Autism Issues in Academic Positions

Post Reply New Topic

Don't forget to add postdocing to the list. I have friends who worked on various low paying postdocs for 10 years hoping that a professorship would open up. It did not happen for them. They finally gave up and went into industry.

I knew a professor who paid one of his Indian postdocs $21,000/year but required him to pay his own health insurance and housing. He also expected him to work 24/7/365 on the project instead of the average 60 hours/week most postdocs were putting in. At the time, graduate students at the same university were making almost the same amount and had their health insurance covered. After one year of this, he left to visit family back home and never came back. The professor just could not believe that he would leave the postdoc position like he did, saying "but I paid him so well".

Diament, Michelle. 2005. “A Secret Syndrome.” Chronicle of Higher Education 52(8):A10–11.

I have this article if anyone wants to read it. Send me a direct message with your email address and I'll email it.

It's about how autistic professors have observed autism traits in their co-workers but they do not disclose themselves and don't hear other people disclosing, because in the rare times that someone finds out, their knowledge and capabilities are then called into question. Diament says that it's striking that this is happening, because autistic traits should be a benefit in education- specialist knowledge, the ability to drone on and on, attention to detail, higher focus. Why should people have to hide?

There are a lot of people in my department who I am positive are autistic and none of them are open about it. The neurotypical professors are often jerks and unethical. The autistic ones can be more boring because of monotone voices, but if you pay attention and do all the work they are always nicer people who can teach you more. I have sometimes seen autistic professors disrespected to their faces by bored students. I was unsure if they "got it." I hope they didn't. Like I said, they were the good ones.

I happen to know that autistic professors and simply ETHICAL professors sometimes have a harder time getting tenure and can be the target of a jealous neurotypical. But it can also go the other way. The fact that they don't cause problems is sometimes rewarded quickly and generously. You can sometimes control sensory issues around you as well. You can often request certain rooms and then adjust the lighting and seating.

If you are passionate about your subject I think academia is a great option for aspies. Especially if you can pass. Not perfect, but nothing is.

All the professors I know are super weirdos, there are no normals.

Re-waking this thread - if there's a more recent one on the same topic, please feel free to redirect me.

I'm a final year undergraduate (mature student) and looking at further academic options. My lecturers have either recommended (or in some cases just assumed) that I will go into academia.

I know a lot of people here are in other locations (US, NZ, etc), but maybe you can still advise. I have no problem with the academic work. My grades should qualify me for scholarship, so money is not a first concern.

My concern is the level of non-academic work involved; meetings, committees, networking, interpersonal negotiations with other staff. All that stuff is a huge Danger Zone for me. There are so many opportunities for accidental arguments and conflicts. Even without conflict, I suspect I'd use up most of my mental energy trying to get the human relations right, and not be able to do my work.

My university has been highly supportive throughout my degree, as have most of the staff I've dealt with. I'm fairly open with disclosure so far, but not sure if that might have to change at post-grad or work level. I would go to a different university for post-grad.

Those of you at post-grad, or in working roles in academia; do you find the social/interpersonal problems severe? Does it just depend which university you end up with? Can you just not do the committee/bureaucratic/social stuff? I'm guessing it's at least partly obligatory.

I feel like I could do productive and useful academic work, but I'm concerned about ending up in a work environment that cancels out my abilities.

Would love to hear any experiences or advice. Thanks.

I had professors who had a very depressing, nihilistic outlook on life. I was glad when I got my Master's Degree and was finally done with academia. I still do love learning, though. What went on throughout college wasn't learning, but indoctrination.

It does greatly vary depending upon where you are at and your particular position there. Tenure-track and tenured positions tend to have higher social requirements than those that are on the non-tenure track route. The tenure processes have certain requirements for service work that is almost always "social" in nature, like serving on a faculty senate or university committee group. Some meetings (like departmental ones) are always required no matter what position that you have there. I have had to serve on a hiring committee within the past year and it was not fun to say the least. I think that some people on that committee just want to hear themselves talk. What should have been short meetings got extended by hours due to this issue.

Thanks, that sounds like a similar situation to here. I can deal with a certain amount of that kind of work, though I do find it very difficult. I've served as committee member or board member in other jobs before college. Hence my concerns.

Do you find it manageable, or does it effect your ability to work? That's my main concern really - that the social/committee/bureaucratic work would be so draining I wouldn't have enough brain power left over to do my actual work.

Clearly this pertains to Aspies the slightly quirky but otherwise functional people.

Why is this even an issue?

I'm a full professor in the UK, in an engineering field. I used to chair my dept and I have appointed several junior lecturers over the years.

Ireland, like the UK, doesn't have tenure, so there is maybe a little less pressure to do what US academics call service, to get on.

I think expectations depend a lot on departmental culture, and also on your field and the type of your university. In most cases, you wouldn't have any significant admin role until after you'd done your PhD (and then probably at least one postdoc contract if in sci/eng). And even then, your research and teaching matter much more than the admin. And admin doesn't always mean serving on committees. Typical admin roles for new lecturers are things like co-ordinating student projects or admissions, being exams officer, or lab safety. These can usually be done without committees. If you're lucky, your dept will be the sort where your colleagues just want the role done efficiently and would be happy for you to get on with it.

As to when you do get dragged onto committees: oddly, I find it much easier to chair them than just be a member. If I chair, I know whose turn it is to speak, for example.

You will probably have to engage in some sort of networking for your research, though. This is where we are at the biggest disadvantage, I think. I have yet to find a good solution to the conference drinks reception networking. If your research is good, though, you will probably find neurotypical collaborators who are socially skilled and are happy to adjust to the way you need to work. Even though they don't think of it in terms of autism, they will have worked with clever, awkward people before. In my field, it is normal for a research group or a dept to have a "front person" who is wheeled out to deal with the media or the VC, while there is also a co-author or two who seem to produce a lot of papers but don't get seen so much ...

Thanks, I really appreciate all that, especially the above quoted.
I know the admin roles don't really kick in until after PhD level, but I don't want to go all the way through a PhD and then discover I can't do the job I was aiming for.

Networking! The horror. I don't use social media at all, also, so I don't have those links to build up in the background. I have spoken at a couple of conferences already though. I found that the coffee-and-chat sessions in the morning were torture, but once I'd delivered my paper quite a few people approached me at later sessions to talk about it, so I was able to have some good conversations about my work, and made a few contacts I've kept in touch with since.

I worked (on and off, in very different jobs and with very different levels of success and failure) for 13 years before I went to college. Some work environments were bad enough that I had to leave, or was asked to leave. So I am probably partly just stressing any work environment now, after a few years happily buried in research and flying solo.

Thanks again for posting your experience.

One other thing occurs to me on conference networking. If your PhD supervisor is any good and perhaps especially if they know you are autistic, then you can ask them to help you. I try to introduce my students to one established researcher at each conference who I think will be interested in their work. Or will at least be nice to them.