Artwork for podcast Changing Academic Life
On research identity, meaningful work and funding (solo)
Episode 16 • 24th January 2024 • Changing Academic Life • Geraldine Fitzpatrick
00:00:00 00:26:55

Share Episode

Shownotes

Triggered by a comment from Katta Spiel in an earlier podcast, in this solo episode I explore the tensions between the autonomy and freedom we have to shape our research identities and do meaningful work, and the systemic constraints from funding and promotion opportunities. The tensions particularly arise when research interests don’t align well with institutional expectations or funding trends. I explore various ways to navigate these tensions, such as, adjusting research focus to align with strategic priorities, reframing research proposals while keeping the core agenda unchanged, or continuing passion projects outside of formal funded frameworks. I also reflect on potential trade-offs and the importance of maintaining personal connection and motivation in our research work. At the end I suggest some strategies for self-reflection and staying in tune with what 'lights you up' as a researcher. 

This episode also connects with prior podcast guests Mark Reed and Stuart Reeves.

Overview:

00:29 Introduction and Reflection on Academic Freedom

01:54 Replay from Katta Spiel Part 1

02:37 Mark Reed's principle for engagement and impact

05:22 The Tension Between Personal Values, Identity and Systemic Expectations

07:05 The Reality of Funding Proposals and Strategic Game

08:40 The Impact of Funding Conditions on Research

10:27 The Dilemma of Playing the Funding Game

13:08 Choices for How to Play the Game

19:59 Choosing Not to Play the Game

21:54 Reframing Research Identity 

26:55 End

Related links:

Katta podcast Part 1 episode

Mark Reed podcast episode 

Stuart Reeves podcast episode

Mark Reed, What is good practice engagement and impact? Dec 5 2023



This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis:

Chartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

Transcripts

Geri:

Welcome to Changing Academic Life.

2

:

I'm Geraldine Fitzpatrick, and this is

a podcast series where academics and

3

:

others share their stories, provide

ideas, and provoke discussions about what

4

:

we can do individually and collectively

to change academic life for the better.

5

:

Hello and welcome.

6

:

In this short episode, I'd like to take

some time to reflect on the tensions

7

:

that I've experienced and that I've been

hearing lately around the autonomy and

8

:

freedom that we have as academics to

shape our researcher identity and work on

9

:

things that we love, that we care about,

where we think we can make a difference.

10

:

And the tension of recognizing that

we're trying to pursue that in a system

11

:

that we're not fully in control of.

12

:

In a system that values what gets funded

and defines for us in some ways, what

13

:

topics are worth exploring and what is

going to get CV value in terms of funding.

14

:

And consequent papers and success for

promotion or appointments and so on.

15

:

And I've been thinking about

this triggered by something that

16

:

Katta Spiel said in part one of

our conversation recently, About

17

:

their surprise at getting funded.

18

:

Despite being very uncompromising in

what they wanted to do and deliberately

19

:

not playing the strategic game of

doing all the right things that

20

:

were supposedly getting the ticks.

21

:

And I'll replay an edited extract where

Katta can explain this in their own words.

22

:

Katta: And the funny thing about

that is because I did write a

23

:

proper proposal, like it wasn't a

joke proposal or anything, but I

24

:

wrote one that made no compromises

in terms of what I wanted to do.

25

:

Like, it didn't try to

pander to reviewers.

26

:

And then that was what

surprised me so much then that

27

:

I got it because I was like.

28

:

I was not trying to do any

of the strategic things.

29

:

Geri: It's interesting to think about if

it would have been, as successful if you

30

:

weren't as authentic and uncompromising.

31

:

Katta: Yeah.

32

:

That is like then what I keep

telling people sometimes, like if

33

:

you dare to then just do the thing

that you want to, but I know also

34

:

that it's really difficult and.

35

:

And even I can only get there when I'm

not that afraid of like how it could work

36

:

Geri: And interestingly not long after

this, I came across a post from Mark Reed.

37

:

You may remember that.

38

:

I also spoke to mark

very recently as well.

39

:

And one of Mark's passion areas for

research and for activism is about

40

:

engagement and impact and in this.

41

:

Post, and I will put a link to it in the

show notes is where he draws together

42

:

what he calls nine good practice

principles for engagement and impact.

43

:

That's drawing on his impact

culture book and some papers they've

44

:

written and, and his experience

in training people about impact.

45

:

And I was really struck by principle

number one, which talks about.

46

:

To read directly, "Understand your purpose

and pursue impacts you find intrinsically

47

:

motivating rather than allowing extrinsic

incentives to drive your engagement".

48

:

And that's interesting, isn't it?

49

:

Because that in some way reflects

what Katta just talked to us about.

50

:

About being uncompromising in pursuing.

51

:

What they found intrinsically motivating.

52

:

So Mark then elaborates in these

principles, what that might mean for

53

:

institutions and for researchers.

54

:

So I'll just read what he says this

principle means for researchers.

55

:

So again, just to read directly.

56

:

"Researchers need to

clarify their purpose.

57

:

And to understand if and how

engagement and impact might express

58

:

important identities and values.

59

:

And contribute to the meaning

they derive from work."

60

:

And of quote.

61

:

But let's return again, to

those words for researchers.

62

:

Researchers need to define their purpose.

63

:

About how their work might

express their identities.

64

:

And values.

65

:

And contribute to the meaning

they derive from work.

66

:

And that just sounds wonderful.

67

:

Doesn't it?

68

:

And all of the research across many

domains and disciplinary areas would

69

:

talk about how we're going to be

much more creative and engaged and

70

:

effective and have better physical and

mental health and wellbeing when we

71

:

can deliver on that identity, work to

our values, do work that's meaningful

72

:

that we feel like it has an impact.

73

:

And then there's the tension that arises

when you're hit with the realities.

74

:

The tension between what our values are.

75

:

And what we want to shape our

research identity to be where we

76

:

derive meaning from our work and

where we want to have impact.

77

:

And then how this might hit up against.

78

:

How we practically are able to get

research done these days, which is

79

:

often through having funded projects

and shaped by other people's notions

80

:

of what's good research or what are

reseaerchable and fundable topics.

81

:

Towards this, then I'm also reflecting

on some various social media posts I've

82

:

also happened to have seen recently.

83

:

From colleagues who talk about getting

rejected yet again yet again yet

84

:

again, despite excellent reviews for

the research they'd been passionate

85

:

about for many, many, many years.

86

:

Research topics that are at

the core of how they define

87

:

themselves as a researcher.

88

:

And in some of these posts.

89

:

You can almost hear the grieving

at having to let go of those

90

:

topics that they really care about.

91

:

And then just the uncertainty

about what to focus on next and.

92

:

and how they should redefine

their research identity or not.

93

:

And it brings to life for me very

much that what we get to define

94

:

as our own research topics is so

core to our identity and purpose.

95

:

As Mark says, in that principle.

96

:

About feeling alive and feeling like

it makes a difference in our work.

97

:

But the facts of life are that not

fitting with funding calls or government

98

:

grand research challenges happens.

99

:

A lot of the funding proposals that

we need to write, depending on the

100

:

scheme, we need to often frame very

closely to what the funders are needing.

101

:

And when we go to training courses,

they'll often tell us about reusing

102

:

their words back to them and making

sure we frame the proposals to

103

:

deliver exactly what the call is

asking for that may or may not fit

104

:

with what we actually want to do.

105

:

Or what we think is the right thing to do.

106

:

And then there's the question of not just

having an excellent research project as

107

:

some of those social media posts have

said, but even getting excellent reviews.

108

:

What is deemed as fundable within current

priorities of the funding organization

109

:

or the government body or whatever.

110

:

And what is fundable also seems to be

changing as well as in many places in

111

:

many schemes is getting harder and harder

it seems to have more open exploratory

112

:

research or to ask more complex questions.

113

:

Again, social media posts that I can

reflect on talk about the challenges

114

:

of even moving to a different country

where research that was acceptable

115

:

more in one country is less so

in this new country where there's

116

:

more of an emphasis on industry

collaborations and applied research.

117

:

And then some other tensions that we

can feel that particularly, I guess, go

118

:

towards values . Sometimes the funding

comes with very strict conditions.

119

:

There's some funding schemes that I've

been part of that are more applied

120

:

where we have to define very clearly

what our phases are going to be?

121

:

What particular activities we're going

to do and exact deliverables and exactly

122

:

when they're going to be delivered.

123

:

And at the same time, this was a

scheme where we were encouraged to have

124

:

more participatory approaches and to

engage with the people for whom we were

125

:

designing new technologies in this case.

126

:

But it felt like that engagement and

that participation was really lip

127

:

service because it would have been

almost impossible to go back to the

128

:

funding body and say the funding

that you've given us to deliver X.

129

:

It's not what our participants want.

130

:

They want something very different.

131

:

That's Y.

132

:

And the fear I know in the

discussions that we would have

133

:

as a project team would be.

134

:

How the funding body might pull the

funding, or we would have to pay back

135

:

the funding we'd already received, how it

would impact people's contracts and jobs.

136

:

And so on.

137

:

And so there's that tension between what

we need to say we're doing, what funding

138

:

bodies expect and what are the principles

and values that guide our research.

139

:

So for us, really engaging with

participants very closely was a

140

:

really closely held principle.

141

:

And that created a lot of internal

tension for us individually and as

142

:

a team in not being able to properly

respect the participant's wishes.

143

:

And then there's the issue of playing

the game where you are told you need

144

:

funding for your CV for promotion,

for moving onto different jobs.

145

:

But not all research actually needs

big funding projects and Stuart Reeves.

146

:

Again, another earlier podcast

conversation that I had talks about the

147

:

fact that a lot of the research that

he wants to do just really needs him

148

:

and maybe one or two people to help.

149

:

And yet that sort of research isn't

deemed as CV worthy or promotion

150

:

worthy research in terms of the brownie

points and the ticks we need to do.

151

:

And to hear Stuart in his own words.

152

:

Stuart: I've also thought about,

people's different research styles, and

153

:

sometimes I feel like the kind of style

of research I do, firstly, doesn't tend

154

:

to cost that much money, and secondly,

is, I don't know, It feels like it's not

155

:

necessarily, going to lead to or work

well with sort of massive, massive grants.

156

:

Or maybe I'm just not understanding how

to frame stuff or spin stuff in such a

157

:

way that it could be seen as doing that.

158

:

So some people's research in

HCI seems to be tailored more

159

:

towards getting large research

grants, whereas others maybe less.

160

:

I mean, I feel like, sometimes

there's a lot of research you can

161

:

do from stuff I kind of do, which

you could do with very little, very

162

:

little resources and get similar kind

of results in terms of publications

163

:

and all those kinds of things.

164

:

Geri: And that was from Stuart Reeves.

165

:

Episode part one at about 11 minutes,

if you did want to go in and try to

166

:

listen to it because he does talk

more about the challenges of trying

167

:

to frame a grand vision and so on.

168

:

So It just seems to me like there's

an ongoing challenge and negotiation

169

:

around identifying who we are.

170

:

What our research identity

is, what we care about.

171

:

What our values are, what's

meaningful work for us.

172

:

What difference we want to make?

173

:

What impact we want to have.

174

:

And negotiating with how we navigate

the current structures and processes.

175

:

And.

176

:

At what currently counts as research

and what currently counts as project.

177

:

And I recognize in all this, our ability

to negotiate those tensions changes,

178

:

depending upon what stage of career, where

at what institution we're in and so on.

179

:

So what are our choices?

180

:

I don't have any answers here.

181

:

I'm just sort of more reflecting

on the experiences, maybe just to

182

:

normalize that you may be not the only

one trying to navigate these tensions.

183

:

So we could choose just to play the

game because when we weigh the trade

184

:

off it may be more important for

us to be able to advance our career

185

:

or to be able to get access to the

funding to at least do something.

186

:

And indeed, Katta did talk about

being more strategic in one proposal

187

:

than they were in a previous one.

188

:

Because for them the weighing

of risks change because this new

189

:

proposal entailed three years, four

years of funding for jobs for other

190

:

people that they cared about.

191

:

And so they weren't just playing

a game individually in not being

192

:

strategic, but needing to play the

game and be strategic because they

193

:

cared about these other people.

194

:

Another way we can choose to play

the game is in reframing the story.

195

:

And I often talk to people about

your leading actors and supporting

196

:

actors in a research story.

197

:

I remember a colleague many years

ago, who submitted a research funding

198

:

proposal to a particular funding body.

199

:

And it got desk rejected.

200

:

They said that it wasn't fitting to,

to their strand of research funding.

201

:

And with much thinking and discussion

what this person ended up doing

202

:

was retelling the story of exactly

the same work, but foregrounding,

203

:

backgrounding, different aspects,

making something that was more of the.

204

:

Uh, supporting actor now, the

leading actor and so-and-so.

205

:

An example was where they were really

foregrounding the participatory

206

:

approach that they were going to

take with their target audience in

207

:

order to come up with a new system.

208

:

And the emphasis was on the development

of the methodology and the learning

209

:

and thinking skills that their

participants would gain in that process.

210

:

And they just reframed it to say this

project was about the technology.

211

:

Oh, and by the way, we'll do it by

participatory engagement with our

212

:

participants and as a coincidental

impact they will learn something

213

:

So you can see the same pieces are

there, but they were just reframed.

214

:

It's totally playing the game.

215

:

And that proposal went through got

excellent reviews and got funded.

216

:

And for that person that game cost

the effort of rewriting reframing the

217

:

proposal, but they were still lucky enough

to be able to still basically talk about

218

:

doing exactly the same work that they

really cared about doing . Just telling

219

:

a different story about it, that fitted

someone else's agenda for that time.

220

:

And then there's the game that we

can play that's just about getting

221

:

projects for the sake of it.

222

:

And it could be for the sake of

the tick, because that's what

223

:

we need right now for our CV.

224

:

Or it could be for the sake of a

colleague and wanting to be supportive.

225

:

Or it could just be about hedging,

our bets in the funding lottery.

226

:

But that can be risky as well.

227

:

So, We may all have had experiences

of saying yes to be on someone else's

228

:

project that we don't necessarily really

care about, but we may be care about

229

:

that person and what does support them.

230

:

And.

231

:

It gets funded.

232

:

And then we're committed to that work.

233

:

And if you're conscientious, then you

will take that commitment seriously.

234

:

At a cost of time and effort and energy.

235

:

And you can almost feel your lack

of energy when you talk about it.

236

:

I'm reflecting on some of

my own project experiences.

237

:

And similarly, I've worked in some places

where say a post-doc isn't able to be

238

:

a PI on a project in their own, right.

239

:

So in wanting to support them and

their career progression and their

240

:

development and them being able to

do research that they own and drive.

241

:

I am happy to go onto their project

proposal as the PI and support them

242

:

in that, of course not just in name,

but trying to say, what do you need

243

:

a support from me in writing it up

and framing the research and so on.

244

:

But it's someone else's meaning

and purpose, and it's reflecting

245

:

someone else's research identity.

246

:

And normally when they get funded and

the person's doing it, I would be playing

247

:

much more of a supportive role, a coach

type role in, helping them deliver

248

:

on the work, but letting them own it

because it's their passion project.

249

:

And I've had the experience of

that happening and then that

250

:

person leaving for another job.

251

:

And not being able to take

the project with them.

252

:

And then I'm left with actually

delivering on the details of that project.

253

:

And it's not a project

that I really care about.

254

:

It's work.

255

:

I can do it.

256

:

But it doesn't light me up in that

same way as it would, if it was

257

:

a project that was my project.

258

:

That connected to my values,

to the impact I wanted to have.

259

:

And similarly I've also had the experience

of having a number of projects under

260

:

review at the same time, including my

passion projects, that I really care

261

:

about my identity projects and the other

ones that I may have gone on just to

262

:

be part of a collaboration or to support

someone in their career and getting

263

:

their research identity sort of shaped.

264

:

And that the disappointment of your

own project not getting funded and the

265

:

only one or ones that do get funded

are the ones that you care less about.

266

:

And again, it's that cost of

time and energy and effort.

267

:

And not having the impact that you would

really want from your research efforts.

268

:

And I know that as I've got more senior in

my career, I've been much more strategic,

269

:

I guess, and careful about those

sorts of projects that I've taken on.

270

:

Having been, burnt sounds

like the wrong word, but.

271

:

Having paid the cost for some of that.

272

:

And I recognize the privilege

of maybe not needing to play

273

:

that game as much as you go on.

274

:

Especially when you

have a secure position.

275

:

Although, I also recognize that there's

always the ongoing tension of trying

276

:

to get more funding because you care

about the people that you're working

277

:

with and that they have next short-term

contract to move on to where we don't

278

:

have long-term contracts for them to get.

279

:

Whole lot of interesting

tensions and trade offs.

280

:

So we could also choose

not to play the game.

281

:

And that could just mean going ahead and

doing the research that we want to do.

282

:

Maybe drawing in one or two others

or seeking out collaborations

283

:

of people who we know would

also care about the same topics.

284

:

And we don't get the CV tick

in the box as an extra funded

285

:

project that's prestigious.

286

:

But we do get to carry on and

do the work we care about.

287

:

So gain costs and trade-offs.

288

:

And.

289

:

Maybe for another time, we could

also talk about other sorts of

290

:

funding mechanisms, like crowd

funding, or other sources of funding.

291

:

That may be a, not so.

292

:

Uh, recognized or held in esteem

by our institutions, but enable

293

:

us to get on and do the work we

want and have the impact we want

294

:

.

And in all of this, where we still want to get funding for projects

295

:

that we care about, whether it's for

CV value or helping someone else's

296

:

career, or just because we love

working in collaborations with people.

297

:

When is it time to stop playing the game?

298

:

Or When is it time to change directions?

299

:

And I think one of the advantages of

the research area that I'm in, which

300

:

is human computer interaction research

is because we're really focused on

301

:

the impact of technology and design

on people and contexts and how do we

302

:

design better technologies and so on.

303

:

We do have the opportunity to pivot.

304

:

Quite a bit.

305

:

In terms of latest technologies that

may help redefine some challenges or

306

:

being able to take similar technologies

and explore them in different domains

307

:

and still asking similar questions.

308

:

And maybe not all research areas

can have some of that flexibility.

309

:

I'd like to finish off here by providing

some reflections about how we could

310

:

engage in some of that reframing.

311

:

In a way that still connects to the

intrinsic motivation that Mark talked

312

:

about earlier in his first principle.

313

:

Because it is fundamentally

going to our research identity.

314

:

It's about expressing our values,

who we are, what we care about.

315

:

Enabling us to do work that we

find meaningful that will have

316

:

the impact that we want to have.

317

:

And maybe there are multiple ways of doing

that retelling of our research identity.

318

:

Or reframing our research stories.

319

:

And also recognizing that our identity

will necessarily evolve with time

320

:

and experience and circumstance.

321

:

So can we give ourselves the gift

of some deliberate time and effort

322

:

to actually step back and stop.

323

:

And reflect on questions that might help

us explore who we are when we're most

324

:

alive and at our best as researchers.

325

:

.

Those questions might be things like.

326

:

What's the red thread or red

threads across all of the

327

:

research that you've done.

328

:

Like, what are the common

or recurring themes?

329

:

What are the deeper underlying

questions that you're asking?

330

:

Maybe it's about how you've

been developing methods.

331

:

Or evolving your concepts over time.

332

:

Or maybe there are particular types

of impacts that you're trying to seek.

333

:

One approach to this is to draw

out a map of the last X years,

334

:

X being as relevant for you and

where you're at with your career.

335

:

And think about all the different

projects and research that you've

336

:

been involved in over that time.

337

:

And for each of them reflecting about

when were the times you felt most alive?

338

:

When you felt like you could really

get into the flow when you were really

339

:

excited about what you're working on.

340

:

What were you doing then?

341

:

Who with where?

342

:

What questions were you asking.

343

:

What values did it connect to?

344

:

What strengths were you drawing on?

345

:

And you could also look for the opposite.

346

:

Like when were the times and the projects

and the work where you felt most like

347

:

a drag and it just felt like hard work.

348

:

Or you felt 'meh'.

349

:

Yeah.

350

:

It's okay.

351

:

But not that excitement or that energy.

352

:

So in this sort of mapping

and reflection, you're looking

353

:

across these for the patterns.

354

:

For the elements that might help

you reframe your research identity.

355

:

Looking for the actors

in your research story.

356

:

And it may help point you in new

directions that are grounded in

357

:

when you're really at your best,

doing your most impactful work.

358

:

So that we're not just trying

to compromise and reframe our

359

:

research identity to fit in with

someone else's notion of what's

360

:

the current research priority.

361

:

But we're looking for ways

to navigate the tensions.

362

:

So that we can find that sweet spot of

what we love doing and how that can be

363

:

shaped to meet maybe what others need.

364

:

And as a final thing.

365

:

Just a reminder that it's okay to be you.

366

:

And to do you, and to be your sort

of researcher, we're all different.

367

:

And recognizing that there are always

going to be trade offs in every choice

368

:

we make in navigating these tensions.

369

:

So wishing you wisdom in the navigation.

370

:

. And clear insight into what lights you up.

371

:

So that you can keep having fun and having

impact in the work that you're doing.

372

:

You can find the summary

notes, a transcript and related

373

:

links for this podcast on www.

374

:

changingacademiclife.

375

:

com.

376

:

You can also subscribe to

Changing Academic Life on iTunes,

377

:

Spotify and Google Podcasts.

378

:

And you can follow

ChangeAcadLife on Twitter.

379

:

And I'm really hoping that we can

widen the conversation about how

380

:

we can do academia differently.

381

:

And you can contribute to this by rating

the podcast and also giving feedback.

382

:

And if something connected with

you, please consider sharing this

383

:

podcast with your colleagues.

384

:

Together, we can make change happen.

Links

Chapters