# Results of the 2021 ECFA Early-Career Researcher Survey on Training in
Instrumentation

Anamika Aggarwal  Institute for Mathematics, Astrophysics and Particle
Physics, Radboud University/Nikhef, Nijmegen; Netherlands  Chiara Amendola
IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette; France  Liliana Apolinario
Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas - LIP,
Lisboa; Portugal  Jan-Hendrik Arling  ECFA ECR Detector R&D Working Group
Member
Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Hamburg; Germany  Adi Ashkenazi
Raymond and Beverly Sackler School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv
University, Tel Aviv; Israel  Kamil Augsten  Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and
Physical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague; Czech
Republic  Julien Baglio  CERN, Geneva; Switzerland  Evelin Bakos  Institute of
Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade; Serbia  Liron Barak  Raymond and
Beverly Sackler School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Tel
Aviv; Israel  Diogo Bastos  Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física
Experimental de Partículas - LIP, Lisboa; Portugal  Bugra Bilin  FNRS
Scientific Collaborator, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles; Belgium
Silvia Biondi  Universita’ di Bologna, Dipartimento di Fisica and INFN Sezione
di Bologna; Italy  Neven Blaskovic Kraljevic  European Spallation Source,
Lund; Sweden  Lydia Brenner  CERN, Geneva; Switzerland  Francesco Brizioli
University of Perugia and INFN Sezione di Perugia; Italy  Antoine Camper
Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo; Norway  Alessandra Camplani
Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen; Denmark  Xabier
Cid Vidal  Instituto Galego de Física de Altas Enerxías (IGFAE), Universidade
de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela; Spain  Hüseyin Dag
Department of Physics, Bursa Technical University, Bursa; Turkey  Flavia de
Almeida Dias  Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics and University
of Amsterdam, Amsterdam; Netherlands  Eleonora Diociaiuti  INFN e Laboratori
Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati; Italy  Lennart van Doremalen  Institute for
Gravitational and Subatomic Physics (GRASP), Utrecht University/Nikhef,
Utrecht; Netherlands  Katherine Dunne  ECFA ECR Detector R&D Working Group
Member
Department of Physics, Stockholm University; Sweden  Filip Erhardt  Physics
department, Faculty of science, University of Zagreb, Zagreb; Croatia  Pedro
Fernández Manteca  Instituto de Física de Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad
de Cantabria, Santander; Spain  Andrei Alexandru Geanta  Horia Hulubei
National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele;
Romania  Stefan Alexandru Ghinescu  Horia Hulubei National Institute of
Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele; Romania  Loukas Gouskos
CERN, Geneva; Switzerland  Andrej Herzan  Slovak Academy of Sciences,
Bratislava; Slovakia  Viktoria Hinger  Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen;
Switzerland  Bojan Hiti  Department of Experimental Particle Physics, Jožef
Stefan Institute and Department of Physics, University of Ljubljana,
Ljubljana; Slovenia  Armin Ilg  ECFA ECR Detector R&D Working Group Member
Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics and Laboratory for High Energy
Physics, University of Bern, Bern; Switzerland  Gianluca Inguglia  Institute
of High Energy Physics, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna; Austria  Adrián
Irles  ECFA ECR Detector R&D Working Group Member
IFIC, Universitat de València and CSIC; Spain  Hendrik Jansen  Deutsches
Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Hamburg; Germany  Kateřina Jarkovská  Faculty of
Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Prague; Czech Republic  Lucia
Keszeghova  Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Comenius
University, Bratislava; Slovakia  Henning Kirschenmann  Department of Physics,
University of Helsinki, Helsinki; Finland  Sotiroulla Konstantinou  University
of Cyprus, Nicosia; Cyprus  Magdalena Kuich  University of Warsaw, Warsaw;
Poland  Neelam Kumari  CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille;
France  Katarína Křížková Gajdošová  Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical
Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague; Czech Republic
Aleksandra Lelek  Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen; Belgium  Jeanette Lorenz
Fakultät für Physik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München; Germany
Ana Luisa Carvalho  Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de
Partículas - LIP, Lisboa; Portugal  Jakub Malczewski  Henryk Niewodniczanski
Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków; Poland  Giada
Mancini  INFN e Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati; Italy  Alexander
Mann  Fakultät für Physik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München;
Germany  Laura Martikainen  Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki; Finland
Émilie Maurice  Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole Polytechnique,
Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau; France  Seán Mee  Institute for
Physics, University of Graz, Graz; Austria  Predrag Milenovic  ECFA ECR
Detector R&D Working Group Member
University of Belgrade: Faculty of Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear
Sciences, Belgrade; Serbia  Vukasin Milosevic  Institute of High Energy
Physics, Beijing; China  Zuzana Moravcova  Niels Bohr Institute, University of
Copenhagen, Copenhagen; Denmark  Laura Moreno Valero  Institut für
Theoretische Physik, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Münster;
Germany  Louis Moureaux  FRIA Grantee and Université Libre de Bruxelles,
Bruxelles; Belgium  Heikki Mäntysaari  Department of Physics, University of
Jyväskylä and Helsinki Institute of Physics, University of Helsinki; Finland
Nikiforos Nikiforou  Department of Physics, University of Texas at Austin,
Austin TX; United States of America  Younes Otarid  Deutsches Elektronen-
Synchrotron DESY, Hamburg; Germany  Alex Pearce  CERN, Geneva; Switzerland
Michael Pitt  CERN, Geneva; Switzerland  Vlad-Mihai Placinta  Horia Hulubei
National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele;
Romania  Giulia Ripellino  Department of Physics, Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm; Sweden  Bryn Roberts  Department of Physics, University
of Warwick, Coventry; United Kingdom  Luka Šantelj  Jožef Stefan Institute,
University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana; Slovenia  Steven Schramm  ECFA ECR
Detector R&D Working Group Member
Département de Physique Nucléaire et Corpusculaire, Université de Genève,
Genève; Switzerland  Mariana Shopova  ECFA ECR Detector R&D Working Group
Member
Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences, Sofia; Bulgaria  Kirill Skovpen  Ghent University, Ghent; Belgium
Aleks Smolkovič  Jožef Stefan Institute, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana;
Slovenia  Gamze Sokmen  Middle East Technical University, Physics Department,
Ankara; Turkey  Paweł Sznajder  National Centre for Nuclear Research (NCBJ),
Warsaw; Poland  Abigail Victoria Waldron  Blackett Laboratory, Imperial
College London, London; United Kingdom  Sarah Williams  ECFA ECR Detector R&D
Working Group Member
Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge; United Kingdom
Valentina Zaccolo  Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università and Sezione INFN,
Trieste; Italy  Manuel Zeyen  Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics,
ETH Zürich, Zürich; Switzerland

##  1 Introduction

The European Committee for Future Accelerators (ECFA) Early-Career Researchers
(ECR) Panel was formed in late 2020, in order to represent European ECR
members in ECFA-related discussions [1]. In this context, ECR refers to a
diverse range of individuals, from students to non-tenured academics, and with
backgrounds ranging from engineering to physics. As of writing, there are 75
ECFA ECR Panel members, representing 29 ECFA member countries and large
European accelerator facilities.

In Spring 2021, the ECFA ECR Panel was invited to provide input to the ECFA
Detector R&D Roadmap process, and particularly the ECFA R&D Training Symposium
that took place on April 30, 2021 [2]. In preparation for this event, the ECFA
ECR Panel formed a dedicated working group aimed at Detector R&D related
matters, which proceeded to organize the response. An initial Townhall Meeting
was held on April 7, 2021 with the intent of gathering feedback on ECR
priorities for discussion [3], after which a survey was designed and
distributed among the ECR community, with the goal of collecting their opinion
about training and related issues in instrumentation.

The preliminary results of this survey were presented at the aforementioned
symposium [4]. This report provides a more extensive analysis of the survey
replies, and is intended to provide input to the ECFA Detector R&D Roadmap
process. The report is structured as follows: the survey strategy and
demographics are described first, followed by dedicated discussions on ECR
general training experiences, recognition, networking, engineer perspectives,
and open-form suggestions that were received. A summary is provided, followed
by a pair of appendices containing the summaries of the responses to
individual questions and raw cross-analysis results.

##  2 Design and distribution of the survey

The survey was designed by the members of ECFA ECR Detector R&D working group,
taking into account the issues raised in the Townhall Meeting. It was
circulated among email lists representing groups such as the LHC experiments,
national ECRs, and detector R&D collaboration lists. A total of 473 answers
were recorded; the raw results of the survey are provided in Appendix A. 80%
of the participants were employed or undergoing education in Europe, 13% in
North America, 6% from Asia, and 1% were from South America.

The advertisement mail mentioned that the survey was targeted at all ECRs,
regardless of whether they were involved in instrumentation work or not, to
avoid ‘selection bias’ and potentially identify barriers that were preventing
ECR involvement in instrumentation work. The resulting fraction of time the
participants invested in instrumentation work both in the past and at present
features around 10% or more of the participants in each category, as can be
seen in Figure 1. The survey was therefore successful in reaching ECRs with a
range of different commitment-levels to instrumentation work. Engineers were
also explicitly encouraged to participate.

Figure 1: Pie charts showing the fraction of time spent working on
instrumentation in participants’ previous role(s) (left) and current role
(right). There were 469 responses to both questions.

Most of the survey questions could be answered with yes / no / (not sure),
strongly agree / agree / disagree / strongly disagree, or on a scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Where appropriate, an other answer
was also possible, where the respondents could enter their own custom
response.

Questions related to diversity and inclusion were designed not to focus
exclusively on specific categories such as gender, ethnicity, etc., but rather
asked the participants whether they saw their field as diverse and if they
identified as an underrepresented minority in their field, by their own
definitions of minority. This was intentionally done to account for any
possible kind of discrimination/under-representation in an inclusive manner.
The questions about the impact of identifying as part of an underrepresented
minority however allowed them to write an answer explaining their individual
situation, if they felt comfortable doing so.

##  3 ECR experiences of instrumentation training

The survey asked participants about their experiences with instrumentation
work and training, as well as any experiences they have had delivering
training. The survey questions were purposefully open-ended regarding the
definition of ‘training,’ to reflect how training is enacted in real-life; for
example, some commented they received no ‘formal training’ and instead learned
on the job. Detailed breakdowns of the results are provided in the appendices.
The following are a few key points to highlight:

  * •

The potential of peer-to-peer training: of 172 respondents, 79% either agreed
or strongly agreed with the statement that they found the peer-to-peer
training they had participated in useful, and 83% indicated agreement that
they would participate in peer-to-peer training if it were available.

  * •

Transferable skills: when asked “On a range from 1-5, how applicable do you
think the skills/experience you have gained are to the broader physics
community”, 62% responded either 4 or 5.

  * •

Support for Open Source Software (OSS) tools: 71% of 334 respondents indicated
that their instrumentation work involved using open source software tools,
whilst 70% of 330 respondents said they had not received training for such
tools. The use of OSS in PCB design, FPGA development, and ASIC design was
highlighted by one respondent as a way to increase participation of
marginalised groups who are members of institutions without the funding
necessary to acquire expensive licenses.

  * •

Possibilities for remote training/work in instrumentation: 39% of 331
respondents had experience with remote training or work in instrumentation
outside of their institute, and 61% out of 176 responded ‘agree’ or ‘strongly
agree’ to the statement that their experience of remote training/work in
instrumentation had been positive. However it should be acknowledged that for
some areas in-person training is more efficient and can ease networking
opportunities, the importance of which is discussed later in this report.

Further analysis of the responses to some of the questions for particular
groups of participants will now be provided. Firstly, in the ECFA ‘Training in
Instrumentation’ symposium, one question raised was if there were significant
differences in participants’ experiences depending on whether they are
employed/studying at a university, or instead at a national/research
laboratory. Of the survey respondents, 68% were based at a university. Of the
32% in ‘other’ institutions, 72% were based at a research laboratory. Figure 2
compares the responses of those at universities, to those at laboratories, for
two questions about their training experiences. Both are normalised to the
number of respondents in each category for that question.

(a)

(b)

Figure 2: Comparison of the (normalised) responses to two questions on
instrumentation training between participants employed or studying at a
university compared to those at a laboratory. The number of respondents to
each question, and the overall summary of the results, can be found in
Appendix A on pages 46(a) and 37(b). Figures with the raw number of responses
for certain populations are found in Appendix B.

Another interesting question to consider is one of the open-form questions
where participants were asked how they view instrumentation work. They could
select any number of the following statements, as well as providing their own
personal responses. Table 1 shows, out of 470 respondents, how many selected
each of the five selected categories. The distributions of these responses
between those at a university and all other institutions are provided, where
it is interesting to look for cases where specific replies do not agree with
the overall fraction of replies from universities (68%) versus other
institutions (32%). Deviations from a 68%:32% reply balance indicate
differences in feelings related to instrumentation work for different
employment types, although it is important to note that some of the categories
suffer from low statistics.

  * •

Of those that think negatively about instrumentation work (i.e. that they
avoid it or its a liability) proportionately more are at a university.

  * •

Of those who think positively (i.e. that they enjoy/benefit from it),
proportionately more are at other institutes ($\sim$70% of which are
national/research laboratories).

  * •

Those who had instrumentation training in their MSc. or PhD. (262 responses)
were more likely to view work in instrumentation as a benefit to their careers
and something they enjoy in comparison to those who did not (206 responses).

I view work in | …something I | …a liability | …something I | …something | …a benefit
---|---|---|---|---|---
instrumentation as… | don’t think about | to my career | would rather avoid | I enjoy | to my career
Total responses |  65 |  |  67 |  |  34 |  |  242 |  |  307 |
University | 45 | (69%) | 48 | (72%) | 27 | (79%) | 156 | (64%) | 199 | (65%)
Other institutions | 20 | (31%) | 19 | (28%) | 7 | (21%) | 86 | (36%) | 108 | (35%)
Had instrumentation | 21 | (32%) | 42 | (63%) | 9 | (26%) | 155 | (64%) | 190 | (62%)
training in MSc./PhD.
No instrumentation | 44 | (68%) | 25 | (37%) | 24 | (70%) | 84 | (35%) | 114 | (37%)
training in MSc./PhD.
Table 1: Responses to the statement “I view instrumentation work as…”
distributed between participants at a university compared to other institutes,
where here ‘other’ refers to all other institutions, 72% of which were
national/research laboratories.

Further analysis has also been performed between different career stages of
the ECRs that responded to the survey. The plots in Figure 3 are comparisons
of the answers from the four most represented career categories: PhD Students,
Postdocs, Assistant Professors (tenure and non-tenure track) and
Scientists/Researchers (fixed term and permanent). The answers are normalised
for comparison as the number of responses is different for each population.
Additional analysis of these categories (both career stage and institution)
will be provided in the subsequent sections of this report which will focus in
turn on diversity and inclusion issues, recognition, and networking.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 3: Comparisons of (normalised responses) for several questions related
to instrumentation training between different career stages of the ECRs that
responded to the survey. The number of respondents to each question, and the
overall summary of the results, can be found in Appendix A on pages 31(a),
37(b), and 38(c,d). Figures with the raw number of responses for certain
populations are found in Appendix B.

##  4 Diversity and inclusion issues

The importance of supporting diversity and inclusion within HEP was strongly
highlighted in the recent European Strategy Update [5], and several questions
in the survey explored these topics further. 28% of 465 respondents said that
they identify as an underrepresented minority in their field. Figure 4 shows a
comparison of responses to experiences in instrumentation training between
those who identified themselves as an underrepresented minority and those who
did not. The results are normalised for comparison as the number of responses
differed for each population and each question.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 4: Comparisons of (normalised responses) for several questions related
to instrumentation training for the respondents who identified as a minority
in their field and those who didn’t. The number of respondents to each
question, and the overall summary of the results, can be found in Appendix A
on pages 41(a), 32(b), 22(c), 42(d), 37(e), 34(f). Figures with the raw number
of responses for certain populations are found in Appendix B.

One question in the survey asked participants to provide free-form comments on
how their identity had impacted their training experience. Of 29 responses to
this question, key points raised include:

  * •

Gender identity: this was referred to specifically in ten responses, which
raised issues including assumptions being made that women wouldn’t want to get
involved in instrumentation due to the nature of the work, sexism in the
workplace, women being treated differently in meetings to male colleagues, and
the under-representation of women as speakers in training events.

  * •

The lack of facilities in some geographical regions for instrumentation
training (which then means researchers must travel abroad if remote training
is not an option, and which is only possible if their institutes can support
such travel).

  * •

Challenges associated with ‘unconscious bias’.

  * •

One respondent mentioned discrimination and harassment due to their LGBTQ+
identity.

Several questions on the survey also asked respondents whether they see both
their immediate working group, and the broader experiment/collaboration in
which they work, as diverse. Of 464 respondents, 24% either disagreed or
strongly disagreed with the statement that their immediate working group is
diverse, compared to 17% for their broader experiment/collaboration. In each
case those answering in these categories were encouraged to share free-form
comments on the matter. There were 62 responses for the question related to
their immediate working group:

  * •

Many cited that diversity related to gender and/or ethnicity is a problem.

  * •

Several mentioned concerns about ‘geographical’ diversity.

  * •

Some comments on (lack of) diversity of training experiences, which can make
it difficult to get exposure to new areas of work.

39 respondents provided comments on why they disagreed or strongly disagreed
with the thought of their experiment/collaboration being regarded as diverse.
Comments included:

  * •

Most members of the experiment seem to share the same technical skills.

  * •

Alternative career paths are not valued.

  * •

Some mentioned that their broader collaboration is on the whole more diverse
than their immediate working group.

  * •

As in the previous questions, some cited lack of diversity in terms of gender,
ethnicity, and other minority groups.

##  5 Recognition

The survey asked questions about both recognition for work in instrumentation,
and recognition for the work involved in designing and delivering training
programmes. The responses differentiated by career category and also by
institution type are shown in Figure 5 for several questions including whether
work relating to training is properly recognised and rewarded in their
instrumentation group, and whether their work in instrumentation is
acknowledged in both their working group, and in the broader
experiment/collaboration. The answers are normalised for comparison as the
number of responses is different for each population and question. The
following are some interesting points:

  * •

53% of 295 respondents answered that ‘Training is Suitably Recognised’ to the
question ‘Do you feel that work relating to training is properly recognised
and rewarded in your instrumentation group?’, while the remainder felt that
‘Training is Under-Recognised’.

  * •

For those who indicated they worked at a Laboratory, 58% responded that
‘Training is Under-Recognised’, while the remainder felt that ‘Training is
Suitable Recognised’.

  * •

14% of respondents indicated they either Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed that
their work was acknowledged in their immediate working group, vs 20% who
Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed that their work was acknowledged in their
broader experiment/collaboration.

The survey section on recognition allowed for open comments on recognition. A
few highlights of the points raised are provided below:

  * •

In general, there is a tendency in the comments to mention the underestimation
of the complexities of the instrumentation work by the non-experts of the
group, and it is even in some cases belittled (sic) or taken for granted. One
respondent indicated they are not seen as real physicists.

  * •

Instrumentation has a smaller rate of publications than other areas (i.e.
theory or experiment data analysis). This can result in instrumentation having
a smaller specific weight in the group, especially in terms of recognition.

  * •

There is a lack of permanent positions for detector physicists. One respondent
indicated that they were given feedback they had done too much instrumentation
work and not enough analysis in a post-interview follow up. At the Training
symposium, it was brought up that tracking data on the number of permanent
positions that are allocated for work primarily or exclusively related to
instrumentation would provide useful insight.

  * •

There is a lack of opportunities for leadership experience for junior members.
Comments in this regard mentioned that presentations are often given on behalf
of a working group, so individual contributions are not visible. Junior
members are not usually invited to organise workshops, with these tasks being
relegated to senior members.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 5: Comparisons of (normalised responses) for several questions related
to recognition for instrumentation work and training. The top plots refer to
the question “Do you feel that work relating to training is properly
recognised and rewarded in your instrumentation group?” which had 295
responses in total. The results are compared for laboratory-based and
university-based respondents on the left, and for different ECR categories on
the right. The bottom plots compare the normalised responses to two questions
for respondents that did and didn’t identify as minorities. The left plot
corresponds to the level of agreement with the statement “I feel the work I
do/did in instrumentation is acknowledged in my immediate working group” (322
responses) and the right to the statement “I feel the work I do/did in
instrumentation is acknowledged in my collaboration/experiment/broader working
group” (325 responses). The number of respondents to each question, and the
overall summary of the results, can be found in Appendix A on pages 47(a, b)
and 36(c, d). Figures with the raw number of responses for certain populations
are found in Appendix B.

##  6 Networks for Instrumentation

When asked whether they were satisfied with the networking opportunities
available to ECRs in instrumentation, only 22% agreed or strongly agreed,
meaning that 78% do not feel positively about their networking opportunities.
26 respondents provided comments on why they disagreed or strongly disagreed
with the statement:

  * •

Many comments highlighted the difficulty accessing networks in instrumentation
relative to other areas.

  * •

One comment suggested providing more training on ‘how to network’.

  * •

Several noted additional challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Participants were also asked for comments on ideas for improving the
networking opportunities for ECRs; replies included:

  * •

A suggestion to make instrumentation work less ‘top-down’, so ECRs get more
exposure to senior collaborators.

  * •

More workshops/summer schools devoted to instrumentation to connect those
working in different experiments/user facilities.

  * •

Increase links between instrumentation projects and those providing the
training, so training is more applicable to the ongoing work.

  * •

Dedicated discussion forums for instrumentation.

Figure 6 shows comparisons between the responses to questions related to
networking between university- and non-university based respondents, those
that did and didn’t identify as a minority group, and for the different ECR
career stages.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 6: Comparison of normalised responses to the networking questions. The
plots on the left refer to the statement “I am satisfied with networking
opportunities for early career researchers in instrumentation that are
available to me” (304 responses), and the right hand plots show how well-
informed respondents feel about training opportunities (471 responses). The
top row compares university-based and laboratory based respondents, the middle
row is those that did and didn’t identify as a minority, and the bottom row
differentiates between ECR career stages. Figures with the raw number of
responses for certain populations are found in Appendix B.

##  7 Engineers working in instrumentation

During the Townhall, it was noted that no engineers were present in the
discussion. There was a discussion as to whether this was because of a lack of
convening power from the ECR-ECFA panel, or if it is a more structural issue.
To try to mitigate this issue, the survey advertisement directly requested
input from engineers, and there were questions explicitly defined for only
engineers. Nonetheless, among 473 survey participants, only 25 identified
themselves as working in engineering. In addition to these 25, 12 more
participants identified themselves as working in computer engineering
(software/firmware development) related tasks. The replies of engineers to the
engineer-specific questions were very interesting, as discussed in the talk
and provided in Appendix A. However, we have not further cross-analysed the
engineering replies given the low number of responses we received. We would
encourage the community to make an effort to further include ECR engineer
input in the discussion, and hope that the people concerned will have provided
feedback through other channels.

##  8 Open Suggestions from Survey Respondents

The final section of the survey gave respondents the opportunity to provide
open suggestions on how to improve ECR experiences within instrumentation
training. Suggestions included:

  * •

A respondent brought up an issue that was iterated first at the Townhall
discussion and reiterated at the Training Symposium, which is that experiments
with shorter timelines give trainees the opportunity for continuity between
R&D and detector/experiment commissioning and operation.

  * •

A respondent pointed out in particular that neutrino experiments and smaller
experiments are unique from larger collaborations in that researchers are not
divided into analysis and instrumentation tracks, instead these tasks are more
integrated in the work of any individual researcher.

  * •

Young researchers would benefit from open laboratories at large facilities so
they could take training in instrumentation.

  * •

The lack of accessibility to training and facilities for under-resourced
regions was highlighted.

  * •

A common theme is a desire to shift norms around hiring practices, with a
general belief that instrumentation work is undervalued.

##  9 Summary

This report summarises the survey circulated to Early-Career Researchers on
their experiences and views in training in instrumentation, as well as a
Townhall discussion amongst early career members on April 7, 2021. These
efforts were instigated as a response to an invitation by the ECFA Detector
R&D Roadmap Training Task Force coordinators for junior researchers to provide
input to the roadmap. This report is supplemental to the presentation given at
the Roadmap Symposium on Training, on April 30, 2021. The authors have
refrained from making recommendations at this stage and reported only
highlights of the results, while the full set of summary plots are provided in
Appendix A and raw cross-analysis results can be found in Appendix B. We hope
that this report will provide fruitful input to the ongoing ECFA Detector R&D
Roadmap, and are happy to engage in further discussions within the community
to improve training provisions for instrumentation work.

## References

  * [1] “The ECFA Early-Career Researchers Panel (2021-2022)”  URL: https://ecfa.web.cern.ch/ecfa-early-career-researchers-panel
  * [2] “ECFA Detector R&D Roadmap Symposium of Task Force 9 Training”, April 30, 2021  URL: https://indico.cern.ch/event/1001747
  * [3] “Townhall on Early Career Perspectives on Training in Instrumentation”, April 7, 2021  URL: https://indico.cern.ch/event/1021159/
  * [4] “ECFA ECR presentation at the ECFA Detector R&D Roadmap Symposium of Task Force 9 Training”, April 30, 2021  URL: https://indico.cern.ch/event/1001747/contributions/4220986/attachments/2236398/3790745/ECFAtrainingSymposiumECRInput_300421.pdf
  * [5] European Strategy Group  “2020 Update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics”, 2020  DOI: 10.17181/ESU2020

## Appendix A: Raw survey summary results

The following plots are raw summaries of replies to each survey question,
other than free-form questions. In some cases, people were allowed to provide
customised replies on top of selecting existing reply categories. In such
cases, replies have been grouped into either existing or new categories based
on commonality of content. This was done both to condense the number of reply
categories into a reasonable multiplicity to be shown on the plot, and to
avoid listing information that could potentially lead to identifying specific
respondents.

Figure 7:  Figure 8:  Figure 9:  Figure 10:  Figure 11:  Figure 12:  Figure
13:  Figure 14:  Figure 15:  Figure 16:  Figure 17:  Figure 18:  Figure 19:
Figure 20:  Figure 21:  Figure 22:  Figure 23:  Figure 24:  Figure 25:  Figure
26:  Figure 27:  Figure 28:  Figure 29:  Figure 30:  Figure 31:  Figure 32:
Figure 33:  Figure 34:  Figure 35:  Figure 36:  Figure 37:  Figure 38:  Figure
39:  Figure 40:  Figure 41:  Figure 42:  Figure 43:  Figure 44:  Figure 45:
Figure 46:  Figure 47:  Figure 48:

## Appendix B: Raw survey cross-analysis results

The following plots are raw numbers from the cross-analysis of survey replies.
These are companion plots to those which are shown in the body of the report,
showing the actual number of replies in each category instead of the fraction
of replies.

(a)

(b)

Figure 49:

(a)

(b)

Figure 50:

(a)

(b)

Figure 51:

(a)

(b)

Figure 52:

(a)

(b)

Figure 53:

(a)

(b)

Figure 54:

(a)

(b)

Figure 55:

(a)

(b)

Figure 56:

(a)

(b)

Figure 57:

(a)

(b)

Figure 58:

(a)

(b)

Figure 59:  Figure 60: