All 4 entries tagged Researcher

Reflections on: Collaboration of the Faculties– Adventures in Interdisciplinarity

Writing about web page https://exchanges.warwick.ac.uk/index.php/exchanges/

British Academy event for early career researchers explores some exciting and innovative thinking about interdisciplinary working and research.

Hyperbole is omnipresent in Linked.In posts, to a routinely and often nauseating superfluidity, but for once when I posted last week about being ‘delighted’, ‘honoured’ and ‘inspired’ by an event I attended: this was quite simply the honest truth. Last Friday (6^th Feb) I had the genuine pleasure to head into London to the prestigious British Academy’s Westminster headquarters to attend their Early Career Researcher Network’s event entitled Collaboration of the Faculties - Adventures in Interdisciplinarity. This intriguingly titled event promised to explore the challenges of combining differing perspectives and methodologies, dissemination of interdisciplinary work and how to engage audiences across the disciplines. No small challenge!

I’d been approached way back in March this year by Paula Back, the BA’s ECR Network Officer, to get involved as a panellist. I realised from the outset, rather gratifyingly, I was one of the first people who’d been approached, which was a rare treat. Since then, there’s been a regular stream of conversation from the organisers which I’ve been privy too as they built up to the event. It felt very inclusive, and welcoming, to be included in this, rather the often-distant communications one has when speaking at other events! Certainly, I will say the planning organisation and delivering of this researcher development event was pretty much close to my personal ideal, and everyone involved should be commended for it!

On the day, the first thing that struck me was how welcoming and engaged everyone present was. I know most of the audience, beyond the speakers, are self-selected – those who have decided to attend. Yet, the resultant audience was so receptive you’d almost suspect they’d be carefully chosen to attend based on their willingness to engage! Certainly, at many conferences I’ve attended, many people head off into their cliques or friendship groups, to the exclusion of a wider conversation. Being somewhat of a wallflower [1] I sometimes find it challenging to network and have wider discussions as a result. This wasn’t a problem at the BA event, as I barely stopped talking for the entire event run time [2.] Frankly, by the end of the day, I was ready to go silent for some hours and simply let my brain start to reflect on the event.

Now, I’m not going to try and capture a blow-by-blow account of the day. There were so many excellent speakers, questions and side-discussions that it would take me far too long to recount. Not to mention, I’m sure there are better scribes than I out there who will have written a fuller accounting [3]. What I will share though are some of my key takeaways that have resonated with me over the weekend – in no order of priority!

Language barriers: A common theme was the difficulty of speaking to non-domain experts about your research or work, without using terms which are at worst opaque, or where you end up explaining them in other domain terms. Not ideal! When attempting to apply for funding or forming an effective interdisciplinary research teams, it is exactly these sorts of linguistic barriers which can create a genuine challenge to team cohesion and effectiveness. These sorts of barriers are perhaps even more apparent when scholars consider outlining their research or its outcomes to the public or to members of policy sphere and political classes.

Identity: A personal quandary for many researchers seeking to move to an interdisciplinary space or sphere of working. HEIs and senior executives continue to express their keenness for researchers to be more interdisciplinary in their working and practice. However, many of the esteem markers and career progression mechanisms are simply not configured to recognise or authenticate the ‘value’ of such work. Domain specific research remains more ‘significant’ in terms of these esteem markers, which means in terms of establishing an identity and even a career as an interdisciplinary researcher it can be a major uphill struggle with a slower progression to the senior grades. This was an area within which a number of speakers highlighted the importance of policy makers in changing perceptions and the lived reality.

Power Dysfunctions: A theme common to me from my own publishing research, but the existence of power dynamic imbalances are an issue even within interdisciplinary researcher groups. We’ve all encountered the ‘powerful’ and ‘dominant’ PI. Yet, broadly speaking, when groups of researchers come from across the disciplines to tackle a common problem scientists will typically view a problem from a certain vantage point or precept to those in the humanities, for example. Now, whomever is the driving or vocal force within the group – hierarchically speaking or simply by force of personality, can artificially close off exactly the kind of exciting, original or novel paths of exploration which interdisciplinary working is supposed to enable. As one speaker put it ‘to the [man] with the hammer, every problem looks like a nail’. [4] Overcoming this, can mean serious changes to underlying research culture too, another topic within which I’m heartily familiar.

Show Don’t Tell: When seeking to engage audiences around novel interdisciplinary-related concepts, methodologies or approaches – be they fellow researchers, the public, media or policy makers – ‘show don’t tell’ is a great approach [5]. It can help overcome some of those language barriers mentioned above, but can also help the interdisciplinary researcher by ‘forcing’ them to recontextualise their own work and potentially see it in a fresh light. Quite simply, by finding new ways to engage with audiences (and have audiences engage themselves) simply having objects, exhibits or interactive interventions can ensure a greater degree of success than simply seeking to ‘explain’ an interdisciplinary idea, research, method or methodology.

The Future is Interdisciplinary: ‘Complex real-world problems require interdisciplinary solutions’ as one speaker succinctly put it. When you look at global problems – climate change, space-exploration, healthcare etc., – there is no singular research domain that has the complete picture or solution. Working across boundaries, brining knowledge, expertise and ability from across the interdisciplinary spectrum is key to creating effective, practical leavers to affect successful change or outcomes. Getting this degree of buy in (and appreciating some of the challenges mentioned above) though, is still a journey: not everyone is ready, willing or able to step out of their disciplinary silo. Yet. Perhaps in a decade or so this might be a more natural expectation – look at the move towards open publishing for example – but for now, disciplinarity remains the realpolitik and de facto ruling principles of the academy.

Connectivity is Key: I would argue the event itself was this connectivity made manifest, but in achieving this effective interdisciplinary working future for researchers and society, finding people who are likeminded, who are willing to step beyond the disciplinary and helping to support and enable each other is key goal. Fresh and exciting perspectives await!

Alongside this exciting stuff, I was speaking myself about Exchanges and our role in facilitating interdisciplinary publishing – without any myopic application of ‘true’ or ‘authentic’ interdisciplinary research: we remain catholic, welcoming and all-encompassing in our approach. I was gratified to have such a positive feedback from the audience to my comments and answers to questions, as well as the delegates and organisers I spoke to throughout the day, about Exchanges’ rationale and approach. I hope in our own, modest, way we can help engender the kinds of exchanges (#sorrynotsorry) which the British Academy event was seeking to enable through this event. Certainly, from a more pragmatic standpoint, as more than one potential author spoke to me on the day and subsequently about future article ideas, I’m excited to see what fresh perspectives we can help bring to global attention in our forthcoming issues.

---

My grateful thanks to everyone attending, who asked a question and of course the British Academy for the invite to get involved in the first place. I had a simply terrific day, and I suspect a version of this blog post will be appearing as a future editorial in Exchanges itself! So, I was certainly inspired too.

---

Endnotes

[1] No, honestly, I am. Despite appearances to the contrary.

[2] Except, naturally, during the presentations.

[3] Of course if anyone would like to submit a critical reflection article on the events and speakers of the day, I’d be more than happy to consider it for publication!

[4] I work with a lot of scientists, and this feels very true to me – there’s always a positivist viewpoint that is privileged over others – frustrating!

[5] And one I’ve long loved from screenwriting theory and practice, I should note.

Gareth Johnson : 11 Sep 2024 10:38 |  Tags: Academy British Career Early Event Interdisciplinarity Network Researcher |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Reflecting Back on Researcher Development: Spring Term

A few thoughts from last week’s researcher development session on publishing, editorial work and reviewing.

Last week I co-facilitated the second workshop sessions for the Leadership and Management Development course for early-stage researchers[1]. While the course is intended to take a look and share thoughts around various aspects of researcher development, my contribution was focused on publishing – specifically editorial and reviewing work. After the previous session in November I’d reworked my contributions, as I felt after that session how there was less interest in talking and quite a bit more desire for some learning and explanatory content. As matters turned out for this second version, this was a slight error on my part, as the delegates last week were far more interested in discussions. For early-stage researchers too, they also seemed to have a much broader range of experience within publishing, which meant I could have gone much deeper into some areas of argumentation than I did!

In terms of what was covered in the session by myself, this included:

• Exchanges mission, purpose & opportunities
• Metrics, esteem and publishing
• Editorial workflows & processes
• Peer-reviewing models & ethics
• Trash publishers
• Call for papers for a forthcoming special issue

On post-event reflection, I can see my next set of materials for the summer session are going to need revision once more – possibly finding a middle way between directed learning and discursive exploration. I confess, the online nature of the workshop rather reduced the degree of interaction I felt would have benefited my session, and certainly my ability to adapt on the fly to delegates’ specific interests. It’s one reason why last terms Exchanges AMA worked so well, as I was able to let attendees specific interests direct the entire event’s focus. Certainly, even after three long years of teaching online, while I note it offers some advantages, I feel for myself at least that it forms more of an effective barrier to learning than I would like.[2]. Undoubtedly, talking to a blank screen with slides on it utterly denudes the experience for me in gaining any affective resonance with the delegates, which I rather think is to the detriment of the experience for all.

It's not that it was a terrible session – far from it[3] – I just came away thinking there was a whole lot more I could have explored, or emphasised more, than I did. This is in rather stark contrast to last month’s CADRE session where I couldn’t have been happier with the delivery and delegate response. Of course, that session was face-to-face rather than online – so this might be a personal delivery style preference. Or it might have been that, for myself at least, online sessions work best when they are discursive rather than didactic in structure. A learning point I think for my own future delivery planning.

All this aside, there were however, some wonderful questions from the delegates – and if anything the discourse part of the session was a rich exchange of insight. I learned a few things myself too in the meanwhile. So, I don’t believe my time was squandered, but I am beating myself up slightly over offering a session which I didn’t feel like it reached my normal level of teaching excellence. I can, in the final evaluation, utilise the experience to improve the next session I deliver!

---

Endnotes

[1] The course lead’s preferred term for newly minted academics. Roughly analogous to early career researchers.

[2] Which is slightly concerning as, at time of writing, I’m hosting another lengthy workshop session this afternoon.

[3] Delegates may disagree!

Gareth Johnson : 28 Feb 2023 09:46 |  Tags: Development Learning Practice Reflections Researcher Teaching |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Getting Published: PG Tips Workshop

I had the pleasure this week (Tue 12^th) to participate in my first teaching/seminar of the year. I had been invited, alongside my wonderful library colleague Julie Robinson, to participate in a 45 minute panel discussion for Warwick post-graduate students on the topic of ‘getting published’. Seasoned academic authors will likely realise 45 minutes is way too short a time to cover a great deal on this topic, but in the end, it seemed like we managed to pack a lot of content in what was a highly interactive and engaging session. So engaging, in fact, that we ran on for an extra 15 minutes or so due to popular demand.

Now, that’s the kind of session I like to deliver!

Thanks to David Richardson who hosted, we captured audience questions during the session. As a result, I thought it might be worth highlighting a few of the most salient ones and my responses as they refer to particularly apply to Exchanges.

---

Q: If I wanted to submit an article to Exchanges, would it be better to submit an abstract or the full paper already?

A: Very much the author’s personal choice. As a journal we don’t expect, unless part of a specific call requirement, authors to send us pre-submission abstracts or draft versions of their papers. Some choose to do so, and I’m always happy to provide some feedback and guidance at this stage, although I’ll hold off any fulsome critique until the final manuscript is submitted. Likewise, I’m always happy to schedule a video-call to talk through an author’s ideas for their paper, if they might find that helpful. On the whole though, the bulk of our submissions are the full paper manuscript, received without any prior conversation or engagement with the author: which is perfectly fine too.

Q: What are the most important elements that should be in abstract if the journal you are targeting is only allowing you to submit an abstract rather than the whole paper?

A: There’s a lot written online and by other authors on this subject, I personally like Rowena Murray or Helen Sword’s writing on this topic and would advocate seeking out their work. However, in brief, the abstract should be the article in miniature, containing the key ideas or arguments, along with a taste of the most significant finding or conclusion. What it should do is whet the appetite of the reader, from your prospective editor to the wider academic community, and draw them in to want to read (or accept for consideration) your paper. The abstract should also closely resonate with your paper’s text, with each abstract line approximating an introductory sentence within the article itself. This provides essential structure and signposting to guide the reader through your writing, methodology, methods, arguments, findings and conclusions in a structured and more readily comprehensible manner.

Q: Do you have any advice about how to choose the journal to publish in?

A: Aside from suggesting you consider a wonderful, friendly and highly early-career author focussed title like Exchanges I would suggest thinking about:
(1) Who are your audience and what titles are they reading?
(2) Where are your peers/supervisor publishing?
(3) Consider, but don’t be a slave to, journal metrics/impact factors etc – although be wary as ‘significant journals’ are more likely to reject your submission.
(4) Do you know or have contacts with any editors? Knowing someone will be receptive to discussing your submission can be a big help in choosing your destination.
(5) Especially for a first paper, consider seeking out early-career specialising journals. They may be more forgiving of initial errors, formatting oversights or typographical errors than some of the more core/mainstream titles.

Q: How different should a journal [article] drawn from thesis or dissertation work be?

A: This is a common and understandable issue for first time authors. An article manuscript needs to be its own discrete and contextual entity, with a slightly different authorial voice than you would likely use within your thesis/dissertation. Especially too, where you’re adapting a chapter, you need to ensure the piece can stand entirely on its own legs, supported naturally by appropriate citation. You might even need to consider simplifying the work, because there may be too many contrasting central ideas or themes in your original text to coherently present in your article. You should also consider adopting the style/voice of other pieces which appear in your chosen target journal or field, to enhance your chance of acceptance.

Q: How does one go about proposing a special issue to Exchanges or working with/for this journal as an editor?

A: As to the first part, I’d recommend listening to our recent podcast on exactly this topic. Then coming and having a chat with myself as editor-in-chief about the idea. One thing to bear in mind, we have a lead time of at least 12 months from initiation of special issue to publication, so this isn’t going to be something we can achieve overnight. There’ll also be some expectation of work from the proposer to bring the issue to publication too, part of which may well be involvement as an associate editor. We do issue periodic calls for associate editors, usually via our twitter account (@ExchangesIAS) and the journal's announcement pages - so you should follow and visit these periodically.

Q: What are the main outcomes after articles are peer-reviewed? Are articles rejected by journal editors when reviewers actually suggested major corrections?

A: At Exchanges we have four major post-review outcome: acceptance (rare!), revisions requested and then acceptance (most), additional reviews (occasional) or decline (aka reject). Hence, usually after peer-review there will be a period of revision and rewriting by the author, and in the case of where there are major (extensive) revisions requested by the editor, the piece may need to undergo a further round of peer-review, and minor corrections ahead of acceptance for publication. Different journals will handle these post-review steps slightly differently, indeed some take ‘major revisions’ to equate to reject and request the author work on them for a future resubmission. Read their author guidance to find out how it works for each specific journal/publisher.

Q: Is it better for your cv and career to publish with your supervisor or independently?

A: This varies enormously and is often affected by discipline. STEM authors are often members of team projects, and frequently only publish as one of a number of authors, with sole-authored works rare. Conversely, AHSS scholars often are lone or at most pairs of authors. That said, if you have a good working relationship with your supervisor, it can be a really great learning experience to co-author a paper with them. Just remember, just because they’re your supervisor, if you’re doing most of the writing, be prepared to insist on being the first named author on the work! You may find though, that co-authoring a paper with an established author like your supervisor might make it easier to publish in a ‘higher’ ranked journal…but there are not guarantees, and I’ve heard of many supervisors who are busy/get distracted and don’t come through on their contribution to an article: so approach, with caution!

---

These are only a handful of the topics we touched on in the session, hence if you have questions of your own about publishing, and especially in Exchanges, then please leave a comment or get in touch with me. I look forward to talking more about this fascinating, and essential, area of academic development.

Gareth Johnson : 14 Jan 2021 09:56 |  Tags: Advice Development Information Postgraduate Promotion Publishing Researcher Student Training |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Building a Better Journal Workshop

A couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of contributing to the Institute of Advanced Study’s (IAS) Accolade researcher development programme once again. Last year, I contributed a session to the programme on Exchanges and related scholar-led publishing topics which lasted around 90 minutes; although this year due to room availability my slot was regretfully cut back to an hour [1]. I’d originally been planning something a bit different for this year, as after reflection on the previous session I concluded that it contained too much ‘chalk and talk’ and insufficient discussion and interaction. Before I heard about the session’s length, and with my own kinaesthetic learning tendencies in mind, I’d outlined a healthy 90 minute workshop deconstructing scholar-led publishing in a series of interlinked exercises. Yes, a healthy dose of gamification was included in the outline too.

Faced with my ‘reduced Shakespeare’ session, I reconfigured the workshop into roughly 20% talk and 80% activities for the research fellows. It was, thankfully, a highly energised session which engendered plenty of questions and group discussion during the guided activities. As with any lectrure, seminar or workshop there were still elements I’d tweak for a future performance, but nevertheless it was a clearly workable format that I’ll be able to reuse elsewhere [2]. Additionally, the input, questions and insights from the fellows were extremely useful in helping to clarify various issues.

Given the appropriately spooky date for the session, I posed a question asking people to talk about and share their publishing horror stories. Every academic has them, and some may even keep people awake at night! I captured a few of them here, and I’m sure it’s a rare scjholar with whom these don’t resonate on some level.

I also ran the prototype of an exercise which challenged attendees to prioritise editorial and process elements to construct for their ‘perfect’ journal. Once again there were some key learning outcomes from this. Firstly, for the timescale I gave people too many options, and a re-run would likely need to introduce a prior winnowing technique or utilise fewer options. I might also need to introduce some clearer rules or criteria for assigning items to each category, although given the point of the exercise was to leave as much decision making in the hands of the delegates, that aspect may remain as it is. For example, here’s one of the six group’s final grids [3] showing one possible configuration using about 20% of the possible options.

Practically, I also learned that if you’re printing paper props off give yourself plenty of time, as I spent my entire lunch break cutting out strips of paper. Obviously, as this was the inaugural run for this session it was difficult to realise how it would work under-fire, but I’m confident with some slight tweaks it’ll produce a series highly stimulating and reflective exercises. I might also enhance the ‘playing pieces’ somewhat to make them clearer. Failing to realise that not everyone speaks fluent editor terminology was a very apposite point of feedback.

So in conclusion: what did I learn? Well, aside from the comments on the efficacy of running the session, I gained some insightful feedback on running a journal like Exchanges, and the perceptions of people within our potential contributor community. I’ll be using this feedback to help shape my planned focus groups, where I want to explore some related issues with groups of post-graduates and early career researchers alike. Naturally, I’ll talk about the results of these here.

---

[1] Rumours of a second slot in term 3 abide, but have yet to be confirmed! I'll worry about that in 2020.

[2] Possibly in my other teaching and workshop commitments over this academic year

[3] Image credit Hsiao Lie, to whom I note my thanks!

Gareth Johnson : 14 Nov 2019 16:01 |  Tags: Accolade Researcher Teaching Training Workshop |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem