Jean Paul is a Senior Scientist at the Medical University of Innsbruck in Austria. Jean discusses her involvement in a unique research funding process called a sandpit or an ideas factory. Having then taken on the leadership of the project, she provides insights into the challenges and benefits of transdisciplinary research, stakeholder engagement, and arguing for their impact-focused approach. Jean also shares her academic background in social science, health and genomics research work in Australia.

Overview:

[00:29] Introduction

[03:03] Jean's PhD, Post-Doc Journey & Backup Plan

[11:23] From Australia to Austria: Applying for research funding sandpit

[18:00] The Sandpit Experience

[27:47] Getting Funded, Becoming a Team

[32:08] Leading the Project and Ongoing Project Support

[40:20] Transdisciplinary Research

[48:29] Wrapping up Part 1

[49:36] More on Jean's PhD and Post Doc Projects

[56:40] Final Wrapping Up

[57:47] End

Related links:

Ludwig Boltzmann Institute/Gesellschaft

The sandpit-funded project – The Village Project

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

If you're interested in hearing about

a different model for research funding,

6

you'll be interested in listening

to this episode with Jean Paul.

7

Jean is a senior scientist in

the department of psychiatry,

8

psychotherapy psychosomatics and

medical psychology at the medical

9

university of Innsbruck in Austria.

10

She also happens to be a fellow

Australian, but we'd never met at all.

11

And I'm talking to her because

she was recommended by Rafael

12

Himmelsbach, as someone who might be

really interesting to talk to about

13

building a distributed research team

14

.

Jean has a very interesting, mixed academic background.

15

, a social scientist, who's

working in the area of health

16

and illness and medical systems.

17

Applying qualitative research methods in

a domain that doesn't really have a lot

18

of experience with qualitative methods

and working in a lot of interdisciplinary,

19

mixed disciplinary teams.

20

And what's particularly interesting

is Jean's experience in getting

21

from Australia to Austria for the

projects that she's working on.

22

And that was through a process called

a sandpit or an ideas factory . It's a

23

very intensive workshopping process and

this was run by the Ludwig Boltzmann

24

Institute or as it's also called in

German, the Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft.

25

And at the end of the week, there are

some project teams in the workshop who

26

are awarded funding to work together.

27

So it's interesting hearing Jean talk

about her sandpit experiences , the

28

decision to move to Austria., the

experiences in starting up that project

29

and undertaking interdisciplinary

work and using a very different

30

co-design approach and so on.

31

Jean also talks about her own PhD,

some of the particular projects that

32

she worked on and some of her postdoc

projects and in the interest of keeping

33

the focus on the funding, I've moved

some of that to the end of the episode.

34

So if you're interested in hearing

more about Jean's particular

35

background and projects, stay on

and listen for that at the end.

36

So enjoy this part one.

37

And in part two, we'll come back

and Jean continues with some really

38

interesting experiences in actually

leading a project of more senior

39

researchers and there will be lots

of practical tips and tricks in that.

40

Jean, thank you for joining me.

41

Someone recommended you as a

really interesting person to talk

42

to about assembling a distributed

team in terms of the process that

43

you used and how the teams run.

44

Before we get to that, do you

just want to introduce yourself?

45

Jean: Yeah sure so um,

A fellow Australian, and

46

Geri: By coincidence,

47

Jean: there's a few of us around, but

not so many on this part of Austria in

48

the west, in Innsbruck, where I'm based.

49

but yes, I moved to Austria in 2018.

50

Up until then, I was working as

a researcher at the Children's

51

Hospital in Melbourne at the Murdoch

Children's Research Institute.

52

And I would describe myself as

a social scientist have quite

53

a mixed academic background.

54

I studied arts and science

in combination at university.

55

So I've always been interested in science

and how things work, but maybe also in

56

combination with how people experience

health and illness and medical systems

57

and so my PhD in Australia was looking

at communication between doctors who

58

specialize in genetics and their patients.

59

I then couple of postdocs in, in

Melbourne and worked on a couple of

60

different projects, one about so as a

qualitative researcher, always working

61

in these topics to really understand

those complex questions of, you know,

62

social representation or understanding

decision making, understanding behavior

63

change understanding relationships between

professionals or between families, across

64

professionals, across organizations.

65

So I ended up sitting in a very

strange position where my research

66

group that I was connected with were

cell biologists who were doing genomic

67

sequencing and sex chromosome research.

68

And I was the one qualitative

researcher who was.

69

By themselves sort of in some

way had a lot of networks across

70

the research organization.

71

Geri: Did you bring in the project grant

to get to that position or did they

72

get the grant and advertise for you?

73

Because I'm always curious about

those choices or how those postdoc

74

positions and projects come about.

75

Jean: Yes.

76

So for those two positions, they

were both Already funded and people

77

knew of me at the Children's Hospital

And poached me I guess My plan

78

after my PhD was to have a break

79

Geri: Yeah.

80

Jean: and write up my papers

and do some traveling.

81

But already in the last year of my

PhD, some professors who were in, in

82

different departments wanted to employ me.

83

And so that plan went out

the window a little bit.

84

And yeah, one of the national projects

was money from the government.

85

For this pregnancy project and the other

one was from the Victorian government

86

originally and then from the Australian

government and I was employed with

87

special discretionary funding from

the director of the Murdoch Children's

88

Research Institute because my Boss

wanted to have a postdoc to do some of

89

this qualitative research, but she didn't

have the capacity to do it herself.

90

And so she argued to have

that position created.

91

They were both, you know, term positions.

92

So for a particular short term,

I think one year, each of them

93

were one year with renewing.

94

Geri: So you could have still, we

have an interesting, just little

95

delay here, don't we, in the thing.

96

You could have still chosen

not to do it and to write up

97

your papers and go traveling.

98

What made you choose to let that plan go?

99

Is it, was it something like

you really wanted to do the

100

projects or you were worried that

no other job would come along?

101

You know, how did that decision process?

102

Yes.

103

Jean: think in research, you have

to be careful what you say no to.

104

And you know, it's a quite a small

community, even though you know, this

105

is an international research field.

106

Melbourne is.

107

a world leader in biomedical research

and also in qualitative research.

108

And yeah, the, I've also felt

like research is very difficult

109

to stay in as a career.

110

And I didn't really know what the

future would hold, how long it would be

111

possible to Position that was funded.

112

And I would give it my best shot

until I had to make a decision

113

if it wasn't working anymore.

114

A lot of my colleagues and senior people

around me you know, had missed out on

115

funding from our national funding agency,

the NHMRC, over several years and then

116

have to make tough decisions if they

move out of research and into private

117

industry or retrain somewhere else.

118

And my philosophy, I think, has

always been it's a hard world to be

119

in as an academic or as a researcher

who's employed with research funding.

120

So see how far you can go and if

you have to make that decision

121

later on, see how that goes.

122

I, before I did my PhD, there was maybe

another one of these decision moments

123

where during my studies, I was interested

in becoming a genetic counsellor.

124

And that's something that now

in Austria, there is a master's

125

program in Innsbruck, actually.

126

That's the first German speaking

master's program for this profession.

127

These are specialists who work alongside

doctors and nurses and psychologists,

128

and their role is really to help provide

Genetic information to families to help

129

make decisions on testing or to help

understand test results and adjust to

130

a condition that they might have or

they might have it in their pregnancy.

131

And that was something that really

appealed to me with my mixed background of

132

liking science, but more the human aspect.

133

So I did do an honors project,

which in Australia is the fourth

134

year of your bachelor degree.

135

With a group at the Children's

Hospital who were doing a lot of

136

psychosocial research in genetics.

137

And they're one of the, back

then, one of the leading groups in

138

Australia that were doing this work.

139

And I got really interested from

that point in the research aspect,

140

which I think in undergraduate

science, you're not really exposed

141

to research outside the lab.

142

And in my humanities, also not

really doing so much research and

143

more just learning and writing

papers and writing essays.

144

So that opened the world, I think my

world to applied research with within

145

the healthcare system and what kind

of skills I could bring to that area.

146

So after doing that honors year

my plans were to start a master's

147

program in genetic counseling and I

already knew the director who was.

148

It's waiting for me to finish my honours

year to start but my supervisors for my

149

honours year suggested that I do a PhD.

150

And one of them said that she would be

retiring soon, so it's now or never.

151

So I got diverted into doing a

PhD instead, and since then I

152

didn't then move back to doing

genetic counselling program, but.

153

My backup plan, I guess, which is

something you have to kind of have in,

154

in research, has always been that if you

know, funding dries up and if I'm unlucky

155

and not successful in getting funding for

my position then I would try and do some

156

further studies in social work or genetic

counselling and move back to working

157

with people having had that experience in

research, but in a more stable position.

158

But so far, I haven't had to do that.

159

Geri: Yeah, that's interesting because

Katta, who I just spoke to the last

160

podcast episodes I've put out, also

talked about having a backup plan and

161

they now have a tenure track position

but until that became clear, yeah,

162

started doing some sign language degree

just to, have another backup plan.

163

Yeah.

164

Interesting.

165

And that feels like that still is

a reassurance in a way that you can

166

do that and actually you go into it

now with so much more experience.

167

I mean, just what you said about the,

how to ask questions about you know, in

168

a good ways or how to communicate news.

169

Yeah, things that you originally

framed as bad news actually can be

170

good news, because it gives a path

forward and all that sort of thing.

171

So then how did you end up in Austria?

172

Like, how did that project come about?

173

Jean: yeah, so I guess that's

also been part of my approach

174

to work and work relationships.

175

I've done a lot of networking, not

in the kind of you know, traditional

176

business sense of networking, but

I've always looked after people who

177

needed a small hand with something.

178

And.

179

Felt that was going to be rewarded

in some way in the future, or just

180

know that it's a good thing to do if

you can help someone that you know.

181

I was on the student committee and I

think in implementation science, there's

182

some word for those people who are a bit

like a connection between other people.

183

And, so I would often link people up

when there were new people coming in.

184

Even though towards the end, I was

sort of like sitting by myself.

185

I was well known across the

organization and made efforts to

186

go to different talks and really

interested in what everyone was doing.

187

So one of the postdocs who

was a lab scientist met me

188

in the coffee line one day.

189

And said, and Jean, you're an

interdisciplinary researcher.

190

Would you like to work in

Vienna for a couple of years?

191

There's some some friend that she had

who she did a postdoc with in France,

192

who's now working in Vienna and is

looking for people who are interested in

193

interdisciplinary work in mental health.

194

And you could apply for

this workshop and then.

195

see how it goes.

196

And I thought, well, yeah, Europe would

be something that I would be interested

197

in doing in my research career.

198

Why not?

199

And I'm not very good with deadlines

or I'm very good with deadlines.

200

The deadline is when

the work happens for me.

201

So I sort of put it off a bit.

202

In in applying for this this workshop

because it just felt so strange.

203

It's not really the way

that research projects and

204

positions are usually created.

205

So this was through the Ludwig

Boltzmann Gesellschaft in Vienna.

206

And they had this concept of

open innovation in science,

207

which is still ongoing.

208

And they wanted to fund research in

a different way, recognizing that

209

traditional methods of research funding

often you know, awards grants to the

210

most senior professor in that department

who then gets more grants and once you

211

get the success you keep getting it.

212

And usually then you're in competition

with the another group that's also

213

working on a very similar topic, but

you, it's hard to collaborate across

214

groups or across organizations.

215

And it's hard for new ideas to come up

because it's usually step by step as the

216

professor thinks of something in his path,

in his next direction of his research,

217

and usually he's using that on purpose.

218

And so the Open Innovation in Science

Centre wanted to use this sandpit approach

219

or ideas lab approach to funding research,

where they had quite a lot of money

220

from the science ministry in Austria

to fund a couple of research projects.

221

And they invited international researchers

who had very different backgrounds

222

to apply to this five day workshop.

223

And at the end of the workshop, they

would award two research grants.

224

The application process itself

was also not traditional.

225

You didn't provide a CV.

226

Instead you had to answer some questions

about your approach to interdisciplinary

227

work, how you would explain your topic

to someone outside your discipline how

228

you see your area of research being able

to address the topic of child mental

229

health or parental mental illness.

230

And yeah, more about your personality

and your approach to work, work styles.

231

And then they selected 30 researchers

to, to attend these five days.

232

Geri: Just curious, do

you know how many applied?

233

Jean: I think it's in their report.

234

I'm not sure if the, off the top

of my head, maybe a hundred or so.

235

Geri: Right.

236

Yep.

237

Jean: And yeah, for me, it was

quite an interesting concept and I

238

didn't really know what to expect.

239

It was a new area having you

know, been working in genetics and

240

hospital based research in Australia.

241

I in my application, I kind

of drew on some of the.

242

themes I talked about with you already

that could apply to mental health in terms

243

of stigma and especially Erving Goffman's

theory of face and representation of self.

244

I thought those more sociological and

qualitative approaches could be helpful

245

in addressing some of the questions

that they had in the workshops.

246

And you had to.

247

also define how much of your

time you could spend on this

248

work if it was successful.

249

And for me, I would be

working in a different area.

250

So it would be a new job.

251

So I put down 100 percent.

252

And my boss at the time in

Melbourne when I was selected to,

253

to come over here for the workshop

said a good feather in your cap.

254

Which I thought was a

funny phrase at the time.

255

I don't think she knew

what to expect, nor did I.

256

Geri: So did you knew it was defined

as a sandpit type workshop, ideas

257

lab workshop, and it was clear

that funding could come out of it.

258

For you when you went in, but you didn't

really understand what you were going to.

259

It was just

260

Jean: No,

261

Geri: curiosity.

262

Jean: funding, yeah, curiosity and Yeah,

something also to add to your CV that

263

you've been able to attend something like

264

Geri: Yeah.

265

The

266

Jean: interesting.

267

Yeah, exactly.

268

And I mean normally the chance in

Australia, the chance of Having success

269

in a funding proposal at the moment.

270

I think is below 10 percent

271

Geri: Yeah.

272

Jean: And that's for those

that are rated the highest.

273

So that was my experience of colleagues

around me Trying to apply for funding

274

knowing that it's very unlikely to

get funding and especially as a social

275

scientist not doing Something you know

sexy that the funders might want you

276

know, innovative that's going to really

produce some technology that's marketable

277

or, curing cancer or social science

doesn't really have a very high reputation

278

I think within general sciences.

279

And here, I think there are

some similarities with, I think

280

physics, quantum physics is very

attractive to funders and yeah,

281

social science still not so much.

282

So I didn't really have high

expectations that there would be.

283

a funded proposal that I'd be

involved with at the end of it.

284

But I thought it would be a good

chance to be involved and have a go.

285

And I also planned for a month's

holiday afterwards visiting friends.

286

So the five days were quite intense.

287

For me, I was just more interested

in the process and not so anxious

288

because I wasn't so invested

in needing the funding myself.

289

It was an opportunity.

290

But other people were very anxious.

291

I think there were people who were you

know, this is their topic and this is

292

their chance to get a funded project.

293

And from the start we were it was a bit

of a social experiment where we were

294

put in different groups all the time,

sometimes in pairs, sometimes in groups

295

of four and ask different questions.

296

and told to, you know, communicate

with that person and think about

297

a research topic, a proposal with

that person, present that back and

298

always sort of cut short in time

and move to a different place.

299

And then we had inputs from scientists

and from practitioners and from people

300

with personal experience that were

meant to help us get into the topic and

301

think differently and create new ideas.

302

And I think around the third day or so,

we were given the chance to consolidate an

303

idea that we might have had with a group.

304

And,

305

um, we

306

Geri: that you self selected at that

point, it sounds like the process for the

307

first two days was very much about you.

308

Getting to talk to as many people as

possible and really try to identify

309

where were the connection points.

310

And so the third day you could start

to say, Mary, Bill and, you know,

311

whoever, we could work together.

312

Jean: It was less people

and more the idea.

313

There was a kind of core group of us

that had this idea that children whose

314

parents have a mental illness are really

missing a social network in modern times.

315

And you know, the informal support

and the low threshold neighbor that

316

comes over to help out is something

that could really make a difference

317

to children in these circumstances.

318

And so we had this concept of the

village, which ended up getting funded.

319

This idea was then

attractive to a group of us.

320

And we were already in some

ways talking at different.

321

Across different purposes, but the

core component was really the network

322

around the child and how do we include

the child's voice and the child's

323

perspective in designing that network

and in strengthening that network rather

324

than having adults make decisions on

behalf of children especially in this

325

context where Children can be often very

fearful of sharing information because

326

they want to protect their family.

327

They want to protect their parent

who might have a mental illness

328

and they don't know what's safe

and not safe to tell someone.

329

And they're often in a situation where

they've been quiet for a long time.

330

They might be holding things

together also at school.

331

So our project really wanted to

try and get directly to the child

332

in a safe and empowering way.

333

Also with the parent.

334

And so even though there was, we changed

other components of the project across

335

the last couple of days, we were able

to come back to that central point.

336

And we had a core group of some

health economists, psychologists

337

and myself as a social scientist.

338

We also had some people

come into the group.

339

You were allowed to change

groups over the last days.

340

So we had some people come in

and then leave again, not really

341

being drawn to the topic or being

drawn to the central concept

342

or not really understanding it because

it was also quite vague and for research

343

intervention, it wasn't, using CBT,

you know, cognitive behavior therapy

344

to do this and then evaluating this.

345

We wanted to see how we could

create or strengthen this village.

346

And we wanted to do that

together with stakeholders.

347

So we wanted to use a co design process.

348

which now I think is much more commonly

349

very early stages of co designing in,

especially in mental health research.

350

And so it was a very vague project in

that we didn't have concrete evaluation

351

measures because we wanted to design

them also with our stakeholder

352

group and we couldn't have a concrete

sample size estimate because that also

353

depended on the location and which

hospitals were going to be involved.

354

But the belief, I think of the core

group that this was something that

355

was going to be helpful and important

and the willingness or desire to

356

make positive change on the system.

357

Across those researchers, I think

was what was really attractive.

358

And that's also what really resonated

with me, given my background in

359

wanting to design research that was

relevant, had impact, and wasn't just

360

for our own benefit as researchers.

361

Geri: Yeah.

362

Again, I'm just really struck by

the parallels with a lot of the work

363

that we do in our research area.

364

Just, in terms of giving

people a voice, the co design,

365

the participatory processes.

366

And I recognize also that coming more

from that medical space in the sense

367

that you're dealing with mental

health and then the issues around it.

368

It probably was incredibly radical because

you were not complying with any of the

369

post positivist sort of paradigm at

all in how people define good research.

370

So it seems like you as a team,

as you got together, were quite

371

passionate about the idea and the

approach that you wanted to take.

372

What did it involve then in the next

couple of days to convince whoever

373

it was there a panel that you had to

then present to and, you know, how

374

did you present the arguments to them?

375

Jean: Yes.

376

So there was a group of mentors

who were senior academics in this

377

field from different countries and

different aspects of that topic.

378

Who had also been invited to support

in the early days the discussions

379

and provoke and question so they

would walk around and listen to the

380

conversations and maybe provide some

input and then in the presentations

381

we would give would give feedback.

382

But then they turned into the evaluators.

383

So

384

I think there was a little bit of

conflict in some way that they had

385

their potential own agendas of wanting

to influence groups to pick up one of

386

their ideas in some ways maybe as well.

387

Geri: Both methods and

research concepts or directions.

388

Jean: I mean, I didn't have any

specific experience of that.

389

It was just that there was this extra

layer I think of the process where

390

we were being mentored by people

who then eventually evaluated us.

391

So there was a dual role that they

had, which I think at times was

392

complicated for them, but also it was

complicated for some of the researchers

393

because some of the researchers did

know some of the mentors as well.

394

But for me, I think I was quite naive

also not having Not knowing much about

395

the topic, not having researched it

myself, coming in thinking it would be

396

an interesting experience to be involved

with and being surrounded by experts who

397

were, you know, postdocs in this area for,

you know, in discipline for many years.

398

and I think, like you said, that

the research was quite innovative

399

for the field in mental health.

400

A lot of the participants were

psychologists, and I think psychology has

401

a very traditional scientific approach,

402

Geri: Yes.

403

Jean: sometimes some qualitative

research, but usually as a, as an add on.

404

And especially I think in the German

speaking countries, it's quite

405

difficult to compete against the

traditional psychological paradigm in

406

research if you want to get funding.

407

So this was a great opportunity

that we were getting good

408

feedback from the mentors that

we could have this much freedom.

409

In the research design which was a

luxury, I think, also by the last

410

day, so we were working through the

night, you know, until three o'clock

411

in the morning, we had to prepare a

five page proposal and a presentation.

412

And then on the last day, give a

presentation, our final one just

413

before lunch and I think after

breakfast one of our team members,

414

Hannah, who's based in Germany and

is a psychologist, she said, well, we

415

should have some sect to celebrate.

416

So we took a bottle of the sec

from the breakfast buffet and

417

went out on the on the patio.

418

We were all in a retreat in

a wellness hotel in outside

419

Vienna for these five days.

420

So we went out onto the patio

and shared this in this sec.

421

And I think some of the other

researchers were a bit put

422

off that we were so relaxed.

423

But her motivation for that

was We want to be a group that

424

enjoys each other's company.

425

And she, she's, she has quite

a good position herself.

426

She was already a professor and I

think she had made the decision after

427

experience that she would do research

with people that she enjoyed working

428

with and try and avoid doing research

where there's too much conflict.

429

And so that was her, you

know, we need to have fun.

430

It's a, it's an interesting

project and it's going to be

431

tough and there's a lot of risks.

432

But we need to have fun together.

433

So that's how we started off as well.

434

And we gave this final presentation and

then the judges or the mentors became

435

judges and went outside to choose

which projects they were going to fund.

436

Yeah.

437

And they chose two when they came back in

438

Geri: of how many were presented, roughly?

439

Jean: Yeah, I think maybe five.

440

Geri: No,

441

Jean: At that point?

442

Geri: good.

443

Good.

444

I mean, if we look at the

traditional sort of acceptance

445

rates, as you said that's good.

446

And also, it sounds like that process of

having the week, a whole week in this sort

447

of pressure cooker, intense situation,

because you used the word intense before

448

Working till three o'clock in the morning,

pulling it together, you do, it's really

449

an opportunity to get to know people, to

get to know how you might work together,

450

who's going to be good at what sort of

aspects and whether you would enjoy it.

451

And sometimes we don't get that

experience with other projects

452

going through traditional funding

processes until we've got it funded.

453

And then we start working together

and we go, why did I ever think

454

I could work with this person?

455

Yeah, that's an interesting

process in that.

456

In that way as well in, in actually

team building and relationship building.

457

Jean: yeah, I think that

was a big part of it.

458

You could get to know someone quite

quickly in the way that they listen

459

to your ideas or not, and the way

that you could connect around a topic.

460

And I think that was good in, you

know, kind of choosing people who you

461

felt more comfortable working with.

462

I mean, we didn't know them beforehand.

463

and we didn't have, we hadn't

submitted CV, so we didn't really

464

know so much about each other.

465

I think some people knew each other

if they were, more specialized in this

466

research area, and there were a couple

of them that kind of knew of each other

467

or some that had worked together, but

overall, people didn't know each other.

468

And so it was really a chance yet

to get to know people in terms

469

of their personality as well.

470

Geri: Yeah.

471

So just, and did they do something in

the first day for ice breaking and.

472

Getting to know each other type

exercises before you got into the ideas

473

brainstorming and groupings that you did.

474

Jean: It was probably all mixed, so it

was probably all focused on an activity

475

that was relevant to the topic, but

that was part of the reason for moving

476

people in different groups all the time.

477

So that everyone had a chance to kind of.

478

Get to know each other on one level.

479

But we had lunches and dinners together

and breakfasts together and people kind

480

of got to know each other, even if they

weren't working in a group in that way.

481

And, some groups didn't work.

482

There was someone who went out by

themselves and presented a project alone.

483

And I mean, I think our group functioned.

484

I think we were doing fairly well

over those days, but there were other

485

groups that there was, you know,

the ideas couldn't connect with each

486

other in that group, so the group

separated and tried to, there was

487

sometimes pressure to add more and more

concepts into a design because these

488

projects were very generously funded,

so it was 3 million euros each over

489

four years and so there was pressure

to keep thinking bigger and bigger.

490

And I think we were in some, we were

in some ways pushed a little bit in,

491

in making a project bigger than we

would have otherwise, but you know,

492

there was still stuff that we said no

to, like, including biomarkers or, you

493

know, making it, yeah, it was much more

in the social aspect of our project,

494

but there was another one that was

doing a lot of psychometric, a lot of

495

yeah, biological measurements and yeah.

496

Geri: That sounds like a

really interesting process.

497

Yeah.

498

I remember when I worked in the UK

back in the early two thousands I

499

participated in a sandpit project.

500

A Sandpit process there and we ended

up getting a project funded and

501

there's some similar experiences

you know, different as well.

502

It's a good process, isn't it?

503

I wonder how it could scale, do you know,

are they continuing with that process?

504

Jean: I think it was a good process

for me and a good process for our team.

505

We were funded.

506

Geri: Mm.

507

Jean: know that everyone had the same

experience and the same reflections.

508

And but I think it's.

509

Compared to traditional funding

approaches, I think it's very valuable

510

because I think the challenges that

have been identified in traditional

511

funding methods could really be addressed

in, in a sandpit or in an ideas lab.

512

I think what was really valuable with

the Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft

513

is they didn't stop at the funding

process and just give us the money.

514

They wanted to invest in the experiment

of how do you support this group

515

who's been formed in this way.

516

And this is where it was quite

different to, I think, at Harvard.

517

This is where the Sandpit ideas came

out in Harvard at the medical school

518

and they haven't had, they didn't have

any successful teams stay together.

519

To finish out the

projects that were funded.

520

And so the Ludwig Boltzmann were in

quite close conversation with Harvard

521

to understand what was going wrong there

and what they could do differently.

522

So they invested not only quite

generously in the projects,

523

but also in the infrastructure.

524

To support us as researchers and

to support the research project.

525

They had a relationship manager program

and relationship manager who was, I

526

guess, in one way, a bit like my mentor.

527

So I ended up moving to

Austria to lead the project.

528

and the rest of the researchers could

stay in their organizations and worked

529

on the project for a fractional time

530

Geri: can I just pick

up on one point there?

531

You just said you, you moved

to Austria to lead the project.

532

How did it come about

that you were the leader?

533

Jean: Yeah, so the group itself were

already employed, I think, more in stable

534

positions and no one had the capacity

to spend 100 percent of the project of

535

their time on the project, or even 80%.

536

And I think to take on the

principal investigator position,

537

you had to be 80 percent or more

of your time on the project.

538

So I was the only person in the

team who was available to do that.

539

Which was also quite an interesting

position as a qualitative researcher,

540

a social scientist, and quite a

lot younger than the rest of the

541

group and a non German speaker.

542

this big project and move from

Australia to Austria to do that.

543

But I guess it could also be that being

Australian gives you a little bit of

544

courage in moving around the world.

545

And yeah, I mean, I think a lot of

it was also, you know, my personality

546

and the way that I saw my work

and to take on that challenge.

547

And.

548

It took another six months

before we finalized and started

549

the project then in 2018.

550

And I guess I was still in

a bit of disbelief that it

551

was actually going to happen.

552

I'd been to Austria a couple of times,

but only to Vienna and around Vienna.

553

And yeah, I studied French at

university as well, but I'd

554

never spoken a word of German.

555

And when I'd been here for the five

days, you know, even the letters, I

556

didn't know how to pronounce letters.

557

And we didn't know where we

would be based in Austria.

558

So that was also another step in that

six months before I moved to have a

559

host university selected, and in the end

we chose Innsbruck because the rector

560

here is a psychiatrist and we felt that

would be, we would be very well housed

561

in a university where mental health

was something they were particularly

562

understanding of and and supportive of.

563

Geri: Mm When you say we, who was

we, is that you and the rest of the

564

team or you and Ludwig Boltzmann?

565

Jean: Me and the team, the Ludwig

Boltzmann had universities that ahead of

566

the Sandpit had to kind of provide their

intention to be able to host a project.

567

Geri: So

568

Jean: they were already

primed to be a possible host.

569

Another reason we chose Innsbruck

was because of the project trying

570

to make some kind of network social

change in the way that organizations

571

are communicating with each other,

but also people coming together.

572

We thought that a smaller city might

be easier to take some steps forward.

573

And if we were in, in Vienna, I think we

would be quite a small project in relation

574

to the rest of research that's happening,

especially at the medical university.

575

And.

576

You know, coming from Australia, where we

have quite a few big cities to a European

577

country, where Vienna is the headquarters

and then the other cities are much smaller

578

in terms of their capacity to do research.

579

I think it works quite well for us

in people being really excited that

580

we were here and questioning in some

ways, you know, why would you choose

581

Innsbruck and why would you be in Tyrol?

582

But in some ways also our stakeholders

became proud that that they had

583

this project and that they'd been

successful in some ways too in

584

having the opportunity to make some

improvements with research in this area.

585

Geri: So there are two threads

I'd love to pick up on.

586

One is to go back to the relationship,

that the support that you received

587

from the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute

in terms of Ensuring that the team

588

functions well and doesn't fall apart

like some of the other experiences.

589

And then I want to talk about some

of your leading the project and

590

lessons learned from that there.

591

But so you said, and again, you

know, I interrupted you there.

592

You started to say that part of the

infrastructure support that they

593

provided was a relationship manager.

594

Can you say more about what the support

was that they provided and how that

595

played out and what value it was?

596

Jean: Yeah, so this was a person who was a

psychologist working as a project officer

597

in the Open Innovation and Science Centre.

598

And she was the contact person

for everything to start with.

599

So also salary negotiations and moving

over to Austria for me helping me set up.

600

She would come to Innsbruck from time to

time and go shopping for furniture with me

601

and also acting a little bit like a coach.

602

So every week or every fortnight,

having meetings and talking about how

603

the project's going, she had quite an

active role helping design the website.

604

So there was specific elements

of the project that she was.

605

working on more as a researcher as well.

606

I think having this lens of trying to

support open innovation in science.

607

And I think at some points that was a

bit to use the German word irritating,

608

which we don't say in English so much.

609

But for some of the team members

we felt that The open innovation in

610

science angle was pushing us sometimes

to the limits of what we were capable

611

of doing in our research plan.

612

But from the open innovation

science center side, they were

613

very committed and dedicated to

testing how far open innovation and

614

science could go in these projects.

615

And so sometimes that was her role

to kind of challenge us and think

616

where else can you involve the public?

617

How else can you raise awareness of

the topic and what else can be done?

618

Which I think in a traditional

project doesn't happen at all.

619

That you have someone sort of

from the funding agency, but the

620

Ludwig Boltzmann has two roles.

621

in being a provider of research or

a doer of research and a funder.

622

But usually you don't have

someone encouraging you through,

623

throughout the research process

to be doing more and different.

624

And at some points that really

did spread us thin and make

625

people feel quite challenged.

626

I think everyone in the team taking

on this project was taking some kind

627

of professional risk in some way.

628

Which I think in doing interdisciplinary

research you often are challenged

629

in having to let go of the

purity of your own discipline.

630

To pick up the value of someone

else's and bring them together.

631

And in our project we really saw that

we were doing transdisciplinary research

632

rather than interdisciplinary research

633

Geri: How do you find that difference?

634

Jean: yeah, I don't think it was something

we thought of before so much, but the

635

transdisciplinary research is really doing

things together and melding knowledge and

636

ideas and conversations, and that means

that at every point you have to have these

637

discussions, these clarifications, and

things can be slower, and things can be

638

off putting, or you might realize that

there's some misunderstanding because you

639

can't take anything for granted and you

have to challenge the assumptions of your,

640

of yourself and of other disciplines.

641

I think in other

interdisciplinary research.

642

You can do your own research and bring

that together with someone else's

643

research at some point to put pieces

of the puzzle together, but it's not

644

this mix or this melding of thinking

and of approaches at every stage, which

645

is, I think, what was a challenge, but

also a real benefit because you learn

646

a lot about the other disciplines, but

you have to give up a lot of yourself.

647

In believing that what you're

going to produce together is going

648

to have a good outcome for the

families and the services here.

649

And so I think that was the, you know,

coming back to the ideas lab, that was

650

what the central purpose was for us as a

team and us individually in our work, that

651

we wanted to do something that was going

to make a difference, which meant that.

652

you had to give up something to do that.

653

And you know, you could have done much

more traditional research that might

654

have more value in a high impact journal.

655

That might be easier to explain and have

less criticism from reviewers as soon

656

as you start mixing things, then you

have to be very prepared for criticism

657

and explanation of why you've done

things in a less traditional approach.

658

So I think that was part of the.

659

part of the value that we saw

in doing the work like this, but

660

also the risk that people took.

661

Geri: Were you able to get

publications that people were proud of?

662

Jean: Yeah, we're still publishing.

663

But we, yeah, I think I think

the publications we have, that's

664

one aspect of the output of our

665

we felt that there were greater outputs.

666

in addition to publications.

667

Publications, of course, because

we want to also push against

668

traditional research paradigms too.

669

We don't want to just make changes

to the non academic community,

670

but we also want to influence the

academic community to learn what we

671

learned and to be influenced by that.

672

And also to push back against

funders and publishers and editors,

673

reviewers that what we're trying

to do is valuable research.

674

In this particular group of patients or

group of families where there's a parent

675

with a mental illness randomized control

trials have rarely been successful.

676

And as a social scientist

and a qualitative researcher,

677

that makes total sense to me.

678

But for my colleagues.

679

been involved in those randomized

controlled trials, even the knowledge

680

that there is some intervention

or even receiving an information

681

sheet about a research project

increased people's outcome scores.

682

So both groups, You know,

there was an improvement and

683

you'd need such big numbers.

684

There's so much stigma for

families in this position, but it's

685

really hard to recruit families.

686

Most of the research has also focused

on parents with depression or anxiety

687

who are better functioning and has not

been able to support families where

688

there's a more serious mental illness.

689

So we also wanted to try

and include all diagnoses.

690

And we made things a bit hard

for ourselves in some way if we

691

were wanting to do a high quality

traditional research project, but we

692

wanted to try and also make impacts

for families and services here.

693

So one example is that recruitment

was done by practitioners.

694

As a research team, we could have

gone to the hospital and sat there

695

and put up posters and, you know,

encouraged people to come and see us.

696

We could also have gone to general

practitioners but we decided to work

697

with the Adult Mental Health Services

where the parents are probably most

698

vulnerable and the children then are

probably most in need of support.

699

That meant that there was more fear

for families because they probably also

700

have had bad experiences in the past

with different services and probably

701

contact with Child and Youth Welfare.

702

But we also gave a lot of control

to the hospitals to make decisions

703

about how children could be

identified and how families might

704

be recruited into the project.

705

And the head of the psychiatry

department here wanted it to be the

706

job of the doctors of the psychiatrists

to recruit families rather than

707

the social workers or the nurses.

708

Because he felt that it was the job

of psychiatrists to ask patients about

709

their family and about their general well

being, not just about their symptoms,

710

but understanding their social network,

understanding their world, so they

711

knew, you know, so as a psychiatrist,

you can treat the patient better.

712

Psychiatrists have a very short

amount of time to work with families.

713

So that didn't always mean that the

conversation was very in depth and

714

they may not have really understood

what the project was about.

715

And if we had nurses or social workers,

they had much more time to reach more

716

families, to have a higher recruitment.

717

But through doing that, we were able

to Have these questions about parenting

718

and general well being of Children

or caring responsibilities introduced

719

into the electronic medical system

of the hospital here in Innsbruck.

720

So every adult who is admitted to

the hospital here is asked if they

721

have caring responsibilities and

then is given some guidance of how

722

to have those conversations in a

more deep way to have the time.

723

And this is something that our

colleagues in Melbourne have been

724

trying to get changed for over 20 years.

725

Being in a small city and really

helping the community feel a sense of

726

ownership of our research I think helped

make a change that hopefully is going

727

to be very valuable for doctors in

thinking about who their patients are.

728

When we started the doctors, some of the

psychiatrists told us that the project

729

wouldn't work because their patients

didn't have children and we know that's

730

Internationally, that's not true, but so

why would it be different in Innsbruck?

731

And then we had some change over

time where some of the psychiatrists

732

said, actually, I think this project

would be really valuable because if

733

we start understanding about caring

responsibilities, maybe we can reduce

734

the length of stay, inpatient stay for

these adults and helping their recovery.

735

Can we also include some assessments

of recovery in the evaluation?

736

Geri: so that the the whole approach

of being driven primarily by impact

737

and it's still, it's research.

738

But not just for the sake of high quality

journal publications and the careful

739

thinking about who you involve and how you

involve them sounded really key to that.

740

What were some of the challenges

in working with stakeholders

741

in this way in a project?

742

Yeah.

743

Because you talked before about

not having as much control in

744

defining what goes forward.

745

And that's where we'll

leave it for part one.

746

Keep an eye open for our next episode.

747

Part two, where.

748

Jean will talk a little more about how

they engage with stakeholders as part of

749

this very participatory co-design process

and dealt with the challenges there.

750

And I think also very interestingly,

she talks about being a younger leader,

751

principal investigator of a project and.

752

How she worked with and helps

lead a distributed team of

753

more senior researchers.

754

And this part also includes lots of

very practical tips and tricks about

755

how to manage a distributed team, how

to facilitate effective meetings, and

756

how to get everyone working together.

757

And I'll leave you here now with a

little more detail, if you're interested

758

in Jean's research during her PhD

and in her post-doc projects that are

759

really interesting around health and

genomics and, qualitative methods and

760

working in interdisciplinary teams.

761

Jean: I would describe myself

as a social scientist have quite

762

a mixed academic background.

763

I studied arts and science

in combination at university.

764

So I've always been interested in science

and how things work, but maybe also in

765

combination with how people experience

health and illness and medical systems

766

and so my PhD in Australia was looking

at communication between doctors who

767

specialize in genetics and their patients.

768

And in this context, it was

children who had a a developmental

769

delay without a diagnosis.

770

Originally, I was interested

in breaking bad news.

771

I thought that was a very interesting

topic in terms of communication,

772

in terms of linguistics.

773

But I wanted to do some research

that was valuable to the doctors who

774

I'd be watching and listening to.

775

And so I spent the first year of my

PhD sitting in on clinic appointments

776

and really listening to their

Challenges and discovered that bad

777

news was not necessarily bad news

in pediatric genetics because often

778

families spend a long time looking for

answers to explain the child's delay.

779

And really, when you do find a diagnosis,

that's for some people, a relief and

780

the end of a journey and the start of.

781

Treatment or, you know, can have big

implications for families and what

782

was really complicated in terms of

communication was not having answers

783

and how you can communicate uncertainty

in that context and especially with new

784

technologies always being introduced in

genetics and genomics and at the end of

785

the day, parents were wanting to have I

had questions that were very practical.

786

What school should my child go to?

787

How can I access speech therapy?

788

And that wasn't really the area for the

specialist in genetics to be able to help.

789

So I discovered that the doctors

really felt, a lot of the time useless

790

and it was very hard work for them

explaining complicated information

791

to parents that they weren't sure

how helpful it was in the end.

792

And so that, that relationship between

parents and doctors and within the family

793

unit was really interesting for me.

794

Also in relation to stigma and

the way people see themselves

795

or the way professions are seen.

796

Doctors also discussed that comparing

themselves to other specialists,

797

they didn't feel so useful and it

was very difficult for them to see

798

what benefit they had on parents

lives or children's lives if they

799

were only maybe seeing them one time.

800

And compared to orthopedic surgeons

who were fixing broken bones and

801

then you can see a child from not

being able to run around to Once the

802

cast was off running around again.

803

And so that, yeah, those topics are

really interesting to me in terms of

804

dealing with professional identity and

for parents dealing with medicalization

805

of their child in some cases trying to

be a good parent and just doing what the

806

parents, the doctors told them to do.

807

But not always really sure exactly why

they needed to have this test done,

808

which often didn't give them answers.

809

Having meant more mundane concerns.

810

Geri: Like the everyday, as you said

just as a brief interject I'm really

811

struck by some of the parallels with

work that's gone on in our group from

812

different people, like Francisco

Nunes, for example, did a lot of work

813

with people with Parkinson's disease.

814

And a lot of what you've shared there.

815

Some of the things resonate with

what he was finding there in

816

observing the Parkinson's patients

in with the clinicians and so on.

817

So it's interesting.

818

And for him, it was thinking

about how to then translate

819

that into technology support.

820

But yeah, so go on, Jean.

821

Jean: No, I think that's very interesting

and I think there are when I first started

822

working in Austria, I, it was quite a

big shift from genetics, where I was

823

primarily working as a social scientist.

824

How did you get to Austria?

825

Like you were doing that

work in Melbourne.

826

in Australia.

827

Yep.

828

Melbourne.

829

I then couple of postdocs in, in

Melbourne and worked on a couple of

830

different projects, one about so as a

qualitative researcher, always working

831

in these topics to really understand

those complex questions of, you know,

832

social representation or understanding

decision making, understanding behavior

833

change understanding relationships between

professionals or between families, across

834

professionals, across organizations.

835

One project was looking at

pregnant women and asking questions

836

about alcohol consumption.

837

In Australia for many years, we've

been collecting information about

838

smoking to try and distribute health

services and target them in areas where

839

there might be more smoking related.

840

Pregnancies or people who've

had been born with mothers who

841

were smoking during pregnancy.

842

But alcohol is a much more

difficult question to ask about.

843

And so the Australian government

commissioned my boss at the time

844

to try and do some more qualitative

linguistic research in understanding

845

how questions might be asked.

846

to get good information for the government

about drinking while pregnant because

847

we know that yeah, if you drink a lot

of alcohol while you're pregnant, your

848

child will, might end up with fetal

alcohol syndrome, but there's no concrete

849

evidence on what level is a safe level.

850

So the Australian government has

recommendations that no level is safe.

851

But the British health department

still have mixed information that one

852

or two glasses a week is okay ish.

853

And so health providers in

Australia are giving mixed

854

Geri: Hmm.

855

Jean: which is also what we found.

856

So we did some qualitative research

with focus groups and interviews

857

with obstetricians, gynecologists,

pregnant women, midwives in rural,

858

regional, remote areas in Australia.

859

And at the same time, I was also doing

a project with the Australian Genomics

860

Health Alliance which is a research

project to try and understand how we

861

can introduce genomic tests, which sort

of more closely follows on from my PhD.

862

into mainstream health care services,

knowing that genomics is becoming more and

863

more important for many other specialties.

864

But people might not have that

specialist knowledge to be able

865

to effectively order those tests.

866

And so I was doing some literature reviews

and planned some interviews with doctors

867

from different specialists to understand

how they might order a genetic test.

868

So I ended up sitting in a very

strange position where my research

869

group that I was connected with were

cell biologists who were doing genomic

870

sequencing and sex chromosome research.

871

And I was the one qualitative

researcher who was.

872

By themselves sort of in some

way had a lot of networks across

873

the research organization.

874

Geri: And that's where we got to

in the main body of the podcast

875

episode that you just heard.

876

So that last piece was just filling in

some of the details of Jean's background.

877

Come back for part two.

878

You can find the summary

notes, a transcript and related

879

links for this podcast on www.

880

changingacademiclife.

881

com.

882

You can also subscribe to

Changing Academic Life on iTunes,

883

Spotify and Google Podcasts.

884

And you can follow

ChangeAcadLife on Twitter.

885

And I'm really hoping that we can

widen the conversation about how

886

we can do academia differently.

887

And you can contribute to this by rating

the podcast and also giving feedback.

888

And if something connected with

you, please consider sharing this

889

podcast with your colleagues.

890

Together, we can make change happen.