Universities worldwide are increasingly relying on short-term contracts and non-tenure-track positions — a shift that has triggered a silent but growing faculty crisis.
As precarious employment spreads across academia, research quality suffers: scholars trade critical independence for professional survival
This is not just about job dissatisfaction or bureaucratic hurdles — it's about a scientific culture that rewards obedience over originality, and careerism over curiosity. The following examines how casual contracts in academia cause academic insecurity. It’s about a global pattern of employment instability eroding independent science and how this precarity even affects research quality.
A Global "Epidemic" of Academic Insecurity
In the United States, the erosion of stable academic employment has become systemic. According to the American Association of University Professors (2023), nearly three‑quarters of university faculty hold non‑tenure‑track posts, often in precarious, short-term roles. In the UK, studies show that up to 96% of researchers at top institutions such as Oxford and LSE are on temporary contracts. Similar patterns are emerging in countries like Canada, Australia — and increasingly across continental Europe.
Most early-career researchers live in cycles of uncertainty — applying, reapplying, and constantly waiting to see whether they'll have a job next semester. This system doesn’t only harm their well-being — it warps the very foundation of research culture.
The Invisible Influence of Professors
While hiring and renewal decisions may appear bureaucratic, in practice Principal Investigators (PIs) and senior professors often wield enormous informal power. Especially in non-tenure-track positions (e.g., research associates, postdocs, lecturers), PIs influence whether contracts are extended, publications are co-authored, or grant proposals are funded.
This structural dependence turns career advancement into a matter of alignment — not with truth or scientific value, but with the preferences of the person who holds the keys.
From Researcher to Research Servant
One of the most insidious effects of this dynamic is what scholars call career-adaptive conformity: a subtle but powerful form of self-censorship. Researchers no longer ask, “What should be studied?” but “What will please the professor?”
Time once used for developing independent questions is now spent doing project grunt work, drafting grant sections, or fine-tuning PowerPoint decks. And while these tasks are part of academic life, in a healthy system, they wouldn’t replace one's own intellectual contributions.
thanks to Markus Winkler on Unsplash for the pic
In reality, many highly trained researchers are reduced to glorified assistants — implementing someone else’s vision, not exploring their own. This isn’t mentorship. It’s quiet compliance under threat of unemployment.
The Power of Proximity: Networks Over Merit
Multiple studies confirm that proximity to power trumps merit. In hiring and promotion, it often matters more who you know than what you’ve done. A PI’s recommendation can open doors or shut them permanently.
Social capital — being in the right room, working on the right project, being listed on the right paper — can determine everything. And that creates a culture where strategic alignment outperforms intellectual independence.
Conformity Over Creativity: A Dangerous Trade-Off
Academic insecurity doesn’t just waste talent — it shapes the kind of science that gets done. It creates:
- Trend-chasing: researchers pursue fashionable topics for visibility and safety.
- Risk aversion: bold or controversial questions are avoided.
- Intellectual subservience: scholars suppress disagreement to remain “useful.”
Instead of innovation, we get imitation. Instead of debate, deference.
Academic Culture at Risk
Let’s be clear: this is not about a few bad professors or lazy assistants. It’s about a system that incentivizes conformity over curiosity, proximity over principle. It’s about a professional environment in which the most dangerous thing a researcher can do is think independently.
And in the long run, it’s not just researchers who lose — it’s the public, the progress of knowledge, and the scientific process itself.