I’m now at a point where I want to merge my scientific background with my engineering experience. However, I’m finding a "missing middle" in the job market. I don't ever see a position that requires and values deep expertise in both.
I enjoy development, but I feel like my scientific training is going to waste. For those who have successfully merged these two paths:
Did you find a "unicorn" role, or did you create one within a company?
How do you market yourself when your two halves feel like they belong to different resumes?
1. Find a company that has non-software jobs that you like. Look at what companies advertise on their web sites; go to a few conferences (or watch talks) to see if some talks strike you with "ah, I can and want to do this" vibe; reach out to folks you went to grad school with, etc.
2. Apply and join as a software engineer. Don't try to sit on both chairs (software and science) during the application. You can apply to a science role, but this is likely much harder after 8 years of software focus.
3. Once in, chat with folks working on what you want to work on. Talk to folks you saw give talks. Go to internal presentations, post cool plots in slack, etc. In most companies it is pretty easy to move within roles. Plus, HR is no longer in the filtering pipeline and is not tossing resumes of anyone they think does not have the chops for the position.
Good luck!
As a personal data point -- I decided, late in my math PhD, to switch from academia to the industry after completion. A few times I switched jobs I went in as a software engineer, but within a few months moved to working on things I wanted to do beyond software (algorithms for tracking, perception, signal processing, sensor fusion, etc.).
I started out writing software for scientists, psychologists, first at a university, then a small company. After eight years of that I went to grad school and got a PhD in CS (ML/AI), and did a postdoc, before going into industry, and eventually landed a role in what was then called “data mining”, later “data science”, then “machine learning engineering”. In the beginning when the team was small, we were all generalists, doing both the science work and the engineering. As we grew, specialized roles developed, but I was able to chart a course somewhere between a SWE and a scientist, doing a lot of knowledge work, experiments, measurement, and presentation, but also building common tools that the rest of the team can use.
I’ve been out of the job market for 15 years now, but I think any company that does science and builds software would value your skillset. In fact, when I was shifting from academia to industry, I started out determined to be a “scientist”. After all, what was my PhD for, anyway? But my SWE chops were pretty evident on my resume, and I had a hard time getting traction. Then I got brought in for an interview at a company that had a team of scientists and a team of engineers and they brought me in for a split interview with both teams. It was clear by the end that they wanted me as an engineer, but I was insistent on wanting to be a scientist. They didn’t offer me a job, and I was disappointed. The disappointment was educational for me, and I rewrote my resume to put more emphasis on my SWE skills, and that made it easier to find a role that fit me.
Wow - that's a long time at one company, or being without a job. Could you share more on that? Simple curiosity, thanks.
My experience working and hiring PhDs in the past has been one that they sometimes are used to this being defined for them and/or used to applying to grants/funds in established academic environments but rarely do they think of creating the path themselves (except for some outliers). The fact that you are already thinking of that puts you in that category.
Lastly, when working at the edge of something and creating your job, be ready for this mantra: https://37signals.com/13
US Organisation - https://us-rse.org/ UK (but also worldwide) - https://society-rse.org/
There are RSEs who specialise in Earth Science, e.g. https://socrse.github.io/geoscience-sig/
I work in that now. I am going through the same issue as you after studying science (there are many of us!). Jobs rarely overlap, wanting both skillsets. Am I ever going to do this scientific work I learned about? I feel entering this area has been progress.
I'm on the 'science' side right now, after doing CAD, software and firmware for a few years. The previous robots I made were not for scientific work. Now I make liquid handling robots for laboratories and I hope that my scientific skills will be valued in the workplace.
In the workplace, people mostly seem to want you to choose a box and stay in it rather than using a varied skillset. Right now I can say I "make robots" but mostly I take parts, put them in the machine we make and use them for a bit then send them on their way as tested items. The robot is largely a black box - I'm not allowed to see the CAD, software or firmware it runs, certainly not use my skills in those areas. But I'll keep trying - to bring value to the employer and find more interesting/valued work using the skills I've gained over the years. Entering a workplace for whatever they want then moving within it over time is a time tested strategy, especially in government because they are unionized and very rarely fire anyone.
Keep in mind funding sources during your search. In Canada we have SRED, which is a tax rebate for scientific work and easy to get. People, even if they studied science, seem to perceive scientific work as expensive and mostly useless so subsidies like this really help. Since it's a rebate that means you must work for a company that already has revenue, not a small startup. Look for a company with at least a room they call a lab and they will keep time sheets for all "R&D" work.
As for how to market yourself: first you should convert your academic CV to one that is suited for the type of companies you are applying for. Unless you wrote something that ended up in Nature or some other super high profile journal, companies typically don't care about your publications. What they do care about is things like: can you communicate well? How well can you organize things on your own? Do you handle stress well? You did a PhD, so the answer to those things is yes, you just need to write that in your CV in a way a company recruiter/interviewer understands, even if they themselves are not from academia. So you don't have two halves that belong to different resumes, you are just one person and you just translate your resume to the "language" that your prospective job provider speaks.
Finally, your list of skills does not need to be a perfect match for what a company is looking for. Of course, there needs to be some overlap, but as long as it means you can pick up new things quickly, it will be fine. That and being a good fit for the company's culture are the most important things.
I did not start out with a unicorn role, but in I found ways to apply my physics background in my current job.
A big part of the problem is that you were spending time with tech stacks and frameworks. These have almost no practical utility value aside from attaining employment in a low skill area of software. I am saying that as a former 15 year JavaScript developer. Instead use your research background to solve real problems faced by businesses and users that you can measure.
If you want to mix earth sciences with development, you could look for positions on the Google Earth Engine team, or check out weather companies that do R&D like Purple Air. I imagine there’s plenty of software work mixed with earth sciences in the oil, gas, and mining industries; aviation & ocean shipping; hydroelectric, solar, and wind power maybe.
Being an earth sciences researcher is highly likely to involve writing software, whereas the average SWE role is not likely to need research, so my instinct would be to say just look research roles. Do most of today’s earth sciences researchers not spend a lot of their time at least writing statistical software in Python or R? My brother’s an anthropologist, and over the last decade his job has become more and more writing software to process datasets and do statistics.
If you’re just looking for a scientific mindset and a role that does experimentation, many companies (especially growing startups) have data science departments that, at a minimum, drive A-B testing experiments. Occasionally you can find applied research positions that are listed as just SWE roles, but those might be hard to find - I’d start by asking academic departments for leads.
Cold call or get introductions to their R&D leaders (principal researcher /director / VP). While connecting to something they or their company did, ask for a coffee meeting or phone call to learn more about their company and how it works.
Use this to Network network network. At some point a job will appear with interviews. Chances are good it’s with a good manager as they’re the ones taking time to build good teams and talent.
I work at a company that is hiring folks that have a background in (helio)physicists / quantum (I think we have about 3 nobel prize labs represented right now in a team of 9) with SWE / ML experience (EDIT: and Full Stack Developers), to build products for the aerospace industry. Not exactly earth science, but if Heliophysics / Physics is of interest, my masked email in profile.
his application is quite simple and repeatable: optimizing field measurements through apps. or more simply, really good forms and reports. we focus on forestry but have been able to repeatedly repackage and adjust our software for clients who need to go someplace, fill out a form, and then report on that later and/or submit it to some unique system (etl stuff)
a phd proves you mastered a language and knowledge of process applicable to communicating with subject matter experts. youre certified in the scientific method. even when my boss doesnt have direct experience in a specific field, he can make an analogy to other client or phd work. clients are confident you can meet with members across their team to plan, implement, and test software to optimize their workflow without much hand holding
another thing: he does a lot of talks. after a few talks now he's asked all the time and one of ESRI's first calls for an alternate at conferences. a lot of this is the phd title. if you dont loathe public speaking too much than this can open doors to conversations with clients, professional partners, or institutions developing new tech
I’d then look over the profile trying to disprove my assumption. Lacking a very strong signal in mastery of something, I’d pass on the profile.
Only at small scales are full stack engineers valuable. Their value is not in the quality of their output but in their ability to deliver make shift with that avoids having to pay for specialist who can deliver quality.
Assuming there is product market fit then generalists are replaced by specialists. This is where the true value aligns in terms of high quality output being compensated proportional to value created.
Given all this my advice is to pick two complementary areas, specialize in those areas and develop deep mastery. Keep your broad general skills. Then market yourself as the T or H shaped engineer that’s most valuable.
Seems like the ideal career is to start somewhere big and successful enough that allows you to specialize (after some poor generalists sabotaged their own careers by making it a thriving environment for specialists). Because even small scale businesses think they should start by hiring specialists.
I was a studio recording engineer for about 7 years. I switched to software, and now I work in industrial global logistics. Job attributes I optimized for over the years: insulated from manufactured stress, autonomy, control over working hours, good relationships with my boss and coworkers.
All the Best!
Your training is a sunk cost.
It is also the source of soft skills.
I don't think it's at all as rare as I see other commenters say. I don't know earth sciences specifically but I'd be surprised if there is a STEM field where a strong SWE expertise isn't an asset you can put to regular use in research.
In either case, you're primarily either a developer or a scientist/researcher. Unless you're at an early stage startup or in a principal/managerial role, chances are your time is better spent deeply focusing on one area rather than both. Either putting the system to production or doing research. A lot of the time, these tasks can be carried out in parallel -- while one person is carrying out research, the other can be improving the system.
Or fully bootstrap with a competing product?
Not to say this is an objective analysis, just observing the subjective trends.
It may be harder if you want to do only earth sciences, but if you're open to many areas of research, then the FAANGs will probably take you.
Chances are, there are a handful of labs, somewhere that could benefit from the overlap, but finding them is like finding the needle in the haystack.
https://www.esri.com/en-us/about/careers/job-search
https://www.jpl.jobs/c/educational-jobs
https://www.spacex.com/careers/jobs?programs=Starlink&discip...