchers are improved, we risk losing the talent that will be essential for our future progress across all areas of research.  

   

Alternative career paths, where research staff segue into roles more focused on other areas such as teaching or professional services are to be encouraged, but they should not be seen as the necessary goal of all research staff.  

  

I’m here today not simply to advocate for research staff, but for a sensible policy of investment that benefits everyone. Given the return to Irish society evidenced by research, we know that investment in retaining research staff is a win-win. I look forward to participating further in this process.  

  

Táim ag tnúth go mór le páirt a ghlacadh se cómhrá seo. Go raibh maith agaibh.  

  

Including people with intellectual disability in research: Interactive session from the Trinity Health & Education Research Conference 2022

As part of the Trinity Health & Education International Research conference, I was excited to participate in an interactive session about including people with intellectual disability in research. Dr Karen Mogendorff presented about her work on the project Healthy Ageing in Intellectual Disability (HA-ID) Academic Collaborative Centre, and spoke more broadly about the value of including people with intellectual disability in research. 

Dr Mogendorff highlighted the value of input from experts by experience into research, including greater mutual understanding and empowerment of people with lived experience to contribute. At the same time, she highlighted there are conditions required for this: motivation, know-how of how/when to collaborate, accessible information, and valuing and reward participation in academia. (I made a point on this, within the session, about how a paternalistic attitude from {some} universities {some of the time} can lead to almost any form of reimbursement within research being shut down as an "inducement"; another panellist chimed that she had experience of refusal to reimburse participants). 

Dr Mogendorff also spoke about pitfalls to avoid: wanting too much too soon (one has to take time to get everyone up to speed, including people within a research team without intellectual disability who are not used to working with people with intellectual disability), or involving people at too late in the research cycle (a common issue). There was an interesting point made about "onlyness"- where someone is the only person in team with disability, having to kinda represent everyone with a disability. This can be a lonely place for the individual, and probably doesn't make a lot of sense from an inclusion perspective, as other people with "the same disability" in a broad sense may have quite different experiences.

Christina Corr presented on her work on an accessible researcher career development framework (based on framework from Vitae in the UK). I've written a bit previously about frameworks in Ireland, where such frameworks are more focused on progression to different career titles etc., but the Vitae doc is more focused on helping researchers to learn about skills they need and update them in a structured manner. 

Christina talked about developing easy read, accessible guidelines, that can be used for people who benefit from the availability of such documents. Christina talked about her work collaborating on the project team (including yours truly, as well as our colleague Holly Dennehy, who worked closely with Christina on this). Christina selected a number of areas she wanted to develop as a member of research staff. (e.g. subject knowledge) and created easy-read information on this.

Given the general point in this session that people with intellectual disability should be included as part of research teams, the resource Christina has developed with us will be of great use. It should also be noted that it shouldn't necessarily be seen as being just for people with intellectual disability; there are many people with limited literacy for whom such resources can be useful - the framework can be used not only for researchers to structure their own skill development, but also as a means for communicating what they have learnt.  

Related posts

THEconf21: conference review

If you like this post, follow me on Twitter: @ArchivePsych

COVID-19 and staff mental health for those supporting people with an intellectual disability

 Mental health among healthcare staff in general has long been an issue of concern, although there may be particular problems faced by healthcare workers within different disciplines/areas of healthcare. Research we had conducted with the IDS_TILDA cohort had found that although there was a plan in place for people with intellectual disability to manage self-isolation if they COVID-19 symptoms, many struggled to fully understand these plans or adhere to them.  

The current research involved interviews with 13 healthcare workers who were working with people with intellectual disability during the COVID-19 pandemic. We carried out these interviews from November 2020 to January 2021, a hard time in terms of lockdowns and restrictions.

The word panic was often used to describe the initial emotional response to the pandemic. At the same time as working hours increased, there was a sense of isolation within the workplace, with staff less able to interact with each other. One individual taking medication for mental health problems reported they were on their maximum dosage since the pandemic.    

The changes in the work environment were a great challenge for many staff, with rules around social distancing difficult to adhere to when many of the people they worked with wanted or needed to have greater physical proximity. Many staff were moved to different locations or shifts, leading to greater unpredictability. (Care provision for people with intellectual disability usually tends to be relatively predictable, with routines making things easier for service users). Excessive workloads and unpredictable work patterns created a vicious circle, with greater levels of staff absence heightening workloads.   

On a more positive note, participants acknowledged there were supports available to them, and some were quite willing to talk about how they took up the offer of services such as employee assistance programs. Nonetheless, concerns were voiced that some colleagues would be reluctant to display the anxiety they felt. More informal support from managers and colleagues was also discussed; these can build on the shared knowledge of peers. Many people we interviewed wanted to focus on the future, in terms of how we may not fully understand the impact of the pandemic on mental health until sometime after it had ended. The value of having mental health supports that can be accessed directly and anonymously, without having to go through a liaison person within an organisation, was also highlighted. 

Some of these challenges the participants talked about have long been an issue for healthcare workers (e.g. excessively long working hours), but the difficulties faced were worsened by the particular challenges during COVID-19 and the associated lockdowns. It was promising to hear some staff talk about their willingness to seek and accept help; however, as we come out of lockdowns, and as the threat of COVID-19 is gradually falling, the findings sound a warning around the possible effects of future systemic shocks to a care system that already places a lot on the shoulders of healthcare workers. 

This work was made possible by funding from Trinity College Dublin COVID fund. It was a great opportunity to work closely with Dr Fintan Sheerin, the Head of School at the School of Nursing & Midwifery, as well as Dr Yaohua Chen, who worked hard to complete this project.  

Sheerin, F., Allen, A. P., Fallon, M., McCallion, P., McCarron, M., Mulryan, N., & Chen, Y. (2022). Staff mental health while providing care to people with intellectual disability during the COVID‐19 pandemic. British Journal of Learning Disabilities. doi: 10.1111/bld.12458

Related posts

COVID-19 and people ageing with intellectual disability: part 1

If you like this post, follow me on Twitter: @ArchivePsych

The impact of COVID-19 on people ageing with an intellectual disability: part 2

In a previous post I discussed a survey of people with intellectual disability during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results spoke to the challenges of lockdown as well as the resilience of the people surveyed. Given the major impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on people with an intellectual disability in Ireland and internationally, a new survey was carried out across Ireland during the summer of 2021. Nearly all participants had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The report based on the survey was launched by Minister Anne Rabbitte (Minister of State with responsibility for disability) on 27th January. The Minister praised the contribution of the longitudinal findings of IDS-TILDA and how they've helped inform government policy to help improve the lives of older people with intellectual disability. She praised people with intellectual disability, families and services in working hard to protect public health during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as those who took part in IDS-TILDA. In the chat, it was great to see international attendees as well as people from a wide variety of organisations from around Ireland.  

Prof Mary McCarron, principal investigator of IDS-TILDA, introduced the overall IDS-TILDA project. It has been running for over a decade. Given the existing level of research infrastructure within IDS-TILDA, the team were able to mobilise quickly to gather data in 2020 about COVID-19.

There were 682 people from the IDS-TILDA study who took part in the latest COVID-19 survey. Between the first and second survey, there was an increase in those with symptoms of COVID-19 and a modest increase in those who were tested (this survey was done in summer 2021, when there wasn't as many self-administered antigen tests etc.) People living in residential settings or community group homes were more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than those living independently/with family. Symptoms generally didn't last for more than a few weeks. 

Almost all participants who had symptoms or tested positive had plan in place to self-isolate. It was also encouraging that most participants reported being able always/often adhering to lockdown rules. At the same time, a majority were more likely to be sedentary during the lockdown.. Around a third had side effects of getting the vaccine, although these were generally mild and short-lived (the most common was redness/swelling of the arm, which I suspect may in some cases may have been related to getting an injection per se rather than the contents of the vaccine). 

Nonetheless, the pandemic continued to be a source of stress/anxiety for most participants, with key reasons for this including being separated from family and friends and not being able to do one's usual activities. Almost all participants experienced significant life events. Only a minority of participants reported being unable to attend funerals or see a family member in a critical condition. However, Prof McCarron mentioned that this is something that may have more long-term effects on those who did have such experiences. Sadly, there were 28 participants who knew someone who died of COVID-19. Prof McCarron noted that during the first survey, there was probably more a feeling that this was a short-term thing that would end in the imminent future or as soon as there was a vaccine. But ongoing restrictions dragged on.

Nonetheless, most participants reported positive aspects of life during the pandemic. For example, people had more time to rest and relax. People were anticipating going to get their hair cut/beauty salon, going to visit family and friends more, and bringing family out for a proper party!

Prof McCarron also mention moral injury among staff caregivers. There was a lot of stress among caregivers. There is a new paper on another study from the team on this topic. 

There was a lively panel session after Prof McCarron's presentation. Prof McCarron praised the preparedness of services and the willingness of participants to be involved in these surveys. Mei Lin Yap spoke to her own experience of becoming an aunt during the pandemic, with major life events happening during restrictions. Prof Seán Kennelly (National ID Memory Service) made the point that resilience can come at a cost. It's great that services "risen to occassion", but we need to be careful about expectations being changed in the long run (e.g. delays in access to care etc.) Maria Kavanagh from Stewarts Care spoke of how services knew about vulnerabilities service users might have, and so used this understanding to lobby on behalf of people to reduce risk (make sure there was PPE, and associated training). They also prepared accessible information and collaborated with other organisations to develop training programs and share knowledge and resources. Alison Hartnett (National Federation) spoke of how the study has given evidence that guide services in their practice. The pandemic is a story of interdepedence; things wouldn't have turned out the way they had, had people not worked with each other and gone above and beyond to keep each other safer. Under-staffing has been a major problem, where there could be up to 30% of staff out sick at any time, with those still able to attend exhausted.    

From an international perspective, Prof McCallion (co-investigator with IDS-TILDA) brought a USA perspective, mentioning a greater number of people living outside the service system compared to Ireland. COVID-19 has been divisive along political lines. The need for greater technology for social connectedness is great, looking at older parents having enough tech know-how as well to make the best use of things. From the UK, Chris Hatton, who was heavily involved in a similar study to IDS-TILDA. However, unlike IDS-TILDA, they didn't have the same level of longitudinal research infrastructure. The UK may have been a worse picture than Ireland. England in particular has been slow to lockdown and quick to lift restrictions, with higher mortality rates for people with intellectual disability.   

The report is available for download from the IDS-TILDA website: https://idstilda.tcd.ie/wave4/covid19launch.php 

Related posts

COVID-19 and people ageing with intellectual disability: part 1

If you like this post, follow me on Twitter: @ArchivePsych

Attitudes to psychedelic therapy among people using mental health services

There has been increasing interest in the use of psychedelic drugs as a means for treating certain mental health conditions. For example, there is emerging evidence that psilocybin-assisted therapy may be of benefit in depression, although more trials with larger samples and better control/comparison conditions are required to provide a clearer picture.     

Of course, even if psilocybin is shown to be effective for ameliorating depression, will many people be reluctant to try it? One can imagine that some people with depression, battling the "demons" associated with trauma, may prefer to keep trying anti-depressants that lead to gradual reduction in depression over time, rather than a psychedelic drug recreational users use to induce an experience that alters one's perception of reality; some people may have an understandable fear of a "bad trip" or similar. 

A recent article looks at attitudes towards the use of psychedelic drugs among mental health service users in Ireland. The researchers conducted a survey with 99 people, recruited via a psychiatric hospital and a community mental health service. It is interesting to see what the attitudes are among people who are engaging with mental health services, as opposed to a general population survey, where for many respondents, interventions for mental health is a more hypothetical idea, or something that "happens to other people".  

In this survey, a clear majority supported further research (72%). A slimmer majority (59%) supporting psilocybin as a medical treatment; a similar proportion (55%) said they would accept psychedelic drugs if recommended by their doctor, with 20% saying they would not accept them. A fifth of the respondents also said they viewed psychedelics as unsafe even under medical supervision. Although such concerns may be unfounded for some people who could benefit, it was concerning that a handful of people with conditions that could be exacerbated by psilocybin (e.g. psychosis) thought that psilocybin would be useful for them. Some participants reported they would be reluctant to come off existing medication in order to accept psilocybin therapy, given that some were satisfied with their current treatment, as well as the worries relating to previous history of addiction or the broad illegality of psilocybin.       

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the authors found that younger people (the mean age overall was 42) were more likely to have favourable attitudes towards the use of psilocybin; this was also the case for those with previous recreational experience of such drugs, as well as those who were less religious. Males had a higher lifetime rate of using psychedelics, although their attitudes towards therapeutic use did not seem to differ substantially from females. As the sample was not that large, we should be careful about drawing generalisations about how predictive different demographic characteristics will be about the acceptability of psychedelic drugs. Nonetheless, the overall results seem to suggest there is a willingness out there among people using mental health services to try psychedelic drugs if recommended by a clinician, but a substantial minority will be reluctant to do so.  

It should be emphasized that this work is looking at the controlled used of psychedelic drugs under medical supervision. Self-medication with psychedelic drugs (or other drugs, legal or otherwise) is not recommended. If you have concerns about your mental health, speak to your GP. A free listening service is provided by Samaritans for those experiencing mental health problems. Also, I think a lot of people don't realise that many workplaces offer complementary employment assistance programs that allow employees to avail of talk therapy.  

Corrigan, K., Haran, M., McCandliss, C., McManus, R., Cleary, S., Trant, R., ... & Kelly, J. R. (2021). Psychedelic perceptions: mental health service user attitudes to psilocybin therapy. Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971-), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-021-02668-2

Related posts

Ketamine, depression and neurobiological indices

If you like this post, follow me on Twitter: @ArchivePsych

What we talk about when we talk about the past

Irish society has changed a lot over the last few decades. Along with more international changes like globalisation, the ubiquity of the internet etc., Ireland specifically has seen rapid economic growth as well as sea changes in social policy (e.g. going from criminalisation of homosexual activity at the start of 1990's to legalising gay marriage by a referendum in the 2010's). Even people in their forties and younger will recognise they live in a country that is different in many ways from the Ireland they lived when they were children (notwithstanding often high rates of emigration). As Fintan O'Toole (and others) put it, We don't know ourselves.

The autobiographical intersects with changes over society. Do you reckon that you were ahead of your time when looking back at how things used to be? Or do you remain nostalgic and wish things were more like the past? (It will depend, of course, on the subject or aspect of life). 

A recent chapter in a book on psychobiography followed on from an in-depth look I had with some collaborators from Maynooth University and DIT. The sense of self was not always so stable, and could be affected by changing economic circumstances-one individual mentioned she used to look forward to going away on a holiday for a long time, and would discuss it at length for long after, but would now (in more prosperous times) would get back from holidays and just wonder where she and her family would be going next. (I should say this was from before the COVID-19 pandemic!)

Besides actual changes, counterfactual descriptions of the past can be used to think through the value of different decisions. What if I had taken that job, or married that person? What if that politician hadn't been elected, or if most people had had the internet in the 1980's? These can often be tinged with regret that things could have worked better, with the benefit of hindsight.

People may alternate between a first-person description of autobiographical events and a broader third-person description more routed in the family, friends or society around them (people often use the second person as a generic person, "you'd want to think twice about that" can sometimes mean "one would want to think twice about that", rather than just the listener). The lines between the individual, inter-individual, cultural and societal can get blurred by language. Pre-autobiographical "memories" can have an instructive function when shared with younger relatives, to give a sense of continuing extended self with one's family. 

Indeed, there are various different functions that reminiscence about the past can play. A story from one's past can act as an instructive (perhaps cautionary) tale for a younger person going through a similar phase in life that one went through in the past. At other times, such a story may be used to demonstrate or think through how one's self has been formed over time, or to build rapport with someone by illustrating how two past lives were quite alike, or just for simple entertainment value.

How we talk about the past can vary in terms of the extent to which we situate ourselves in the events that have shaped our lives and our society (Note how I'm segueing into first-person plural here). We don't know ourselves, so we'll have to keep constructing them on the fly.

Allen, A. P., Doyle, C., Doyle, C. M., Monaghan, C., Fitzpatrick, N., & Roche, R. A. (2021). What we talk about when we talk about the past: Discursive psychological analysis of autobiographical reminiscence in older Irish adults. In Psychobiographical illustrations on meaning and identity in sociocultural contexts (pp. 327-344). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Related posts

Oral history and psychology

Time out of mind

If you like this post, follow me on Twitter: @ArchivePsych