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

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.