How are "research associates" viewed on the market?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

How do TT hiring committees regard research stints on a CV, particularly for job openings at R1 schools? If one secures a postdoc but then becomes a research associate for several years, is that looked down upon in any way? Could it make one seem a less competitive candidate, beyond the obvious things like reduced opportunities to gain teaching experience? Also, does it matter for hiring purposes if the research position is unpaid?

Good questions, and I'm not sure. Are any search committee members or other people who have been research associates willing to weigh in?

Comments

[mid-tenure]

Some US departments will prefer a candidate with teaching experience as well as research experience, yes.

I don't know why it would come up that the position is unpaid.

[my thoughts]

I do not think it looks good to be working at an unpaid position. It is really no position at all. Rather, it seems that either the institution is taking advantage of you, or that you are merely try to have a connection to the institution (to access resources perhaps?!). If you are employed, then your employer can speak about your character and behavior as an employee (someone who has responsibilities and is accountable). If you merely have an affiliation, then they cannot speak to these issues because they are not your supervisor.

[From a friend]

I have friends who have been in this sort of position, and I think it can be somewhat difficult if one is only affiliated in this way for too long. Interviewing committees have asked a lot of questions about it and have seemed to think (rightly or wrongly) that this sort of position is akin to being only halfway in academia still. I may not be understanding what OP means by "research associate", though, so take all of this with a grain of salt. Is OP doing it full time, or in addition to another job outside of academia?

[From a friend x2]

Sorry, forgot to add: Committees may not care about paid/unpaid research in its own right, but this question has come up indirectly in interviews as a way to see whether the research associate position or fellowship is competitive or not. If it is not paid, one needs to do more to establish that it is not a position "in name only".

[R1 assistant]

Has OP published several articles in good generalist and specialist journals in the several years they’ve served as a research associate (or a book with a reputable press)? If so, then my guess is that hiring committees at places seeking to hire in their AOS will be unlikely to hold this position against them—particularly if it’s held in association with a well regarded research institute (eg Santa Fe institute) or university. If I were in their place in such a case I wouldn’t make it a prominent point that such a position is unpaid, but I’d be prepared to discuss just what role(s) I had at the institution and how they might dovetail with the job expectations of an R1 assistant professor (re research teaching and service).

[UK Philosopher]

To perhaps slightly counter what "my thoughts" says, I wouldn't view an unpaid position negatively (and had this sort of position for a couple of years). The reality of job market means lots of great people don't have work. Maintaining an institutional connection as something like an unpaid RA is useful, e.g., it gave me access to the library, printing, office space, a small bit of research funding for conference travel, etc. Thus, if you do it for a couple of years, I really wouldn't count it against a job applicant (and I've been on several hiring panels).

[Anon]

I’d say it looks good if you’re publishing if you want a research position, especially if that one is at a solid university. If, unusually, it is unpaid, no need to mention.