October 16, 2024 • 53 mins
What are the ingredients for creating a supportive, inclusive research culture? Nina Molin Høyland-Kroghsbo from the Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences , Microbial Ecology and Biotechnology at the University of Copenhagen discusses the Research Environment Prize established three years ago by the Danish Young Academy to promote and celebrate good research environments, as experienced by early career researchers in those environments.
We are joined here by the 2024 prize winners, PhD students Line Maj Sternberg and Nicklas Stott Venzel who nominated their Research Unit in Psychology of Sport, Excellence and Health at the University of Southern Denmark. They share what makes their environment great, and how the group translates their research on what makes a great sports environment into what makes a great research environment. In particular, they talk about encouragement for taking initiative, a focus on long-term development, open communication, psychological safety, promoting mental health, and a sense of belonging, as key factors. Nina also reflects on the common themes that the awarding panel has seen across over a hundred nominations, such as belonging, collaboration, creative practices, and celebrating both successes and failures.
Overview:
00:34 Episode Introduction
03:26 Meet the guests
06:44 The Danish Young Academy and the Research Environment Prize
11:51 Line and Nicklas on applying sports research to academia
18:38 Building trust and open communication
22:34 Support for long term development and wellbeing
25:55 Psychological safety in research
26:55 Creative methods for sensitive topics
29:56 Common themes from nominated research environments
34:47 More examples of good practices
38:41 Having clear values
44:03 Learning from failures, celebrating successes
45:56 Value of good research culture for scientific integrity
49:51 Wrapping up, final thoughts
53:48 End
Related links:
Prize announcement by the Young Academy on LinkedIn
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Geri (00:10):
Welcome to Changing Academic Life.
I'm Geraldine Fitzpatrick and this isa podcast series where academics and
others share their stories, provideideas and provoke discussions about what
we can do individually and collectivelyto change academic life for the better.
(00:34):
So what are the ingredients for creatinga supportive inclusive research culture?
And what can you do to contribute to that?
Well, hopefully you'll come away fromthis episode with lots of ideas.
I'm joined here by two PhD students,Line and Nicklas from Southern university
(00:54):
Denmark who are going to talk abouttheir award winning research environment.
And we're joined by Nina, a memberof the Danish young academy who
set up the prize three years ago?
So, let me introduce them all a bit more.
Nina Molin Høyland-Kroghsbo isfrom the department of plant and
(01:16):
environmental sciences, microbial,ecology, and biotechnology at
the University of Copenhagen.
And she's here with her hat on as amember of the Danish young academy.
The Danish young academy set up aprize three years ago to promote and
(01:36):
celebrate good research environments asexperienced by early career researchers.
And so the 2024 winners werePhD students, Line Maj Sternberg
and Nicklas Stott Venzel.
And they nominated their research unit inpsychology of sport, excellence and health
(01:59):
at the university of Southern Denmark.
Line and Nicklas share whatmakes their environment great.
And it's interesting how the grouptranslates their research on what makes
for a great sport environment into whatmakes a great research environment.
In particular, they talk aboutthings like the encouragement they
(02:22):
get for taking initiative, thefocus on long-term development.
The very open communicationstructures that they have in place.
The psychological safety and being safeto try things out and make mistakes.
The support for good mental health andhaving a strong sense of belonging.
(02:44):
Nina also reflects on a lot of the commonthemes that they see as the awarding
panel across over a hundred nominations.
And she compliments these observationswith things like belonging, again, and
collaboration, creative practices, andcelebrating both successes and failures.
(03:06):
We hope this episode will encourage youto think about how you can recognize
and celebrate great research cultures.
And also pick up ideas totry out for yourselves.
As Line and Nicklas repeatedly stated (03:18):
a good research culture is created together.
I'm really excited today to havethree people to talk to about award
winning research culture environments.
First, do you want tointroduce yourselves?
Nina.
Nina (03:39):
Yeah, so my name is Nina Molin Høyland-Kroghsbo.
I'm an associate professor at theUniversity of Copenhagen, and then I'm
a member of the Danish Young Academy,which is an agency under the Royal
Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters.
And so we've started this ResearchEnvironment Prize that we are
going to talk about today.
Geri (03:58):
Great.
And our prize winners, who aresitting together in a studio.
Line.
Line (04:05):
Yes, um, I'm a PhD student at the research unit in Psychology
of Sport, Excellence and Health,and I have been working on my
PhD project for about a year now.
And in my PhD project, I'm lookinginto sport environments for
athletes between 12 to 16 years.
So we are basically trying tosee some factors in youth sport
(04:27):
environments for athletes.
Geri (04:29):
Mm hmm.
And just curious, did you doyour previous degrees, in the
same unit, same university?
Line (04:38):
Yeah, I have a bachelor and a master degree in sports
science from the same university.
And then I have been working as adual career manager for elite athletes
for the past six, seven years beforeI started my PhD, and as a Sports
Psychology consultant as well.
Geri (04:56):
Right.
So there was that gap betweendoing your initial degree and
now coming back to do a PhD.
Line (05:03):
Yes, exactly.
So I, I have a small gap thereand then coming back to academia.
Geri (05:08):
Yeah.
Yeah.
Which means that you come backwith all that experience as well.
Line (05:15):
Yeah I would definitely say that I, I learned some things between
my master's degree and then comingback seeing how is it actually
that our athletes are struggling?
What is it they they aremeeting in, in their life?
Geri (05:27):
Yeah.
Lovely.
And Nicklas.
Nicklas (05:31):
Yeah, my name is Nicklas and I'm a PhD student here at the
University of Southern Denmark.
I started my PhD project for,yeah, almost a half a year ago now.
So I'm pretty new into it.
Um, my project is about injuries in youthsports environments, from a more sports
psychology approach than sports medicine.
(05:52):
But we're trying to combine the two,two approaches in, in my project here.
Geri (05:57):
So a little bit interdisciplinary then
Nicklas (05:59):
Yeah, exactly.
Trying to get some inspirationfrom both research areas,
Geri (06:04):
Yeah.
And what about you is in relationto doing your degree, where did
you do your degree before this?
Nicklas (06:12):
Both my master and my bachelor degree is from here, the same place.
Um, and then I spent the three and ahalf year as, as a teaching assistant
and a research assistant before Igot the funding for my PhD project.
So I've been a, a part of the environmentout here for a couple of years by now.
Geri (06:32):
So even though you're only half a year into your PhD, you've got
a longer experience working there.
Nicklas (06:38):
Yeah, exactly.
And I've been working on otherprojects with my supervisor
and so on for the last year.
Geri (06:44):
Oh, that's excellent.
And Nina, do you want tojust tell us about the prize?
Nina (06:50):
Yeah, so, um, The idea behind the prize originated at a
retreat where we were discussingnew ways of doing academia.
So one of our focus areas is tobetter the possibilities for the
next generation of researchers.
And we were thinkingabout the research prizes.
They often are awarded to PIs,so heads of big research labs.
(07:16):
And you never know if it's a At theexpense of the younger researchers
or how those, uh, groundbreakingdata work sort of came about.
And sometimes there are some labswhere a lot of people are broken
and they have to leave academiabecause the environment is so tough.
So if we're not awarding, a group, a PI.
(07:39):
As head of a group, then how can weaward research in a different way?
So there was a discussion,uh, what comes instead.
So if we remove the PI.
What's left is the researchenvironment and more and more also
with, what Nicholas touched uponwith this interdisciplinary research.
We need research to be done in teamswhere people have different competences.
(08:03):
And so then we were thinkingabout awarding a prize for
the best research environment.
Where.
Younger researchers or, um, early careerresearchers can grow and develop and,
and, foster and work on the best ideas.
And so we wanted to bring abouta discussion on how to create
(08:24):
such environments, and, andcreate a list of best practices.
Geri (08:30):
And you said we at a research retreat.
So this is the young, um,
Nina (08:36):
Young Academy.
Yeah.
Geri (08:37):
And so how many of you were part of this
Nina (08:40):
So almost all of the members of the Young Academy
go to this retreat every year.
And this is where we have two daysof discussions and communication.
So we can really go in depthwith some topic of choice.
And that year it wasresearch environments.
And so we have been awarding theprize for the past three years.
Geri (09:00):
Three years.
Okay, do you remember what thetrigger was for that becoming a topic?
I mean, it's such animportant topic, isn't it?
But I'm just curious if therewas a particular trigger.
Nina (09:13):
So there's been more and more focus on the bad research
environments and stress and burnout.
And so I think this is a different wayof flipping things on their head and
looking at the best research environmentsand, and put a spotlight on those.
So, uh, the
Geri (09:31):
Yeah.
We should first of all saycongratulations to Line and
Nicklas for winning the prize.
That's really brilliant.
And what were they asked to door what do you ask people to do
in submitting an application?
Nina (09:48):
So the application has to be filled out by two , younger, early
career, researchers, so often thatwill be a master thesis students,
PhD students, or, uh, recentassociate, uh, assistant professors.
So they write the applicationtogether and they write, uh, a small
paragraph about, their researchgroup or their research unit.
(10:12):
It can also be a network of PhD students.
It can be in different areas of research.
You don't have a classical researchgroup with a head of the group and
members, but it's a collaboration betweensort of a more horizontal network.
So a description of theresearch environment.
(10:32):
And then a description of why theenvironment should be awarded
the prize with, and we're askingfor specific examples, um, for
Geri (10:42):
Overall, how long do these applications tend to be?
Nina (10:46):
So it's a two page application.
And then we meet, we readall of the applications and
we meet and we discuss them.
So we have people on the panel spanningall different types of research topics.
Thank you.
Geri (10:59):
hmm.
Mm hmm.
So and the panel drawn from the academy
Nina (11:02):
Yes.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Geri (11:04):
And do you have particular criteria that you're using?
Nina (11:07):
So so we were also curious on how the next generation of
researchers, what they value.
Geri (11:14):
Mm
Nina (11:15):
And so we left it a little bit open, but we said something that people
could talk about was diversity, inclusion,onboarding, how people resolve conflicts.
So those have been some topicsthat people could dive into.
Geri (11:31):
hmm.
Mm
Nina (11:31):
But it was left open to come up with answers that we
could not think of ahead of time.
So it has been very rewarding to readall of the different topics that people
value in their research environments.
And there are some, some very commoncriteria for what people value.
Geri (11:51):
Lovely.
I want to come to that later.
And, but first I'd love to hearfrom Line and Nicklas about, well,
first of all, what made you think,yes, we'll nominate our group?
Line (12:06):
I think Nicklas and I discussed what is important in our research group.
And a lot of our researchis about environment.
And we see in our group that a lot ofthe research that we are doing, some of
our senior researchers are actually usingthe same elements in our research unit.
So we've, we've, I see it asa really important research
(12:28):
environment and a great place to be.
So when we saw this prize, we were like,okay, that could be really great to
kind of award the research environmentthat they are creating together with us.
Geri (12:41):
Mm,
Nicklas (12:42):
Yeah.
It was also kind of a way to appreciatethe senior researcher in our
group that you're doing a good job.
We see it ourselves, but we also seehow we are supporting the job they are
doing and how we are inviting a newemployees into the environment and so on.
So we could see that we, or at leastwe, we felt that we did something good.
(13:05):
And we wanted to, yeah, appreciate that.
Geri (13:09):
I really like that you both have said, like, it's not just that the senior
person has created the environment.
You've talked about your roles in thatas well, both of you just mentioned
that, as in it's a co created thing.
Line (13:24):
Yes, definitely.
In our environment, we don't believe thatyou can create an environment by yourself.
It's the individual that's a partof the whole environment that are
together and creating whateverwe want in our environment.
So, so we definitely play a part.
And then we have some of our research,uh, senior researchers creating
(13:46):
like the structure and like tryingto create the culture in, in how
they want to shape the environment.
Nicklas (13:56):
But we definitely have a role in creating how things are
done in, in our research unit.
Geri (14:02):
yeah.
You said about the research that you do inthe group is about creating environments.
So that's within the sport context.
Can you talk a little bit moreabout what it is from that research
that has been applied back in?
So I know that in the announcementfrom the academy about the award, they
(14:26):
talked about you walking the talk,which I thought was really brilliant.
So I'm just curious tounderstand a bit more about.
What are you learning from sportsenvironments that's being played
back into your research environment?
Nicklas (14:39):
So some of our research is focusing on athletic talent
development environments, and we seeacross several successful environments
that there are some shared featurescharacterizing these environments.
And I think that some of thesecharacteristics can be translated into
the world of academia, for example,making room for free initiatives.
(15:03):
So it's possible for me as a early careerresearcher to take initiative into a new
project that I want to create, and thenI'm supporting for taking that initiative.
Or, uh, for example, also a coordinatedeffort by people in the environment.
So we don't, at least I have an experiencein the examples where different senior
(15:25):
researchers are giving me different tasksthat's, you know, um, How do you say that?
I not the [conflicting].
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Geri (15:36):
Or everyone wanting you to work 40 hours a week
Nicklas (15:39):
Yeah, exactly.
Geri (15:41):
So there's communication to coordinate.
Nicklas (15:44):
Yeah, exactly.
And then I think that one of thecharacteristics of these environments
are also that there is a focus on thelong time long-term development, and the
mental wellbeing of athletes, and that's.
Geri (15:56):
hmm.
Nicklas (15:57):
Also a really important focus for us in the group that we can actually talk
about when we need help and we can reachout to other people to get what we need
or say, I'm, I'm really in a busy period.
So I had to cancel this meetingor I need some, some help on this,
or I can't do this task here.
Geri (16:15):
hmm.
Mm hmm.
Yeah.
Nicklas (16:18):
Both in the, you know, in the working world, but also in our life on the
side and our family's life or, yeah, otheractivities in our lives that we also have
time and possibility to prioritize that.
Geri (16:31):
Mm hmm.
So that's valued in the group.
Line (16:36):
And I was in addition to that, we also see in our research
that strong role models are veryimportant in our sport environments.
And I will say that's the same inour research environment, that we
have close and strong role models.
So, we help each other alot in the research unit.
So, the researchers on the nextlevel, from me, are very approachable.
(16:59):
I can go to them and see how isit actually that they are doing.
Geri (17:02):
Mm
Line (17:02):
At the same time, Nicklas and I as PhD students are helpers or, our, Master
students so they can see like what iskind of the next level, what are the
people doing if I want to move forward in,
Geri (17:14):
Mm hmm.
Line (17:15):
kind of world.
In the academia.
Geri (17:17):
Mm hmm.
So you talked about this astraining upwards and training
downwards in your application.
Nicklas (17:25):
Yeah exactly that's something we see a lot of in the world of sport.
Then you train with someonebetter than you and then sometimes
you move a bit down to get somesuccessful experiences in your sport.
And yeah, that's, we try to translateit into the world of academia
and we can see some similarities
Geri (17:41):
yeah, so there's the thing of you both helping, say, younger people,
and the reward you get from that.
And we know helping is good for wellbeing as well, or just, and also learning
how to help or how to be a mentor.
Is that part of it as well?
Line (18:03):
Yeah, when, when we help our master's students or any other students,
Geri (18:07):
Mm,
Line (18:08):
in our institute, we, we always have the opportunity to talk with our
supervisors and then they will help ussaying, okay, if, if you need to be a
good supervisor or a supervisor, Thenyou need to focus on these specific parts.
So, we have the opportunity todiscuss beforehand, like, what is
it that we should be aware of inthis situation when we, um, are
supervisors for master's students.
(18:31):
And then we always have theopportunity to have feedback.
Geri (18:34):
Lovely.
Line (18:35):
So definitely we.
We go that way.
Geri (18:38):
Nice circle.
What are the practical realities then,because you've talked a lot about talking,
you know, you've talked a lot aboutthe coordination between people you may
work with so there's no conflict inwhat you're being asked to do or you've
talked about being able to raise issueswhen you've got problems or need help.
(18:59):
And you've also talked about beingable to go back to your supervisor and
getting support for how you supervise.
How are the, how did theseinteractions practically play out?
Do you have set meetingtimes or open door?
Like how does that all work?
Line (19:14):
We have both.
Geri (19:16):
Mm hmm.
Line (19:16):
So we have different meetings.
We have some meetingswith our supervisors.
We have some meetingsin our research group.
Geri (19:23):
Mm hmm.
Line (19:24):
And then we also have the opportunity, we all sit on the
same kind of floor in one building.
And if the researchers have timeand then they have an open door.
And then we always welcome tocome in and I will say most of the
time, everyone have an open door.
So, so it's really easyto get access to the
Geri (19:44):
Mm hmm.
Mm
Line (19:45):
colleagues that we have.
Geri (19:46):
hmm.
Nicklas (19:48):
And yeah, it's easier to go into an office with an open door than
it is to write in an email that youhave to formulate in just the right
way to get some help and that's makeit makes it a bit easier for us.
Geri (20:01):
Mm.
What things have contributed to buildingup, I don't know, the trust, and
knowing one another that you feelcomfortable to go in and ask, or you feel
comfortable to say, I'm having issues?
Nicklas (20:18):
I would say that, uh, I've experienced so many times that my
supervisors have asked me, like,being curious about my life and ask
me, how are things actually goingfor you, not just about your PhD
project, but also in your everyday life
and Curious about who I am.
And that just helps me to trustthem that I can actually be
(20:40):
honest about how things are going.
Geri (20:43):
Yeah.
And that you can be a whole person,you know, they're not just interested
in what you can produce for them fortheir CV in a tick box, it sounds like.
Nicklas (20:53):
Yeah, I feel like they care for me as a person, not just as a co worker.
Geri (20:58):
Yeah.
And that's important.
Line, what about for you, what'scontributed to being able to build up
that sort of trust and relationship?
Line (21:08):
I agree with Nicklas, that supervisors are definitely coming with
a mindset saying, How can we help you?
You're always welcome to come in.
So they send a directive to me, if youneed any help, please just come in.
And I will say, just saying thesewords, Make me more secure actually
going in and asking for help.
(21:29):
And at the same time when we have ourmeetings, like the whole research unit
together, we often divide differentgroups so you have the opportunity to
discuss something in smaller groups beforewe take it up in, in plenum together.
And that could be together with sometimeslike the younger researchers are sitting
together and discussing it beforehand,and other times we are with the senior
(21:51):
researchers, so the whole time we havethis kind of mix, so we get to know each
other even better, day by day, and atthe same time, I feel like they want
to have our opinions, they want to hearwhat is our view, so I actually feel seen
and heard in the research units as well.
Geri (22:11):
So important that it, it Sounds wonderful.
Line (22:16):
It is.
Geri (22:17):
You also talked about the, the values around long term
development and wellbeing.
Can you also say a little bit moreabout how they practically play out?
Nicklas (22:34):
That's a good question.
Line (22:37):
I think if you look into like this mental health, how to manage
it, I think we have really free,what would you say, like frames.
So we don't need to be at anyspecific time in the office.
They encourage us to come intothe office, so we could share
knowledge and develop together.
(22:59):
But if I'm there, Nicklas isoften there earlier than me.
But I'm coming a bit later,because I have a daughter.
So I have the opportunity to, to put herinto, like, uh, uh, child care before.
Which makes it much more flexiblefor me and my private life.
Geri (23:14):
Yes.
Line (23:15):
Um, and at the same time, we see like, what is it that people need?
Do they have any difficulties, then,as Nicklas explained earlier, we try to
change our meetings or put them aroundit, so, so this other part is, then just
being a researcher is, is an opportunity.
Geri (23:33):
So the fact that you're allowed to shape your work in a way
that fits well with your life andcommitments is an important part
towards supporting your wellbeing.
Line (23:47):
Definitely.
And of course, we also have ahuge amount of workload sometimes.
But then we sometimes havemeetings saying, OK, what
do you need to prioritize?
I think that can sometimes be difficultwhen you're new into this research area
and you want to perform and do a good job.
Then it's nice to have someone help yousaying, what do you need to prioritize?
(24:08):
If we're struggling with a lot ofdifferent tasks at the same time
. Geri (24:13):
And to have the environment where you feel free to own up to struggling.
That's so important.
Nicklas (24:22):
Yeah, it sure is and it's sometimes it's not always us who
describe how we are struggling withthings, but we also experienced that
our, uh, senior professors are strugglingwith things like theoretical aspects or
getting some paper published and so on.
And they share their experiences too.
(24:43):
So we are not feeling like weare the only one struggling.
Geri (24:46):
They're the perfect ones and you're aspiring to their role model perfection.
Nicklas (24:51):
Exactly.
We get a real world picture ofhow things are going for them.
Line (24:56):
I think that we are lucky.
Often we have just a smallthing as lunch together.
And there as lunch youhave these informal talks.
And there you can hear what is it actuallythat all supervisors are struggling with.
along are the other people inthe group in their research?
So we have this opportunity tohear and, and feel what is
the status on the different
Geri (25:15):
Mm.
Yeah.
So both the formal meetingsand just hanging out at lunch.
Yeah.
Nina, I want to come back to you asI'm conscious that I haven't got
to you, but I'm just curious tounderstand a couple of other things
from the environment that was awarded.
And in the award text that youwrote, you also talked about creative
(25:40):
methods to discuss sensitive topicsand ensure psychological safety.
Now, some people may not knowthe term psychological safety.
Do you want to explainwhat you've meant by that?
Nicklas (25:55):
Yeah, it's, it's that you're feel safe in the
environment you're a part of.
That you you'll safe enough to makemistakes doing the process you're
in that you don't have to do itthe correct way every single time.
And then feel the support both whenyou're succeeding with things, but
also when you're not succeeding.
(26:15):
So you feel like, yeah, you feel safein, in things when you're doing things.
Geri (26:22):
And you said also at the beginning, one of the things that's valued, both
in high performing sports teams or goodsports environments, as well as your
research was the encouragement to takeinitiative and that freedom to take
initiative on something that may not work,is an example, isn't it of having the
psychological safety just to give it a goand you're more likely to try things out.
Nicklas (26:46):
Yeah, exactly.
And, we are encouraged totake the initiative.
So when we do, it's reallyappreciated by our colleagues.
Geri (26:55):
But what, what did you mean by creative methods then
to discuss sensitive topics?
Because you have just talked aboutlike people explicitly saying how
are you going and being genuinelyinterested and you have talked about
feeling free to bring up issues.
And I'm just curious about what mightbe some other creative methods that
you've experimented with in the group,
Nicklas (27:18):
So one of the best examples I can probably come up with is once
I met one of our longer meetings,we did Sarah and the Monopole.
It's a famous Danish radio programwhere people can send in dilemmas
they're working with, and we tried totranslate it into the world of academia.
So, so everybody in the unit couldsend in a dilemma, a theoretical
(27:41):
one, a methodological one, apersonal life dilemma if they had
something, and then everybody in theunit had to discuss this dilemma.
So, it was written anonymously.
So we didn't know who wrote it, butwe then talked about the theoretical
question of how do we understand theenvironment, for example, and that
(28:05):
created a room where we couldshow our vulnerability and
that we don't know everything.
And so it's the same casefor our senior professors.
So, yeah, it created a good meetingwhere we could actually talk
about what what are hard in oureveryday life as a researcher.
Geri (28:25):
Nice.
That's interesting.
Anything else to add there, Line?
Line (28:32):
I think Niklas mentions a really good practice example.
So yeah, we sometimes have differenttakes on how to discuss dilemmas and
how to be together and stuff like that.
But, but I think that's,that's A good example.
Geri (28:46):
Yeah, and it's also a nice example of the way that everyone,
you know, the structure of thatis based on an assumption that
everyone's got a contributionthey can make to discussing it.
And that valuing of what you all dotogether to create that environment.
Line (29:04):
And I guess it's also shows that everyone do have struggling and
do have something that is difficult.
So creating this session, we saw thatdespite the level that you have, everyone
is struggling and that's like beingtransparent and being a bit vulnerable
to each other in the research group.
Geri (29:22):
And, it sounds like very solution focused as well.
It's not just the wallowpit of we're all struggling.
Woe is us.
But what can we learn?
What can we do?
Nicklas (29:33):
Yeah, it's not like we didn't find an answer for every question
at all, every dilemma we brought up.
But just the fact that people arediscussing it are sometimes helping you a
bit closer towards the real answer if youcan actually find it in this situation.
Geri (29:49):
Indeed.
So Nina, what an amazingresearch environment.
Nina (29:56):
Yeah, we were very excited when we went through all the
applications, but particularlythis one from Line and Nicklas.
Yeah.
Geri (30:04):
Yeah.
You, you said before that, in doingthis over three years and seeing all
the different applications, how manyapplications might you get in each year?
Nina (30:16):
So it varies a little bit, but we've had altogether over a hundred
applications from very different researchenvironments from all across the country.
Geri (30:27):
And so what are some of the patterns that you're seeing around
what makes a good research environment?
And the fact that there are a hundredgroups who feel like they've got
something to celebrate or to writeup about is encouraging that, that
there are good environments out there.
So yeah, what are some of the patterns?
Nina (30:48):
The most common thing is that people describe that they have a sense of
belonging to their research environment.
That's the most important factor.
But then exactly how to createa research environment where
people get the sense of belonging.
That's where we really appreciate whenpeople come up with these examples of
(31:10):
what the environment does for them.
To create that sense.
So that includes having a common purposewithin the group or a common identity, a
defined mission that people can jump onto.
And also, ways of promoting diversityand ensuring that people can be their
(31:31):
true selves, that they feel comfortableas the person they are, uh, when they
are in the group, it's having ashared set of values that people can
agree to having clear expectations.
So people know what, uh, what is expected.
And that they can feel a senseof accomplishment when they
(31:52):
are meeting those expectations.
It's supporting collaborations, uh, withboth within the group, but with other
researchers from different countries.
Uh, setting up new collaborationsand supporting that these next
generation of scientists, ofresearchers can explore that.
(32:13):
It's having a way to fosterand value creativity.
uh, setting up structures wherepeople have time to explore creative
ideas and discussing new ideas in anenvironment where they're not afraid
to express those ideas and they canget constructive feedback both from
(32:34):
peers, but also from the top andbottom and from visiting scholars.
As Line and Nicklas also saidthat it builds on initiatives
from the top and from the bottom.
So everybody contributes, it contributesin their own way to this environment.
Also having some structure,so having regular meetings for
(32:58):
discussing both research, but alsomentoring aspects and career advice.
So one example is that some groupshave alumni days where they invite
past members, uh, back and, uh, theysometimes help the next generation
of researchers into their next jobopportunities or into new networks.
(33:22):
Uh, and it's having socialactivities and rituals, uh,
rituals for graduation parties.
It can be writing Christmas cards, topast members or something like that.
But then also.
One of the most common things thatpeople mention is to celebrate both
the successes, but also addressingfailures and viewing failures as an
(33:46):
opportunity to learn and to grow.
Geri (33:49):
Mm,
Nina (33:50):
And some research groups even celebrate advancements in their fields,
uh, as a positive twist on this oftenvery competitive environment that if
you acknowledge and celebrate whenthere's a major advancement in the
field, that's a very positive thing.
Um, which just creates the sense of, uh,curiosity and you want to understand
(34:16):
things no matter if that result isfrom your group or from somebody else.
And you're just excitedabout the new discoveries.
Geri (34:25):
So much there.
I love some of the specificexamples as well that you gave.
I'm curious if you have any otherexamples that stand out for you.
Of any of those aspects, you'vetalked about alumni days and
celebrating rituals, things like that.
So yeah.
(34:46):
Any other examples?
Nina (34:47):
So some groups have a structured time of creativity where
they block it out in their calendarand then that's what they focus on.
And then for this period of time,they're not working on taking
off stuff from that to do list.
That's time to walk out in natureand discuss and explore and people
(35:09):
sometimes assign time for exploringnew ways of communicating their
research in different creative ways.
And then going for outreach events,not as one person, but as a couple
of people from the same group.
So they can support each other incommunicating what they have discovered.
(35:31):
And then there's a quote thatI really liked from a past
research environment nomination.
It has to do with being welcomedas a person where you feel
safe and taken seriously.
So what they wrote is that youcan get thrown into the deep
water, but always with a colleaguewith a life jacket inside.
(35:52):
So that's when you grow as a researcher.
I just love that picture.
And I think that's also the samekind of feeling came across in what
Line and Nicklas wrote in theirnomination, but in different words,
but this sense where you, you justfeel safe to say whatever comes to mind.
You, it might be the next bigdiscovery of next big research idea.
(36:15):
And so we need to, uh, develop thoseskills and make sure that it's in place
because we have so many major challengesand just even asking the right questions
and coming up with solutions, peopleneed to come forward with that best ideas.
Geri (36:33):
Yeah.
And, we talked at different points aboutthe interdisciplinarity and the increasing
importance of that for solving some ofthe really hard challenges we have now,
we've always had, but recognizing thatwe need these different perspectives.
And What I hear across both Line andNicklas's specific experiences and what
(36:54):
you've reported on from across them is
the value of, you know, you talkedabout belonging and Line or Nicklas,
I can't remember which one of youtalked about being seen and heard.
And, and also being seen and heard aswhole people, like belonging isn't just
that you wear the t shirt with the nameof the lab on it, it is that really human
(37:18):
level sense of belonging and being able toshow up and be real, like, make mistakes.
And what I also heard was creatingthe spaces for the conversations and
the ideas to incubate and grow andto be shared and enhanced as well.
(37:40):
And whether that's being able totry out new initiatives or solving
dilemmas together or going off.
I like the idea of the going offon the walks where you're just,
you're exploring ideas together tocreate that space for creativity.
Cause I don't know, it feels likeacademia can get so focused on the stress
and the pressures and the competitionand pushing it the next paper that we
(38:03):
actually don't create space to think.
Nina (38:08):
We need more time for deep thinking.
Geri (38:12):
And that we don't do that alone.
Yes.
I mean, obviously we think, butwe do our best thinking with one
another and bringing togetherall the different contributions.
And so it sounds like what's creatingthese good environments are the
more subtle, nuanced aspects of howto do that, creating those spaces.
(38:34):
And the trusted relationshipsin which to have those
exploratory, open conversations.
Nina (38:41):
Yeah, definitely.
So that's a part of having a clearset of values in the research
environment where, where it's, thosethings are valued high enough to
take actual space in the calendars.
Geri (38:54):
Yes.
So talking about values, and Lineand Nicklas may want to come in with
what they think the particular valuesare of their group, although they did
talk about that a little bit, but arethere any specific values that you
saw reflected across the nominations?
Nina (39:12):
So Thats ways of ensuring that people can share their ideas and
get feedback both from our seniorresearchers, but also learning
from everybody in the environment.
There might be a visiting person comingfrom a different university and then
making sure that, that visiting, uh,might be a famous professor, that they
(39:35):
get time to both discuss with the headsof the research groups, but equally
important to schedule one on one meetingswith the more junior researchers so
that they have some time to bouncetheir ideas off this person who might
have some, some great ideas for, uh,questions regarding the research.
Geri (39:54):
Yeah.
So a value that everyone's voice mattersor everyone has a contribution to make.
Yeah.
Nina (40:01):
And then, then maybe it's an idea that, that won't win the next
Nobel prize, but the idea might matureby bouncing off different people with
different ideas and perspectives, andthen maybe it will take a different shape
or form, and then maybe then it willbecome something, uh, very interesting.
Geri (40:20):
Yeah.
Line and Nicklas, do you have anythingto add there around what you think
about the really core values thatmatter in a good research environment?
Nicklas (40:32):
And I think in line with what Nina told about, talked about, the
knowledge sharing both within the researchunit, but also inviting people in from
other research units to, to, sharetheir research projects so you can get
some inspiration into your own process.
That's something we also appreciatein our unit and we invite other
people in to give, uh, talks abouthow they do things in their, at
(40:57):
their university, for example.
Geri (40:59):
That also sounds like a very practical illustration of the celebrating
the successes of the field andcelebrating people in the field as well.
And I'm sure people coming in wouldexperience that in the group, that
they're not there to have theirbrains picked and ideas stolen,
but celebrating collectively.
Nina (41:21):
And that's also important for people to build their research networks.
So maybe people would, uh, want to pursuea postdoc abroad or something like that.
And then they have already met oneperson in a different lab and it
makes taking the contact to thatperson afterwards so much more easy.
You know, the person you met them.
(41:42):
So it's a, it's a good way ofhelping people to develop their
international network as well.
Geri (41:47):
And again, another very specific example of the long term
development that was in your awardproposal or nomination for your group.
But Line and Nicklas, do youhave any particular rituals?
You know, so Nina talked about rituals.
And the importance of rituals.
Nicklas (42:07):
I'm not sure it's a ritual, but, uh, I talked with
a PhD student who sometimes isconnected to our research unit.
So she's been a part of our, someof our monthly research unit.
And she told me that what she reallyappreciated about our unit is that
we always spend the first half anhour of first hour of a research
(42:28):
unit for everybody to check in.
To the meeting to, to just give a quickstatus on how are things going for them?
What are they working on?
Do they have some big project comingup or do they need help with something?
And that opened my eyes for that beinga, a really helpful, activity to do,
(42:49):
to just get some knowledge about what I,all of my colleagues doing at the moment.
Geri (42:54):
Mm hmm.
Yeah.
Line (42:57):
Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't say it's a ritual, but we also have
these different kind of meetings.
So once a month we have like a, a nerdmeeting, we call it, where we go together
in a group of the researchers focusingon the same area and then trying to go
into the new research or going into theprocess where we are right at the moment
(43:20):
to see how can we improve this part.
Geri (43:22):
Mm hmm.
Line (43:23):
So it's also a way to get a bit more specific on the research with
the people from the group that areinterested in the same area as you.
Geri (43:31):
Yeah.
Nice.
So like the, it sounds like verydeliberate thought to structuring
different types of meetings fordifferent purposes and different
rhythms as well to those meetings.
Nina, what, what are you doing differentlyhaving had the privilege of, as well as
the work, I acknowledge that running theseaward schemes as part of the academy is
(43:55):
probably a lot of additional work for you.
And what have you learned for yourself?
What are you doing differentlyfrom what you've read?
Nina (44:06):
So one of the very easy things from our list of things to implement is, uh, to
discuss about, uh, successes and failures.
So I have that on a slide for ourweekly group meetings, uh, in my research
group, we discuss successes and failures.
And then just, uh, just thisweek, I, I, I had to announce that
well, there was a grant that wedidn't get which I applied for.
(44:30):
And of course, that's, uh, it wouldhave been nice to get that grant, but,
then we discussed that, uh, this thisdoesn't happen always, right, and we
just, uh, need to try for the next one.
And then the students who, uh, justjoined the group where they, they ran
an experiment once and it worked in thefirst shot, but then when they tried to
repeat it, then, uh, none of the bacteriawere growing on the plate as expected.
(44:55):
So they all died.
And so in the light of me not gettingthis research grant, then maybe a plate
of no bacterial colonies is not too bad.
It is repeated next week andthen hopefully they will grow.
Uh, so we had a discussion on this, uh,yesterday that it's nice to readdress
these things, uh, that the new peoplein my group appreciated, uh, because
(45:18):
they can look around and see, Eventhough you have a protocol and maybe
I'm doing air quotes, it should work.
It will never always work there.
You'd have to optimize and try again.
There's sometimes, for whatever reason,the experiment fails and you have
to go back and try again and again.
And, If you only look at the stuff thatworks and that gets granted or published,
(45:43):
then it's so easy to feel like you'rethe only person where nothing works.
So I think this is one thingthat was easy to implement.
Yeah, for sure.
Geri (45:57):
I'm just trying to think of people who may be sceptical and, you know,
if I play devil's advocate or try toimagine a critique, I could imagine
someone saying, well, it's all very goodhaving these nice research environments
and it's okay to fail and you know,someone caring about your life outside
work, but we're here to do research.
(46:18):
So what does this mean for the science?
How would you respond to that?
What's the relationship betweengood environments and good work?
Nina (46:27):
Yeah, so that's a question we get sometimes and how do we ensure
that then there's time to do a reallyexcellent research as well, if you
take time away for these other things.
But so then there's, the past fewyears, there's been a crisis in
replication of some data and somepapers get withdrawn due to fraud.
And, sometimes You could imaginethat some of these fraudulent
(46:52):
data were generated becausepeople were afraid to come forward
and say it simply doesn't work.
Um, so if you create the space totalk about stuff that's not working,
then the incentive to, to come up withfraudulent data, Is reduced greatly.
And I think so it's worth.
(47:13):
This is another way where it's worth topromoting a good research environment
because then it might reduce the riskof having some of this horrible data
being published, which might actuallyharm people, but definitely it will
harm the research field in general.
And then one of the runner ups forthe research environment this year,
(47:36):
they highlighted that they actuallyare publishing negative data.
So that's a new thing where somejournals will accept research where
they have a clear question and ahypothesis and then it comes out
that this was just not how it worked.
But, uh, it's still possible to publish.
And it's good for the research fieldbecause then people don't have to
(47:57):
spend time trying with the same idea.
And also it, it, it builds people's CV.
Then they have papers withnegative data is also data.
And also it would do that reduces therisk that some people would create
fraudulent data and publish that.
So I think there are more tangiblepotential outcomes, to highlight or to
(48:20):
increase the quality of research at leastsort of, uh, so potentially long term.
Geri (48:26):
yeah, because that's where the learning happens and to do better work.
Anything to add?
Line (48:35):
I was just considering if we want people to do great research
and do a really good job, we alsoknow that people perform best if
they are mentally healthy and in anenvironment where they feel safe.
So if you want the best researchand if you want someone to develop
(48:56):
the best, we also need to create theenvironment that helps them do that.
It's not a, an individualwho perform, uh, alone.
Maybe they can perform despitethe environment, but not
because of the environment.
So we need to create environmentswhere we perform together
(49:17):
because of the environment.
Geri (49:19):
That's lovely.
Line (49:20):
my thought.
Nina (49:23):
And so where people don't burn out because we spend up these resources
training people and they acquire allthese skills and knowledge and if
people burn out and then they can ofcourse carry on some of the skills.
But if people burn out to the degreethat they are not continuing to use
those skills in whatever capacity,then that's such a waste of, uh,
(49:45):
human, resources and people's time.
And, um, so that's, that's
Geri (49:51):
And the loss of the contribution they could have made . Yeah.
We should look at wrapping up.
Are there any final thoughts each ofyou would like to make around great
research environments or what you'dhope people might take away or do
(50:12):
as a result of this conversation.
Nina (50:17):
I hope that people listening in can continue the conversation and maybe come
up with some ideas of how they might,uh, work on improving their research
environment or whatever environment.
I think all these points wediscussed can be transferred
to many different environments.
Geri (50:34):
Yes.
Oh, one question I have, Nina, Idon't know whether you can answer.
You said you got thesehundred applications from
all sorts of different areas.
Do you see any disciplinaryrelated patterns at all?
Nina (50:50):
I see that people, uh, with major grants, centers of excellence, they
have more financial resources to createa bit of framework for initiatives and
they would maybe have funding for goingon retreats, something like that, whereas
(51:11):
smaller research groups or people inthe humanities often don't have the
resources for those kinds of activities.
So we are very much taking thatinto account when we are looking
at the applications, that thereare some disciplinary differences.
In the foundation forbuilding research environments.
Geri (51:31):
Really good points.
And Line and Nicklas, any finalthoughts from you, each of you?
Line (51:40):
I agree with what Nina said.
I think that people listening mighthope to take into account that everyone
play a role in the environment.
So how can we give everyone a voiceand, and hear what the different
people need, despite different levels.
Geri (51:57):
And what you've said is what they need and what they can contribute.
Like that two way.
Yeah.
Nicklas (52:04):
Yeah.
And then I think maybe the exampleswe have listened up here is not
a hundred percent transferableinto their environment, but maybe
they can try to translate it intosomething applicable to their context.
Geri (52:18):
Great.
So thank you very much, Nina, Line andNicklas for your time today and we
celebrate with you your award for yourexcellent research environment and for
all the efforts that people everywhereare taking to be part of the change about
(52:40):
doing academia differently, becauseyou said at the very beginning, Nina,
about one of your most important.
Motivations in setting up this prize wasabout needing new ways of doing academia.
We can work on that together as well.
And thank you for yourcontributions towards that.
Nina (53:00):
Thank you.
Geri (53:04):
You can find the summary notes, a transcript and related
links for this podcast on www.
changingacademiclife.
com.
You can also subscribe toChanging Academic Life on iTunes,
Spotify and Google Podcasts.
And I'm really hoping that we canwiden the conversation about how
we can do academia differently.
(53:25):
And you can contribute to this by ratingthe podcast and also giving feedback.
And if something connected withyou, please consider sharing this
podcast with your colleagues.
Together, we can make change happen.
Welcome to Changing Academic Life.
I'm Geraldine Fitzpatrick and this isa podcast series where academics and
others share their stories, provideideas and provoke discussions about what
we can do individually and collectivelyto change academic life for the better.
(00:34):
So what are the ingredients for creatinga supportive inclusive research culture?
And what can you do to contribute to that?
Well, hopefully you'll come away fromthis episode with lots of ideas.
I'm joined here by two PhD students,Line and Nicklas from Southern university
(00:54):
Denmark who are going to talk abouttheir award winning research environment.
And we're joined by Nina, a memberof the Danish young academy who
set up the prize three years ago?
So, let me introduce them all a bit more.
Nina Molin Høyland-Kroghsbo isfrom the department of plant and
(01:16):
environmental sciences, microbial,ecology, and biotechnology at
the University of Copenhagen.
And she's here with her hat on as amember of the Danish young academy.
The Danish young academy set up aprize three years ago to promote and
(01:36):
celebrate good research environments asexperienced by early career researchers.
And so the 2024 winners werePhD students, Line Maj Sternberg
and Nicklas Stott Venzel.
And they nominated their research unit inpsychology of sport, excellence and health
(01:59):
at the university of Southern Denmark.
Line and Nicklas share whatmakes their environment great.
And it's interesting how the grouptranslates their research on what makes
for a great sport environment into whatmakes a great research environment.
In particular, they talk aboutthings like the encouragement they
(02:22):
get for taking initiative, thefocus on long-term development.
The very open communicationstructures that they have in place.
The psychological safety and being safeto try things out and make mistakes.
The support for good mental health andhaving a strong sense of belonging.
(02:44):
Nina also reflects on a lot of the commonthemes that they see as the awarding
panel across over a hundred nominations.
And she compliments these observationswith things like belonging, again, and
collaboration, creative practices, andcelebrating both successes and failures.
(03:06):
We hope this episode will encourage youto think about how you can recognize
and celebrate great research cultures.
And also pick up ideas totry out for yourselves.
As Line and Nicklas repeatedly stated (03:18):
a good research culture is created together.
I'm really excited today to havethree people to talk to about award
winning research culture environments.
First, do you want tointroduce yourselves?
Nina.
Nina (03:39):
Yeah, so my name is Nina Molin Høyland-Kroghsbo.
I'm an associate professor at theUniversity of Copenhagen, and then I'm
a member of the Danish Young Academy,which is an agency under the Royal
Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters.
And so we've started this ResearchEnvironment Prize that we are
going to talk about today.
Geri (03:58):
Great.
And our prize winners, who aresitting together in a studio.
Line.
Line (04:05):
Yes, um, I'm a PhD student at the research unit in Psychology
of Sport, Excellence and Health,and I have been working on my
PhD project for about a year now.
And in my PhD project, I'm lookinginto sport environments for
athletes between 12 to 16 years.
So we are basically trying tosee some factors in youth sport
(04:27):
environments for athletes.
Geri (04:29):
Mm hmm.
And just curious, did you doyour previous degrees, in the
same unit, same university?
Line (04:38):
Yeah, I have a bachelor and a master degree in sports
science from the same university.
And then I have been working as adual career manager for elite athletes
for the past six, seven years beforeI started my PhD, and as a Sports
Psychology consultant as well.
Geri (04:56):
Right.
So there was that gap betweendoing your initial degree and
now coming back to do a PhD.
Line (05:03):
Yes, exactly.
So I, I have a small gap thereand then coming back to academia.
Geri (05:08):
Yeah.
Yeah.
Which means that you come backwith all that experience as well.
Line (05:15):
Yeah I would definitely say that I, I learned some things between
my master's degree and then comingback seeing how is it actually
that our athletes are struggling?
What is it they they aremeeting in, in their life?
Geri (05:27):
Yeah.
Lovely.
And Nicklas.
Nicklas (05:31):
Yeah, my name is Nicklas and I'm a PhD student here at the
University of Southern Denmark.
I started my PhD project for,yeah, almost a half a year ago now.
So I'm pretty new into it.
Um, my project is about injuries in youthsports environments, from a more sports
psychology approach than sports medicine.
(05:52):
But we're trying to combine the two,two approaches in, in my project here.
Geri (05:57):
So a little bit interdisciplinary then
Nicklas (05:59):
Yeah, exactly.
Trying to get some inspirationfrom both research areas,
Geri (06:04):
Yeah.
And what about you is in relationto doing your degree, where did
you do your degree before this?
Nicklas (06:12):
Both my master and my bachelor degree is from here, the same place.
Um, and then I spent the three and ahalf year as, as a teaching assistant
and a research assistant before Igot the funding for my PhD project.
So I've been a, a part of the environmentout here for a couple of years by now.
Geri (06:32):
So even though you're only half a year into your PhD, you've got
a longer experience working there.
Nicklas (06:38):
Yeah, exactly.
And I've been working on otherprojects with my supervisor
and so on for the last year.
Geri (06:44):
Oh, that's excellent.
And Nina, do you want tojust tell us about the prize?
Nina (06:50):
Yeah, so, um, The idea behind the prize originated at a
retreat where we were discussingnew ways of doing academia.
So one of our focus areas is tobetter the possibilities for the
next generation of researchers.
And we were thinkingabout the research prizes.
They often are awarded to PIs,so heads of big research labs.
(07:16):
And you never know if it's a At theexpense of the younger researchers
or how those, uh, groundbreakingdata work sort of came about.
And sometimes there are some labswhere a lot of people are broken
and they have to leave academiabecause the environment is so tough.
So if we're not awarding, a group, a PI.
(07:39):
As head of a group, then how can weaward research in a different way?
So there was a discussion,uh, what comes instead.
So if we remove the PI.
What's left is the researchenvironment and more and more also
with, what Nicholas touched uponwith this interdisciplinary research.
We need research to be done in teamswhere people have different competences.
(08:03):
And so then we were thinkingabout awarding a prize for
the best research environment.
Where.
Younger researchers or, um, early careerresearchers can grow and develop and,
and, foster and work on the best ideas.
And so we wanted to bring abouta discussion on how to create
(08:24):
such environments, and, andcreate a list of best practices.
Geri (08:30):
And you said we at a research retreat.
So this is the young, um,
Nina (08:36):
Young Academy.
Yeah.
Geri (08:37):
And so how many of you were part of this
Nina (08:40):
So almost all of the members of the Young Academy
go to this retreat every year.
And this is where we have two daysof discussions and communication.
So we can really go in depthwith some topic of choice.
And that year it wasresearch environments.
And so we have been awarding theprize for the past three years.
Geri (09:00):
Three years.
Okay, do you remember what thetrigger was for that becoming a topic?
I mean, it's such animportant topic, isn't it?
But I'm just curious if therewas a particular trigger.
Nina (09:13):
So there's been more and more focus on the bad research
environments and stress and burnout.
And so I think this is a different wayof flipping things on their head and
looking at the best research environmentsand, and put a spotlight on those.
So, uh, the
Geri (09:31):
Yeah.
We should first of all saycongratulations to Line and
Nicklas for winning the prize.
That's really brilliant.
And what were they asked to door what do you ask people to do
in submitting an application?
Nina (09:48):
So the application has to be filled out by two , younger, early
career, researchers, so often thatwill be a master thesis students,
PhD students, or, uh, recentassociate, uh, assistant professors.
So they write the applicationtogether and they write, uh, a small
paragraph about, their researchgroup or their research unit.
(10:12):
It can also be a network of PhD students.
It can be in different areas of research.
You don't have a classical researchgroup with a head of the group and
members, but it's a collaboration betweensort of a more horizontal network.
So a description of theresearch environment.
(10:32):
And then a description of why theenvironment should be awarded
the prize with, and we're askingfor specific examples, um, for
Geri (10:42):
Overall, how long do these applications tend to be?
Nina (10:46):
So it's a two page application.
And then we meet, we readall of the applications and
we meet and we discuss them.
So we have people on the panel spanningall different types of research topics.
Thank you.
Geri (10:59):
hmm.
Mm hmm.
So and the panel drawn from the academy
Nina (11:02):
Yes.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Geri (11:04):
And do you have particular criteria that you're using?
Nina (11:07):
So so we were also curious on how the next generation of
researchers, what they value.
Geri (11:14):
Mm
Nina (11:15):
And so we left it a little bit open, but we said something that people
could talk about was diversity, inclusion,onboarding, how people resolve conflicts.
So those have been some topicsthat people could dive into.
Geri (11:31):
hmm.
Mm
Nina (11:31):
But it was left open to come up with answers that we
could not think of ahead of time.
So it has been very rewarding to readall of the different topics that people
value in their research environments.
And there are some, some very commoncriteria for what people value.
Geri (11:51):
Lovely.
I want to come to that later.
And, but first I'd love to hearfrom Line and Nicklas about, well,
first of all, what made you think,yes, we'll nominate our group?
Line (12:06):
I think Nicklas and I discussed what is important in our research group.
And a lot of our researchis about environment.
And we see in our group that a lot ofthe research that we are doing, some of
our senior researchers are actually usingthe same elements in our research unit.
So we've, we've, I see it asa really important research
(12:28):
environment and a great place to be.
So when we saw this prize, we were like,okay, that could be really great to
kind of award the research environmentthat they are creating together with us.
Geri (12:41):
Mm,
Nicklas (12:42):
Yeah.
It was also kind of a way to appreciatethe senior researcher in our
group that you're doing a good job.
We see it ourselves, but we also seehow we are supporting the job they are
doing and how we are inviting a newemployees into the environment and so on.
So we could see that we, or at leastwe, we felt that we did something good.
(13:05):
And we wanted to, yeah, appreciate that.
Geri (13:09):
I really like that you both have said, like, it's not just that the senior
person has created the environment.
You've talked about your roles in thatas well, both of you just mentioned
that, as in it's a co created thing.
Line (13:24):
Yes, definitely.
In our environment, we don't believe thatyou can create an environment by yourself.
It's the individual that's a partof the whole environment that are
together and creating whateverwe want in our environment.
So, so we definitely play a part.
And then we have some of our research,uh, senior researchers creating
(13:46):
like the structure and like tryingto create the culture in, in how
they want to shape the environment.
Nicklas (13:56):
But we definitely have a role in creating how things are
done in, in our research unit.
Geri (14:02):
yeah.
You said about the research that you do inthe group is about creating environments.
So that's within the sport context.
Can you talk a little bit moreabout what it is from that research
that has been applied back in?
So I know that in the announcementfrom the academy about the award, they
(14:26):
talked about you walking the talk,which I thought was really brilliant.
So I'm just curious tounderstand a bit more about.
What are you learning from sportsenvironments that's being played
back into your research environment?
Nicklas (14:39):
So some of our research is focusing on athletic talent
development environments, and we seeacross several successful environments
that there are some shared featurescharacterizing these environments.
And I think that some of thesecharacteristics can be translated into
the world of academia, for example,making room for free initiatives.
(15:03):
So it's possible for me as a early careerresearcher to take initiative into a new
project that I want to create, and thenI'm supporting for taking that initiative.
Or, uh, for example, also a coordinatedeffort by people in the environment.
So we don't, at least I have an experiencein the examples where different senior
(15:25):
researchers are giving me different tasksthat's, you know, um, How do you say that?
I not the [conflicting].
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Geri (15:36):
Or everyone wanting you to work 40 hours a week
Nicklas (15:39):
Yeah, exactly.
Geri (15:41):
So there's communication to coordinate.
Nicklas (15:44):
Yeah, exactly.
And then I think that one of thecharacteristics of these environments
are also that there is a focus on thelong time long-term development, and the
mental wellbeing of athletes, and that's.
Geri (15:56):
hmm.
Nicklas (15:57):
Also a really important focus for us in the group that we can actually talk
about when we need help and we can reachout to other people to get what we need
or say, I'm, I'm really in a busy period.
So I had to cancel this meetingor I need some, some help on this,
or I can't do this task here.
Geri (16:15):
hmm.
Mm hmm.
Yeah.
Nicklas (16:18):
Both in the, you know, in the working world, but also in our life on the
side and our family's life or, yeah, otheractivities in our lives that we also have
time and possibility to prioritize that.
Geri (16:31):
Mm hmm.
So that's valued in the group.
Line (16:36):
And I was in addition to that, we also see in our research
that strong role models are veryimportant in our sport environments.
And I will say that's the same inour research environment, that we
have close and strong role models.
So, we help each other alot in the research unit.
So, the researchers on the nextlevel, from me, are very approachable.
(16:59):
I can go to them and see how isit actually that they are doing.
Geri (17:02):
Mm
Line (17:02):
At the same time, Nicklas and I as PhD students are helpers or, our, Master
students so they can see like what iskind of the next level, what are the
people doing if I want to move forward in,
Geri (17:14):
Mm hmm.
Line (17:15):
kind of world.
In the academia.
Geri (17:17):
Mm hmm.
So you talked about this astraining upwards and training
downwards in your application.
Nicklas (17:25):
Yeah exactly that's something we see a lot of in the world of sport.
Then you train with someonebetter than you and then sometimes
you move a bit down to get somesuccessful experiences in your sport.
And yeah, that's, we try to translateit into the world of academia
and we can see some similarities
Geri (17:41):
yeah, so there's the thing of you both helping, say, younger people,
and the reward you get from that.
And we know helping is good for wellbeing as well, or just, and also learning
how to help or how to be a mentor.
Is that part of it as well?
Line (18:03):
Yeah, when, when we help our master's students or any other students,
Geri (18:07):
Mm,
Line (18:08):
in our institute, we, we always have the opportunity to talk with our
supervisors and then they will help ussaying, okay, if, if you need to be a
good supervisor or a supervisor, Thenyou need to focus on these specific parts.
So, we have the opportunity todiscuss beforehand, like, what is
it that we should be aware of inthis situation when we, um, are
supervisors for master's students.
(18:31):
And then we always have theopportunity to have feedback.
Geri (18:34):
Lovely.
Line (18:35):
So definitely we.
We go that way.
Geri (18:38):
Nice circle.
What are the practical realities then,because you've talked a lot about talking,
you know, you've talked a lot aboutthe coordination between people you may
work with so there's no conflict inwhat you're being asked to do or you've
talked about being able to raise issueswhen you've got problems or need help.
(18:59):
And you've also talked about beingable to go back to your supervisor and
getting support for how you supervise.
How are the, how did theseinteractions practically play out?
Do you have set meetingtimes or open door?
Like how does that all work?
Line (19:14):
We have both.
Geri (19:16):
Mm hmm.
Line (19:16):
So we have different meetings.
We have some meetingswith our supervisors.
We have some meetingsin our research group.
Geri (19:23):
Mm hmm.
Line (19:24):
And then we also have the opportunity, we all sit on the
same kind of floor in one building.
And if the researchers have timeand then they have an open door.
And then we always welcome tocome in and I will say most of the
time, everyone have an open door.
So, so it's really easyto get access to the
Geri (19:44):
Mm hmm.
Mm
Line (19:45):
colleagues that we have.
Geri (19:46):
hmm.
Nicklas (19:48):
And yeah, it's easier to go into an office with an open door than
it is to write in an email that youhave to formulate in just the right
way to get some help and that's makeit makes it a bit easier for us.
Geri (20:01):
Mm.
What things have contributed to buildingup, I don't know, the trust, and
knowing one another that you feelcomfortable to go in and ask, or you feel
comfortable to say, I'm having issues?
Nicklas (20:18):
I would say that, uh, I've experienced so many times that my
supervisors have asked me, like,being curious about my life and ask
me, how are things actually goingfor you, not just about your PhD
project, but also in your everyday life
and Curious about who I am.
And that just helps me to trustthem that I can actually be
(20:40):
honest about how things are going.
Geri (20:43):
Yeah.
And that you can be a whole person,you know, they're not just interested
in what you can produce for them fortheir CV in a tick box, it sounds like.
Nicklas (20:53):
Yeah, I feel like they care for me as a person, not just as a co worker.
Geri (20:58):
Yeah.
And that's important.
Line, what about for you, what'scontributed to being able to build up
that sort of trust and relationship?
Line (21:08):
I agree with Nicklas, that supervisors are definitely coming with
a mindset saying, How can we help you?
You're always welcome to come in.
So they send a directive to me, if youneed any help, please just come in.
And I will say, just saying thesewords, Make me more secure actually
going in and asking for help.
(21:29):
And at the same time when we have ourmeetings, like the whole research unit
together, we often divide differentgroups so you have the opportunity to
discuss something in smaller groups beforewe take it up in, in plenum together.
And that could be together with sometimeslike the younger researchers are sitting
together and discussing it beforehand,and other times we are with the senior
(21:51):
researchers, so the whole time we havethis kind of mix, so we get to know each
other even better, day by day, and atthe same time, I feel like they want
to have our opinions, they want to hearwhat is our view, so I actually feel seen
and heard in the research units as well.
Geri (22:11):
So important that it, it Sounds wonderful.
Line (22:16):
It is.
Geri (22:17):
You also talked about the, the values around long term
development and wellbeing.
Can you also say a little bit moreabout how they practically play out?
Nicklas (22:34):
That's a good question.
Line (22:37):
I think if you look into like this mental health, how to manage
it, I think we have really free,what would you say, like frames.
So we don't need to be at anyspecific time in the office.
They encourage us to come intothe office, so we could share
knowledge and develop together.
(22:59):
But if I'm there, Nicklas isoften there earlier than me.
But I'm coming a bit later,because I have a daughter.
So I have the opportunity to, to put herinto, like, uh, uh, child care before.
Which makes it much more flexiblefor me and my private life.
Geri (23:14):
Yes.
Line (23:15):
Um, and at the same time, we see like, what is it that people need?
Do they have any difficulties, then,as Nicklas explained earlier, we try to
change our meetings or put them aroundit, so, so this other part is, then just
being a researcher is, is an opportunity.
Geri (23:33):
So the fact that you're allowed to shape your work in a way
that fits well with your life andcommitments is an important part
towards supporting your wellbeing.
Line (23:47):
Definitely.
And of course, we also have ahuge amount of workload sometimes.
But then we sometimes havemeetings saying, OK, what
do you need to prioritize?
I think that can sometimes be difficultwhen you're new into this research area
and you want to perform and do a good job.
Then it's nice to have someone help yousaying, what do you need to prioritize?
(24:08):
If we're struggling with a lot ofdifferent tasks at the same time
. Geri (24:13):
And to have the environment where you feel free to own up to struggling.
That's so important.
Nicklas (24:22):
Yeah, it sure is and it's sometimes it's not always us who
describe how we are struggling withthings, but we also experienced that
our, uh, senior professors are strugglingwith things like theoretical aspects or
getting some paper published and so on.
And they share their experiences too.
(24:43):
So we are not feeling like weare the only one struggling.
Geri (24:46):
They're the perfect ones and you're aspiring to their role model perfection.
Nicklas (24:51):
Exactly.
We get a real world picture ofhow things are going for them.
Line (24:56):
I think that we are lucky.
Often we have just a smallthing as lunch together.
And there as lunch youhave these informal talks.
And there you can hear what is it actuallythat all supervisors are struggling with.
along are the other people inthe group in their research?
So we have this opportunity tohear and, and feel what is
the status on the different
Geri (25:15):
Mm.
Yeah.
So both the formal meetingsand just hanging out at lunch.
Yeah.
Nina, I want to come back to you asI'm conscious that I haven't got
to you, but I'm just curious tounderstand a couple of other things
from the environment that was awarded.
And in the award text that youwrote, you also talked about creative
(25:40):
methods to discuss sensitive topicsand ensure psychological safety.
Now, some people may not knowthe term psychological safety.
Do you want to explainwhat you've meant by that?
Nicklas (25:55):
Yeah, it's, it's that you're feel safe in the
environment you're a part of.
That you you'll safe enough to makemistakes doing the process you're
in that you don't have to do itthe correct way every single time.
And then feel the support both whenyou're succeeding with things, but
also when you're not succeeding.
(26:15):
So you feel like, yeah, you feel safein, in things when you're doing things.
Geri (26:22):
And you said also at the beginning, one of the things that's valued, both
in high performing sports teams or goodsports environments, as well as your
research was the encouragement to takeinitiative and that freedom to take
initiative on something that may not work,is an example, isn't it of having the
psychological safety just to give it a goand you're more likely to try things out.
Nicklas (26:46):
Yeah, exactly.
And, we are encouraged totake the initiative.
So when we do, it's reallyappreciated by our colleagues.
Geri (26:55):
But what, what did you mean by creative methods then
to discuss sensitive topics?
Because you have just talked aboutlike people explicitly saying how
are you going and being genuinelyinterested and you have talked about
feeling free to bring up issues.
And I'm just curious about what mightbe some other creative methods that
you've experimented with in the group,
Nicklas (27:18):
So one of the best examples I can probably come up with is once
I met one of our longer meetings,we did Sarah and the Monopole.
It's a famous Danish radio programwhere people can send in dilemmas
they're working with, and we tried totranslate it into the world of academia.
So, so everybody in the unit couldsend in a dilemma, a theoretical
(27:41):
one, a methodological one, apersonal life dilemma if they had
something, and then everybody in theunit had to discuss this dilemma.
So, it was written anonymously.
So we didn't know who wrote it, butwe then talked about the theoretical
question of how do we understand theenvironment, for example, and that
(28:05):
created a room where we couldshow our vulnerability and
that we don't know everything.
And so it's the same casefor our senior professors.
So, yeah, it created a good meetingwhere we could actually talk
about what what are hard in oureveryday life as a researcher.
Geri (28:25):
Nice.
That's interesting.
Anything else to add there, Line?
Line (28:32):
I think Niklas mentions a really good practice example.
So yeah, we sometimes have differenttakes on how to discuss dilemmas and
how to be together and stuff like that.
But, but I think that's,that's A good example.
Geri (28:46):
Yeah, and it's also a nice example of the way that everyone,
you know, the structure of thatis based on an assumption that
everyone's got a contributionthey can make to discussing it.
And that valuing of what you all dotogether to create that environment.
Line (29:04):
And I guess it's also shows that everyone do have struggling and
do have something that is difficult.
So creating this session, we saw thatdespite the level that you have, everyone
is struggling and that's like beingtransparent and being a bit vulnerable
to each other in the research group.
Geri (29:22):
And, it sounds like very solution focused as well.
It's not just the wallowpit of we're all struggling.
Woe is us.
But what can we learn?
What can we do?
Nicklas (29:33):
Yeah, it's not like we didn't find an answer for every question
at all, every dilemma we brought up.
But just the fact that people arediscussing it are sometimes helping you a
bit closer towards the real answer if youcan actually find it in this situation.
Geri (29:49):
Indeed.
So Nina, what an amazingresearch environment.
Nina (29:56):
Yeah, we were very excited when we went through all the
applications, but particularlythis one from Line and Nicklas.
Yeah.
Geri (30:04):
Yeah.
You, you said before that, in doingthis over three years and seeing all
the different applications, how manyapplications might you get in each year?
Nina (30:16):
So it varies a little bit, but we've had altogether over a hundred
applications from very different researchenvironments from all across the country.
Geri (30:27):
And so what are some of the patterns that you're seeing around
what makes a good research environment?
And the fact that there are a hundredgroups who feel like they've got
something to celebrate or to writeup about is encouraging that, that
there are good environments out there.
So yeah, what are some of the patterns?
Nina (30:48):
The most common thing is that people describe that they have a sense of
belonging to their research environment.
That's the most important factor.
But then exactly how to createa research environment where
people get the sense of belonging.
That's where we really appreciate whenpeople come up with these examples of
(31:10):
what the environment does for them.
To create that sense.
So that includes having a common purposewithin the group or a common identity, a
defined mission that people can jump onto.
And also, ways of promoting diversityand ensuring that people can be their
(31:31):
true selves, that they feel comfortableas the person they are, uh, when they
are in the group, it's having ashared set of values that people can
agree to having clear expectations.
So people know what, uh, what is expected.
And that they can feel a senseof accomplishment when they
(31:52):
are meeting those expectations.
It's supporting collaborations, uh, withboth within the group, but with other
researchers from different countries.
Uh, setting up new collaborationsand supporting that these next
generation of scientists, ofresearchers can explore that.
(32:13):
It's having a way to fosterand value creativity.
uh, setting up structures wherepeople have time to explore creative
ideas and discussing new ideas in anenvironment where they're not afraid
to express those ideas and they canget constructive feedback both from
(32:34):
peers, but also from the top andbottom and from visiting scholars.
As Line and Nicklas also saidthat it builds on initiatives
from the top and from the bottom.
So everybody contributes, it contributesin their own way to this environment.
Also having some structure,so having regular meetings for
(32:58):
discussing both research, but alsomentoring aspects and career advice.
So one example is that some groupshave alumni days where they invite
past members, uh, back and, uh, theysometimes help the next generation
of researchers into their next jobopportunities or into new networks.
(33:22):
Uh, and it's having socialactivities and rituals, uh,
rituals for graduation parties.
It can be writing Christmas cards, topast members or something like that.
But then also.
One of the most common things thatpeople mention is to celebrate both
the successes, but also addressingfailures and viewing failures as an
(33:46):
opportunity to learn and to grow.
Geri (33:49):
Mm,
Nina (33:50):
And some research groups even celebrate advancements in their fields,
uh, as a positive twist on this oftenvery competitive environment that if
you acknowledge and celebrate whenthere's a major advancement in the
field, that's a very positive thing.
Um, which just creates the sense of, uh,curiosity and you want to understand
(34:16):
things no matter if that result isfrom your group or from somebody else.
And you're just excitedabout the new discoveries.
Geri (34:25):
So much there.
I love some of the specificexamples as well that you gave.
I'm curious if you have any otherexamples that stand out for you.
Of any of those aspects, you'vetalked about alumni days and
celebrating rituals, things like that.
So yeah.
(34:46):
Any other examples?
Nina (34:47):
So some groups have a structured time of creativity where
they block it out in their calendarand then that's what they focus on.
And then for this period of time,they're not working on taking
off stuff from that to do list.
That's time to walk out in natureand discuss and explore and people
(35:09):
sometimes assign time for exploringnew ways of communicating their
research in different creative ways.
And then going for outreach events,not as one person, but as a couple
of people from the same group.
So they can support each other incommunicating what they have discovered.
(35:31):
And then there's a quote thatI really liked from a past
research environment nomination.
It has to do with being welcomedas a person where you feel
safe and taken seriously.
So what they wrote is that youcan get thrown into the deep
water, but always with a colleaguewith a life jacket inside.
(35:52):
So that's when you grow as a researcher.
I just love that picture.
And I think that's also the samekind of feeling came across in what
Line and Nicklas wrote in theirnomination, but in different words,
but this sense where you, you justfeel safe to say whatever comes to mind.
You, it might be the next bigdiscovery of next big research idea.
(36:15):
And so we need to, uh, develop thoseskills and make sure that it's in place
because we have so many major challengesand just even asking the right questions
and coming up with solutions, peopleneed to come forward with that best ideas.
Geri (36:33):
Yeah.
And, we talked at different points aboutthe interdisciplinarity and the increasing
importance of that for solving some ofthe really hard challenges we have now,
we've always had, but recognizing thatwe need these different perspectives.
And What I hear across both Line andNicklas's specific experiences and what
(36:54):
you've reported on from across them is
the value of, you know, you talkedabout belonging and Line or Nicklas,
I can't remember which one of youtalked about being seen and heard.
And, and also being seen and heard aswhole people, like belonging isn't just
that you wear the t shirt with the nameof the lab on it, it is that really human
(37:18):
level sense of belonging and being able toshow up and be real, like, make mistakes.
And what I also heard was creatingthe spaces for the conversations and
the ideas to incubate and grow andto be shared and enhanced as well.
(37:40):
And whether that's being able totry out new initiatives or solving
dilemmas together or going off.
I like the idea of the going offon the walks where you're just,
you're exploring ideas together tocreate that space for creativity.
Cause I don't know, it feels likeacademia can get so focused on the stress
and the pressures and the competitionand pushing it the next paper that we
(38:03):
actually don't create space to think.
Nina (38:08):
We need more time for deep thinking.
Geri (38:12):
And that we don't do that alone.
Yes.
I mean, obviously we think, butwe do our best thinking with one
another and bringing togetherall the different contributions.
And so it sounds like what's creatingthese good environments are the
more subtle, nuanced aspects of howto do that, creating those spaces.
(38:34):
And the trusted relationshipsin which to have those
exploratory, open conversations.
Nina (38:41):
Yeah, definitely.
So that's a part of having a clearset of values in the research
environment where, where it's, thosethings are valued high enough to
take actual space in the calendars.
Geri (38:54):
Yes.
So talking about values, and Lineand Nicklas may want to come in with
what they think the particular valuesare of their group, although they did
talk about that a little bit, but arethere any specific values that you
saw reflected across the nominations?
Nina (39:12):
So Thats ways of ensuring that people can share their ideas and
get feedback both from our seniorresearchers, but also learning
from everybody in the environment.
There might be a visiting person comingfrom a different university and then
making sure that, that visiting, uh,might be a famous professor, that they
(39:35):
get time to both discuss with the headsof the research groups, but equally
important to schedule one on one meetingswith the more junior researchers so
that they have some time to bouncetheir ideas off this person who might
have some, some great ideas for, uh,questions regarding the research.
Geri (39:54):
Yeah.
So a value that everyone's voice mattersor everyone has a contribution to make.
Yeah.
Nina (40:01):
And then, then maybe it's an idea that, that won't win the next
Nobel prize, but the idea might matureby bouncing off different people with
different ideas and perspectives, andthen maybe it will take a different shape
or form, and then maybe then it willbecome something, uh, very interesting.
Geri (40:20):
Yeah.
Line and Nicklas, do you have anythingto add there around what you think
about the really core values thatmatter in a good research environment?
Nicklas (40:32):
And I think in line with what Nina told about, talked about, the
knowledge sharing both within the researchunit, but also inviting people in from
other research units to, to, sharetheir research projects so you can get
some inspiration into your own process.
That's something we also appreciatein our unit and we invite other
people in to give, uh, talks abouthow they do things in their, at
(40:57):
their university, for example.
Geri (40:59):
That also sounds like a very practical illustration of the celebrating
the successes of the field andcelebrating people in the field as well.
And I'm sure people coming in wouldexperience that in the group, that
they're not there to have theirbrains picked and ideas stolen,
but celebrating collectively.
Nina (41:21):
And that's also important for people to build their research networks.
So maybe people would, uh, want to pursuea postdoc abroad or something like that.
And then they have already met oneperson in a different lab and it
makes taking the contact to thatperson afterwards so much more easy.
You know, the person you met them.
(41:42):
So it's a, it's a good way ofhelping people to develop their
international network as well.
Geri (41:47):
And again, another very specific example of the long term
development that was in your awardproposal or nomination for your group.
But Line and Nicklas, do youhave any particular rituals?
You know, so Nina talked about rituals.
And the importance of rituals.
Nicklas (42:07):
I'm not sure it's a ritual, but, uh, I talked with
a PhD student who sometimes isconnected to our research unit.
So she's been a part of our, someof our monthly research unit.
And she told me that what she reallyappreciated about our unit is that
we always spend the first half anhour of first hour of a research
(42:28):
unit for everybody to check in.
To the meeting to, to just give a quickstatus on how are things going for them?
What are they working on?
Do they have some big project comingup or do they need help with something?
And that opened my eyes for that beinga, a really helpful, activity to do,
(42:49):
to just get some knowledge about what I,all of my colleagues doing at the moment.
Geri (42:54):
Mm hmm.
Yeah.
Line (42:57):
Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't say it's a ritual, but we also have
these different kind of meetings.
So once a month we have like a, a nerdmeeting, we call it, where we go together
in a group of the researchers focusingon the same area and then trying to go
into the new research or going into theprocess where we are right at the moment
(43:20):
to see how can we improve this part.
Geri (43:22):
Mm hmm.
Line (43:23):
So it's also a way to get a bit more specific on the research with
the people from the group that areinterested in the same area as you.
Geri (43:31):
Yeah.
Nice.
So like the, it sounds like verydeliberate thought to structuring
different types of meetings fordifferent purposes and different
rhythms as well to those meetings.
Nina, what, what are you doing differentlyhaving had the privilege of, as well as
the work, I acknowledge that running theseaward schemes as part of the academy is
(43:55):
probably a lot of additional work for you.
And what have you learned for yourself?
What are you doing differentlyfrom what you've read?
Nina (44:06):
So one of the very easy things from our list of things to implement is, uh, to
discuss about, uh, successes and failures.
So I have that on a slide for ourweekly group meetings, uh, in my research
group, we discuss successes and failures.
And then just, uh, just thisweek, I, I, I had to announce that
well, there was a grant that wedidn't get which I applied for.
(44:30):
And of course, that's, uh, it wouldhave been nice to get that grant, but,
then we discussed that, uh, this thisdoesn't happen always, right, and we
just, uh, need to try for the next one.
And then the students who, uh, justjoined the group where they, they ran
an experiment once and it worked in thefirst shot, but then when they tried to
repeat it, then, uh, none of the bacteriawere growing on the plate as expected.
(44:55):
So they all died.
And so in the light of me not gettingthis research grant, then maybe a plate
of no bacterial colonies is not too bad.
It is repeated next week andthen hopefully they will grow.
Uh, so we had a discussion on this, uh,yesterday that it's nice to readdress
these things, uh, that the new peoplein my group appreciated, uh, because
(45:18):
they can look around and see, Eventhough you have a protocol and maybe
I'm doing air quotes, it should work.
It will never always work there.
You'd have to optimize and try again.
There's sometimes, for whatever reason,the experiment fails and you have
to go back and try again and again.
And, If you only look at the stuff thatworks and that gets granted or published,
(45:43):
then it's so easy to feel like you'rethe only person where nothing works.
So I think this is one thingthat was easy to implement.
Yeah, for sure.
Geri (45:57):
I'm just trying to think of people who may be sceptical and, you know,
if I play devil's advocate or try toimagine a critique, I could imagine
someone saying, well, it's all very goodhaving these nice research environments
and it's okay to fail and you know,someone caring about your life outside
work, but we're here to do research.
(46:18):
So what does this mean for the science?
How would you respond to that?
What's the relationship betweengood environments and good work?
Nina (46:27):
Yeah, so that's a question we get sometimes and how do we ensure
that then there's time to do a reallyexcellent research as well, if you
take time away for these other things.
But so then there's, the past fewyears, there's been a crisis in
replication of some data and somepapers get withdrawn due to fraud.
And, sometimes You could imaginethat some of these fraudulent
(46:52):
data were generated becausepeople were afraid to come forward
and say it simply doesn't work.
Um, so if you create the space totalk about stuff that's not working,
then the incentive to, to come up withfraudulent data, Is reduced greatly.
And I think so it's worth.
(47:13):
This is another way where it's worth topromoting a good research environment
because then it might reduce the riskof having some of this horrible data
being published, which might actuallyharm people, but definitely it will
harm the research field in general.
And then one of the runner ups forthe research environment this year,
(47:36):
they highlighted that they actuallyare publishing negative data.
So that's a new thing where somejournals will accept research where
they have a clear question and ahypothesis and then it comes out
that this was just not how it worked.
But, uh, it's still possible to publish.
And it's good for the research fieldbecause then people don't have to
(47:57):
spend time trying with the same idea.
And also it, it, it builds people's CV.
Then they have papers withnegative data is also data.
And also it would do that reduces therisk that some people would create
fraudulent data and publish that.
So I think there are more tangiblepotential outcomes, to highlight or to
(48:20):
increase the quality of research at leastsort of, uh, so potentially long term.
Geri (48:26):
yeah, because that's where the learning happens and to do better work.
Anything to add?
Line (48:35):
I was just considering if we want people to do great research
and do a really good job, we alsoknow that people perform best if
they are mentally healthy and in anenvironment where they feel safe.
So if you want the best researchand if you want someone to develop
(48:56):
the best, we also need to create theenvironment that helps them do that.
It's not a, an individualwho perform, uh, alone.
Maybe they can perform despitethe environment, but not
because of the environment.
So we need to create environmentswhere we perform together
(49:17):
because of the environment.
Geri (49:19):
That's lovely.
Line (49:20):
my thought.
Nina (49:23):
And so where people don't burn out because we spend up these resources
training people and they acquire allthese skills and knowledge and if
people burn out and then they can ofcourse carry on some of the skills.
But if people burn out to the degreethat they are not continuing to use
those skills in whatever capacity,then that's such a waste of, uh,
(49:45):
human, resources and people's time.
And, um, so that's, that's
Geri (49:51):
And the loss of the contribution they could have made . Yeah.
We should look at wrapping up.
Are there any final thoughts each ofyou would like to make around great
research environments or what you'dhope people might take away or do
(50:12):
as a result of this conversation.
Nina (50:17):
I hope that people listening in can continue the conversation and maybe come
up with some ideas of how they might,uh, work on improving their research
environment or whatever environment.
I think all these points wediscussed can be transferred
to many different environments.
Geri (50:34):
Yes.
Oh, one question I have, Nina, Idon't know whether you can answer.
You said you got thesehundred applications from
all sorts of different areas.
Do you see any disciplinaryrelated patterns at all?
Nina (50:50):
I see that people, uh, with major grants, centers of excellence, they
have more financial resources to createa bit of framework for initiatives and
they would maybe have funding for goingon retreats, something like that, whereas
(51:11):
smaller research groups or people inthe humanities often don't have the
resources for those kinds of activities.
So we are very much taking thatinto account when we are looking
at the applications, that thereare some disciplinary differences.
In the foundation forbuilding research environments.
Geri (51:31):
Really good points.
And Line and Nicklas, any finalthoughts from you, each of you?
Line (51:40):
I agree with what Nina said.
I think that people listening mighthope to take into account that everyone
play a role in the environment.
So how can we give everyone a voiceand, and hear what the different
people need, despite different levels.
Geri (51:57):
And what you've said is what they need and what they can contribute.
Like that two way.
Yeah.
Nicklas (52:04):
Yeah.
And then I think maybe the exampleswe have listened up here is not
a hundred percent transferableinto their environment, but maybe
they can try to translate it intosomething applicable to their context.
Geri (52:18):
Great.
So thank you very much, Nina, Line andNicklas for your time today and we
celebrate with you your award for yourexcellent research environment and for
all the efforts that people everywhereare taking to be part of the change about
(52:40):
doing academia differently, becauseyou said at the very beginning, Nina,
about one of your most important.
Motivations in setting up this prize wasabout needing new ways of doing academia.
We can work on that together as well.
And thank you for yourcontributions towards that.
Nina (53:00):
Thank you.
Geri (53:04):
You can find the summary notes, a transcript and related
links for this podcast on www.
changingacademiclife.
com.
You can also subscribe toChanging Academic Life on iTunes,
Spotify and Google Podcasts.
And I'm really hoping that we canwiden the conversation about how
we can do academia differently.
(53:25):
And you can contribute to this by ratingthe podcast and also giving feedback.
And if something connected withyou, please consider sharing this
podcast with your colleagues.
Together, we can make change happen.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.