Job satisfaction is an essential pulse to take about a community’s health.
It helps to track the evolution and the current state of the RSEs within their
role and to catch any sign of structural or organisational dysfunction that are
translated into well-being. There are a lot of different metrics to measure the
quality of a job on a personal and psychological level [1]. Several models
exist to understand the link between different factors of job satisfaction and
turnover intention [2]–[6]. Turnover intention is an important measure that is
highly associated with the risk of employees leaving the organisation [3]. Job
satisfaction is important in retaining RSEs. Perceived employability provides
information on how workers values their own skills in regard of the market. To
measure the different attitudes toward the RSE role, we used scales that have
been created in [5], [6], [7], [8]. These are Likert scale [7], which are
5 point ordinal scales graduated from Strongly disagree to Strongly agree. Each
scale is composed of several so called items (i.e. questions) that each measure
one attitude.
Beside these specific concepts we asked more general question about their
satisfaction in their current position and their satisfaction with their career
in general with a range of answers from 0 (not at all satisfied) to 10
(completely satisfied).
The specific questions about their job satisfaction reflect, in general, the
same opinion as the two more generic questions. However, the granularity helps
to identify a couple of issues that would not appears with generic questions:
Recognition: These questions ask if the RSEs feel that they receive
enough information about their work and their performance.
The turnover intention: These questions aim to measure the desire to quit
their current position.
The perceived employability: This concept is linked to the previous one.
People may not have the intention to leave their jobs, not because they like
it, but because they fear they are not employable.
The possibility of progression: This question aims to study the
possibility of evolution for the RSEs, if information is available and if
they see a possibility of evolution within their current career. This is the
only questions that clearly received negative answers.
Questions in this section:
All questions were asked in a Likert scale.
In general, how satisfied are you with your current position?
In general, how satisfied are you with your career?
Do you feel that your contribution to research is recognised by your supervisor/line manager?
Do you feel that your contribution to research is recognised by the researchers you work with?
Do you feel that your contribution to research is recognised by your institution?
How often do you consider leaving your job?
I would accept another job at the same compensation level if I was offered it
It would not be very difficult for me to get an equivalent job in a different institution
My experience is in demand on the labour market
It is likely that I will gain a promotion within my current group
The process I have to complete to gain a promotion is clear and understandable
There are many opportunities within my chosen career plan
It is likely that my next position will be an Research Software Engineer / Research Software Developer role
References
B. Aziri, “Job satisfaction: A literature review,” vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 77–86.
N. De Cuyper, S. Mauno, U. Kinnunen, and A. Mkikangas, “The role of job resources in the relation
between perceived employability and turnover intention: A prospective two-sample study,” vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 253–263.
A. B. Bakker and E. Demerouti, “The job demands-resources model: State of the art,” vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 309–328.
G. H. L. Cheng and D. K. S. Chan, “Who Suffers More from Job Insecurity? A Meta-Analytic Review.” vol. 57, no. 2, p. 272.
E. R. Thompson and F. T. Phua, “A brief index of affective job satisfaction,” vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 275–307.
L. Greenhalgh and Z. Rosenblatt, “Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity,” pp. 438–448.
R. Likert, “A technique for the measurement of attitudes.” vol. 22, no. 140, p. 55.
