In today's final episode of Research Culture Uncovered, hosts Taryn Bell and Emily Ennis discuss how they solved research culture. With no more issues left to fix, and everything running smoothly, they take one last opportunity to sit back, rest, and reflect on how everything went so right...

Just kidding. Happy April Fools!

In this episode, Taryn and Emily look back at what’s been achieved over the last 12 months, discuss some of the ‘classic’ research culture challenges facing higher education, and confront the notion that research culture is a problem that can be solved for good.

Key takeaways:

1. Research culture isn't something that can ever be solved - it's an ongoing, evolving process
2. Real, genuine change can't come from research culture teams alone - meaningful change requires widespread involvement and collective responsibility
3. More than ever, research culture needs to become a matter of 'business as usual', rather than an added extra

In case you'd like to know more...

1. Learn more about Research Culture at Leeds
2. Never heard of the REF? Read more about the Research Excellence Framework

All of our episodes can be accessed via the following playlists:

1. Research Impact with Ged Hall (follow Ged on Bluesky and LinkedIn)
2. Research Impact Heroes with Ged Hall
3. Open Research with Nick Sheppard (follow Nick on Bluesky and LinkedIn)
4. Research Careers with Ruth Winden (follow Ruth on Bluesky and LinkedIn)
5. Research talent management
6. Meet the Research Culturositists with Emma Spary (follow Emma on Bluesky and LinkedIn)
7. Research co-production
8. Research evaluation
9. Research leadership
10. Research professionals
11. Academic failure with Taryn Bell (follow Taryn on Bluesky and LinkedIn)

Follow us on Bluesky: @researcherdevleeds.bsky.social (new episodes are announced here), @openresleeds.bsky.social, @researchcultureuol.bsky.social

Connect to us on LinkedIn: @ResearchUncoveredPodcast (new episodes are announced here)

If you would like to contribute to a podcast episode get in touch: researcherdevelopment@leeds.ac.uk

Welcome to another episode of Research Culture Uncovered. I'm your host, Taryn Bell, and I'm joined today by my co-host, Emily Ennis. It's a special episode today, as it is, in fact, our final episode. What? Why? We hear you cry. Well, it turns out we've solved research culture. Yeah, you heard us right. Engagement problems? Not anymore. Everyone turns up to all of our events and research culture is top of the list in every meeting. Research integrity? Not a problem. We actually shut down all of our ethics panels as everyone was so ethical we didn't need them. REF and SPRE? Sorted it, mate. Everyone's got all their data and is ready to write their own unit level statements. In fact, everything's been going so well we've realised we have nothing else to talk about. Okay, maybe not.

On this April Fool's Day, we thought we'd use today's episode to take a step back. Emily and I are going to look at what's been achieved at Leeds over the past 12 months, discuss some of the classic research culture challenges facing higher education, and confront the notion that research culture is a problem that can be solved for good. So, Emily, how does it feel having solved research culture?

I mean, great, Taryn, I'm just on a victory lap at this point, just enjoying, like you say, having solved every single research culture challenge. Obviously, no, that's not the case, as you've already said. We've made really excellent strides in research culture at Leeds since we launched our strategy in 2023. I mean, just off the top of my head, well, it's not off the top of my head, I've written it down.

But we've done things like invested £1.7 million in projects, people and initiatives. So that's actually 153 projects, people or initiatives. We've allocated nearly £400,000 for our research EDI scheme, which supports researchers with specific protected characteristics to kind of develop their careers for promotion. And we've made really great strides in some of our work with the communications and engagement team leads in terms of how we weave research culture into everyday discussions, everyday comms within the university. We've developed really, really great working with adjacent teams like our open research team, like HR, we had an HR secondee into our team for a bit and we've managed to get ourselves on all sorts of governance panels and decision making panels that's just kind of really embedded research culture in so much of our everyday activity.

But I think our listeners would probably agree that every time you do a piece of good research culture work about five bad bits of research culture come back at you. So it's, we're kind of taking a moment right now to have a look at things like our research culture strategy and go, great, all of the centralized projects that we had control over, they're finished, they're done.

But my gosh, there's so much left to do. So we're really excited, I would say, to get started and obviously thrilled to have made such great strides in kind of enhancing research culture at Leeds and hopefully across the sector as well. But it's just one of these things where the more you do, the more there is to do.

And in that sense, sometimes it feels like research culture and working on research culture is a little bit like the research process itself. Every time you solve one thing or answer one question or take one step forward, a thousand other opportunities and questions and issues pop up and there's always so much more to do. So in doing all of this work, for you, what are the kind of key challenges you've faced?

So I actually with my colleague Soo Lincoln gave a talk about not exactly this but a version of this at a research culture conference last week and we were talking about how you can have these big ticket items like we have. We've invested so much money in people, in our processes at Leeds but it's really that everyday stuff that has been so much more fruitful, making sure, for example, so I sit on the University Research Ethics Committee for Leeds, that's been invaluable in not only seeing what research is happening, but also being able to say, right, here's a process that already exists. How do we put a research culture spin on it? How do we make sure research culture is part of it? And it's only when getting involved in processes that we start to actually see the scale of some of the research culture challenges.

I was interviewing a colleague for this podcast. Nicola Simcock who's the research culture manager at Newcastle. And she was saying that she hopes that the finish line for research culture always moves because it's never going to be finished and I think that was really useful for me to hear because for me I've always been saying I'd actually quite like to be made redundant. I'd quite like to eventually for it to be the case that the research culture managers don't need to exist and research culture teams don't need to exist because everyone's already doing it so well but of course that's not the case because every time you look at a process, it can always be made better every time you look at a policy that can always be improved.

So it's been this constant evolution of critiquing how we do things and the more we do, the better installed we are in the processes and policies that leads in across the sector, the more we uncover that there is. So I would say that in terms of the challenges for the last 12 months, it's been constant, but not in the sense that they've been challenges that have been obstacles. It's just been the case that things have been constantly evolving and things have been constantly popping up and some of them we can solve. Some of them it's going to take a really long time to solve if we can ever solve them. I think one of the things that is really emerging not just from Leeds but from the sector and by the sector I mean just HE is, how much can we really do if funders don't change? How much can we really do if publishers don't change? How much can we really do if we don't think about what research looks like beyond HE? Again, at this conference I was at the other week, someone was talking about research culture isn't just for HE, it's for other research organisations. And at the moment, with REF being the main driver for research culture, or one of the main drivers for research culture, those research organisations that don't report into REF, they don't actually have any requirement to have good research culture. So this is the thing, it's this constantly evolving space. And I do sometimes think of it as research, but I think it's also important to think of it as social change and almost social justice. That as with political movements as with social change geopolitically, the dial is always moving and sometimes it moves forwards and sometimes it moves backwards and at the moment, let's face it, it's moving backwards a lot of the time. So we are part of that same process of change of moving forwards, establishing a new normal, finding out that there's actually a newer normal that we can find and sometimes having to take a securitized route to get that that might involve stepping backwards as well.

We are doing research, we're doing research on research, we have research findings, but it's about how those research findings turn into change. And that's our responsibility as research culture practitioners is to make the change happen because I think there's lots of recommendations, there's lots of people who know what the challenges are. We don't have an information deficit, we have a kind of relevance deficit, in the sense that we need to make the challenges that we know are true relevant to the people who need to make changes to kind of make things better.

What you touched on a lot there is this notion of change and you've talked about how your own views on research culture have changed over the last year. So what do you think about the kind of community at Leeds and the higher education sector as a whole? How do you think most people in the higher education sector think about research culture at this point in time?

I know we've spoken this about this, not just here, but elsewhere as kind of research culture is something that can eventually be solved. And I think that when you metricize it, that feeds into that idea as well. I actually think know, maybe this is a controversial point, but I think the REF can actually be really beneficial here. And I know the REF comes with metrics and hopefully indicators.

But what it does do is it gives us a snapshot in time and it doesn't say this is it, it says we're coming back in seven years, you better have moved things along. So there is a metric attached to it, but it's not saying and when you submit this, you're done. Don't get me wrong, there is a sense certainly, I guess, across the sector of what do we need to do? What are the boxes that we need to tick this time around for strategy, people and research environment for REF?

And once we've done that we'll be finished. But I think this idea and certainly the stuff that came out of the People, Culture and Environment pilot the national REF team ran was that their key findings in the report was research culture can be measured. There is a way to do this and so I think that just gives a lot of indication for me that this is going to carry on being a thing, it's not just going to be this year or this REF and then we're never going to hear from it ever again. metrics do make things challenging because it sets this kind of okay tick done that, we've signed the Research and Development Concordat, good we're good to go, that's all we need to do, but I think this idea that we'll be constantly measured is actually, if we're going to measure it at all, is valuable.

I think the challenge for me, and this is a problem of leadership not just at Leeds but across the sector, of, we've done the strategy, we're finished. And I would say to me that indicates a bigger problem because my question has always been, who do you think is operationalising the strategy? It's not enough to put a strategy out, it's not enough to put an implementation plan out.

They want to see a line in an Excel spreadsheet filled out, know, KPIs or something like that. And as long as that gets filled out, it kind of doesn't matter how many people contributed to that. But I also think, I have a lot of empathy for university leaders at the moment, because also, if you don't know the scale of the human cost to put this stuff together, you don't know who you're meant to be hiring and firing at the moment, and given we're in a financial crisis, if people aren't visible, you're going to get rid of them. And then the operational aspects slow down. But the thing is, if you don't have people, you don't have change. so the thing that worries me is if we want to have metrics, if we want to have strategies and things that are in the public domain, I'm all for that because it sets public accountability.

But no one's going to deliver against this. And I think we're to be almost in a desert in kind of four or five years where this work has been deprioritized. And it's fine if you want to deprioritize it because you don't want it to happen. know, research culture is a relatively new thing. This work wasn't really happening in a visible way for a really long time. So it's fine. If you don't want it to happen, then just be quiet and don't say anything. But if you're putting a statement out, if you're putting a strategy out and then you're not delivering against it, that's really silly. But I just think that at the moment, university leadership across the sector think are out. We've done it. We've ticked that box. That'll meet the requirements for REF. But they're failing to recognise that in seven years' time, we're going to get another REF. And they're going to ask us what our progress was. And there won't have been people here to deliver that progress for them.

One of the things that's been a real positive, I think, at Leeds in the last year is that the previously separate Researcher Development and Research Culture teams came together. We're now one unified team and we're seeing this happen actually more and more in the sector. There are quite a few universities where Research Development and Research Culture sit together. Obviously, you're the Research Culture Manager, you've had to manage bringing two teams with slightly different priorities, slightly different ways of doing things together. So how have you found that?

I like I see this as a total yin yang type situation here, you know, there is a two approach to research culture here. it's, I think the research culture team spend a really, really long time doing very boring administrative stuff, not boring them but I think that like it you know it requires a certain mindset to do that stuff so like I say sitting on those governance committees being the person who goes to all these meetings and I'm speaking quite a lot on my behalf here and saying I don't think you should do that guys that's really bad research culture and most of my time is spent on just telling people maybe don't do that all the time and that is time consuming and boring but it's also offering it's operating from a kind of a deficit model in that we're looking at the things that are going wrong and trying to fix them. And I think what the researcher development space does is goes, you guys are great. How can you be better? And I love that. I wish that that's the sort of thing that we could do in our work, but I don't think we can. I think we need both.

And I think that they have to work together. And I think that's a really positive thing. think my big fear from a kind of sector-wide perspective is when you start moving teams around, they become less visible. So the big challenge for me and I guess for Emma Spary is making sure that the previous reporting lines that we had when we existed in a different directorate can be repeated in the new directorate and that's the real challenge and you've got to pitch your work slightly differently so when research culture existed in the research and innovation space we pitched our work very much about you know this is research so we're research culture we help you do research and now we're in the organisational development space we're saying well this is organisational development. It's the same, you know, we're doing exactly the same work, we're just pitching it in slightly different ways. And I spoke to a colleague, an academic colleague recently, who's one of our, you know, of loudest advocates for research culture, so it didn't surprise me what she said, but she said organisational development at a university is research culture.

And she's absolutely spot on, organisational development, it's a concept that exists in lots of different organisations, but for the purposes of HE, I mean, obviously it's also teaching culture, but it's research culture. And so it's putting that spin on it that I think is going to be the thing that we need to do consistently. But in a way, it was, it wasn't easier in the kind of research and innovation space because we were still challenging people about their processes and how they did them wrong, which people didn't necessarily want to hear. But the sell, we didn't have to sell research because it was already sold. We just had to sell change. Whereas I think in the organisational development space, change is the given, but research isn't. So we've got to kind of flip it around on its head. So that's been one of big challenges for me in that transition. But if I were building research culture and researcher development from the ground up, the way that we are now is how I would have built it.

Yeah, and I would agree. I have these discussions all the time in workshops, in one-to-ones with researchers. Research culture is something that comes up routinely. So trying to sort of separate the two out is just not possible for me on a day-to-day basis.

I mean, what sort of challenges do you have when you're having those conversations, obviously I've spoken quite a lot about how we, you know, reflect research culture in our conversations and we do point people in the direction of researcher development, but how does it look the other side of the aisle for want of a better term?

For me the main challenge is that there is widely varying support for professional development. Ideally, a university, a higher education institution should be a place with a culture of development in which development is really, really valued. Development is something that people think about on a regular basis.

Routinely we're having these discussions with researchers with widely varying experiences. You get some researchers who say, my line manager routinely gives me time every week to work on something that I want to work on to develop my skills and I'm like great that is wonderful and in the same conversation I can meet someone else who says my line manager says that it's pointless coming on this course that it's a waste of time and it's something that really worries me to be honest I mean I work a lot on supporting researchers applying for funding and it's something that we see very widely there you know.

In order to be an academic nowadays, you have to be applying for funding, but there is a huge disparity in the amount of support that individuals get. You get some researchers who get mentorship, they have a PI who's encouraging them to learn how to write a grant or a fellowship, and you get others who are kind of just left as is, you kind of have figure it out for themselves. And the problem is, this leads really to two problems. Firstly, this leads to a massive hidden curriculum where people don't even know what they don't know. And so how on earth can they get started with these things? But it also leads, I think, to that kind of continuing tap on the shoulder culture where certain academics get opportunities because they have a particularly supportive PI or because they're seen as the right fit or the right kind of face for that department or that school.

For us, there is always a challenge of how do we reach everyone? How do we ensure that everybody has the same opportunities for development?

I think you're right. Certainly the conversations that we have with researchers, and it's not just early career researchers, it's mid-career researchers, and established, and very senior researchers, and they're saying, I didn't know I had to do that.

Even just sitting on the University Research Ethics Committee, one thing that we've been looking at over the past 24 months, actually two years, is we rolled out a new system looking at how we support ethics applications. And suddenly there's this increase in ethics applications. And we have this conversation, we go, well, it's not that more research is happening and it's because people didn't realise they had to apply for ethics and the thing is the more information there is and now that there's a system that can be monitored we're suddenly seeing people go maybe there is an ethical component to my work and that's making it it's just increasing the integrity of the research so you've got researchers who previously working on you know very complex and emotionally demanding topics who have just thought well it's you know it's just me I'm just reading the books I don't have to worry about that and then they're like ⁓ but I am talking to people about these things and I'm running workshops about my research and actually it's quite scary with the stuff that I'm talking about so maybe I need to do an ethics review to make sure that I'm protecting the people that I'm working with even though they're not research participants and I'm not gathering information from them but if I'm doing some kind of engagement with them in order to enhance and develop my ideas and I was like great.

It's finally happening, but the thing is, if you don't know what you don't know, like you say, if you don't know that there's an ethics form, if you don't know that maybe you should have a think about it, you can't improve your practice. And that's obviously a kind of day to day, know, these are processes that supporting researchers who are already here. But I think the thing that scares me the most about what you're saying is we lose people through what you're talking about. If you don't know that you can apply for funding or things like that, you don't know, you just left. And that's certainly my experience of having done a PhD and not knowing that the next step was probably a And I didn't know until I was three years out of my PhD. And by that point, I didn't have a lot of time to apply for the early career stuff because that upper limit was kind of either three or five years.

And I hadn't been prepared for that and I didn't know that that's what I needed to do so I had to scramble very last minute to do stuff and of course the quality wasn't good enough and that was part of the exit career. it was, yeah, we're losing talent but we're also producing not very good research if we don't know what's going on I think we're in this kind of symbiosis where the work that research culture does can unearth the things that need to be addressed by research and development and then equally researcher development are going, right, well we're throwing out all these development opportunities but actually the culture isn't ready for people to receive those and to, you know, we're developing people in a broken system, so how do we fix the system? So that's what kind of works quite nicely as a kind symbiotic relationship I guess.

Yeah, absolutely. And that for me as well, it's really nice having a team that combines the two. I think for me, one of the things that's really nice about Leeds as well is that for me personally, Leeds has given me the space to really try and work on some of these problems. So for example, when I joined Leeds, I set up the Fellowship Accelerator program for postdocs and we explicitly say, you don't need to have spoken to anyone about your research idea to come onto this, we are gonna help you build this idea from the ground up. And then obviously, as you all know, I applied for research culture funding last year to build a funding hub internally, which means that ideally when it's created, every member of staff at the university will have access to the same high-quality resources, support, guidance, everything they need to put funding applications in.

Luckily there's a lot of work going on in the sector as well because there's a lot of people who think about independent researchers who don't have any access to university resources. So I'm currently working with Anna Pilz at the University of Edinburgh on rewriting the comprehensive guide to fellowships, which is this wonderful guide that she wrote a couple of years ago. And we've expanded it massively and will release that later this year. So essentially the lovely thing is I'm able to do stuff both at Leeds but it gives me the space to do this more sector-wide work as well to really try and open up this support more widely.

I just don't think we can do it without that though. I think, you know, you applied for that targeted funding that we ran at Leeds. So in previous years, we've used our Research England Enhancing Research Culture funding to kind of fund grassroots initiatives across the university. And the first two or three years that we ran of those produced some really, really wonderful projects and really exciting things.

But the thing that kept coming back to us was, I've done this work and I don't know how to embed it. And then we're kind of coming up against these blockades. we've done all of these pump priming type things, how do we now make sure that they kind of get absorbed into business as usual?

So we have that function within the research culture team. But then we ran this targeted call this year, which was much more about, tell us a problem that you want to fix, not just how do you enhance research culture, which is a big and wonderful question. But we were like, OK, look, we know the system is a bit janky. How do we just do some kind of quite quick and rapid stuff that can not put a bandaid in, but to start getting the building the momentum for bigger change by making real clear actionable changes right now. And it's only by being practitioners and having that space and that time that you've just described to go, hmm, why doesn't that exist? Let me see if I can fill that or, ooh, maybe we should update this guide to make sure that it kind of is responsive to the needs of our community and those needs change all the time. So having that space to do that work is really, really important and it uncovers those challenges. But I think it is the case that we need to, because of the deprioritisation, certainly in funding of research culture, we do have to look not for some quick wins instead of the big wins, but to have like a mixture of both.

So yeah, your project was just really exciting, A, because I thought this thing already existed and it didn't. So I'm pleased you're doing it. But also B, it's was something that was quite neatly contained but had this immense power of a kind of ripple effect to really ask those important questions about who does research. So I really like, and it's a thing that I really like in the work that we do as a research culture team, of the really small kind of routine operational changes that have that capacity to effect bigger changes in hearts and minds because I think people think of research culture as this, we'll just change how people feel about it, we'll just change how people think about it, but that's so dependent on personality and I think for the most part in the sector we do have it, well certainly at Leeds we have some really great people in the most senior positions who I consider to be allies for research culture, but when their tenure finishes I want to make sure that the next person in that role can only make good decisions.

And the only way we can do that is by putting things in place that enable them to do that because they might be a dreadful person. if we can create fantastic resources, fantastic policies, fantastic processes, they're not going to make bad decisions. They're not going to repeat past mistakes. So I think that's the thing is that it's not about winning over hearts and minds. It's about putting the stuff in place and the hearts and minds stuff comes afterwards.

One of the things that I keep coming back to is that we can become a bit obsessed with just debating the issues again and again and again, as if we're trying to do that hearts and minds work right at the start. When actually we just need to get on with the work of doing these things. And I think that for me is things like the funding at Leeds has been really powerful and is actually providing the means for getting stuff done, for talking about solutions, rather than rehashing the same old debates again and again and again. Because to some extent, winning hearts and minds will come when people see what we have done, when they see the solutions that we've already created. It's the classic thing, know, don't come to people with problems. Tell them what the problems are and tell them the solution that you have.

I agree completely and I also think sometimes that rehashing of the problem makes the problem divorced from reality.

It happens at conferences as well for research culture where they say, there's a problem with X, Y, Z. I'm like, I've had this conversation before. Let's work out. Let's break the problem down because the more we rehash this conversation, the more we just keep saying the problem over and over again, it becomes this monolithic thing that we actually can't even do anything about. If you flip it, if you kind of break it down, say, what's the real thing that we're trying to unpick here?

You can come up with solutions. You can come up with interventions. So, you know, I like venting. I love it. Spend an awful lot of my time doing it. And I know there are problems that are enormous, that feel unfixable. But the more we just talk about them as problems rather than solutions, the less able we are to actually fix them.

Yeah, absolutely. So thinking forward, what's next for research culture, both at Leeds and perhaps further afield?

We're just going to fix it, we're just going to solve it. No, I'd love that to be the case. mean, so REF is heating up. keep saying, you know, SPRE or research culture is for life, not just for REFmas. And that's true, you know, there's other things that happening in the sector. So REF continues to be an enormous driver for research culture, but some of the things that have come out of that work and indeed the PCE pilot stuff that they ran which basically kind of uncovered this need to make research culture business as usual. Great, love that. So it's going to appear more in grant applications. Just as a lot of the commitments to EDI stuff has happened and stuff around commitments to researcher development has kind of crept into those funding applications. So that's happening. So we need to continue to do this work. And so that's a really positive thing that's happening. At the same time, like I say, we're seeing a drying up of institutional and sector-wide funding for research culture. When you see both of those realities in front of you, it's kind of hard to see how they're both happening at the same time. But I think that the drive to make research culture business as usual is what underpins both of them.

So, you we're putting it into funding applications. We're making it a condition of funding. It's also in REF. That means it's everyone's collective responsibility to be part of research culture change. I love that. I think that's great. Defunding research culture is doing theoretically the same thing. We don't need a research culture team anymore because it's going to be the responsibility of the entire research community to do to enhance and develop their research cultures. I don't think we're ready for that. I don't think we're ready to off board people. I think research culture is still a thing that people don't necessarily even know what it means yet. So I think there's a lot more work to be done and certainly what we're going to be doing at Leeds over the next year will be focusing on a lot of evidence and evaluation. So both of kind of data and stuff that already exists within the institution. So we've built some fantastic data dashboards that look at data that we already had, but we've cut it in a slightly different way to reveal slightly different things. So we have grant income data, for example, we're going to look at grant income by protected characteristics. Are men outperforming women? Yes, they are. Are disabled researchers struggling? Yes, they are. Those sorts of things. And we'll be able to reflect them back because we've cut that data down to kind of faculty level. We are able to reflect that back to faculties and say, what are you going to do?

What are you going to do to support these researchers? Because if we've decided that research excellence is research income or it's research projects or it's research outputs, all of which require funding, then you need to do something here to redress the balance. So we're focusing a lot on evidence and we're going to be doing evaluation of our own activities and collecting some qualitative data as well. So it's not just going to be quantitative stuff. And I'm sort of hoping that doing that groundwork here will allow us to initiate that off-boarding process where we can say here's the data, what are you going to do about it? And it will force that responsibility that I think the sector is pushing for, to be able to give people, decision makers, change makers, the information that they need in order to affect that change and to make those decisions. Do I think you still need a research culture team or some version they're in to deliver those data? Yeah.

So that's the thing that I'm a bit worried about. We still need that resource. We still need that capacity to initiate those conversations. But for me, it's very much about making research culture a collective responsibility and doing that in the way that I know researchers and research decision makers know, which is information. They love information. But like I've said already, the problem isn't information. The problem is relevance. And I think being able to show them information that's specific to them, to talk to them in their terms. I'm working with the team in the library as well who are looking at developing open research resources that are discipline specific or methodology specific so that we can say this is how you do open research in your discipline. We're trying to make everything that we've gathered over the last couple of years really, really relevant so that people can see it as important and take responsibility for it and to be a part of it ⁓ because there's no one thing that the research culture team can do on its own to change research culture, we require the research culture community to do that. So it's really about using everything that we've got to flip it back to the community and to be here for them as part of that process and to help them and support them in making the changes that they need to make both for REF and for life. But it's, you know, we're in that process now of turning our work back out to the community.

That seems a really nice place to end this conversation. It has been so interesting talking through all of this and thinking about what's been achieved so far and what's still left to come. If you've listened to this and think, there's something I'd really like to share with the community, something I'd really like to tell others about, then get in touch. are always looking for guests to come onto the podcast, to share their exciting work, to share their own solutions to some of the challenges that we face in research culture.

So again, thank you so much, Emily. and we will see you very soon for another episode of Research Culture Uncovered.