State of the science of taxonomy in Australia: results of the 2016 Survey of Taxonomic Capacity.
Prepared by H.J.WeaverAustralian Biological Resources Study
November 2017
State of the science of taxonomy in Australia: results of the 2016 survey of taxonomic capacity / 1
© Copyright Commonwealth of Australia, 2017.
State of the science of taxonomy in Australia: results of the 2016 survey of taxonomic capacity is licensed by the Commonwealth of Australia for use under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0International licence with the exception of the Coat of Arms of the Commonwealth of Australia, the logo of the agency responsible for publishing the report, content supplied by third parties, and any images depicting people. For licence conditions see:
This report should be attributed as ‘State of the science of taxonomy in Australia: results of the 2016 survey of taxonomic capacity, Commonwealth of Australia 2017’.
The Commonwealth of Australia has made all reasonable efforts to identify content supplied by third parties using the following format ‘© Copyright, [name of third party] ’.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Australian Government or the Minister for the Environment and Energy.
While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct, the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication.
Contents
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Survey design
Data analysis
Terminology
Results
Who is Australia’s taxonomic workforce, and what work do they do?
The tasks Australian taxonomists work on
What taxa do Australian taxonomists work on?
Contribution by Australian taxonomists
What issues matter to Australian taxonomists?
Discussion
The Australian taxonomic research workforce
The work and activities conducted by Australian taxonomists
The research focus, constraints and concerns of Australian taxonomists
Does Australia have a ‘taxonomic impediment’?
Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References
Appendix A
Appendix B
Abstract
The Australian Biological Resources Study (ABRS) is committed to facilitating and supporting Australian researchers in the field of taxonomy and systematics. The ABRS has conducted surveys of taxonomic research capacity in 1975, 1991, 2003 and 2016. Here, we present the results of the most recent survey. We found that the number of researchers actively working in taxonomy and systematics has fallen over the years, but that proportionally more women are now working in the field. We also found that the field is supported substantially by retired or honorary researchers, with over a quarter of the workforce in unsalaried positions. This does enable a sustained level of productivity in the field, but masks the fact that there are fewer paid positions in the field. A consistent concern of researchers in the field is that of funding and job security/career opportunities, highlighted in surveys in 2016, 2003 and 1991. Newer concerns highlighted in 2016 were the lack of positions for postdoctoral researchers and beyond, and the way taxonomy is perceived — particularly in the context of bibliometrics. Australia has a good representation of researchers in the Arthropoda and Angiospermae, but there are many taxonomic groupsfor which we lack experts.
Introduction
The Australian Biological Resources Study (ABRS) is a program of the Australian Department of the Environment and Energy that has been running continuously for over 40years. The ABRS commenced in 1973 under an Interim Council, before being established in 1978as an entity (Free and Ride 1978). One of the reasons for establishing a body for the specific task of acquiring and facilitating knowledge on taxonomy of Australian species was recognition that “[the] need for rapid acquisition and organisation of biological data has also become apparent through pressing requirements of new conservation programs and environmental assessments” (Free and Ride 1978). This is still true today it remains one of the most important functions of the work of the ABRS. Other core activities of the ABRS include supporting research via the National Taxonomy Research Grant Programme (NTRGP) and providing travel grants to students, facilitating capacity-building and training in the field, and producing publications and identification tools (e.g. web-accessible databases, online resources, monographs, taxonomic revisions, checklists, dichotomous keys etc.).
The ABRS sought to evaluate, using surveys, the workforce of taxonomists and systematists in Australia at several intervals: first in 1975, then 1991, 2003 and 2016. The longitudinal series of data produced from these surveys provides a valuable insight into the state of taxonomy for Australia. The purpose of the original survey was to determine the nature and extent of State and Commonwealth programs for taxonomic and systematics research and collections, in order for the ABRS to effectively support such work (Ride and McCusker 1978). This was the philosophy for commissioning surveys in 1991 and 2003; and the 2016 survey has the added benefit of providing information relevant for the Decadal Plan for Biosystematics and Taxonomy in Australasia. Surveys commissioned by the ABRS can be compared with similar surveys conducted in New Zealand (Nelson, et al. 2015) and Canada (Council of Canadian Academies 2010). Theaim of this research was to gauge the current state of the science of taxonomy in Australia, compared over time, to better understand the requirements of and limitations for Australian taxonomists.
Methods
Survey design
We constructed and disseminated the survey using Google Forms. It was designed to match with thesurveys conducted in previous years (2003, 1991), but also included new questions to better understand the structure and needs of the taxonomic research community. It was open from 5September to 16October 2016. We emailed the survey directly to contacts, or indirectly via the Council of Heads of Australian Faunal Collections (CHAFC) and CHAH mailing lists. For the direct emails from ABRS, we assembled our mailing lists based on known current contacts (i.e. active stakeholders, and from successful and unsuccessful research and capacity-building grant applicants. To ensure we reached as many relevant potential respondents as possible, we sent the survey to heads of institutions, departments, and/or research groups with the request that it be sent on to staff members, rather than emailing individuals directly. We also asked that the survey be passed on to anyone to whom it might be relevant. To estimate the minimum reach of the survey, because we did not have a definite number of known recipients, we requested that each person who forwarded the survey to staff or colleagues advise us of the number of people they sent it to in three categories: the number of ‘all staff’ on their mailing list, the number of associates (unpaid/non-staff positions), if different from ‘all staff’, and the number of external people whowere also sent the survey.
Data analysis
Initial sorting and cleaning of the descriptive survey data was done using R (R: a language and environment for statistical computing, Vienna Austria). Several responses were omitted from the final data set including known duplicate responses(where respondents identified themselves, the second response was omitted). Surveys that were clearly incomplete and those that were completed to indicate the respondent is not currently working in Australia were also omitted. Data from this survey were comparedwith similar surveys conducted by ABRS in 2003 ( 1991 (Richardson and McKenzie 1991) and 1975 (Ride and McCusker 1978), using raw data where available, or interpreting from synthesis reports. For comparison, the numbers of respondents were 183in2003 and 408 in 1991. Data from 1975 were presented differently, and comparison numbers will begiven for specific data categories.
Data on publications produced were collected using Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) searches for “n.sp.” and “sp. nov.” (and plurals thereof) for particular years and sorted by country using the ‘results analysis’ tool on the database.
Terminology
We used the term ‘taxonomy’ and ‘taxonomist’ to cover all aspects of the field of taxonomy, including alpha taxonomy, systematics, phylogenetics, specimen preparation etc., unless specifically indicated in the text.
Results
We emailed the survey request directly to 194 recipients. The estimated minimum reach was calculated on the responses of laboratory heads/leaders of institutions, etc. advising us of how many people they forwarded the survey request to which in total, included 504 additional recipients. Given that we also received emails from laboratory heads/leaders of institutions advising us they had circulated the survey but did not provide numbers on how many people they circulated it to, and because we cannot be sure that people did not receive the survey only once (i.e. some recipients may have received the survey requestfrom multiple contacts), we estimate that the survey request was seen by a minimum of around 700individuals in total. We received 359 completed responses from taxonomists working in Australia, which was 51% of our estimated minimum reach.
Of the 359 respondents, 100 identified ‘taxonomy as their core activity’ at their workplace, followed by 91selecting ‘phylogenetics & systematics [research]’, and 83 respondents selecting ‘curation of specimens’ as their main work. Fifty-six respondents selected ‘occasionally doing taxonomic research’ as ancillary to their main paid work (Figure 1). Overall, 51% of respondents selected performing taxonomic research and curation as their main work. The activity of taxonomy and curatorial work was aggregated in the 2003 survey, with a yes/no answer. The rate of taxonomic and curatorial work as a main activity in 2016 is similar to the proportion of respondents who selected those categories in 2003 and 1991, where 65% and 56% of respondents respectively selected ‘yes’ to the question of whether curatorial and/or taxonomic work was their major responsibility. The proportion of males to females working across each activity was relatively even, although the most frequent activity listed by males as their core activity was taxonomy, whereas the most frequent activity for females was phylogenetics and systematics (Figure 1). Taxonomists in Australia areemployed mainly at museums (n = 116), herbaria (n = 93) and universities (n = 81) (Table1). Theproportions of workers at the main institutions has remained relatively steady over the time period available, but it is important to note that it is not clear whether the scope of surveys in previous years included technical workers, managers, curatorial staff or retired/honorary positions in these questions.
Figure 1: Frequency of responses for describing the “main part of your current taxonomic work on Australian taxa”; all respondents (top panel), and split into gender categories (bottom panel).
Table 1: The institutions where taxonomists in Australia work.
Institution
/2016
/2003
/1991
/1975*
Museum / 116 / 61 / 125 / 126Herbarium / 93 / 47 / 76 / 67
University / 81 / 31 / 86 / 193
CSIRO / 12 / 14 / 16 / 72
State or Territory government / 25 / 12 / 48 / 114
Commonwealth government / 9 / 2 / 16 / n/a
Other / 22 / 7 / 4 / n/a
*only total ‘permanent professional staff’ were counted 1975, n = 386 (see Table 12 of Ride and McCusker 1978).
Who is Australia’s taxonomic workforce, and what work do they do?
In 2016, the was Australian taxonomic workforce was still predominently male (n = 226; female = 132; unspecified = 1). We have observed a gradual increase in the proportion of female workers to males over time, with 37% of respondents being female in 2016, compared with 31% in 2003 and 23% in 1991 (Figure 2). No data were provided for gender in the 1975 survey. In 2016, the most frequent age category for all respondents was 40–44 (n = 52), which was the same for female respondents (n = 27), with 55–59 the most frequent age category for males (n = 29) (Figure 3). Two general trends are evident when comparing the 2016 data to the previous surveys; a general reduction in workers over time, and the shift inthe age profile of taxonomists in Australia. The two most frequent age categories in 2016 were 40–44 and 55–59, whereas in 1975 they were 30–34 and 35–39 (counted from ‘permanent professional taxonomist staff’). The shift to an older workforce is reflected in the sustained high numbers of respondents in age categories beyond retirement. Retired/honorary/associate/volunteer staff (as self-selected by respondents) comprised 26% of the workforce in 2016.
Figure 2: Proportion of taxonomists identifying as female (shown in blue), male (shown in red) and gender unspecified (shown in green) from 1991–2016.
Figure 3: Age profiles of Australian taxonomists with numbers of respondents on the y axis, showing all years (top), females only (middle) and males only (bottom). Note that the 1975 and 2003 surveys final age category was 60+. Data for 1975 were for ‘permanent professional’ taxonomists only (n = 386).
Half of respondents surveyed (n = 156) were currently employed in full-time permanent (ongoing) positions, while the second most frequently selected employment category was ‘unpaid professional’ (n=91), which was the aggregate of the honorary/volunteer/associate category and any ‘retired’ or ‘emeritus’ selected in the “other” category (Figure 4). Casual positions and students were not considered in previous surveys.The proportions of people employed in each of the employment categories was similar to previous years, with the majority working full-time permanent positions, andlower numbers of people employed on a part-time or full-time fixed term basis. However, over time there has been a trend toward more fixed-term positions, and more part-time permanent positions. For comparison, in 1975, the‘professional taxonomist’ workforce in State museums and herbaria comprised 63% permanent full-time workers, with 18% in ‘temporary’ positions (defined as those working part-time, or employed via grants or other soft money), and 19% were honorary or unpaid positions. The 1975 data in Figure 4 are incomplete because the survey only included the employment categories of professional biologists at State museums and herbaria (n = 193; FT(perm) = 122, PT/temp = 34, honorary = 37). Further, the part-time and temporary positions were lumped together and therefore excluded because they could not be split into the current categories. While the most common employment category is the full-time permanent position for both men and women (Figure 5), more women than men worked in full-time fixed-term, bothpermanent and fixed-term part-time, and in casual positions in 2016. Women consistently outnumbered men in part-time categories in all survey years where these categories were offered.
Within their work as taxonomists, and excluding the 91 respondents for the unpaid categories, the most frequently selected job category or position description was research scientist (n = 80), followed by collection manager/curatorial (n = 56), graduate student (n=31) and academic staff (n = 27). More women than men worked as research assistants/technical support, and as graduate students (Figure 6). Questions on job/position description were not asked in previous surveys, so it is not known how the results in 2016 compare with other years.
A large proportion of respondents have worked for less than 10 years in their current workplace (<5years+ 5–9 years n = 169)(Figure 7). Time spent at work for both males and females has decreased substantially since 1991, when 42% of respondents at that time worked more than 60 hours per week. In2016, respondents (n = 344) most frequently spent 31–40 hours per week at work (35% of total), followed by 41–50 hours at work per week (23%). No respondents worked less than five hours per week, and 5%worked more than 60 hours per week (Figure 8).
Figure 4: Employment status of Australian taxonomists surveyed for the years 1975, 1991, 2003 and 2016.
Figure 5:Employment status as reported by Australian male and female taxonomists in 2016, 2003 and 1991. Only those who disclosed their gender are counted in this graph.
Figure 6:Position/job description of Australian taxonomists surveyed in 2016.
Figure 7: Years spent working in the field of taxonomy, and years spent at current workplace for Australian taxonomists in 2016.
Figure 8:Typical hours worked per week as nominated by Australian taxonomists in 2016, 2003 and 1991.
The tasks Australian taxonomists work on
Australian taxonomists perform a range of tasks as part of their regular work. We asked survey respondents to indicate the percentage of their time over the past year spent on a selection of tasks (Figure9). Very few respondents (n = 18) perform research only for 80% or more of their work time. Themost frequent time percentage spent on research was 41–60%, followed by 21–40%. Most frequently, respondents spent small amounts of time across a broad range of tasks. For previous survey years, respondents were asked to show how much of their time was consumed by specified tasks that added up to 100% (as opposed to the 2016 survey where total time spent on all tasks could be greater than 100%). In 2003, respondents spent 15% of their time on research tasks, compared with 17% in 1991 and 29% in 1975.
In addition to the specified tasks, we sought to examine how much fieldwork taxonomists were doing, and the sources of funding for this work during the previous year. In 2015, 6,033 total days of fieldwork were undertaken by survey respondents, compare with 3,051 days in 2002 and 6,957 days in 1990. On average in 2015, workers spent three days on institution-funded fieldwork, seven days on project/grant-funded, and eight days on unfunded/privately funded fieldwork (= average of 18 days of fieldwork), compared with an average of 20 days per year recorded in the 1991 data set. However, in 2015 the employment category of workers had a large bearing on how much fieldwork was done, and how it was paid for. Asseen in Figure 10, workers in the ‘other’ work category (comprising one respondent, who identified their work category as ‘self-employed’) did almost equal amounts of paid and unpaid fieldwork across all categories. Full-time workers performed most project-funded fieldwork, with less institution-funded and unpaid fieldwork. However, the unpaid professionals in 2016 (i.e. retired, voluntary, emeritus, honorary) contributed just over two weeks’ unpaid fieldwork on average, with very little paid fieldwork. There is a definite trend toward more unpaid fieldwork. In the 2003 survey, the majority of fieldwork for 2001–2002 was project-funded (around 46%), and the rest was relatively evenly spread between institution-funded and unfunded fieldwork. Further, in the 2001–2002 data, the majority of fieldwork was conducted by full-time researchers, with unpaid/honorary workers contributing only 17% of all fieldwork.