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:
Mark Reed, What is good practice engagement and impact? Dec 5 2023
Transcripts
Welcome to Changing Academic Life.
2
00:00:08,058 --> 00:00:12,869
I'm Geraldine Fitzpatrick, and this is
a podcast series where academics and
3
00:00:12,870 --> 00:00:17,970
others share their stories, provide
ideas, and provoke discussions about what
4
00:00:17,990 --> 00:00:22,829
we can do individually and collectively
to change academic life for the better.
5
00:00:29,583 --> 00:00:30,753
Hello and welcome.
6
00:00:31,753 --> 00:00:36,635
In this short episode, I'd like to take
some time to reflect on the tensions
7
00:00:36,635 --> 00:00:42,255
that I've experienced and that I've been
hearing lately around the autonomy and
8
00:00:42,255 --> 00:00:49,125
freedom that we have as academics to
shape our researcher identity and work on
9
00:00:49,125 --> 00:00:53,535
things that we love, that we care about,
where we think we can make a difference.
10
00:00:55,185 --> 00:01:00,465
And the tension of recognizing that
we're trying to pursue that in a system
11
00:01:00,465 --> 00:01:02,565
that we're not fully in control of.
12
00:01:03,315 --> 00:01:10,815
In a system that values what gets funded
and defines for us in some ways, what
13
00:01:10,815 --> 00:01:18,495
topics are worth exploring and what is
going to get CV value in terms of funding.
14
00:01:18,585 --> 00:01:23,715
And consequent papers and success for
promotion or appointments and so on.
15
00:01:25,275 --> 00:01:29,085
And I've been thinking about
this triggered by something that
16
00:01:29,085 --> 00:01:34,125
Katta Spiel said in part one of
our conversation recently, About
17
00:01:34,125 --> 00:01:36,015
their surprise at getting funded.
18
00:01:36,435 --> 00:01:41,175
Despite being very uncompromising in
what they wanted to do and deliberately
19
00:01:41,175 --> 00:01:44,445
not playing the strategic game of
doing all the right things that
20
00:01:44,445 --> 00:01:46,035
were supposedly getting the ticks.
21
00:01:48,085 --> 00:01:53,005
And I'll replay an edited extract where
Katta can explain this in their own words.
22
00:01:54,438 --> 00:01:57,128
Katta: And the funny thing about
that is because I did write a
23
00:01:57,128 --> 00:02:00,898
proper proposal, like it wasn't a
joke proposal or anything, but I
24
00:02:00,898 --> 00:02:05,328
wrote one that made no compromises
in terms of what I wanted to do.
25
00:02:05,638 --> 00:02:08,018
Like, it didn't try to
pander to reviewers.
26
00:02:08,828 --> 00:02:11,298
And then that was what
surprised me so much then that
27
00:02:11,298 --> 00:02:12,638
I got it because I was like.
28
00:02:13,298 --> 00:02:16,598
I was not trying to do any
of the strategic things.
29
00:02:17,578 --> 00:02:20,848
Geri: It's interesting to think about if
it would have been, as successful if you
30
00:02:20,848 --> 00:02:23,038
weren't as authentic and uncompromising.
31
00:02:23,308 --> 00:02:23,398
Katta: Yeah.
32
00:02:23,998 --> 00:02:27,618
That is like then what I keep
telling people sometimes, like if
33
00:02:27,618 --> 00:02:30,918
you dare to then just do the thing
that you want to, but I know also
34
00:02:30,923 --> 00:02:32,863
that it's really difficult and.
35
00:02:33,588 --> 00:02:37,968
And even I can only get there when I'm
not that afraid of like how it could work
36
00:02:38,868 --> 00:02:45,378
Geri: And interestingly not long after
this, I came across a post from Mark Reed.
37
00:02:45,378 --> 00:02:46,308
You may remember that.
38
00:02:46,308 --> 00:02:49,158
I also spoke to mark
very recently as well.
39
00:02:49,728 --> 00:02:55,908
And one of Mark's passion areas for
research and for activism is about
40
00:02:55,908 --> 00:02:58,366
engagement and impact and in this.
41
00:02:58,726 --> 00:03:04,096
Post, and I will put a link to it in the
show notes is where he draws together
42
00:03:04,556 --> 00:03:08,516
what he calls nine good practice
principles for engagement and impact.
43
00:03:08,546 --> 00:03:12,266
That's drawing on his impact
culture book and some papers they've
44
00:03:12,266 --> 00:03:16,856
written and, and his experience
in training people about impact.
45
00:03:17,816 --> 00:03:23,606
And I was really struck by principle
number one, which talks about.
46
00:03:24,626 --> 00:03:31,556
To read directly, "Understand your purpose
and pursue impacts you find intrinsically
47
00:03:31,556 --> 00:03:37,676
motivating rather than allowing extrinsic
incentives to drive your engagement".
48
00:03:39,836 --> 00:03:41,006
And that's interesting, isn't it?
49
00:03:41,006 --> 00:03:45,626
Because that in some way reflects
what Katta just talked to us about.
50
00:03:46,496 --> 00:03:49,796
About being uncompromising in pursuing.
51
00:03:50,096 --> 00:03:53,096
What they found intrinsically motivating.
52
00:03:56,126 --> 00:04:00,116
So Mark then elaborates in these
principles, what that might mean for
53
00:04:00,116 --> 00:04:01,916
institutions and for researchers.
54
00:04:01,916 --> 00:04:06,776
So I'll just read what he says this
principle means for researchers.
55
00:04:06,986 --> 00:04:08,906
So again, just to read directly.
56
00:04:10,556 --> 00:04:13,766
"Researchers need to
clarify their purpose.
57
00:04:14,996 --> 00:04:21,026
And to understand if and how
engagement and impact might express
58
00:04:21,026 --> 00:04:24,056
important identities and values.
59
00:04:24,446 --> 00:04:27,566
And contribute to the meaning
they derive from work."
60
00:04:28,716 --> 00:04:29,616
And of quote.
61
00:04:31,446 --> 00:04:35,436
But let's return again, to
those words for researchers.
62
00:04:36,906 --> 00:04:39,396
Researchers need to define their purpose.
63
00:04:40,476 --> 00:04:44,746
About how their work might
express their identities.
64
00:04:45,226 --> 00:04:46,366
And values.
65
00:04:46,876 --> 00:04:50,146
And contribute to the meaning
they derive from work.
66
00:04:52,566 --> 00:04:54,036
And that just sounds wonderful.
67
00:04:54,036 --> 00:04:54,696
Doesn't it?
68
00:04:55,506 --> 00:05:00,217
And all of the research across many
domains and disciplinary areas would
69
00:05:00,217 --> 00:05:06,217
talk about how we're going to be
much more creative and engaged and
70
00:05:06,547 --> 00:05:11,437
effective and have better physical and
mental health and wellbeing when we
71
00:05:11,437 --> 00:05:17,247
can deliver on that identity, work to
our values, do work that's meaningful
72
00:05:17,277 --> 00:05:19,227
that we feel like it has an impact.
73
00:05:22,077 --> 00:05:27,597
And then there's the tension that arises
when you're hit with the realities.
74
00:05:29,257 --> 00:05:32,257
The tension between what our values are.
75
00:05:32,677 --> 00:05:36,757
And what we want to shape our
research identity to be where we
76
00:05:36,757 --> 00:05:40,867
derive meaning from our work and
where we want to have impact.
77
00:05:42,157 --> 00:05:45,067
And then how this might hit up against.
78
00:05:46,177 --> 00:05:50,257
How we practically are able to get
research done these days, which is
79
00:05:50,287 --> 00:05:54,312
often through having funded projects
and shaped by other people's notions
80
00:05:54,312 --> 00:05:59,262
of what's good research or what are
reseaerchable and fundable topics.
81
00:06:00,816 --> 00:06:06,366
Towards this, then I'm also reflecting
on some various social media posts I've
82
00:06:06,366 --> 00:06:08,496
also happened to have seen recently.
83
00:06:09,276 --> 00:06:14,706
From colleagues who talk about getting
rejected yet again yet again yet
84
00:06:14,706 --> 00:06:19,476
again, despite excellent reviews for
the research they'd been passionate
85
00:06:19,476 --> 00:06:21,996
about for many, many, many years.
86
00:06:22,576 --> 00:06:25,546
Research topics that are at
the core of how they define
87
00:06:25,546 --> 00:06:27,376
themselves as a researcher.
88
00:06:28,426 --> 00:06:29,926
And in some of these posts.
89
00:06:30,346 --> 00:06:35,656
You can almost hear the grieving
at having to let go of those
90
00:06:35,656 --> 00:06:37,516
topics that they really care about.
91
00:06:38,236 --> 00:06:42,596
And then just the uncertainty
about what to focus on next and.
92
00:06:42,716 --> 00:06:45,286
and how they should redefine
their research identity or not.
93
00:06:45,627 --> 00:06:51,335
And it brings to life for me very
much that what we get to define
94
00:06:51,335 --> 00:06:55,775
as our own research topics is so
core to our identity and purpose.
95
00:06:55,835 --> 00:06:57,845
As Mark says, in that principle.
96
00:06:59,315 --> 00:07:03,365
About feeling alive and feeling like
it makes a difference in our work.
97
00:07:05,735 --> 00:07:10,925
But the facts of life are that not
fitting with funding calls or government
98
00:07:10,925 --> 00:07:13,865
grand research challenges happens.
99
00:07:15,525 --> 00:07:19,885
A lot of the funding proposals that
we need to write, depending on the
100
00:07:19,885 --> 00:07:25,315
scheme, we need to often frame very
closely to what the funders are needing.
101
00:07:25,315 --> 00:07:29,545
And when we go to training courses,
they'll often tell us about reusing
102
00:07:29,545 --> 00:07:33,745
their words back to them and making
sure we frame the proposals to
103
00:07:33,745 --> 00:07:37,915
deliver exactly what the call is
asking for that may or may not fit
104
00:07:37,915 --> 00:07:39,415
with what we actually want to do.
105
00:07:39,795 --> 00:07:41,595
Or what we think is the right thing to do.
106
00:07:44,050 --> 00:07:47,680
And then there's the question of not just
having an excellent research project as
107
00:07:47,680 --> 00:07:52,250
some of those social media posts have
said, but even getting excellent reviews.
108
00:07:52,430 --> 00:07:57,470
What is deemed as fundable within current
priorities of the funding organization
109
00:07:57,500 --> 00:07:59,840
or the government body or whatever.
110
00:08:01,960 --> 00:08:07,580
And what is fundable also seems to be
changing as well as in many places in
111
00:08:07,580 --> 00:08:13,190
many schemes is getting harder and harder
it seems to have more open exploratory
112
00:08:13,190 --> 00:08:15,800
research or to ask more complex questions.
113
00:08:17,210 --> 00:08:20,960
Again, social media posts that I can
reflect on talk about the challenges
114
00:08:20,960 --> 00:08:24,890
of even moving to a different country
where research that was acceptable
115
00:08:24,890 --> 00:08:28,670
more in one country is less so
in this new country where there's
116
00:08:28,670 --> 00:08:32,150
more of an emphasis on industry
collaborations and applied research.
117
00:08:34,520 --> 00:08:39,440
And then some other tensions that we
can feel that particularly, I guess, go
118
00:08:39,440 --> 00:08:45,980
towards values . Sometimes the funding
comes with very strict conditions.
119
00:08:46,850 --> 00:08:51,830
There's some funding schemes that I've
been part of that are more applied
120
00:08:52,310 --> 00:08:58,250
where we have to define very clearly
what our phases are going to be?
121
00:08:58,370 --> 00:09:03,260
What particular activities we're going
to do and exact deliverables and exactly
122
00:09:03,260 --> 00:09:04,970
when they're going to be delivered.
123
00:09:06,500 --> 00:09:09,780
And at the same time, this was a
scheme where we were encouraged to have
124
00:09:09,780 --> 00:09:14,400
more participatory approaches and to
engage with the people for whom we were
125
00:09:14,400 --> 00:09:16,740
designing new technologies in this case.
126
00:09:18,780 --> 00:09:22,860
But it felt like that engagement and
that participation was really lip
127
00:09:22,860 --> 00:09:28,010
service because it would have been
almost impossible to go back to the
128
00:09:28,010 --> 00:09:32,660
funding body and say the funding
that you've given us to deliver X.
129
00:09:33,410 --> 00:09:35,780
It's not what our participants want.
130
00:09:35,810 --> 00:09:37,580
They want something very different.
131
00:09:37,580 --> 00:09:38,420
That's Y.
132
00:09:41,330 --> 00:09:45,380
And the fear I know in the
discussions that we would have
133
00:09:45,380 --> 00:09:47,420
as a project team would be.
134
00:09:48,110 --> 00:09:51,950
How the funding body might pull the
funding, or we would have to pay back
135
00:09:51,980 --> 00:09:56,360
the funding we'd already received, how it
would impact people's contracts and jobs.
136
00:09:56,360 --> 00:09:57,110
And so on.
137
00:09:58,490 --> 00:10:04,650
And so there's that tension between what
we need to say we're doing, what funding
138
00:10:04,650 --> 00:10:09,300
bodies expect and what are the principles
and values that guide our research.
139
00:10:09,300 --> 00:10:13,470
So for us, really engaging with
participants very closely was a
140
00:10:13,470 --> 00:10:15,210
really closely held principle.
141
00:10:15,210 --> 00:10:19,230
And that created a lot of internal
tension for us individually and as
142
00:10:19,230 --> 00:10:23,190
a team in not being able to properly
respect the participant's wishes.
143
00:10:27,480 --> 00:10:32,883
And then there's the issue of playing
the game where you are told you need
144
00:10:32,883 --> 00:10:38,133
funding for your CV for promotion,
for moving onto different jobs.
145
00:10:38,673 --> 00:10:43,503
But not all research actually needs
big funding projects and Stuart Reeves.
146
00:10:43,503 --> 00:10:48,723
Again, another earlier podcast
conversation that I had talks about the
147
00:10:48,723 --> 00:10:53,293
fact that a lot of the research that
he wants to do just really needs him
148
00:10:53,293 --> 00:10:55,213
and maybe one or two people to help.
149
00:10:56,413 --> 00:11:00,793
And yet that sort of research isn't
deemed as CV worthy or promotion
150
00:11:00,793 --> 00:11:05,353
worthy research in terms of the brownie
points and the ticks we need to do.
151
00:11:06,043 --> 00:11:08,055
And to hear Stuart in his own words.
152
00:11:10,071 --> 00:11:13,211
Stuart: I've also thought about,
people's different research styles, and
153
00:11:13,211 --> 00:11:18,231
sometimes I feel like the kind of style
of research I do, firstly, doesn't tend
154
00:11:18,231 --> 00:11:25,546
to cost that much money, and secondly,
is, I don't know, It feels like it's not
155
00:11:25,546 --> 00:11:31,276
necessarily, going to lead to or work
well with sort of massive, massive grants.
156
00:11:31,316 --> 00:11:36,456
Or maybe I'm just not understanding how
to frame stuff or spin stuff in such a
157
00:11:36,456 --> 00:11:38,506
way that it could be seen as doing that.
158
00:11:38,946 --> 00:11:43,726
So some people's research in
HCI seems to be tailored more
159
00:11:43,726 --> 00:11:48,211
towards getting large research
grants, whereas others maybe less.
160
00:11:48,231 --> 00:11:50,611
I mean, I feel like, sometimes
there's a lot of research you can
161
00:11:50,621 --> 00:11:55,461
do from stuff I kind of do, which
you could do with very little, very
162
00:11:55,461 --> 00:12:00,081
little resources and get similar kind
of results in terms of publications
163
00:12:00,091 --> 00:12:01,131
and all those kinds of things.
164
00:12:04,071 --> 00:12:06,231
Geri: And that was from Stuart Reeves.
165
00:12:06,281 --> 00:12:10,601
Episode part one at about 11 minutes,
if you did want to go in and try to
166
00:12:10,601 --> 00:12:14,035
listen to it because he does talk
more about the challenges of trying
167
00:12:14,035 --> 00:12:16,457
to frame a grand vision and so on.
168
00:12:18,117 --> 00:12:24,682
So It just seems to me like there's
an ongoing challenge and negotiation
169
00:12:24,742 --> 00:12:29,152
around identifying who we are.
170
00:12:29,602 --> 00:12:33,202
What our research identity
is, what we care about.
171
00:12:34,042 --> 00:12:38,242
What our values are, what's
meaningful work for us.
172
00:12:38,272 --> 00:12:39,772
What difference we want to make?
173
00:12:39,772 --> 00:12:41,482
What impact we want to have.
174
00:12:42,652 --> 00:12:47,362
And negotiating with how we navigate
the current structures and processes.
175
00:12:47,392 --> 00:12:47,722
And.
176
00:12:48,562 --> 00:12:52,792
At what currently counts as research
and what currently counts as project.
177
00:12:54,142 --> 00:13:00,562
And I recognize in all this, our ability
to negotiate those tensions changes,
178
00:13:00,592 --> 00:13:06,112
depending upon what stage of career, where
at what institution we're in and so on.
179
00:13:08,032 --> 00:13:09,442
So what are our choices?
180
00:13:09,652 --> 00:13:11,092
I don't have any answers here.
181
00:13:11,212 --> 00:13:15,262
I'm just sort of more reflecting
on the experiences, maybe just to
182
00:13:15,292 --> 00:13:20,442
normalize that you may be not the only
one trying to navigate these tensions.
183
00:13:22,152 --> 00:13:26,976
So we could choose just to play the
game because when we weigh the trade
184
00:13:26,976 --> 00:13:30,778
off it may be more important for
us to be able to advance our career
185
00:13:30,808 --> 00:13:34,498
or to be able to get access to the
funding to at least do something.
186
00:13:35,158 --> 00:13:41,568
And indeed, Katta did talk about
being more strategic in one proposal
187
00:13:41,598 --> 00:13:43,248
than they were in a previous one.
188
00:13:44,058 --> 00:13:48,678
Because for them the weighing
of risks change because this new
189
00:13:48,678 --> 00:13:53,946
proposal entailed three years, four
years of funding for jobs for other
190
00:13:53,996 --> 00:13:55,595
people that they cared about.
191
00:13:55,955 --> 00:14:00,155
And so they weren't just playing
a game individually in not being
192
00:14:00,155 --> 00:14:04,955
strategic, but needing to play the
game and be strategic because they
193
00:14:04,955 --> 00:14:06,545
cared about these other people.
194
00:14:09,085 --> 00:14:14,970
Another way we can choose to play
the game is in reframing the story.
195
00:14:16,650 --> 00:14:21,180
And I often talk to people about
your leading actors and supporting
196
00:14:21,180 --> 00:14:23,420
actors in a research story.
197
00:14:24,327 --> 00:14:28,532
I remember a colleague many years
ago, who submitted a research funding
198
00:14:28,532 --> 00:14:30,812
proposal to a particular funding body.
199
00:14:31,322 --> 00:14:33,542
And it got desk rejected.
200
00:14:34,082 --> 00:14:40,732
They said that it wasn't fitting to,
to their strand of research funding.
201
00:14:43,492 --> 00:14:48,832
And with much thinking and discussion
what this person ended up doing
202
00:14:49,162 --> 00:14:55,202
was retelling the story of exactly
the same work, but foregrounding,
203
00:14:55,222 --> 00:14:59,332
backgrounding, different aspects,
making something that was more of the.
204
00:14:59,422 --> 00:15:03,172
Uh, supporting actor now, the
leading actor and so-and-so.
205
00:15:03,502 --> 00:15:07,912
An example was where they were really
foregrounding the participatory
206
00:15:07,942 --> 00:15:12,612
approach that they were going to
take with their target audience in
207
00:15:12,612 --> 00:15:14,832
order to come up with a new system.
208
00:15:15,222 --> 00:15:20,228
And the emphasis was on the development
of the methodology and the learning
209
00:15:20,228 --> 00:15:23,468
and thinking skills that their
participants would gain in that process.
210
00:15:23,948 --> 00:15:27,818
And they just reframed it to say this
project was about the technology.
211
00:15:27,908 --> 00:15:31,328
Oh, and by the way, we'll do it by
participatory engagement with our
212
00:15:31,328 --> 00:15:35,399
participants and as a coincidental
impact they will learn something
213
00:15:35,699 --> 00:15:39,359
So you can see the same pieces are
there, but they were just reframed.
214
00:15:40,079 --> 00:15:41,759
It's totally playing the game.
215
00:15:42,359 --> 00:15:46,799
And that proposal went through got
excellent reviews and got funded.
216
00:15:48,179 --> 00:15:53,059
And for that person that game cost
the effort of rewriting reframing the
217
00:15:53,059 --> 00:15:59,249
proposal, but they were still lucky enough
to be able to still basically talk about
218
00:15:59,249 --> 00:16:03,084
doing exactly the same work that they
really cared about doing . Just telling
219
00:16:03,152 --> 00:16:06,812
a different story about it, that fitted
someone else's agenda for that time.
220
00:16:09,463 --> 00:16:13,423
And then there's the game that we
can play that's just about getting
221
00:16:13,423 --> 00:16:15,043
projects for the sake of it.
222
00:16:16,693 --> 00:16:19,543
And it could be for the sake of
the tick, because that's what
223
00:16:19,543 --> 00:16:21,793
we need right now for our CV.
224
00:16:22,873 --> 00:16:26,383
Or it could be for the sake of a
colleague and wanting to be supportive.
225
00:16:27,223 --> 00:16:30,703
Or it could just be about hedging,
our bets in the funding lottery.
226
00:16:31,700 --> 00:16:33,800
But that can be risky as well.
227
00:16:33,800 --> 00:16:38,960
So, We may all have had experiences
of saying yes to be on someone else's
228
00:16:38,960 --> 00:16:43,610
project that we don't necessarily really
care about, but we may be care about
229
00:16:43,640 --> 00:16:45,410
that person and what does support them.
230
00:16:45,440 --> 00:16:45,800
And.
231
00:16:46,390 --> 00:16:47,440
It gets funded.
232
00:16:47,860 --> 00:16:50,080
And then we're committed to that work.
233
00:16:50,830 --> 00:16:54,670
And if you're conscientious, then you
will take that commitment seriously.
234
00:16:55,090 --> 00:16:57,310
At a cost of time and effort and energy.
235
00:16:57,310 --> 00:17:01,000
And you can almost feel your lack
of energy when you talk about it.
236
00:17:01,000 --> 00:17:03,760
I'm reflecting on some of
my own project experiences.
237
00:17:04,780 --> 00:17:10,300
And similarly, I've worked in some places
where say a post-doc isn't able to be
238
00:17:10,300 --> 00:17:12,550
a PI on a project in their own, right.
239
00:17:12,550 --> 00:17:17,319
So in wanting to support them and
their career progression and their
240
00:17:17,319 --> 00:17:20,560
development and them being able to
do research that they own and drive.
241
00:17:21,730 --> 00:17:26,260
I am happy to go onto their project
proposal as the PI and support them
242
00:17:26,260 --> 00:17:30,670
in that, of course not just in name,
but trying to say, what do you need
243
00:17:30,670 --> 00:17:34,450
a support from me in writing it up
and framing the research and so on.
244
00:17:35,500 --> 00:17:38,740
But it's someone else's meaning
and purpose, and it's reflecting
245
00:17:38,879 --> 00:17:40,379
someone else's research identity.
246
00:17:40,509 --> 00:17:44,863
And normally when they get funded and
the person's doing it, I would be playing
247
00:17:44,863 --> 00:17:50,183
much more of a supportive role, a coach
type role in, helping them deliver
248
00:17:50,213 --> 00:17:53,753
on the work, but letting them own it
because it's their passion project.
249
00:17:54,563 --> 00:17:57,443
And I've had the experience of
that happening and then that
250
00:17:57,443 --> 00:18:00,053
person leaving for another job.
251
00:18:00,393 --> 00:18:02,793
And not being able to take
the project with them.
252
00:18:02,793 --> 00:18:07,083
And then I'm left with actually
delivering on the details of that project.
253
00:18:07,083 --> 00:18:09,123
And it's not a project
that I really care about.
254
00:18:09,783 --> 00:18:10,563
It's work.
255
00:18:10,593 --> 00:18:11,433
I can do it.
256
00:18:11,883 --> 00:18:16,443
But it doesn't light me up in that
same way as it would, if it was
257
00:18:16,443 --> 00:18:18,183
a project that was my project.
258
00:18:18,783 --> 00:18:22,053
That connected to my values,
to the impact I wanted to have.
259
00:18:24,443 --> 00:18:28,833
And similarly I've also had the experience
of having a number of projects under
260
00:18:28,833 --> 00:18:34,453
review at the same time, including my
passion projects, that I really care
261
00:18:34,453 --> 00:18:39,183
about my identity projects and the other
ones that I may have gone on just to
262
00:18:39,213 --> 00:18:43,243
be part of a collaboration or to support
someone in their career and getting
263
00:18:43,273 --> 00:18:45,433
their research identity sort of shaped.
264
00:18:46,603 --> 00:18:51,613
And that the disappointment of your
own project not getting funded and the
265
00:18:51,613 --> 00:18:55,993
only one or ones that do get funded
are the ones that you care less about.
266
00:18:57,103 --> 00:19:00,760
And again, it's that cost of
time and energy and effort.
267
00:19:00,760 --> 00:19:04,880
And not having the impact that you would
really want from your research efforts.
268
00:19:04,980 --> 00:19:10,085
And I know that as I've got more senior in
my career, I've been much more strategic,
269
00:19:10,085 --> 00:19:14,675
I guess, and careful about those
sorts of projects that I've taken on.
270
00:19:15,035 --> 00:19:18,575
Having been, burnt sounds
like the wrong word, but.
271
00:19:19,505 --> 00:19:22,025
Having paid the cost for some of that.
272
00:19:23,345 --> 00:19:27,935
And I recognize the privilege
of maybe not needing to play
273
00:19:27,935 --> 00:19:31,055
that game as much as you go on.
274
00:19:32,105 --> 00:19:34,115
Especially when you
have a secure position.
275
00:19:36,035 --> 00:19:41,975
Although, I also recognize that there's
always the ongoing tension of trying
276
00:19:41,975 --> 00:19:45,335
to get more funding because you care
about the people that you're working
277
00:19:45,335 --> 00:19:50,505
with and that they have next short-term
contract to move on to where we don't
278
00:19:50,505 --> 00:19:52,785
have long-term contracts for them to get.
279
00:19:54,405 --> 00:19:56,865
Whole lot of interesting
tensions and trade offs.
280
00:19:59,905 --> 00:20:02,845
So we could also choose
not to play the game.
281
00:20:02,845 --> 00:20:07,525
And that could just mean going ahead and
doing the research that we want to do.
282
00:20:07,855 --> 00:20:12,775
Maybe drawing in one or two others
or seeking out collaborations
283
00:20:12,775 --> 00:20:16,015
of people who we know would
also care about the same topics.
284
00:20:16,615 --> 00:20:20,995
And we don't get the CV tick
in the box as an extra funded
285
00:20:20,995 --> 00:20:22,585
project that's prestigious.
286
00:20:23,005 --> 00:20:27,055
But we do get to carry on and
do the work we care about.
287
00:20:27,985 --> 00:20:30,085
So gain costs and trade-offs.
288
00:20:31,015 --> 00:20:31,165
And.
289
00:20:31,765 --> 00:20:34,875
Maybe for another time, we could
also talk about other sorts of
290
00:20:34,875 --> 00:20:38,745
funding mechanisms, like crowd
funding, or other sources of funding.
291
00:20:38,745 --> 00:20:40,365
That may be a, not so.
292
00:20:40,695 --> 00:20:45,135
Uh, recognized or held in esteem
by our institutions, but enable
293
00:20:45,165 --> 00:20:48,397
us to get on and do the work we
want and have the impact we want
294
00:20:51,453 --> 00:20:58,293
.
And in all of this, where we still want to get funding for projects
295
00:20:58,293 --> 00:21:03,663
that we care about, whether it's for
CV value or helping someone else's
296
00:21:03,663 --> 00:21:07,083
career, or just because we love
working in collaborations with people.
297
00:21:07,653 --> 00:21:10,932
When is it time to stop playing the game?
298
00:21:11,092 --> 00:21:13,647
Or When is it time to change directions?
299
00:21:15,777 --> 00:21:19,427
And I think one of the advantages of
the research area that I'm in, which
300
00:21:19,427 --> 00:21:24,287
is human computer interaction research
is because we're really focused on
301
00:21:24,657 --> 00:21:30,237
the impact of technology and design
on people and contexts and how do we
302
00:21:30,237 --> 00:21:32,307
design better technologies and so on.
303
00:21:33,087 --> 00:21:35,997
We do have the opportunity to pivot.
304
00:21:36,447 --> 00:21:37,197
Quite a bit.
305
00:21:37,357 --> 00:21:43,117
In terms of latest technologies that
may help redefine some challenges or
306
00:21:43,237 --> 00:21:47,017
being able to take similar technologies
and explore them in different domains
307
00:21:47,017 --> 00:21:49,117
and still asking similar questions.
308
00:21:50,677 --> 00:21:54,607
And maybe not all research areas
can have some of that flexibility.
309
00:21:56,317 --> 00:22:01,687
I'd like to finish off here by providing
some reflections about how we could
310
00:22:01,687 --> 00:22:03,817
engage in some of that reframing.
311
00:22:04,897 --> 00:22:08,767
In a way that still connects to the
intrinsic motivation that Mark talked
312
00:22:08,767 --> 00:22:11,227
about earlier in his first principle.
313
00:22:12,877 --> 00:22:16,477
Because it is fundamentally
going to our research identity.
314
00:22:17,647 --> 00:22:22,417
It's about expressing our values,
who we are, what we care about.
315
00:22:23,167 --> 00:22:26,797
Enabling us to do work that we
find meaningful that will have
316
00:22:26,797 --> 00:22:28,567
the impact that we want to have.
317
00:22:30,427 --> 00:22:35,587
And maybe there are multiple ways of doing
that retelling of our research identity.
318
00:22:36,247 --> 00:22:38,917
Or reframing our research stories.
319
00:22:40,267 --> 00:22:45,517
And also recognizing that our identity
will necessarily evolve with time
320
00:22:45,547 --> 00:22:47,887
and experience and circumstance.
321
00:22:51,037 --> 00:22:56,287
So can we give ourselves the gift
of some deliberate time and effort
322
00:22:56,617 --> 00:22:59,257
to actually step back and stop.
323
00:22:59,707 --> 00:23:05,077
And reflect on questions that might help
us explore who we are when we're most
324
00:23:05,077 --> 00:23:07,657
alive and at our best as researchers.
325
00:23:08,180 --> 00:23:10,937
.
Those questions might be things like.
326
00:23:11,657 --> 00:23:15,347
What's the red thread or red
threads across all of the
327
00:23:15,347 --> 00:23:16,937
research that you've done.
328
00:23:18,167 --> 00:23:20,927
Like, what are the common
or recurring themes?
329
00:23:22,487 --> 00:23:26,087
What are the deeper underlying
questions that you're asking?
330
00:23:27,347 --> 00:23:30,017
Maybe it's about how you've
been developing methods.
331
00:23:30,497 --> 00:23:33,257
Or evolving your concepts over time.
332
00:23:35,397 --> 00:23:39,387
Or maybe there are particular types
of impacts that you're trying to seek.
333
00:23:41,477 --> 00:23:47,027
One approach to this is to draw
out a map of the last X years,
334
00:23:47,027 --> 00:23:50,777
X being as relevant for you and
where you're at with your career.
335
00:23:52,607 --> 00:23:58,157
And think about all the different
projects and research that you've
336
00:23:58,157 --> 00:24:00,017
been involved in over that time.
337
00:24:01,817 --> 00:24:07,487
And for each of them reflecting about
when were the times you felt most alive?
338
00:24:08,447 --> 00:24:12,227
When you felt like you could really
get into the flow when you were really
339
00:24:12,227 --> 00:24:14,237
excited about what you're working on.
340
00:24:16,007 --> 00:24:17,447
What were you doing then?
341
00:24:17,717 --> 00:24:19,307
Who with where?
342
00:24:20,657 --> 00:24:22,157
What questions were you asking.
343
00:24:23,297 --> 00:24:25,277
What values did it connect to?
344
00:24:25,667 --> 00:24:27,647
What strengths were you drawing on?
345
00:24:29,687 --> 00:24:31,247
And you could also look for the opposite.
346
00:24:31,247 --> 00:24:35,627
Like when were the times and the projects
and the work where you felt most like
347
00:24:35,627 --> 00:24:38,027
a drag and it just felt like hard work.
348
00:24:38,567 --> 00:24:39,667
Or you felt 'meh'.
349
00:24:40,037 --> 00:24:40,277
Yeah.
350
00:24:40,307 --> 00:24:40,967
It's okay.
351
00:24:41,027 --> 00:24:43,217
But not that excitement or that energy.
352
00:24:46,127 --> 00:24:49,127
So in this sort of mapping
and reflection, you're looking
353
00:24:49,127 --> 00:24:50,987
across these for the patterns.
354
00:24:51,407 --> 00:24:55,697
For the elements that might help
you reframe your research identity.
355
00:24:56,477 --> 00:24:59,057
Looking for the actors
in your research story.
356
00:24:59,987 --> 00:25:03,347
And it may help point you in new
directions that are grounded in
357
00:25:03,587 --> 00:25:07,187
when you're really at your best,
doing your most impactful work.
358
00:25:09,397 --> 00:25:12,697
So that we're not just trying
to compromise and reframe our
359
00:25:12,697 --> 00:25:16,207
research identity to fit in with
someone else's notion of what's
360
00:25:16,207 --> 00:25:18,007
the current research priority.
361
00:25:18,637 --> 00:25:21,817
But we're looking for ways
to navigate the tensions.
362
00:25:22,237 --> 00:25:27,517
So that we can find that sweet spot of
what we love doing and how that can be
363
00:25:27,517 --> 00:25:29,797
shaped to meet maybe what others need.
364
00:25:31,987 --> 00:25:33,967
And as a final thing.
365
00:25:34,927 --> 00:25:37,627
Just a reminder that it's okay to be you.
366
00:25:37,987 --> 00:25:42,667
And to do you, and to be your sort
of researcher, we're all different.
367
00:25:43,657 --> 00:25:47,737
And recognizing that there are always
going to be trade offs in every choice
368
00:25:47,737 --> 00:25:49,927
we make in navigating these tensions.
369
00:25:51,217 --> 00:25:54,817
So wishing you wisdom in the navigation.
370
00:25:55,377 --> 00:25:57,897
. And clear insight into what lights you up.
371
00:25:58,407 --> 00:26:03,147
So that you can keep having fun and having
impact in the work that you're doing.
372
00:26:06,507 --> 00:26:10,017
You can find the summary
notes, a transcript and related
373
00:26:10,017 --> 00:26:13,157
links for this podcast on www.
374
00:26:13,227 --> 00:26:13,397
changingacademiclife.
375
00:26:15,067 --> 00:26:15,487
com.
376
00:26:16,157 --> 00:26:20,157
You can also subscribe to
Changing Academic Life on iTunes,
377
00:26:20,477 --> 00:26:22,287
Spotify and Google Podcasts.
378
00:26:22,287 --> 00:26:26,117
And you can follow
ChangeAcadLife on Twitter.
379
00:26:26,757 --> 00:26:29,817
And I'm really hoping that we can
widen the conversation about how
380
00:26:29,817 --> 00:26:31,807
we can do academia differently.
381
00:26:32,242 --> 00:26:36,272
And you can contribute to this by rating
the podcast and also giving feedback.
382
00:26:36,812 --> 00:26:40,352
And if something connected with
you, please consider sharing this
383
00:26:40,382 --> 00:26:41,872
podcast with your colleagues.
384
00:26:42,462 --> 00:26:44,592
Together, we can make change happen.
