I've spent most of this week where I spend a lot of my time - in UK universities working with research staff and academics. I've had lot of conversations about various aspects of academia and careers but two really stand out.

 

One was with an institute director with whom I was discussing some ideas to support his researchers. We met at the end of a long day for both of us and I must admit I went into the meeting with some weariness. I received a email just before the meeting from someone who has a habit of sending scornful messages and was distracted thinking about how I was going to respond. I was facing a long drive home and an early start the next day.

 

Two and a half hours later I emerged from a meeting which completely energised me. We had a great plan and determination to turn our ideas into an event or programme. We'd shared book recommendations and people in our networks. My good mood wasn't due to the prospect of a new piece of work (although that's great), but because I'd connected with a positive person. For those few hours, anything was possible.

 

Academic life isn't easy at the moment. I spent a day with new and emerging research leaders this week and the discussions about REF were demoralising for me (let alone them). It feels like the important things in academia that can't be measured are being devalued, and that the sector risks favouring 4* papers over "4* people". The pragmatist in me understands where REF has come from and that scrutiny of academia is part and parcel of public funding, but it worries me that we risk losing a generation of brilliant, committed people who are made to feel that they don't tick the right boxes. 

 

The second conversation of the week was with someone like this. They are exactly the kind of person who should succeed in academia. Passionate about their work, delivering important outcomes and yet demoralised by the perception that they are failing. During our conversation I recalled my meeting earlier in the week and we talked about the power of positive people. I suggested they find ways to spend time with people with a positive approach - working with them if possible.

 

As we spoke about ways to find positive people and connect with them, two areas of opportunity cropped up - the impact agenda and the push towards collaborative research. Both of these are based on developing relationships and both provide the chance to meet people who care about the things you care about. Even if they are only a small part of your workload, these connections might "top up your happy tank" enough to get you through the daily grind. 

 

Although I now work on the periphery of academic life, I've embraced both of these ideas. I've found another positive person (a teacher in a local school) and set up and run a very successful little science festival. (If you know me, you'll know ALL about this, otherwise, check out last year's event...). I think the success of this is down to the fact that both Andrew and I focus on what is possible, rather than what is difficult. I'm not suggesting it was easy to run the event, but it was fun and energising because we kept meeting people who were positive about what we were doing. Neither of us receive an income from our work on the festival but it pays a rich wage in terms of the people we meet and the satisfaction we get from delivering a great event.

 

I'm also collaborating much more as part of my professional life. Although this means sharing rewards and remuneration, the benefits are huge. I use collaboration as a mechanism to spend time with other positive people - I perform better with them because they inspire me to push forwards and do bigger things. Not all of our projects come to fruition but we all benefit from the time we spend together.

 

Some people have the negative default - focusing on what you can't do and why "that won't work here". They often make good points and help us avoid repeating mistakes, so this post isn't suggesting that you should avoid all negative thought. However, if the negative voices are all you hear, they will stifle you. 

 

Time with positive people builds your resilience. They remind you of why you're in your role and why it's important. They give you permission to be positive yourself and to get excited again about being a researcher.

As the Christmas break approaches in the UK and we are enjoying our first real fall of snow in Southern Scotland, there is a real “end of term” sense in the air. A good time therefore to focus on a skills/attribute/behavior that really benefits from a little space and opportunity to step back – that of creativity.

 

Until about 5 years ago I limited myself with the mistaken belief that I wasn’t creative. I knew I was able to work well and to deliver ideas really effectively, but I thought that really off-the-wall thinking was beyond me. Then, through my involvement in the Crucible programme and with encouragement (more accurately, irritation that I held such a preposterous notion) from a good friend, I started to realise that (a) I was as creative as the next person and (b) further creativity could be developed from a set of behaviours.

 

I’m going to share some of these in this post and to link to the resources I’ve found useful. Let’s start with a health warning though – my creativity isn’t the same as yours. The techniques that help me to think in a more innovative way might not help you – we all need to recognize our existing strengths and weaknesses and to be able to characterize our own brand of creativity before we can find tools to develop it further or in different directions.

 

• Know your own creativity

 

 

I’ll start with a great presentation from Jason Theodor, a Canadian creative director and speaker. Jason shares his ideas and developmental tools in a brilliant workshop available on slideshare. Once you get to grips with the ideas he introduces, you can start to see where your own creativity can be developed and then to understand which changes to your thinking and habits will have most impact. The element that I want to develop is “deviation” and the prescription for boosting it is, in Jason’s words “exposure to new things”. I think of it in slightly different terms – in order to develop better ideas I need to shake off (for a time) my preference for ideas which are useful and readily applicable.

 

I’d encourage you to use Jason’s ideas and other resources such as MBTI and Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles (both tools should be readily available to university-based researchers, probably for free) as a starting point. My familiarity with these really helped me to “let go” of my preferred style and to embrace the alternatives. 

This process of self-awareness should also include reflection on when you are and aren’t creative yourself. This is really key - in the workshop I ran on this topic last week we discussed our own creative preferences and had people who were most creative under pressure and least creative under pressure. Find your own creativity and be aware that the rest of this post is about MY creativity.

• Write it all down

 

My next tip is to become a scribe. Get into the habit of capturing thoughts, observations and ideas. This has been a hard habit for me to acquire, but I now never travel without a notebook and use it constantly to write down anything that strikes me as interesting, useful or curious. It's taken me about 3 years to start doing this reglarly and effectively. I don't find this easy - which is why I do it.

•   Collaborate

 

Working with others gives an instant “hit” of alternative perspectives, but not everyone will boost your creativity. Think about who adds to, and who detracts from, your creative life. Aim to spend more time with people who help you develop better ideas. When you are with the right people your creativity will feel like a pinball - ideas will bounce around in a frenzy and the brilliance will flow.

•   Draw, don’t write

 

Perhaps draw is taking it too far, but mapping ideas out in graphical terms gives a different view. To get you started, you might like to use some templates, such as these or something as simple as a mind map. I don't find this easy - which is why I do it. With a bit of help...

 

• Suspend your judgement

 

We often stifle our own creativity by allowing the inner critic to stop the flow of possibilities. Creativity comes from embracing the mad, weird and dangerous. We’re all (well mostly) sensible enough to weed out these ideas at a later stage, but in the divergent mode, we need to let the mad ideas out – there might be a brilliant one hiding behind them. Anyway, does it really matter if you get it wrong first time? (Clearly for pilots and brain surgeons it does matter...)

 

• Do different things, go to different places

 

If you look at a problem from the same seat, in the same building, surrounded by the same people, breathing the same air, you are making life very tough for yourself. GO for a walk. Learn to knit. Visit a gallery. Read something as far removed from your own perspective as possible. Give your brain a chance to think differently.

 

• Learn from the experts

In addition to the insights I got from reading Jason Theodor's presentation, there are a few other "creativity gurus" that help me. These guys help with my brand of creativity - no guarantees they'll help you!

Jurgen Wolff's book Creativity Now! and the accompanying blog

Dr Kevin Byron runs brilliant workshops on creavitiy - you can get a glimpse of his ideas in the Vitae Creative Researcher booklet.  Hopefully he'll be persuaded to write a book one day...

TED talks are a fabulous source of ideas and challenging thinking. A couple on this theme include Ken Robinson on creativity in schools, or rather how education kills it, and John Francis who personifies what you can achieve by being different. Radically different. I found John's talk thought the Imulus blog. Ken's talk was recommended by my partner in crime at Bang Goes the Borders.

And to finish, a few musings of my own from a year or two ago.

 

If you were at the workshop which prompted this blog, the slides are on the Blackboard site - for anyone else who wants them, leave a comment and we'll connect!

 

 

 

 

Despite the challenges facing the academic sector across Europe - reduced funding, increased competition for posts and the eternal "post-doc" problem, an academic career is still the aspiration of many early career researchers. 

My work brings me into contact with incredibly talented and productive researchers, many of whom never achieve a permanent academic position. When I contemplated an academic career as a PhD student and postdoc, I thought that if I worked hard and produced enough papers, I'd be on track to secure a lectureship. As soon as I shared these aspirations with academics in my departments, they improved my awareness of the expectations and needs of recruiting departments.

I needed to publish more and to publish things that changed the way people thought in my field.

I needed to leave the department (where I had completed my degree and PhD), ideally to work overseas to broaden my network, learn new techniques and become more personally resilient.

I needed to learn how to write grants even though I wasn't eligible to hold them.

I needed to start thinking about what my own research area was going to be, and to equip myself to contribute to it.

I needed to be less concerned, less interested in teaching - this wasn't going to help my career progress (harsh, but fair advice in my field for someone at my career stage.

This advice came almost twenty years ago and although there have been additions to the demands, this advice is still very sound. What is interesting though, is that until I asked people specifically what I should be doing to try and get a lectureship, no-one volunteered these insights. If you hope to become an academic, have you spoken to any? Particularly those who have been recently appointed and know the current demands.

Most academics I know are incredibly supportive of their students and young researchers in their departments. Most are also willing to share their advice with other researchers they meet at conferences or through other networks. Some very special ones are also willing to be involved in career development workshops!

 

Last week I was priviledged to be invited to run a couple of workshops at the FOM Young Scientist Day in Amsterdam. I was joined in my sessions by Professor Sylvie Roke from EPFL in Switzerland. Sylvie started the day with a plenary address on her career during which she talked honestly about the challenges, how she overcame them and the investment she has made in her career to be successful. Sylvie also displayed a healthy attitude to her own work-life balance - she has other interests and chooses not to spend all her waking hours at work. Therefore she has to be efficient and effective. Her work with a career coach has helped her to find a way to achieve more and to manage others better. 

 

The slides and additional notes from the workshop are below. I hope to elaborate on the advice section in future posts. 

As I listened to all the speakers I heard fascinating and important career development messages coming again and again. I've mentioned a few in my last posting and on my twitter feed but the idea I've taken away most strongly is the idea of control - stay in charge of your own career. Two of the speakers had called up employers who had rejected them and secured the job - either immediately or soon afterwards. One had written a letter to point out the devasting impact of a rejected grant application - and convinced the funder to rethink and give them the money. Too often and too quickly we let other people or circumstances halt our plans - could a little of the perserverence that researchers need to progress in their science be a magic career ingredient too?

(Most of the researchers who attended were physicists but the discussions we had could be applied to any academic field.)

 

As a final note I should add that when I started to ask my senior colleagues for advice, a few asked me to think about whether an academic career was right for me. They were generous with their suggestions, advice and networks and helped me to find a better path forward which suited my strengths and interests more closely. Although not easy to hear at the time, talking about my career and asking for advice opened my eyes to the alternatives. As someone asked in my workshop last week, "Why do we all want academic careers?" Is it because you don't know what else would bring you satisfaction and excitement?

 

 

I spent the day at the FOM Young Scientist Day which aims to give young physics researchers in the Netherlands the tools they need to manager their careers effectively, be they academic or otherwise. I ran a workshop on academic career development alongside Sylvie Roke which I'll post details of later (probably in the next few days!). The day started with three very powerful presentations from people with different career paths - Dr Wim van Saarloos, Director Foundation at FOM; Professor Sylvie Roke, EPFL and Dr Joost van Mameron, Coordinator Institute of Physics at UvA. Their careers have taken very different routes, but the messages they gave to the room were consistent. - take control of your career. All of them had invested time and energy in broadening their skills. Whether it is learning to touch type, volunteering for committee or paying for coaching, they have all done interesting and different things which made them more employable and broadened their perspectives. Sylvie went even further - she invested financially by paying a career coach to help her maximise her potential. To hear somebody of her calibre talking about the value and impact of the coaching on her effectivess (I work fewer hours than my colleagues so I have to be more efficient) was a real wake-up call for the audience, some of whom (it transpired later) were still to be convinced of the value of skills & career planning). We had a discussion later about the value that we give to our personal development and it made me think about the difficulty engaging many people to think about these issues even (or perhaps because!) when expert advice is available for free. - other people matter. Every presenter talked about a time where they had been "lucky" but on closer inspection, this luck was about being made aware of an opportunity they hadn't spotted, being encouraged to apply for something or been recommended by others. In other words they were so highly regarded by those around them that their networks were looking out for them, recommending them and nurturing them. I think that this is a measure of the positivity that the first point illustrates. By being personally committed, they show that they are worth the investment of others. - know what you want and enjoy it. Joost talked about his dilemma when choosing the path out of academia and the factors which influenced this choice. He balanced his desire for a certain kind of work against a desire to work abroad. All the speakers made a series of moves which took them towards a particular goal. These goals weren't necessarily ultimate goals, just the next step in their development. Careers often make sense in retrospect and for all that I advocate the process of career planning, I also recognise that you can only see so far ahead and career choice is often a step into the unknown. The key is to keep thinking "Am I learning? Am I happy doing this? Are there other things out there?" and to make the move when you need to. All in all a really inspiring day and I've added a couple of great people to my network. I'll be writing a post about my workshop when I get back to the UK, but right now I'm off to put my shoe by the chimney, put a carrot out for the horse and sing Zie Ginds Komt de Stoomboot. (Careers musing with free cultural insights...)

The natural networker is at an advantage in the modern world where relationships and connectivity are so vital. The rest of us can reflect on the behaviours and habits of life's "schmoozers" and apply these to improve our own personal impact.

 

This posting is based on a short workshop I gave at Dundee University in November 2011 as part of their OPD researcher developer programme. The slides from the workshop are available on-line through my slideshare account and below.

 

The slides are hopefully self-explanatory, but there are a few messages I want to emphasise.

 

The concept of networking and the word itself have pretty heavy connotations of strategic conversations, spotting "useful" people and getting what you want from people. All this is a bit of a turn-off even to those of us who are converts to its value. Far better to stop thinking about networking as a thing that has to happen at a certain time or place - just become familiar with what you want to say and why it is interesting to others and then let the conversations flow more naturally.

 

There's far more "give" than "take" in networking - it is much easier to think about the value you can give to other people than worrying about how you will ask them to give you something. Focus instead on what you can offer - these ideas are expanded in the slides.

 

Use social media to develop and sustain relationships before and after face-to-face meetings. Contribute your ideas and opinions if you have something to add to another researcher's postings and be generous in sharing information. Hopefully the karma fairy will pay you back when you need it.

 

I hope the slides are useful if you weren't able to make the workshop, act as a good reminder if you were there or will have some value if you aren't a Dundee researcher.

 

SS Nov 2011

 

 

Today I'm working with a group of researchers the value of social media to their careers and doctoral training. A short workshop can only scratch the surface, but hopefully in this post I can point to a range of sites and share my thoughts on why it should be part of your life as a research student.

Twitter - not just about celebrity minutiae, this micro-blogging site is a constant source of information, comment and opinion. By selecting the organisations and individuals who are most relevant to your interests, you can personalise the flow of knowledge. I follow funding bodies, individual academics, researcher networks and selected journals. As well as information, twitter connects me with a wide community. Unlike other networking sites, I can follow anyone who posts public information. I don't need to know them or get their permission (although some people prefer to post privately to approved followers). If you fancy following me, please do. You'll find my twitter feed reflects my interests and my personality, which I think is a good way of helping people connect with my work.

Each time I scroll through the timeline on Twitter I find something useful. Either a blog posting from a professional in my field, news from a researcher about a conference, a news story which relates to research - I'm hardly ever disappointed.

With time, I've also found that I can use twitter as a consulting pool - I posted a question recently about software for research project management and received many suggestions (these will be collated in a future post!). I can also comment on discussions or even take part in brief Tweet-meetings where you happen to coincide on-line with a group commenting on the same topic or idea.

A recent tweet from Professor Dorothy Bishop pointed me to a great blog post aimed at nervous academics - this gentle introduction might convince you if I can't.

And on the subject of blogging ...

Advice on setting up a researcher blog and a list of examples of blogs written by researchers from Tristram Hooley are available on the Vitae website. Rather than try to come up with something as good as this, I shall simply point you towards these and an article from Science Careers on the same topic. 

Networking is one of the most important skills in modern career management and social media is a brilliant tool for keeping your network active and interested in you. I have a number of profiles on different sites - I tend you use Facebook as a personal space and tend to connect with people as friends, although I have set up a company page for Shinton Consulting Ltd. My professional network lives on LinkedIn and although I am regularly tempted by specific sites like academic.edu, they aren't really set up for my kind of work. I think they are great for academics though and give you a showcase for work, papers, interests and collaborations.

Content sharing

A range of sites of available to help you disseminate your research to a wider audience. I am pointing you towards large general interest sites rather than research specific ones. Please add any suggestions for more niche sites to the comments below.

Slideshare is for presentations - I post my slides here and find the visual impact and style of some of the materials on this site really inspiring - great for ideas to develop dazzling presentations.

Flickr is for photographs and images. I've heard of students putting images of their conference posters on here. I use it for holiday snaps. Which I won't bore you with...

Delicious is a social bookmarking site which I use to capture great sites as I find them. I can also theme them for specific audiences or interests. A great way to use the cloud as it means I can point people to my bookmarks wherever and whenever they have internet access.

Research specific sites are proliferating. Rather than duplicate the excellent guide that has been written for the Research Information Network I shall simply point you to it : Social Media- A Guide for Researchers is a must read.

In the discussions I've had with researchers new to social media, there are also a number of concerns expressed about sharing information in open. I have to say that I remain convinced that the risks are outweighed by the benefits, but my golden rule for any post is " am I happy for my clients, family and friends to read this?". I think if you keep the potential employer of the future in your mind as you engage with social media, you shouldn't do too much harm.

A previous post sets out my motivations for attending the RSE Parliament Day. Here I'll try to explain what I learnt. These views are clearly my own reflections and thoughts on the event. I also tweeted during the day using #RSEScotParl as a hashtag.

The presenters on the day came from three worlds - there were politicians (Dr Elaine Murray MSP Labour, Alex Johnstone MSP Conservative and Paul Wheelhouse MSP SNP - sadly Willie Rennie MSP Liberal Democrats couldn't join us Spread a bit thin these days, the Scottish Lib Dems), learned societies and organisations (Bristow Muldoon, RSE and RSC, Stephen Benn RSC, Mark Downs Society of Biology, Imran Khan Campaign for Science and Engineering) and the civil service (Professor Anne Glover, the Chief Scientific Adviser for Scotland).

The variety of speakers meant we got a really good overview of what scientists and their representatives do to engage and influence politicians; what the politicians think about science and the role of scientific experts inside government. I"ll try to summarise the day into key messages from each represented group.

The overarching messages from the day:

 - politicians can't be experts in all the areas they have to engage with, but that doesn't mean that they don't see the value of science. If they relate this science to the things they are concerned about, this value becomes self-evident so scientists need to understand wider issues and explain to policy makers how science contributes to a better solution or should be part of the decision making process. A quote from Stephen Benn " We all know what we think is important. We need to relate this to what THEY (parliament) thinks is important and makes our issues relevant."

 - policy decisions aren't made on purely scientific evidence as demonstrated by two examples which came up several times during the day - nuclear power and genetically modified foods. Even if there is scientific evidence of the benefits of these technologies, politicians have to make decisions based on public attitudes, economic factors and the opposing views of other sectors. So, we can't just complain that science evidence is being ignored, we need to think about how to influence these other elements. I don't have an easy solution to this, but it was interesting to hear politicians explain that just because science says something is a good thing, it doesn't mean it will just happen.

- the link between constituent and elected representative is very powerful, particularly in the Scottish Parliament given its size and ethos.  Paul Wheelhouse made this point, strongly supported by the other MSPs present. The implication seemed to be that it is easier to connect with an MSP than it might be to connect with an MP, which hasn't been my personal experience. However, I think we are spoilt in the Borders by having Michael Moore as our MP. Certainly after seeing Paul talk I won't hesitate to contact him if I think he needs to know something (yes, I'm one of his constituents). I have heard a different story from other researchers though, expressing frustration that their views aren't listened to when they try to connect with government. I'd see the approach here as being the same I suggest when trying to get funding - understand what the person you are trying to engage (tap for money) wants to achieve, then present your message (proposal) in these terms.

- politicians like certainty and want to see evidence, facts and figures in the information presented to them. The messages need to be clear and unambiguous. Interesting meeting of worlds here given that science is about uncertainty, debate and defending a position. Stephen Benn describe watching two parties use information from a report he produced used on opposing sides of an argument. Politicians need a different communication style to the one used to address academic peers.

The main message from RSE, RSC and SB was that scientists have more influence if they can speak with a single voice. Perhaps unsurprising that the professional bodies would say that, given that they are an obvious channel for single messages...but they made the case well. They can devote time, resources and energy into developing links with parliaments, understanding the agendas, pulling together tens of thousands of voices from their memberships and delivering the messages in the most effective way. The individual scientist needs to engage with the society to contribute to the messages being produced. As Mark Downs (SB) said "make your learned society deliver what you want". 

Two mechanisms that you can use: the RSC Parliamentary Links Scheme and the Society of Biology science policy newsletter 

All those engaged with politics stressed the importance of building relationships over time, supporting those in government (and the media) to help them achieve what they want to achieve. In order to be helpful, you need to understand what, when and how they need our information and insights. No doubt to some this will seem machiavellian and sinister, but that wasn't the spirit in which it was presented. Everything in life is about people, building relationships with them is key.

Imran Khan from CASE talked about his campaigning for science using traditional and social media. His strongest message was to talk to journalists and he gave several examples of how CASE have used the media to "encourage" activity from parliament and government. He gave the same message about the media as we had heard about politicians - get the know them, understand what they want and deliver your messages on these terms. Accept that important ≠ newsworthy and present your messages as things that help journalists and editors achieve what they want - more sales, more readers, more viewers, more influence.

He also talked about using influence to achieve your ends - illustrated by the CASE approach of distinguished signatories for their letters and reports. Nothing like a Nobel Prize Winner to add a bit of oomph and credibility to a message. ANother strategy is to "arm" politicians with the facts and information they need to make certain arguments, describing the success of CASE on two key issues - protecting the science budget and changing immigration policy - about being partly down to media engagement and partly down to providing case studies, stories and figures which showed the inconsistency of these policies with wider government objectives. Very canny man...

The day closed with a great presentation from Anne Glover. Her role as Chief Scientific Adviser for Scotland is to further enhance Scotland's reputation as a science nation and she presented us with her insights into how policy is formed. This is kindly described as "evolutionary" (messy and complicated if you prefer)`echoing the comments heard earlier from MSPs about the competing and opposing opinions that they try to take into account. She gave us some, by now familiar, perspectives on what are the main challenges - the different time scale that elected representatives operate in, the need for fact and clear messages, the need for mutual trust and respect and the differences in language used by scientists and politicians. 

She encouraged the scientists in the room to look at the problems facing the government and think of solutions. She also encouraged direct contact with her, citing the post-doctoral researcher who emailed her during the first Eyjafjallajökull eruption offering advice  - she contacted him during the recent ash cloud disruptions and used his knowledge directly.

 

Some final messages from the day -

 

improve communication, using current political concerns as "hooks" to introduce the validity of your work

combine messages with other scientists to put forward a consistent opinion

get to know people before you need to know them - politicians, societies and journalists

understand the issues that government is thinking about

 

So, definitely worth a day of my time and I've met some really interesting people and feel much more comfortable and confident about the reception I will get if and when I need to engage the political world. Thanks to the RSE, in particular Dr Caroline Wallace for getting people together.

My motivation for attending was as part of my learning about impact. The pathway to impact isn't easy or straightforward, as described by Richard Jones in his blog, but worth walking.

 

A day with politicians and those who try to lobby and influence them might not sound like your idea of fun, but yesterday I spent an illuminating day at the Royal Society of Edinburgh trying to improve my understanding of the most effective ways to engage with policy makers and learning from a couple of experts who done it with great success.

My motivations for attending the event are based on a number of different things - hearing about the successes of the ESRC/Scottish Government collaborations over the last 5 years; becoming personally more interested in the political processes (which my husband sees as some kind of weird mid-life crisis) and the number of times I seem to say the word "impact" in my day-to-day work. 

The impact agenda in higher education research is all about broadening the significance of UK research and increasing the reach and influence of researchers. There are two key drivers pushing the agenda - the need to include a "pathways to impact" statement in research proposals to the UK Research Councils and the inclusion of impact as a measure in the future REF assessment. 

This week I've run a couple of workshops on the impact agenda and also had lots of conversations about its implications for researchers. Before I continue, I need to make clear that I'm no longer a researcher, but I am passionate about the importance of research and the value of researchers. I see the impact agenda as an opportunity to put research and its outputs at the heart of our society, but only if it is embraced by those at the front line. There's a danger that if we (apologies, because I'm going to say "we" throughout despite my non-researcher status) see this as something external to the research process and view it simply as the latest box to the ticked that the agenda will be determined by people who aren't active researchers - a model for impact will be imposed on us.

I've already seen some worrying signs that the potential value of the impact agenda isn't been seen. After the recent LSE conference on impact in the social sciences I read a blog from from Jack Stilgoe which expressed disappointment that the discussions at the event were still focused around high impact papers. I've had conversations with people who see the scientific model for impact as being about commercialisation, which immediately alienates many researchers whose work doesn't have potential for direct economic return. The actual impact model from RCUK is far richer than these two examples, and the areas which I find most interesting are those which use research to influence and inform policy decisions and the drive to engage the public. Having recently organised a successful science festival, I feel I'm making process on the latter, so my current objective is to learn more about the dark art of politics. 

A quote from Jack Stilgoe's blog resonates with me this morning, 

"Anyone who has been involved in policies that pretend to be ‘evidence-based’ know that it’s about being in the right place at the right time, talking to someone who’s prepared to listen."

There are lots of questions thrown up by this quote - where are the right places? when is the right time? and what do you need to do to get people to be prepared to listen? Some of these questions were answered yesterday at the RSE.

 

But that's another blog post...

 

In about an hour I'll be kicking off the 2011 Edinburgh GRADschool. For those of you not familiar with the term, this is an intensive, residential course aimed at 2nd and 3rd year PhD students at UK universities. During the next 4 days, students will work in multi-disciplinary teams on a variety of tasks with the aim of developing their communication skills, understanding of team-working and personal effectiveness.

I attended a GRADschool as a PhD student back in 1994 just as I was preparing to write my thesis and plan my next steps. At this time there were no researcher training programmes, so the course had a huge impact on me and my attitude to my future career. I can still remember the moment when I realised that my PhD was part of what I could offer the world of work and that it was up to me to work out what the whole picture of my career would include beyond my research expertise.

The research experience is very different now - students can expect to access extensive training programme and by the time they reach their final year they could have had weeks of generic skills training. So why should they commit to an intensive four day residential course?

The "something special" that the GRADschool offered then and still offers today is the chance to work with a group of people under pressure, but in an environment where you get feedback on your performance and the opportunity to develop, review, develop through the course.  I hope that the students who leave on Friday will have much better insights into the way they tend to behave in a team, interact with others and with some clearer thoughts about where they can take their skills and values as they identify future careers.

The GRADschool I went on in 1994 changed my life - I came back fired up with enthusiasm for post-PhD life and my motivation was much greater during the dark months of thesis writing. It planted a seed that grew into my current career (even though at the time I never imagined that I'd be tutoring on courses within 4 years and directing a GRADschool 7 years after attending as a student). I know what a difference good training and development can make and I feel a responsibility to the students I'll meet over the next week to give them the best possible opportunity. 

Even in today's academic environment with access to a whole calendar of training, the GRADschool is something special and I urge those of you who are presented with the opportunity to take it.

 

The first two "showings" of my new Social Media and your Career workshop happened yesterday in Utrecht. Many thanks to all who attended and made them such a success.

By sticking to the core principle of a workshop about careers and introducing social media as a "shiny new wrapper" to boost your profile and impact, there was something for even the most expert Social Media (SM) users who found themselves in the workshop. Particular thanks to them for their engagement despite their concerns I was about to teach them to suck eggs (I'm not sure this translates into Dutch but they all smiled at the image - here's a note on this curious phrase for my perplexed Dutch readers!).

So, here I'm going to continue the workshop by posting the annotated slides and some additional links; by reminding those who were there (and informing those who weren't) of the sites we visited during the session and by inviting comments and further suggestions from the audience (this includes you!).

 

First the handout:

The format is A3, folded into an A5 booklet (thanks to Janet Wilkinson for this excellent idea). 

 

The slides we used during the workshop are now on SlideShare including notes from the two discussions we had on the potential value of SM and the steps that individuals can take to bolster their SM presence. (To view the notes for each slide, from the SlideShare site click the notes tab behind the comments box.)

 

We looked at a range of sites during the workshop to illustrate the value of Social Media.

 

Twitter - the off-putting thing about Twitter is the home page that you see when visiting for the first time. All the trivia and nonsense in the world appears before your eyes, with (if you are lucky) the occasional vaguely interesting post. Like all SM the beauty of Twitter is only revealed as you begin to identify interesting and informative feeds to follow. I've created a starters' list after the workshop to give a flavour of the posts I follow and my fabulous Dutch speaking research careers expert Tennie has done the same.

 

LinkedIn - the groups feature of LinkedIn was the facet discussed in most depth during the workshop. This enables users to engage with other like-minded individuals without having to link to them directly. It also allows for discussion threads and posting of material. The PostDoc Forum group has just started a discussion about being a researcher in another country which invites members to share personal insights and advice. We also talked about the power of the recommendation facility on LinkedIn and I suggested that the best way to benefit from this is to start by writing recommendations for others.

 

Facebook - although largely social, the value of Facebook for researchers was illustrated by two examples from the group of Facebook community pages created by researchers for researchers. (I'll post details of these in the comments once I've heard from the researchers who run them.) Again, this is a way to broaden your reach on Facebook without having to "befriend" people. GIven the fact that most users view Facebook as a networking tool for personal friends, rather than professional contacts, this allows researchers to tap into the huge audience using Facebook without having to compromise on a more relaxed style of postings. The ShintonConsulting Facebook page welcomes all!

 

Blogging sites - once your SM confidence grows, blogging is a great tool for sharing your thoughts and ideas in more depth. Most sites also allow for posting of material such as slides, video, documents and audio files so you can create a multi-media experience for your readers! I also find blogging is a great reflective tool - one of the core career management skills - allowing you to review experiences and develop your thinking. Blogging also usually allows for a dialogue with your readers (although some bloggers prefer all comments to be fed through their Twitter feed).

 

Content sharing sites - a huge variety are available so I'm going to focus on the academically oriented. Vidiowiki can be described as YouTube for researchers who post 3 minute presentations describing their work to a broad audience.

Another researcher video worth viewing is Dominic Walliman's prize winning description of his research into Quantum Computing (and while you are in the YouTube universe why not check out the RUG Wetenschapsdag, Spinoza Prizewinner Marten Scheffer, the SENSE Research School channel, Leiden University Faculty of Science.) Had enough research? Time for a little light relief... 

 

I've also just heard from Keith, the other half of Shinton Consulting, that many researchers are uploading their conference posters to Flickr. Another great use of SM for research.

 

To illustrate the way that SM can deliver information you would never have found otherwise, here are two final sites we looked at:

EmployKyle - don't know what you want to do with your life but think you have something special to offer the right employer? Don't let it put you off - embrace the uncertainty, like Kyle

Unconvinced SM is anything other that a flood of trivia? Researchers are finding it a rich source of information and scholarly activity.

 

So, a final thanks to all involved and if I've missed anything, let me know via comments. And don't forget...

1. Social Media is a wonderful rich source of information, but without a clear objective it will be a HUGE time-eater (to be honest, even WITH a clear objective it can take over your life) so enter the universe with a question that needs an answer.

2. Remember that SM is like a shiny new wrapper - what counts is the quality of the thinking and the personal integrity underneath. Only post comments or material that you would be happy for a colleague or potential employer to see. 

 

I hope those who couldn't attend the workshop find enough material here to help them benefit from the ideas we discussed - if you'd like to come along in the future, just let NWO know!

 

If this experiment with social media is of value, I'll post future workshops here as well.