The entire Heliophysics research system hinders discourages proper worklife balance. A core issue stems from the culture of workabovelife associated with mission development and implementation but also the expectations that seem to originate from announcements by agencies. We are calling for worklife balance plans and implementation to be a criterion used for mission downselection.
['Astrophysics - Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics', 'Astrophysics - Solar and Stellar Astrophysics', 'Physics - Physics and Society', 'Physics - Space Physics']
WorkLife Balance Starts with Proper Deadlines and Exemplary Agencies
{'Work-Life Balance Starts with Proper Deadlines and Exemplary Agencies': 'Noé Lugaz 1 , Réka M. Winslow 1 , Nada Al-Haddad 1 , Christina O. Lee 2 , Sarah K. Vines 3 , Katharine Reeves 4 , Amir Caspi 5 , Daniel Seaton 5 , Cooper Downs 6 , Lindsay Glesener 7 , Angelos Vourlidas 3 , Camilla Scolini 1 , Tibor Török 6 , Robert Allen 3 , Erika Palmerio 6  \n1 Space Science Center, University of New Hampshire; 2 Space Science Laboratory, University of California  -  Berkeley, 3 Johns  Hopkins  University/Applied  Physics  Laboratory, 4 Center  for Astrophysics,  Harvard  Smithsonian, 5 Southwest  Research  Institute, 6 Predictive  Science  Inc., 7 University of Minnesota  \nSynopsis : Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs can only be implemented successfully if proper work-life balance is possible in Heliophysics (and in STEM field in general). One of the core  issues  stems  from  the  culture  of  \'work-above-life\'  associated  with  mission  concepts, development, and implementation but also the expectations that seem to originate from numerous announcements  from  NASA  (and  other  agencies).  The  benefits  of  work-life  balance  are  well documented;  however,  the  entire  system  surrounding  research  in  Heliophysics  hinders  or discourages proper work-life balance. For example, there does not seem to be attention paid by NASA  Headquarters  (HQ)  on  the  timing  of  their  announcements  regarding  how  it  will  be perceived by researchers, and how the timing may promote a culture where work trumps personal life.  The  same  is  true  for  remarks  by  NASA  HQ  program  officers  during  panels  or  informal discussions, where seemingly innocuous comments may give a perception that work is expected after  "normal\'  work  hours.  In  addition,  we  are  calling  for  work-life  balance  plans  and implementation to be one of the criteria used for down-selection and confirmation of missions (Key Decision Points: KDP-B, KDP-C).  \nThe benefits of proper work-life balance are well documented in peer-reviewed publications for more than 30 years (e.g., see Crosby, 1991). They include benefits to the individual, their family but  also  to  the  employers  themselves,  in  terms  of  increased  productivity,  worker  retention, improved recruitment capabilities and increased loyalty, among others (see Sirgy & Lee, 2017). This white paper does not dive into this large body of research but invite the Decadal Survey committee  to  hear  from  researchers  from  the  social  sciences  if  they  need  further  arguments. Instead, we detail some of the current organization of research in Heliophysics that is detrimental to work-life balance and offer potential solutions.  \nAt the core of work-life balance is the peer pressure and perceived (or real) expectations that individual  researchers  feel  in  their  work  in  Heliophysics.  Numerous  small,  seemingly inconsequential announcements and decisions can create an overall culture of \'work first, life second.\'  Agencies  should  carefully  consider  the  ramifications  of  their  announcements,  even informal,  before  releasing  them  and  train  program  officers  for  careful  considerations  of  any announcement related to short deadline or late/long work hours, even in \'informal settings\' (for example while running a panel). In addition, the move to partially online/remote-work has made many  of  existing  issues  significantly  more  prominent  and  created  new  issues  with  work-life balance. We discuss a few examples below. We invite agencies to consider the consequences of deadlines and announcements. We propose using the actual implementation of work-life balance plans during a mission Phases A and B as one of the selection criteria for missions during key decision points (KDPs). This would ensure that the culture of \'a successful mission takes a 24/7 work commitment\' doesn\'t continue into the next decades.', 'Example 1: Overall Work Culture': "Many  informal  discussions  between  the  lead  author  and  graduate  students  and  post-doctoral researchers at COSPAR 2022 centered around questions such as 'can you be successful while taking  at  least  one  day  off  every  week?'  (where  week  is  the  7-day  week)  or  'do  you  have nightmares  about  your  work?'.  Discussions  within  the  group  of  authors  of  this  white  paper highlighted  that  these  are  common  questions  and  extend  to  later  career  stages.  Overall,  this highlights  that  issues  of  work  culture  and  work-life  balance  within  STEM  in  general  and geospace/heliophysics  science  in  particular,  are  especially  dire.  This  issue  is  compounded  by multiple developments: a) The increase over the past decade of data science jobs and engineering jobs in 'New Space' companies with high pay; b) The decrease in effective (inflation-adjusted) salary  for  many  early-career  scientists,  associated  with  salary  increases  from  universities  or laboratories that fall below the level of inflation and increases in cost-of-living (especially rent, which has increased beyond inflation). Taken together, early-career scientists are often confronted with the prospect of having spent around a decade in higher education to have a low-paid job with non-existent work-life balance.", 'Solutions:': "- ∞ Review  work-life  balance  as  part  of  Key  Decision  Points  (KDPs)  for  missions.  At  a minimum,  this  would  be  a  review  of  the  work-life  balance  plan  submitted  within  the mission  proposal  and  its  implementation.  It  may  require  changes  in  the  scope  of  the Standard Review Board (SRB) Handbook and the addition of members in the SRB that can assess this plan and its implementation. This could also be in the form of additional reviews if there is staff turnover over a given threshold, to see if this is simply due to staff leaving for more exciting projects or if this is related to burnout or a caustic work culture in the team. Having a high-level requirement within a mission regarding work-life balance that can be tracked (employee turnover, number of vacation days taken) is another venue that could be taken.\n- ∞ Ensure that holidays and vacation time is integrated into the instrument and mission master schedule  and  that  key  reviews  are  not  held  during  or  just  after  major  holidays (Thanksgiving, end-of-the year). This could be connected to the work-life balance plan. Heliophysics missions often do not have extremely tight launch constraints, as is the case for  Planetary  missions  (for  which,  targeting  a  specific  planet,  moon  or  planetary  body requires a launch in a tight window). For example, it is possible to launch to L1 more than 3 weeks every month. As such, Heliophysics mission schedule can more easily take into consideration work-life balance. NASA should be willing to pay for the additional costs, if any, associated with a slightly longer schedule.\n- ∞ Integrate not only a DEI Plan but also a training plan for instrument leads, PIs, deputies, and project managers regarding work-life balance as part of the proposal.\n- ∞ Develop ways for a lower 'cost' of entry (in term of work-life balance) into missions for early-career scientists, maybe through the development of SIMPLEX-like concept. While reducing the number of pages for the proposal is tempting, it can have the opposite effect of requiring a more polished proposal unless the risk tolerance of TMC maturity is further decreased for step-1 selections. While the 'cost' in terms of proposal preparation could be similar for a proposal submitted to SIMPLEX as compared to H-FORT, the higher budget for SIMPLEX could reduce the pressure on the PI and Project Manager (PM) to juggle multiple projects.\n- ∞ NASA should also consider offering access to laboratories for concept studies (like for the decadal survey concept studies) after a pre-selection based on science and/or following the SIMPLEX example of funding a Phase A/B so that there is a reward to be selected for a concept study (rather than having to invest more 'unpaid' time for a Phase A concept study). This latter option also improves equity for proposers from institutions that do not have the internal resources to invest in unpaid mission design exercises, or prior mission heritage - allowing the science to be driven by the 'right' institution by partnering with existing mission design houses.", 'Example 2: Work Culture Surrounding Instruments and Missions': "Participation in a mission is often seen as the ultimate achievement in Heliophysics. Early- and mid-career researchers are often welcomed within instrument or mission teams with 'badge of honor/horror'  stories,  such  as  'that  day  we  ran  our  first  EM  testing  during  Christmas,'  or 'remember this week of overnighters we pulled before the proposal submission.' Such stories are obviously detrimental to the perception of work requirement and work-life balance in STEM, and what it takes to run a successful mission or build a successful instrument. For early- and mid-career researchers  proposing  or  participating  in  their  first  mission,  at  the  Mission  of  Opportunity  or Explorer level, the expectations in terms of proposal preparations are often daunting unless they are being mentored actively by researchers who have had leadership role within missions, or unless they are parts of centers (such as NASA centers or APL) where there is significant level of internal support to develop mission concepts (like the presence of the APL Concurrent Engineering, or ACE, laboratory).  Mentoring  is  often  offered  through  'patronage,'  where  researchers  that  are being mentored to become future instrument leads or part of mission management are chosen because they are at the right institute at the right time. While such a model might be appropriate for instrument leads, where there is an institutional heritage, it is not appropriate for other mission roles, such as PI, deputy PI and Project/Mission Scientist, and science working group lead, who do not require institutional heritage.", 'Example 3: Schedule of Remote Review Panels': "Before COVID, most NASA panels used to be in person in the greater DC area or in San Antonio, TX. Expectations of work in the evening used to make (some) sense when researchers were staying in a hotel away from their family. The same is, however, not true for remote panels where the panelists are logging in from their home. The problem is compounded by the three to six time zones (including Hawaii and Alaska) that the United States spans. Some NASA panels have been starting  at  7am  PT  or  running  beyond  7pm  ET  with  the  expectation  that  researchers  will  do  \nadditional writing after the 'day' is finished. First, this gives a wrong impression from NASA Headquarters  program  officers  regarding  the  expectations  that  NASA  has  in  term  of  work schedule, since panels are one of the only ways where early and mid-career scientists interact with NASA HQ program officers.  Second,  this  puts  exceptional  pressure  on  early  and  mid-career scientists, especially (but not only) women who are more often in charge of childcare and have a larger share of housework. Participation in panels is voluntary and eligible panelists are given a modest honorarium. However, participation in panels is seen by many early-career scientists as a necessary  a)  to  understand  the  selection  process,  b)  to  build  up  their  resume.  While  remote participation  in  panels  eliminates  travel  time  and  provides  more  equitable  access  to  panel participation by people who cannot easily travel (e.g., due to family obligations), care must be taken to ensure that remote participation is not more onerous than in-person.", 'Solution:': '- ∞ In general, announcements should be avoided on Friday afternoon or just before a holiday.\n- ∞ Significant deadlines (the white paper one, the 2022 SMEX ones) are often rumored to be forthcoming for months before the actual announcement. Agencies and NASEM should make more use of official announcements of a forthcoming deadline within a particular quarter (say summer 2022 for the white paper, fall 2022 for the SMEX). This would enable early-career researchers or researchers without a developed network to 1) be aware of the deadline  and  2)  for  those  without  dedicated  institutional  funding,  to  prepare  more adequately  for  this  critical  deadline.  In  general,  the  agencies  and  academies  should announce  a  worst-case  (rather  than  a  hope-for)  deadline  so  that  they  can  stick  to  the deadline as much as possible without constant changes. In general, a longer time between the  announcement  and  the  deadline  might  be  advisable,  as  it  gives  more  time  for researchers to prepare and set their own schedule.\n- ∞ We propose that major recurring proposals (Explorers, H-FORT, Strategic capabilities, DRIVE centers, etc.) are given a set of 4-6 yearly and fixed deadlines (for example March 1, May 1, July 1, September 1, November 1) and that if there is a shift in the schedule, it is to the next deadline. As NASA is already able to release the yearly ROSES omnibus on February 14 every year, we are confident that the agencies would be able to stick to these fixed  deadlines.  All  announcements  on  the  schedule  should  be  early.  NASA  should consider the cost-benefit in increasing the time interval between the final AO publication and due date from 90 days to 120 or beyond.', 'Example 4: The Decadal Survey White Paper Deadline and Other Announcements': 'The white paper deadline was announced on June 24 with a deadline of August 18 (pushed since then to August 24 and to September 7). The initial time period for white paper preparation was under 8 weeks (and under 7 when considering delays in broad announcements to the community) and corresponds to the time period of a) school summer holidays (which last from June 10 to August 22 in Fairfax county, VA for example), b) heavy conference schedule with COSPAR, TESS/SPD, the IAU General Assembly and the SHINE workshop, among others during the 2month time period, c) the release of the Heliophysics SMEX draft AO in June 22, and the deadline for  the  Heliophysics  Flight  Opportunities  and  Technology  and  Instrument  Development  for Science in August 31/September 1, d) the time when many researchers do take vacation, especially after two years of restricted travel due to the COVID situation.  \nWhile  this  is  just  one  example,  schedules  for  other  announcements  have  also  been  hard  to understand.  For  example,  the  community  announcement  for  the  2022  SMEX  and  Mission  of Opportunity call was sent at 2pm ET on 2021 December 23 rd . As the final AO was originally to be released in June 2022, it is unclear why the initial announcement could not wait until early 2022 but had to instead occur just before a major holiday season. In addition, the final AO initially expected in June 2022 was then changed to August, then changed to September. As of this WP deadline,  the  SMEX  2022  proposal  target  date  is  now  planned  to  be  due  in  December  2022. Forward planning for things like conference attendance (e.g., AGU Fall meeting, which is taking  \nplace less than a week after the current deadline), and scientific collaborations for people involved in  large  mission  proposals  is  impossible  when  projected  deadlines  for  these  proposals  are constantly shifting, as has happened with the current round of Heliophysics SMEX call. This also applies to holidays and vacations, for which planning is nearly impossible.', 'References:': 'Crosby, F. J. (1991). Juggling: the unexpected advantages of balancing career and home for women and their families . New York: Free Press.  \nSirgy, M., Lee, DJ. Work-Life Balance: an Integrative Review . Applied Research Quality Life 13 , 229-254 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-017-9509-8'}