We've all been there. The project that never works, no matter how sensible your hypothesis, how elegant your retrosynthesis. You've resorted to trying those wonderfully obscure journals (The Journal of Serbian Chemical Society is a personal favourites, but there is a Baliey group in-joke there!!) and it still fails.

No progress, no exciting new data, no publications, right? Well as it stands, yes. But now there is a new journal that is trying to fight against the problem of positive bias in the literature: The All Results Journal:Chem. Your papers will undego peer review, they expect you to have repeated your weird experiment at least three times to remove human error, and it is open access so everyone can learn from your "mistakes" and save themselves some time, money and stress. Chemistry Blog goes into a bit more detail if you are interested.

I think something like this is badly needed, and should be supported. Of course, it might be difficult to convince your boss of this, but in time we will become the bosses, and so we should remember this little journal for that time. Or perhaps RSC publishing could pick this up and properly promote it??

OK, are there any other Chemists (working, retired, students etc.) out there with a similar experience to me when it comes to having to constantly remind people what the difference is between a ‘Chemist’ and a ‘Pharmacist’?
 
Surely I cannot be the only one in the UK and although I’ve given-up expecting the average person on the street to know the difference (which is a shame for our subject considering how society benefits from Chemistry), you’d think that highly trained medical professionals working for our NHS would know what it is?? Well, in my experience they don’t! What are they teaching them in Med. School and nursing college?
 
Take for example a recent visit to my local hospital (that will remain nameless) of which I assume represents the rest of the country. Whenever I was asked by nurses, doctors and technical staff about my occupation, on saying that I am a Chemist, I was met with the same response of ‘where do you practice?’ Arrrggghhh! My response to one person went like this:
 
Me:‘I don’t practice; I’m a chemist working for a chemical company.’
Other person:With a bemused look ‘oh, so where did you train?’
Me:‘I studied at Hull and Leeds.’
Other person:’So where have you practiced?’
Me(getting slightly more annoyed but remaining polite): ‘I’m not a pharmacist; I work in a lab for a chemical company.’
Other person: ‘So what’s the difference?’
Me(trying not to sound too condescending): ‘Well, Chemists are the ones who design and make drugs and Pharmacists are the ones who dispense them to patients and are a totally different profession with different qualifications.’
Other person:‘Ah OK’ (looking like the penny had just dropped).
 
Great – that’s one more person educated on this matter!
 
Seriously, something somewhere has gone wrong in our education system for other professionals to have such a lack of understanding of what ‘Chemists’ do. Is it just the medical profession or is it in all others too? Where would the world be without medicines, plastics, coatings, petrochemicals, agrochemicals, household and personal care products etc.?  I really hope that one day this will no longer be a problem thanks to the activities of the RSC in schools through programs such as ChemNet and people like me and you who get involved in events in their local areas to promote chemistry. The International Year of Chemistry should also be playing a part in educating the masses.
 
On another point that is related to this, the look from some people when they find out that I’m not a medical doctor when they query my ‘Dr’ title is so amusing but also frustrating. It’s as if my Ph. D qualification is not as valid despite taking a total of 7 years study at Uni. to achieve!
 
So, has anyone else experienced this or am I the only one? I’d love to see your comments on this subject!
more...

Look at me getting all in with the corporate mumbo-jumbo!! Obviously, not everyone can attend their regional meeting (the latest round of which are just over), so I thought we could use this blog for those who did attend to put their comments and opinions of the meeting, and for those who didn’t to contribute as they see fit. The more input we get, the better the Society will be (well assuming they listen).

I’ll get the ball rolling by talking about my take on the Ireland Regional Meeting (the report of which is not yet online):

1. As promised, I must say the meeting ran smoothly and was well organised. More importantly it was nice and lively, although there was no fear of that in a room full of Irish!!
2. Robert Parker has been appointed as interim CEO of the Society (has that been mentioned anywhere else?), although the RSC are actively seeking a long-term replacement for Richard Pike. Needless to say, the longer the search goes on, the longer one arm of the RSC is effectively in limbo.
3. The President’s personal view is that over the past few years the RSC has “taken their eye off the ball” as regard the members, their activities and contributions. I think the Younger Members will heartily agree with that particular sentiment. Our President has promised to make rectify this issue a personal mission, and I for one will hold him to that promise. Of course, should he want a crash course in what’s going wrong with “member relations” may I direct him to our report on the YMS. And of course, Prof. Phillips is welcome to engage with me and any of the YMF for more input on this issue.

Much more was discussed during the 1-hour Q&A session than I’m going to put up here (just keeping it to the most relevant to YM’s). However, as per usual with these sorts of meetings, it’s what’s said over the post-meeting drinks that can often be the most interesting:

1. Confusion still abounds over the appointment and remit of the new regional coordinators. As far as I know, this is an exciting new experiment by the RSC that is only just getting up and running across the UK. It will have implications for the future directions of the Society as a whole, however, and as such I feel increased communication about their activities is a must. Whilst I’m loathe to put these people under the microscope (hell, I’ve known two of them for years and they’re fantastic people), there are wider things afoot regarding regionalisation and for better or worse Education is acting as the pilot programme in this regard.
2. Once again I heard anecdotes as to the current pressures facing staff at the RSC and the subsequent effect on morale. The YMF have detected this as a gradual deterioration in the working relationship between us and the members of RSC staff (see here, here, here and here for examples). It is fair to say that the workload for RSC staff has increased, and consequently they are much busier now than say five years ago. This staffing issue is thus one for the membership to consider with care: Are we happy with things as they are (dare I say on behalf of the younger members “no”) and, if not, are we prepared to pay more for additional staff to improve the situation (again, I’d like to say “yes” to this one, given our current financial situation)?

Would love to hear your opinions on these and other issues raised at your regional meeting. Please also check out the report from your regional meeting, and comment/question here as you wish.

23-April-2011: The meeting that the Presdient promised has been arranged for the 31st of May. Any comments posted here will be highlighted at this meeting, so this is your chance!

Yeah, I know it's April already!!

http://www.rsc.org/Membership/Memberzone/ResourcePacks/iyc.asp

So it would appear that, like trying to pin down a π-electron in a benzene ring, trying to pin down the RSC on this issue of support for the YMS is near impossible. I thought the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was only really significant when dealing with small objects, but it seems the massive juggernaut of bureaucracy at HQ knows neither its position nor its velocity when it comes to practical support for this huge event.

By huge, I mean that it requires the co-operation of several networks, is aimed at chemists internationally and requires massive volunteer sacrifices.

As my correspondence with various members of RSC staff has managed to conclude and agree upon, the issue is one of expectations. Of course, this is merely regurgitation on behalf of the RSC of what we clearly outlined in our report on the YMS.

So the YMS committee did expect too much from central RSC. That much is certain. But the question and challenge for the RSC was simple: Could they improve so as to meet these expectations for the next YMS? I wish I could say the answer was yes. Hell, I wish I could say the answer was no. Sadly I got a more woolly response than when students employ Dewar-Zimmerman rules instead of Woodward-Hoffman rules to explain pericyclics! Just as the use of DZ by a student* indicates a lack of understanding of MO theory, so this “response” demonstrates a lack of understanding of the real issues facing YMNs.  Perhaps even more worryingly, despite my last email being sent to no less than four members of RSC staff and despite a separate letter sent to Dr. Richard Pike, in almost four months we’re heard nothing.

Draw whatever conclusions you wish from that. Perhaps they were all busy organising the Regional Meetings. Obviously Richard Pike is gone seeking pastures new. The President disagreed with my implication that without a CEO one branch of the RSC was "rudderless". This lack of response is evidence of my fears, I feel.

Personally (and I stress that) I think they don’t have any answers to our concerns (although the President disagrees) and are unable to come up with any practical solutions themselves. Instead, the buck gets passed back to the volunteers, who are expected to draft proposals and strategies, hold their hands during the day and tuck them in at night!

So as our first blog correctly presumed, the next YMS will be repeated in essentially the same format with essentially the same support from the RSC. Of course, we’ll try to learn from our mistakes, for example explaining our event to PayPal so we don’t get investigated for fraud and money laundering!

Another mistake we made (according to your feedback) was an imbalance in the topics presented. The event was seen as somewhat organic focused, an issue the organising committee was aware of. To improve upon this, we plan to develop closer links with interest groups and divisions, encouraging them to send delegates and suggest/supply speakers in order to provide a more balanced symposium. We also hope to expand the event to two days, allowing for a social event to be organised. It might have to be a social event  without alcohol .... but not if I have anything to do with it (he says in an Irish brogue!)!

I’m delighted to announce however, that despite the difficulties and challenges we will face in repeating this event, the East Midlands Local Section (average age of 30) have taken up the challenge and will host YMS-II for sometime in 2012. We’d love to hear your suggestions for speakers and we’d equally love to get some willing volunteers to help out!!

*Always was a DZ fan myself. I treated M.O. like B.O. – unpopular with the ladies and something to be avoided!

I know there's been something of a communications black-out of late. That's chiefly been down to me taking some time off from the lab and visiting Nepal. But I have also been doing some vaguely science-y stuff, which I'd like to share:

BABY'S FIRST GRANT

This has been taking up the bulk of my time lately, as I attempt to write my first Fellowship Application. In truth, this was only a preliminary application, not even a full one!! Despite it only being a two page proposal, plus CV, letter of support and costings, it has still taken me the best part of three months to put together! And I am dreading the thought of having to write the full one (should I be accepted)!

Still, this was a very important step in my career development. Essentially, I have finally decided to pursue whole-heartedly an academic career, at least until I become too experience to be eligible for the "easy" Fellowships, those aimed specifically at postdocs within 6-10 years of their viva who have never held a permanent post.

I'm nearing three years post-viva, so it is high time I started writing some of my own Fellowships. However it can be a daunting task. First, you have to convince yourself that you have a good idea. Then, more importantly, you have to convince you boss to give you some time and money to investigate this idea. In my case, I also had to beg a biologist to let me play in his tissue-culture lab, which he was happy to do until my first infection!! Since then, I've been on the naughty step!!

Then there's the politics. The Head of the Department, the Head of School all have to sign off on a multitude of forms and when you're based in a Department that is not primarily chemistry focussed, it can be quite challenging to make them understand your work and the resources you will need to conduct it. This is also worrying because the review panel will also be made up of non-experts, and if you can't explain your idea to a colleague, you'll never be able to explain it to a stranger in only two pages!! I lost quite a bit of sleep over the one!!

Finally there's the Finance Office. God love them, I know they're busy. But they can add extra stress on a situation, so I strongly reccomend you contact them as early in the process as possible. In my case, due to a variety of factors including a fall down some stairs, I ended up calling them at 4 pm on Wednesday with the deadline on Friday and Thursday being St. Patrick's Day. Whoops!!!

All in all though, nice to have the experience on the CV and hopefully I will be invited to submit the full application in a few short weeks. Admittedly, I won't get to see any money (even if I'm successful) until the New Year, but it would definitely be an open option as my contract nears completion.

AWARDS COMMITTEE

Without going into too much detail, I was involved in the review of nominations for three RSC awards this year. This was a fascinating experience, which both intimidated and inspired me. Reading the CV's and publications lists of some of the world's top chemists was a bit scary, but also gave me a great insight into the hot topics in my field at the moment, as well as the key players.

Of course, there can only be one winner, but the standard for the awards I looked at was incredibly high, especially from relatively younger chemists. I can only hope to have reached that level of success myself in the next ten years or so!!

POSTDOC ISSUES

I recently attended a fascinating meeting held by the Irish Research Staff Association (don't worry, the UK has one too!!). The presence of such prominent figures such as Stefaan Hermans (European Commission, Research & Innovation), Iain Cameron (Head of Research Councils UK Research Careers & Diversity Unit), Patrick Cunningham (Chief Scientific Advisor to the Irish Government) and Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn to name but a few, underlined the importance of contract research staff to the Irish and global economy.

Postdocs around the world all face the same issues and it only through organisations such as the IRSA, UKRSA, Eurodoc and the NPA that we can achieve the lobbying power at all levels (departmental, university, funding bodies, government) that we will need to affect any real changes to the system. There is plenty of information available through the organisations I've just mentioned should readers be interested in getting involved, and I strongly encourage them to do so.

By the way, the UKRSA has already identifed the RSC as a stakeholder organisation and is in the process of forming formal links, mainly through myself and Mindy Dulai.

I know there’s been a very lively debate on this site over the closure of the Sandwich site. Firstly, I’d like to add my sympathies to all the people out there (and remember it’s not just chemists) who have lost their jobs.

I’d also like to point out my personal distaste for some of the comments that emerged following the announcement from senior people within the RSC. To even suggest that UK chemists are not skilled enough to compete with international graduates is, quite frankly, insulting, given the standing our universities in the international rankings. Worse still is to be encouraging the “brain drain” from our shores. Whilst I’m all for the RSC becoming stronger internationally, it must always support its members from close to home too.
However, whilst the closures at Pfizer, AstraZeneca and others capture the headlines, it can be easy for something just as devastating to our subject to slip through the cracks. I am referring to the cuts in local government funding, which is having a huge impact on museums and charities that help inspire the next generation of scientists.

From personal experience, I am aware that the Catalyst Centre in Widness has suffered severe cuts. This is a fantastic centre for kids to come and experience science first-hand. Not only that, but their guides and mentors are teenagers who already have an obvious passion for the subject. This passion should be nurtured, and the rug should not be pulled out from under them!!

Chemicals Northwest is also struggling. This industry-centred group provide valuable services and support to professional chemists. Not only that, they were major sponsors of the last Younger Member’s Symposium. In fact, some of the people leaving the organisation are the very ones who offered support. It is very worrying to see an organisation that is willing to support young chemists suffering from the cuts.

Additionally, Sentinus, which runs the STEMNet programme in Northern Ireland has yet to have its funding situation for the coming year clarified. The STEMNet programme in Northern Ireland is huge, well organised and does a fantastic job. Any disruption to its work will no doubt have a massive impact on the uptake of STEM subjects. A shame this impact won’t been see until the next government is in, and maybe out again!!

So we’re fighting a war on several fronts. We did well to keep the science budget from being slashed in the spending review, but we cannot rest on our laurels. Cutting grass-roots efforts like Catalyst and STEMNet may, if I can be so bold, have a more damaging long-term effect on our economy then the closure of research facilities. The decisions taken by multinational corporations are to a large extent out of our control. The decisions taken by our governments and councils however....

Addenum 11-MAR-2011: I've added the council's response to a letter from a younger member about the cuts to Catalyst. Usual political response: lot's of word with no real meaning behind them. Apologies for the low resolution, the effect of scanning and removing personal details, I'm afraid!

Okay, I'll admit it! I was planning on just posting a blatant plug for a friend of mine. However, I've just been thinking.... how do PhD students develop those vital transferable skills that everyone goes on about these days?! Most PhD courses now require that students undertake a minimum number of hours of training every year. They then provide those horribly boring and totally pointless course that we all sit through, half asleep and wasting our time!

Most PhD students I feel develop their transferable skills "on the job". Time management is of course vital to the success or failure of a PhD. Sure, coming in on weekends can make up for some mid-week slacking, but you get bored of that eventually, not to mention the increased health & safety risks (sorry, Kate reads this blog and I'm afraid of her). Demonstrating time management on a CV though is more difficult. After all, everyone else your competing with has done a PhD and so can time-manage. How do you stand out?

Volunteering is a good way. Or participating in any extra-curricular activity. After all, if you can do a PhD whilst maintaining some sort of life, clearly you're some kind of machine. A machine we'd like to hire!! My voluntary work keeps me from listening to the voices in my head, but also makes me stand out from the crowd (I hope).

Presentation skills and communication skills are other important transferables. Here the cliché that "practice makes perfect" rings true. The more times you present and communicate your work, be the traditional posters and oral papers, or more crazy flash bang shows and blogs, the better you'll be at when you have to give that all important ten minute "chalk-and-talk" at an interview. Again, PhD students should try to avail of every opportunity, both within work and in their outside lives, to develop these vital skills. It's an area where scientists as a whole are deemed to be inadequate, so let's prove them wrong shall we?!

Finally, we come to the aforementioned plugging! Teaching and demonstrating are often seen by PhD students are a means to earn some extra beer money. For writing-up students, it may even be the only way of paying the rent. But of course, these skills are also transferable, and for academic jobs in particular quite important. Admittedly, teaching skills are sadly now longer held in as high regard as the ability to bring in grants in most of universities, which is a shame. Nevertheless, most principle investigators are required to do some teaching, and if you can show you have experience, well it'll be one less distraction from grant writing!

Of course, teaching can also become a career. And life would be so much better if every secondary school student was taught science by a scientist, so I'm all for it. So perhaps those postgrads out there who aren't in the lab or on Piled Higher and Deeper (if it's good enough for me it's good enough for you, ya young upstart!), but are instead reading this would be interested in more teaching experience (and money), why not check out this new enterprise that apparently takes all the hassle out of tutoring. More importantly, it's run by a recent PhD graduate chemist who therefore understands exactly what you're going through (already my memory's getting hazy!). It's nice to see a chemist providing opportunities for chemists, and I would've been very keen myself if something like this existed in my day (when we walked bare-foot to the lab every morning, uphilll both ways, in the blinding snow, fighting off dinosaur attacks and washed our faces in benzene).

Extra money, valuable skills and who knows, maybe your true calling? What's the downside?

Lately, I’ve been doing a fair few school’s presentations on the virtues of a career in chemistry. Not only am I both a ChemNet and STEMNet Ambassador, I’ve also built up quite a number of personal “fans” at various schools around Ireland.

On average each year I’ll do about 15 of these presentations (a modified version of the ChemNet presentation), lasting anywhere from twenty minutes to an hour. I love talking to school students, and always try to leave lots of time for questions. This allows me to ensure I give them the information THEY want, not the information I think they want!

I know a lot of members are involved in outreach activities of this kind, and I thought a little blog to share our experiences would be good. To start the ball rolling, here are the top five most common questions I have encountered on my travels, with my answers:

1. Do you like/love your job?
Yes I do! Not a lot of people can say that about their job, but I really do enjoy my work. Yes it has its ups and downs, yes sometimes it can be frustrating and disappointing when things don’t work - but that’s life! I’m sure you’ve heard this loads of times, and I’m sure you think it’s stupid but the fact of the matter is: You’ll be working [at least] 9-5, 5 days a week for up to 50 years. If you hate your job, you’ll hate your life. So whatever it is that you love: science, literature, sport, music, whatever – chase it. And keeping chasing it until you get it or you find something you love more. Anything else is a waste.

2. Did you always want to be a chemist/scientist/researcher?
I was a lucky when I was young. Unlike a lot of you, I always knew I wanted a science career. I know it can be difficult at your age to decide what it is you want to do for the rest of your life. That’s why I think a chemistry degree is so valuable. As I said, the skills you will acquire during your chemistry degree will stand to you wherever you end up. If you love chemistry -   do a chemistry degree. If you like chemistry, but are not sure what you want to do in life – do a chemistry degree. If you hate chemistry – DO NOT even think about doing a chemistry degree!

3. Do you earn a lot of money/How much do you earn?
Well how much is a lot? I earn more then the UK average, and have done since day one of my chemistry career. I think everyone wants the dream job where they do no work and earn a six-figure salary. Let me tell you, that job doesn’t exist! Do what you enjoy first, and the money will follow, in my experience.

4. Why do you seem to move around often and is that not hard?
Put simply, I’m starting out on what I hope will be a long career as a researcher. That requires some sacrifices in terms of my lifestyle, but at the moment I can and will make them. Moving around is hard, but it’s also a chance to meet new people and learn new things. Besides, I usually end up being chased out of a city after a few years!! But in general terms, the idea of the job for life or being born, work and die in the same place has sadly almost vanished from the modern workforce. So all of you will have to be prepared, I feel, to move around a bit at the start of your careers, whatever they may be.

5. How many hours do you work/Do you work long hours?
At the moment yes, I do. But remember I love what I do, so it doesn’t feel like work to me. And my job is somewhat flexible, so if I work late one night I can have a lie-in the next day.

I could put up examples of some of the more crazy/embarrasing questions, but it's probably best to seek your input at this stage!!

Perhaps the Hairy Bikers have got it right with their new “Mum’s Know Best” show:   
 
Over Christmas I was chatting to my own mum about what the RSC could do differently, and ways it could more effectively support its volunteers.  “Mommy’s Boy!” I here you cry.  I’m not denying it, but as the UK’s foremost authority on “managing commitment in the voluntary sector”, there are perhaps worse people I could have asked. According to research in her field, there are six key factors which affect a volunteer’s commitment:

1. Expectations - Interviews and induction courses should explore this commitment and the demands of the volunteer role. Commitment is a two-way process.  Staff should give it to volunteers as well as expect it from them. Volunteers expect to have their emotional needs - in particular, a sense of belonging, self-esteem and being useful - met by their Voluntary work. It is also acceptable to use voluntary work as an aid to career development.

2. Relationships- Everyone in a scheme should be open and honest in their approach, demonstrating loyalty to the organisation’s ethos. Staff should ration their limited time fairly, and should keep their relationships with volunteers personal but also professional. Volunteers are responsible for their own behaviour and their own decisions, and they should be encouraged to work as part of a team. This will enable established volunteers to become positive role models for new volunteers.

3. Role management- Volunteers must be fully involved in all aspects of their work: they need to be given a challenge. But they should also be warned not to get over-involved, and they should allowed to take a break if necessary. Staff should make themselves aware of a volunteer’s motivational needs and attempt to meet them. There should be an established system for deciding when a volunteer’s commitment is unsuitable and what should be done about it. Care over placing the right volunteer in the right role - matching skills with need - will reduce the likelihood of problems developing. However, a volunteer moving on should not always be viewed as a bad thing.

4. Support structures- Organisers should care for volunteers as individuals, offering them one-to-one support in tackling their problems. They should maintain regular contact with the volunteers. Staff should build the self confidence of volunteers, because when they feel good about themselves volunteers will be motivated to do more. Staff should aim to identify potential problems early and work with the volunteers to resolve them. Volunteers should feel valued by the organisation. They should be given regular feedback on their progress and praise for their achievements. A volunteer’s commitment is most likely to be eroded by: deterioration of organisational standards; personal rejection; feelings of inadequacy; bad relations with peers; over-commitment; and personal problems. Effective support and supervision should, however, prevent this erosion of commitment. To meet their various needs, volunteers need both group and one-to-one support and a programme of accessible training

5. Evaluation and monitoring- Staff should continually monitor the commitment of volunteers through continuing training, support and supervision.

6. Volunteer person specification- Volunteers should accept the organisation’s ethos, conform to its regulations and maintain its standards. Volunteers must be able to spare an appropriate amount of time. They should be enthusiastic, willing to do more than just the bare minimum, unselfishly giving of themselves to help others. They should also be reliable, with the persistence to see things through when the going gets tough. Volunteers should be hard-working and good managers of their time, with a range of other interests. They should be intelligent and have a wide range of interpersonal skills, though they do not need to be educated to a high academic level. An ability and willingness to learn and be adaptable is crucial.

So how do the RSC measure up? In one area at least (the Benevolent Fund) it appears pretty well actually.   There’s an application process, an agreement signed by the volunteer, and a structured training, support, supervision and review process in place.

Does the same ring true across the board though? Sadly not:  

From my own personal experience (as committee member on local section, Industry & Technology Forum - North West Trustand younger member network committees, a past chemistry week coordinator, and as an honorary treasurer for several of those groups), the RSC still has a long way to go. I can make my point no clearer than this: Induction? Interview? Training? Supervision? Person spec? Evaluation? One-to-one support?

While the 6 points highlighted above are obviously stretch targets outlining best practice. Even with “limited resources” (I thought I’d save HQ’s limited resources and type it on their behalf),  scoring ‘nil-poi’  for “Expectations”, “Role Management”, “Evaluation and Monitoring” and “Volunteer Person Specification” is pretty poor (even by the UK’s Eurovision track-record).  As for Relationships and Support Structures: I’d encourage you to read the rest of the blog and make your own mind up.

So to my point. There is one in here somewhere. Honest:

How can the RSC get it right in one area (the B.F.) and so wrong everywhere else?

To me at least, it is pretty clear that generally (by which I mean for everything except the Benevolent fund), the RSC as an organisation doesn’t seem to have realised that we are volunteers as well as members.  I appreciate that the RSC is a strange beastie as charities go, and is difficult for us volunteers to get our head rounds how this rather unique combination of charity/professional body/publisher ‘works’.  I would however, have thought that RSC HQ would have got it straight in their own heads by now……

Pays membership, comes to events, benefits from RSC = Member
Gives up own time to help the RSC and/or promote the chemical sciences = Volunteer
Does both = Member-Volunteer

……by way of neurolinguistic-pseudo-scientific-anecdotal-evidence: If you look back at our HQ responses on this Blog. When referring to their volunteer members, RSC staff use Member/colleague etc. the majority of the time.  This may seem trivial, but certainly highlights that the distinction between members, volunteers and member-volunteers isn’t embedded in the staff culture at HQ. This is crystallised most effectively by  Adam (Turner, that is, we’re not schizophrenic) pointing David to a code of conduct for members, when what David was asking for clarification  on the expectations of the RSC’s volunteers.   

As another example I could cite that if you search for “volunteer” on rsc.org, you’d only get hits related to being a volunteer visitor for the Benevolent Fun. Although, as regular users of the site know that’s not necessarily indicative of the information not being on the website.…. Somewhere…… Perhaps.
 
The way I see it, the RSC needs to up its game.  Be that improvements in the way it communicates information and resources which are already available (in the deepest darkest depths of rsc.org), or in providing them in the first place.  “Commitment is a two-way process.  Staff should give it to volunteers as well as expect it from them.”

Without this mutual commitment, and agreement of what each party’s expectations and responsibilities are, everyone is loosing out, Including the RSC.
 
In the absence of such induction and support processes, an organisation with such a “strong reputation” as the RSC, should reflect on what it actually knows about its own volunteers:  As a treasurer for several groups, and a volunteer who works with children, it would seem pertinent for the RSC to be able to answer the following three questions if they were asked about my voluntary work for them:
 
- What relevant training have the RSC provided to enable me to do my roles effectively?
- Have I been CRB Checked?
- Should I have been?
 
So, in closing….
 
Members, volunteers and member-volunteers alike, how can the RSC help you?  How can examples of good practice (like the benevolent fund) be learnt from and rolled out more widely? Where else is it already getting things right?