Surviving Science – Coping with Exit-Decisions in Physics and History

A physicist and a historian, both postdoctoral researchers, both on fixed-term contracts, both facing the same decision: to stay in academia or to leave. The structural situation is similar, yet they have radically different ways of coping with it. This difference is what Tim Fenkner and Jonas Gottschalk-Rayling aim to explain. The structural conditions in German academia are genuinely brutal. The chair system limits professorships to a small number, and a full professorship is essentially the only route to tenure. The habilitation and junior professor tracks do not guarantee a chair. Most postdoctoral positions rely on third-party funding with cycles of three to five years, and European Research Council acceptance rates can be as low as fifteen percent. Every postdoc that Fenkner and Gottschalk-Rayling interviewed understood this. The uncertainty about whether to stay or go was universal. However, what was not universal was how that uncertainty felt and what actions they took in response. The paper's core contribution is dividing "future uncertainty" into two distinct types. The first is secured uncertainty — you are unsure whether you will succeed in academia, but you can envision a viable life outside of it. The second is existential uncertainty — academia appears to be the only imaginable path, and failing to secure a position threatens both your livelihood and your identity. Crucially, this division is not solely driven by actual job market conditions. It is influenced by what postdocs believe those conditions to be. To explore this, Fenkner and Gottschalk-Rayling conducted sixty semi-structured interviews: thirty-one with historians and twenty-nine with particle physicists, all on fixed-term contracts in Germany, primarily conducted from late 2021 to early 2022. They analyzed the transcripts using Grounded Theory Methodology across three coding rounds, resulting in fourteen meta-codes and ninety-eight subcodes. The disciplinary contrast is striking. Physicists tend to experience secured uncertainty. One interviewee named Marvin expresses it simply: "As a physicist, you have a skill that you can use anywhere in industry." This perceived safety net changes everything. Kai states he will "decide accordingly in about three years." Christian plans to "stay in academia as long as I have fun." These are acts of postponement made possible by a perceived exit route. Historians generally do not have that route. Alice describes her situation as "keeping swimming and not drowning." Ulrike describes "fighting for every day" after experiencing a collapse. Some historians navigate this by creating parallel careers — Lukas suggests pursuing "two tracks," while Holger praises an advisory position as "the best of two worlds." These strategies are not mere psychological quirks; they represent practical toolkits shaped by imagined futures. The costs also manifest differently. Existential uncertainty is linked to burnout and self-exploitation — when the frame of reference is survival, postdocs tend to exceed their physical and psychological limits. Secured uncertainty comes with its own complications: if you can always leave, the urgency to address systemic issues diminishes. Both dynamics adversely affect research quality. Short funding cycles and intense competition encourage safe bets and questionable practices. Fenkner and Gottschalk-Rayling directly reference Sigl's argument: when social and epistemic uncertainty coincide, research quality will inevitably decline. Their recommendations are tangible — improved information on non-academic careers, destigmatizing exit, and political reforms to establish secure pathways beyond the professorship. This lecture was created by ennepō. Go to https://ennepo.ai to Discover, Create and Follow the latest research in your field. Read when you can. Listen when you want to.