Key takeaways from 19 research and infrastructure institutions: Part 4 – Career Pathways and Recognition

Over the past few months, we have taken a closer look at 19 research and infrastructure institutions from Germany, Europe and North America: their history, governance models, funding sources, strengths, potential blind spots and opportunities. These institutions vary widely: some have existed for decades, whilst others are still finding their footing; some enjoy secure, long-term funding, whilst others move from one project phase to the next. In this six-part series, we examine the findings from this analysis most relevant to the establishment of a German Research Software Institution.

Within the German academic system, research software engineers write software that is cited in hundreds of publications without their names being mentioned.

They maintain code bases on which entire fields of research depend, yet there is no corresponding career path for this work. They build data pipelines without which modern science would struggle to function. The term ‘Research Software Engineer’ (RSE) is well established in other countries, but in most German academic institutions it remains more of a self-designation than a recognised professional career path.

The 19 institutions studied provide several models that demonstrate how sustainable career paths can be created for people who develop research software. One example comes from the Netherlands eScience Center, where research software engineers (RSEs) have defined job profiles with clear responsibilities, progression routes, and promotion criteria. The organisation employs around 60 people, predominantly experienced RSEs, making it the location with the highest concentration of this expertise in the Netherlands. This example clearly demonstrates that effective career paths do not have to be accompanied by fixed-term contracts. A second example comes from the UK’s Computational Science Centre for Research Communities (CoSeC). There, so-called ‘Research Technical Professionals’ (RTPs) with a wide range of backgrounds and skills work in a supportive environment within the UK National Laboratories. The Centre also offers financial support for visits related to collaborative projects and operates a fellowship programme that helps strengthen professional development and community building.

Another equally important aspect emerging from the analysis is the recognition of development work within the academic system itself. In most German universities, there are currently no formal criteria for assessing research software and its development in academic evaluations or examinations. Software contributions, if recognised at all, are regarded as secondary academic outputs, ranking far behind text-based publications or the acquisition of third-party funding. Furthermore, salary structures for RSEs in Germany are often so closely modelled on those of traditional academic mid-level staff that they are simply not competitive for people with ten or more years of professional experience. The result is predictable: those who become highly skilled often move into industry. It is therefore not only mindsets that must change, but also concrete employment and evaluation structures that shape academic careers.

The experiences of the institutions examined suggest that dedicated organisations can play an important role in establishing common standards, advocating for professional recognition, and coordinating national communities. Across the organisations studied, successful models were often characterised by clearly defined career structures, shared professional standards, and active advocacy for the recognition of research software work. Drawing on these examples, a German research software institution could make a substantial contribution by developing standardised job profiles for clearly defined career stages and competencies, drawing up common assessment criteria in collaboration with the relevant scientific organisations, and establishing software publications as a recognised and regular component of academic publication processes. Such an institution cannot remedy these shortcomings on its own, but it can organise advocacy and help drive change by publishing salary benchmarks, documenting best practices, and negotiating with scientific organisations on the establishment of new job categories and career tracks.

The development of research software requires recognition of the people who create it. A national career framework with clearly defined levels, market-competetive salaries, and formal recognition of research software as academic work are necessary prerequisites if research software is to have a sustainable future in Germany. It is people who make excellence in research software possible, and they deserve the recognition they are due.