June 18, 2025 • 36 mins
If you are curious about how to set up your own peer support group, inspired by what Johanna Stadlbauer shared about what Uni Graz are doing, then this episode might get you started. I walk through some of the ‘things to think about’ when setting up peer groups such as the group’s purpose, the focus, and who that would involve, also the group size, meeting frequency and commitment, and choosing between structured or informal formats and related roles. I then walk through two examples of more structured formats: action learning sets which take more of a coaching approach, and peer mentoring models that take more of a consulting or advising approach. I also give some examples of more informal peer groups. Regardless of approach, good listening, confidentiality and a commitment to genuine participation are key. I also refer to some resources and links for further reading and more detailed overview of steps, as well as some related podcasts. Whether you're looking for mutual support, expert guidance, or simply a sense of belonging, there's a group format that can work for you. Give it a try!
00:00 CAL126 Exploring Peer Group Support Models
00:29 Introduction
01:36 Purpose
03:03 Focus
05:03 How Many
06:17 How Often
07:45 Format
08:24 Roles
09:44 Critical Ingredients
11:38 Walking Through Some Examples
12:35 Example: Peer Coaching Groups - Action Learning Set
20:39 Example: Peer Mentoring Groups
25:04 Example: Informal Peer Support Groups
28:23 Recap
30:07 Do What Works for You - Suggestions
33:07 Closing Call and Pointers
36:36 End
Related Links
Action Learning Sets guidance by Caroline Doherty via the UK NHS Action Learning Sets page
Action Learning Sets at Uni of St Andrews as example in an academic context
Graz Call for participation in their Collegial Development Programme
Kollegiale Beratung in sechs Phasen (Collegial Advising in 6 Phases)
Descriptive Consultancy with protocol description
The No Club book and No Club Guidance
Related Podcasts
Michael Bungay Stanier on the power of curiosity and taming your advice monster
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Geri (00:05):
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.
(00:29):
Collegiality, community building andpeer support are some of the themes that
we've heard a lot about this season.
And this was a particular focus too in thelast episode with Johan Stadlbauer from
the University of Graz, and Johanna talkeda lot about the peer mentoring group
programs that they have in place there.
(00:52):
You might also have noticed from ourdiscussion that there are different
forms of peer support groups.
But would you know what sort of peersupport group you'd be interested in?
Or if you were in research developmentor you just wanted to help set up a peer
support group in your own institution,would you know what sort of things to
(01:15):
think about or how to make it happen?
What I thought I would do in thissolo episode is to walk through some
of the aspects of peer support groupsthat you might think about if you are
making a decision around what sort ofgroup and who's going to participate
and how you're gonna run it, and so on.
(01:36):
So the first thing to think about is why,what might be the purpose of a peer group?
It could be as simple as just aboutmutual support and sharing experiences,
feeling like you're not the only onegoing through something or sense checking
with others, and that's just reallyabout generating deeper connections and
(02:01):
a sense of belonging and being seen in.
You could also use a peer group asa space for reflection and learning.
And this might be as partof a reflective practice.
, And in learning, developing, buildingskills in a collegial environment.
(02:23):
You could also have a peer groupthat's much more focused on
seeking expert advice from othersand focused on problem solving.
And you could have a peer group morefor accountability purposes to hold
yourself to commitments that you'vemade or to keep you on track with tasks.
I'm sure there are othersthat you can think of as well.
(02:47):
The key point is though, being clearabout your why and what role the
group's going to serve is reallyimportant for thinking about who will
be part of it and what sort of formator structure might work best for that.
So then it's useful to think about andwhat might be the focus of the group.
(03:08):
And this will also particularly pointto then who would participate in
the group, or who you might invite,or who you might put out a call
for to participate in such a group.
For example, for the collegial developmentcircles that Johanne Stadlbauer has
run at University of Graz, their callfor participation states a possible
(03:32):
focus on issues around career stepswith in or beyond academia and also on
work and life balance related topics.
So you could imagine them bringingtogether a group of people
interested in those topics.
And they'd be fairly open, wouldn'tthey, for who could participate.
(03:52):
It could be more targeted.
For example, it could be aroundparticularly early career support or for
people who are all on a tenure track path.
Or it could be for people who are allimmediately post-tenure and going through
that post-tenure funk and redefiningwho they are and what they want to do.
Or it could be for people who are inlater career path late career support
(04:16):
as they start to think about what theirlegacy might be and how they might
transition to their next phase of life.
An issue I'm familiar with.
And it could be about navigatingpromotion processes more generally.
You could have a peer groupthat's focused particularly
on people in leadership roles.
(04:36):
It could be people who are headsof departments or heads of groups,
or could be project leaders.
And it could also be focused,for example, on supervision.
And indeed Johanna talked abouttheir supervisors network that
runs as a peer support group.
So thinking about what might be theparticular focus and then who you
(04:57):
would get together is really important.
The next thing to think aboutis then how many people would be
part of a group, and this is whereyou can find a lot of variations.
So in Johanna's call for the CollegialDevelopment program for 2025, and I'll
(05:17):
put a link to this on the webpage.
They say that a group can consist ofup to 15 participants drawing, from
interdisciplinary and mixed gender areas.
For many other forms of peer groups,though the ideal is often talked about
more in terms of about four to six toeight people, and usually no more than
(05:39):
eight people and no fewer than four.
Four is maybe even a bit too low,I think in case you have people who
occasionally can't attend or who drop out.
'Cause you really do need some criticalmass in the group to make it work.
So you may want to think about what'sa sweet spot number for your group.
(06:03):
I'd probably suggest that six is agood number to aim for if you can,
but of course you can make any numberwork with some thought and care for
how you engage people in the group.
So there's no fixed rule on this.
The next thing to think about ishow often you're going to meet at
(06:24):
what frequency and what sort ofcommitment people are expected to make.
So again, using the Graz programas an example, they were looking
for a commitment of a year.
In other programs, it might be acommitment of, say, six sessions
that you'll meet for, and that couldbe over a semester, for example.
(06:48):
How often to meet?
Usually a monthly cycle is acommon frequency that you'll find.
And then there's also thinkingabout what level of commitment
you want people to make.
Do you want people to commit tocoming to all of the sessions as a
priority so that you can build uptrust and deepen connections over time?
(07:09):
Or are you happy forpeople to drop in and out?
My own advice would be, ideally,as committed as people can be
to attend, although we knowthat things can always come up.
So you could also decide that you justmeet ad hoc, whenever people decide they
want to meet or when someone has somethingin particular they want to discuss.
(07:30):
So no a priori commitments to how oftenor how many times you're going to meet.
So that could also be an optionrather than it being more of
an upfront set of commitment.
The next thing to think about is whatsort of format do you want to have?
(07:51):
And there can be a whole spectrum herefrom quite a structured format to a very
freeform, open, conversational format.
Again, it's up to you to decide, andthat would really go to what might
be the why that could influencewhat sort of format works best.
When I walk through some of theexamples later on, you'll see two
(08:14):
different ideas for more structuredformats, and also I'll give some
examples of more unstructured formats.
The next thing to think about, andthis will definitely depend on the
format that you've chosen, is whatsort of roles need to be played.
In the more structured formatthere's always someone who
(08:37):
plays a facilitator role.
Now this can be a trained facilitatoror it could just be someone from
the group who steps up and playsthat role for that group meeting.
If people are unfamiliar with havingmore structured formats, someone
who is a trained facilitator canbe useful in the beginning to bring
(08:59):
people up to speed and then thepeople in the group can take it on.
And again, what Graz have done is havetheir training sessions for people
about how to run these sorts of groups.
So whichever way you go,there'll be a facilitator role.
There's the role of the personwho brings the issue to the group
(09:20):
to be discussed, and that can bedecided in advance or on the day.
And then there's everyone elsein the group who plays the
role of the group members.
Some models also designate a notetaker to capture ideas that come up
when it gets to the discussion point.
(09:44):
I think there are also somecritical ingredients regardless
of format and structure.
I think it would go without saying thata commitment to confidentiality is really
key if people are gonna share honestly.
I think there also needs to be acommitment to show up as your real
self, not as your idealized CV version.
(10:06):
And that's, having good and bad days.
Someone who doesn't know it all,someone prepared to be a learner
because that's what we are, aren't we?
We're all learners and we're all humans.
And I think it's also important torecognize that we're all different.
And so what might seem like a trivialchallenge for you might be a big
(10:26):
challenge for someone else, or torealize that a solution that worked
for you might not work for others.
So that takes both some humility andsome sensitivity, and a commitment
to no judgment and not imposingyour own view or values on others.
(10:46):
I think participation in peer groups, peersupport groups also requires a commitment
to develop good listening skills.
And this isn't just listening tothe words that are said, but how
it's said, body language and so on.
It's listening to what's not said.
(11:06):
It's listening to your own reactions.
Because whether you're asking goodquestions or giving good advice and we'll
talk about that soon, you can't ask goodquestions or give good advice unless
you have really deeply listened to theperson and understand what's going on
for them and where they're coming from.
(11:29):
And here too, curiosity can reallybe a key superpower to develop
in support of good listening.
They were just some keyaspects to think about.
Now to help bring it to life a bit more.
I'm going to walk through a moredetailed process for a couple of
the different approaches here.
(11:51):
I'm going to start off with morestructured formats and then talk about
more, so a couple of informal formats.
With the more structured formats,these can tend to fall into
one of two broad categories.
(12:12):
One category of approaches tends totake more of a coaching type approach.
So it's much more of that supportivelistening, asking good questions.
The other style, the other approachtends to take more of a mentoring,
consulting expert advice type of approach.
(12:35):
So let's start with action learningsets as an example of how a coaching
type approach might play out.
An action learning set is usuallydefined as a small group of people,
usually of about four to six people,who have contracted together to
meet about five or six times atsome sort of regular frequency.
(12:59):
Normally once a month, as I said.
The focus of a set is creating a spacefor a person to bring a real situation
or challenge, and then facilitatinga process that enables them to
think through that with the supportof peers and to eventually get to
trying out some new ideas at the end.
(13:21):
So it's very much a supported,reflective learning approach.
It is based on the assumption thatwe learn best by reflecting on our
own experiences and being challengedto think outside of the box, if
you like, and to expand our ideasand explore options and experiment
with just trying different things.
(13:44):
It is also based on the assumption thatthe person themself is the expert in
their own domain, in their own context,in their own problem area, and that they
can be really resourceful in solving that.
The cycle of meetings normally starts offwith a trained facilitator because it is
(14:05):
quite a structured process and it doesrequire some skills to facilitate well.
And then over time, as I said, this isan example of whereas the group gets
to know the process, the facilitator,the trained facilitator can step back
and maybe even step out of the group.
And then different people will takeon the role as the group decide.
(14:26):
So then how to run a meetingor it's called a set then.
Normally these sessions will lastfor about an hour and a half.
An hour maybe, but I thinkan hour and a half is better.
People will come to the group.
And there's usually a check-in roundjust checking in how everyone's going.
(14:47):
There might be reporting back if someonehad committed to some actions last time.
So just checking back in,that accountability piece.
Then there's a round where peopleare invited to say what problem or
issue they could bring to the group.
And then there's a process facilitatedby the facilitator to decide which one
(15:07):
or ones they might focus on that day.
So it's up to the group to decidewhether you have, say, two cases per
session, or use the whole session onone case or have three cases, whatever.
It's up to you.
Often a case, typical case couldbe given about 20 to 30 minutes.
(15:27):
But there'll be some sort of roundanyway where all of the potential issues
to be discussed are put on the tableand there's the decision process about
which one or ones will be discussed.
So the next step is the person who hasthe case or has the problem situation,
presents that to the group as preciselyand as concisely as they can, and.
(15:51):
They try to draw out the keything that they want to think
through in this process.
Note the language here of the key thingthey want to think through or think
about rather than the key thing theywant to ask advice about or talk about.
Then there's a short phase where the restof the group can ask clarifying questions.
(16:11):
So this isn't giving advice orstarting to dig into anything.
It's just much more if they don'tunderstand the exact problem.
It just helps ensure thateveryone's on the same page.
And then once everyone is clear thatthey understand what the problem is
that the person is bringing and whatabout it they want to focus on to think
about, then the rest of the group membersmove into a coaching style process,
(16:37):
and this is where the group membersplay the role of thinking partners.
They are thinking partners with theperson who's brought the problem
and their role is to ask good, openquestions that encourage the person
to think through their issues.
And note, this shouldn't be advicecouched as a question, have you thought
(16:58):
of doing X my favorite solution?
But rather it'd be something muchmore of the options that you've
thought about so far, which ones arestanding out for you most, or what
do you feel most uncomfortable about,or what you feel most challenged by?
Or can you give an example of something orwhat else matters for you on these issues?
(17:20):
And we can have a whole other sessionon different types of questions and
good questions, good thinking questions,but that can be for another time.
So the role of the facilitatorhere is just to keep an eye on the
question flow just to check thatthey're all still kept quite open.
So they might ask someone toreframe a question if they thought
it was too closed or leading.
(17:42):
And the key thing about this approachtoo is that the person who has brought
the case is also totally free to saythat's an interesting question, but I
don't think it's going to help me somuch now and invite another question.
So they don't have to answer aquestion, just because it's been asked.
Or think through a question.
So they can really take control overwhat they want to think through,
(18:05):
what's useful for them at that time.
So then at some point, depending on whattime you've decided to allocate to discuss
the case, the facilitator will move toclose the open question part and then
invite the case presenter to review whatthey've heard, talk about what connected,
(18:25):
and to start to get to some decision aboutwhat action they might take as a result.
And then as a final move, the wholegroup in closing will reflect on what
they think was useful about the process.
Now, note, this isn't about the contentof what was discussed, but the process
of how the group worked together tofacilitate that thinking process.
(18:47):
Were there particular stylesof questions that seemed
particularly helpful and so on.
So it becomes a mutual learningas well about the process.
So that's the broad structureof an action learning set.
It can be particularly useful say for,say, leadership development or reflective
academic practice and problem solving,solving research challenges and so on.
(19:12):
It's very much about putting the focuson the person with the problem or
the issue, and it's about helping tobuild their problem solving capacity.
And there's the added value, Ithink, of the focus on action and
accountability that comes with it.
And for the other people, I think it'sreally great practice at developing
really strong listening skills and howto be a good supportive thinking partner.
(19:38):
If I think about it, how often havewe been to courses or been offered
courses about how to speak or how togive a presentation, but are we ever
offered courses about how to listen?
And yet listening is a great skilland in developing this skill here,
you can also take that skill back andapply it to all sorts of different
relationships you have, especially insome leadership or supervisory situation.
(20:02):
Or just informal peer discussions.
And it's interesting to reflect onhow it's actually not an easy role
to be a good thinking partner andto listen well because we are really
primed to be the experts and be theproblem solvers and jump in for people.
But this often isn't the mosthelpful thing we can do for them.
And there's a whole lot of researchsupporting the value of such a coaching
(20:25):
like mindset in helping people develop.
To be honest, I also clearly have aparticular bias towards this model
as a trained coach and also a trainedaction learning set facilitator.
So moving on to another example,this is also of a more structured
(20:46):
approach, but this time it'staking more of the expert oriented,
mentoring, consulting type of approach.
And this is what Johanna talked about lastweek in the Graz Collegial Development
Program and the model that they work with.
Johanna also talked about aGerman model called Kollegiale
(21:10):
Fallberatung, which literallytranslates to collegial case advice.
I will provide a link to this model andit's a lovely webpage that has a good
description of the process and the steps.
If you're not a German speaker, youcould do a translation on the page
and it sets out the steps very nicely.
Johanna also talked about a similarFrench Canadian model, There's also a
(21:34):
model called Descriptive Consultancy.
And again, I'll put a link toDescriptive Consultancy on the webpage.
And that link also points toa nicely elaborated set of
steps that you could follow.
And Johanna talked about the BalintGroup model, although that's used
(21:54):
within, as she said, a psychotherapycontext, but also more generally for
professional client relationships andexploring the emotional aspects of that.
So while all of these differentmodels that I've just named have a
slightly different flavor and slightlydifferent interpretation in their
process steps, in general, they allhave a very similar sort of approach.
(22:19):
And as Johanna describes in theirlatest call for participation, these
approaches are generally based on,to quote this call, "the assumption
that each of the group members has anadvantage of knowledge, skills, and
experience in a specific domain thatthey can make accessible to the others."
So what are the steps in this morestructured advising, consulting process?
(22:44):
They have a similar setup phase to whatwe discussed for action learning sets.
There's the check-in and usuallyan update from the last session.
Then there's a process of decidingwhat roles people will take on.
There's usually the facilitator role,the person who's presenting the case,
maybe a note taker, and then therest of the group take on the role
(23:04):
of consultant or expert or advisor ormentor, whatever language works for you.
You can hear how that's quite differentto the coaching type model where the other
members play the role of thinking partner.
Then the person who's coming with the caseagain will present their case and this
(23:25):
time they talk about, presenting the keyquestion or challenge they want input on.
And again, note the change of languagehere versus the action learning set
approach where we asked, the key thingthat people wanted to think about.
So this might seem like a trivialdifference, but it's actually a
really important one 'cause it pointsto who's doing the thinking work.
(23:47):
In the peer mentor approachhere, it's the group members.
As Johanna explained, once the personhas presented the case and everyone is
clear on it, then the presenter sits backand stays silent and they just listen
to the rest of the group who then walkthrough the case and talk about it,
brainstorm ideas, offer their advice,offer their suggestions, and so on.
(24:13):
And then again, at some point thefacilitator closes the discussion,
brings it back to the person whopresented the case to pull out what
was new or useful or what ideasthey're considering, and eventually
moving to what solution they want totake forward, what they might act on.
And again, there's an accountabilitything built in where they can
report back the next time.
(24:34):
So two Structured methods quitedifferent in the role of the person
who brings the case and the role ofthe rest of the members of the group.
In the action learning sets, theperson is the thinker and the group
members of the thinking partners.
In the more of the consulting style,the person is the case presenter
(24:56):
and the rest of the group are theexperts, advisors, consultants.
And then there are many examples of moreinformal peer support groups and you can
probably already think of lots of these.
So they're not so structured andnot being so structured, they're
not gonna have such a strong notionof roles, nor of a strong notion of
(25:19):
how the conversation should flow.
So some examples.
You could think about writing groups,the shut up and write groups that are
becoming increasingly popular as oneform of peer support group focused on
committing to a writing practice and theaccountability for showing up and the
accountability for working on what yousaid you're gonna work on in that session.
(25:45):
And yes, of course there may be acouple of simple roles there, like
facilitator there, who's keeping aneye on the time , or the person who's
brought the cookies, the cookie bringer.
You could also think of an informalpeer support group where a group of
you decide to be critical friends forone another around a particular role.
For example, you might decide that you allwill take a turn where your other group
(26:09):
members will sit in on your lectures,a couple of your lectures, and then
you might get together to discuss whatworked well and what could be improved.
And, repeat that for allof the group members.
So that could be somethinglike a critical friends group.
And there's another lovely example ofan informal peer support group in a
(26:32):
book that I would highly recommend,and the book is called The No Club.
Putting a stop to Women's Dead End workby Linda Babcock, Brenda Peyser, Lisa
Westerland, and Laurie Weingart, and I'llput a link to that on the webpage as well.
And they connected together because theywere realizing that they was spending
(26:55):
so much time on what call non-promotabletasks, service tasks in their faculties
that they were not having time to dothe research that they wanted to do.
So I'm just going to read frompage six on the version of the book
that I have about them setting upthis club, this peer support group.
(27:17):
"During the dreariest time in Pittsburghwinter in 2010, we kicked off our
inaugural, I just can't say no club.
Meeting at a cozy restaurant where wecould get a meal and $10 bottles of wine.
Really.
We went around the tablesharing or actually confessing.
(27:39):
We each described the things wehad agreed to when we were asked.
This turned out to be a lengthy listfor all of us and then contrasted
that with what we had said no to,and these were very short lists.
We asked one another for advice on how tosay no since we found it so hard to do.
(28:00):
Wanting to get a better handle onour workload, we knew the extra
support from the group would help.
So we agreed to meet every few weeks.
We left the meeting feelingunburdened and exhilarated.
None of us realized what atransformative experience this
would become for each of us".
(28:23):
So in summing up, I hope that you canfind ways to connect with peers and
have transformative experiences as well.
In this short episode, what I've triedto do is walk through some of the
things to think about, like why youwant to get together as a peer group
(28:44):
or what people would want to get outof it as a peer group, and then what
might be the particular focus whichalso points to who might be part of it.
And then we talked about how manyshould ideally form a group and deciding
how often you want to meet, what sortof frequency, and if there's gonna
(29:05):
be some sort of minimum period ofcommitment, or whether it's going to be
some more informal group ad hoc group.
And then thinking about what sort offormat you wanted to have, whether it
was more structured or unstructured,and depending on the format, what
sort of roles need to be played.
And then the process of how your meetingtogether might play out in a session.
(29:31):
And I walked through a coupleof structured examples.
Looking at both an approach that takesmore of a coaching model where the
members of the group help the caseperson as thinking partners or whether
it's more of an expert consulting,mentoring approach where the members of
the group, discuss the case on behalf ofthe person and come up with solutions.
(29:55):
And then we talked about some sort ofmore informal unstructured approaches
where people are just getting acommitment to get together in more
of a mutual support type of style.
You'll find some links on the webpagethat actually elaborate some of
these more structured processes.
And I think in closing I'd justsay, do whatever works best for you.
(30:23):
Despite my personal bias herefor more of a coaching approach,
there's no right or wrong way.
And of course, it just depends whatworks best for you and what works for
the why of why you're meeting together.
What works for the person andthe issue that they're bringing
and what works for the group.
(30:44):
So if you've not done this before,you could start off just trying
to follow one of the structureddescriptions as it's laid out.
And these often also providesuggested timings as well.
And then as you become more comfortablewith it, you could start to adapt it.
And I could imagine combiningaspects of different approaches.
(31:06):
For example, you could start off withmore of a coaching approach, from
the position as the person beingthe expert in their own problem.
So you start off with more of that,helping them think through and
prompted by good questions fromthe group as thinking partners.
And then you could decide to havea phase, for example, where you
might move into an advice phase.
(31:28):
So all of those things that everyone'sbeen sitting on, and the person who
brought the case might say, I now I wouldbe interested to hear what advice you
might suggest, or what options I couldthink about that I hadn't thought about.
So you're doing a bit of a mix of boththe coaching and the expert consulting.
Or you could have just a more openstructure and the person who's
presenting the case is the one whoalso takes ownership of saying what
(31:52):
would be most useful for me right now?
Because you know that for someparticular sort of cases, you could
imagine that I don't have a lot ofexpertise, for example, in whatever this
new challenge is that I'm taking on.
So at this new phase, I'm reallyinterested in hearing what other
people have done, what have theyfound works what would be the
(32:13):
pitfalls I should be looking out for.
So I might want more of anadvice consulting model there.
But if it's something where, I don'tknow, it's a particularly complex
leadership challenge with the groupor with particular people where I
understand, the dynamics and a lotof the interpersonal issues, and I'm
not gonna be able to explain all ofthose complexities to the whole group.
(32:36):
It may be much more useful justto have thinking type questions.
Because if people move into advice mode,they may start going down rabbit holes or
be making assumptions or not understandexactly how what they're saying doesn't
fit the situation that you're bringing.
So you could leave it up to theperson bringing the case to say
(32:57):
what would be useful for them rightnow, whether it's advice and hearing
other people's experiences or gettinggood thinking questions and so on.
Whatever you decide to do,it's just a useful reminder.
We never do academia alone.
We build on the work of others.
We work in social contexts.
(33:18):
We're all often dealing with similarsorts of issues, and we all have
enormous expertise that we can bringto each other and that we can share.
And just knowing as well that thereare other people who have similar
experiences can be so importantto feeling like we are not alone.
(33:38):
So I encourage you to think about whatmight be ways that you can connect
with peers and what might be somesupportive structures that you can
put in place to set up peer supportgroups, whether they're more in the
coaching model or more in the mentoringconsulting model, or more informal model.
(34:01):
And you could also think about whatother things that you need right now.
But it also could be what could I do?
What are the problems and needs thatI'm hearing about in my context and what
could be useful to set up for them now?
So have a think about it.
Connect, support.
(34:22):
We can do this together.
And finally, just as a reminder, youcan find links to some descriptions
of action learning sets, the Graz callfor participation in their collegial
development program, the KollegialeBeratung in six phases, the descriptive
(34:43):
consultancy, and the Balint method.
And they all will walk through, somesteps for how you might actually
run the session with suggestedtimings, as I said, many of them.
I'll also have a link tothe book called The No Club.
And on their webpage they have, whatthey call No Club Guidance, which
(35:04):
gives you some questions that you mightthink about if you do come together
for that sort of peer support group.
And you might be interested inlistening to some of the podcasts that
have previously been released here.
There's one with Michael BungayStanier on the Power of Curiosity
and taming your Advice Monster.
(35:24):
There's another follow up I did aftertalking with Michael about asking
good questions, empowering goodpeople, and there's a two part series
with Oscar Trimboli on being betterlisteners and on how to listen deeply.
So all of those might be nice complimentsif you are thinking of actually trying
(35:45):
to set up and run a peer support program.
And I'd love to hear what you do if youdecide to do anything and how it goes.
And feel free to reach out if I canhelp in any way in supporting that.
You can find the summary notes, atranscript and related links for this
(36:06):
podcast on www.changingacademiclife.com.
You can also subscribe to ChangingAcademic Life on iTunes, Spotify,
and I'm really hoping that we canwiden the conversation about how
we can do academia differently.
And you can contribute to this by ratingthe podcast and also giving feedback.
(36:27):
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.
(00:29):
Collegiality, community building andpeer support are some of the themes that
we've heard a lot about this season.
And this was a particular focus too in thelast episode with Johan Stadlbauer from
the University of Graz, and Johanna talkeda lot about the peer mentoring group
programs that they have in place there.
(00:52):
You might also have noticed from ourdiscussion that there are different
forms of peer support groups.
But would you know what sort of peersupport group you'd be interested in?
Or if you were in research developmentor you just wanted to help set up a peer
support group in your own institution,would you know what sort of things to
(01:15):
think about or how to make it happen?
What I thought I would do in thissolo episode is to walk through some
of the aspects of peer support groupsthat you might think about if you are
making a decision around what sort ofgroup and who's going to participate
and how you're gonna run it, and so on.
(01:36):
So the first thing to think about is why,what might be the purpose of a peer group?
It could be as simple as just aboutmutual support and sharing experiences,
feeling like you're not the only onegoing through something or sense checking
with others, and that's just reallyabout generating deeper connections and
(02:01):
a sense of belonging and being seen in.
You could also use a peer group asa space for reflection and learning.
And this might be as partof a reflective practice.
, And in learning, developing, buildingskills in a collegial environment.
(02:23):
You could also have a peer groupthat's much more focused on
seeking expert advice from othersand focused on problem solving.
And you could have a peer group morefor accountability purposes to hold
yourself to commitments that you'vemade or to keep you on track with tasks.
I'm sure there are othersthat you can think of as well.
(02:47):
The key point is though, being clearabout your why and what role the
group's going to serve is reallyimportant for thinking about who will
be part of it and what sort of formator structure might work best for that.
So then it's useful to think about andwhat might be the focus of the group.
(03:08):
And this will also particularly pointto then who would participate in
the group, or who you might invite,or who you might put out a call
for to participate in such a group.
For example, for the collegial developmentcircles that Johanne Stadlbauer has
run at University of Graz, their callfor participation states a possible
(03:32):
focus on issues around career stepswith in or beyond academia and also on
work and life balance related topics.
So you could imagine them bringingtogether a group of people
interested in those topics.
And they'd be fairly open, wouldn'tthey, for who could participate.
(03:52):
It could be more targeted.
For example, it could be aroundparticularly early career support or for
people who are all on a tenure track path.
Or it could be for people who are allimmediately post-tenure and going through
that post-tenure funk and redefiningwho they are and what they want to do.
Or it could be for people who are inlater career path late career support
(04:16):
as they start to think about what theirlegacy might be and how they might
transition to their next phase of life.
An issue I'm familiar with.
And it could be about navigatingpromotion processes more generally.
You could have a peer groupthat's focused particularly
on people in leadership roles.
(04:36):
It could be people who are headsof departments or heads of groups,
or could be project leaders.
And it could also be focused,for example, on supervision.
And indeed Johanna talked abouttheir supervisors network that
runs as a peer support group.
So thinking about what might be theparticular focus and then who you
(04:57):
would get together is really important.
The next thing to think aboutis then how many people would be
part of a group, and this is whereyou can find a lot of variations.
So in Johanna's call for the CollegialDevelopment program for 2025, and I'll
(05:17):
put a link to this on the webpage.
They say that a group can consist ofup to 15 participants drawing, from
interdisciplinary and mixed gender areas.
For many other forms of peer groups,though the ideal is often talked about
more in terms of about four to six toeight people, and usually no more than
(05:39):
eight people and no fewer than four.
Four is maybe even a bit too low,I think in case you have people who
occasionally can't attend or who drop out.
'Cause you really do need some criticalmass in the group to make it work.
So you may want to think about what'sa sweet spot number for your group.
(06:03):
I'd probably suggest that six is agood number to aim for if you can,
but of course you can make any numberwork with some thought and care for
how you engage people in the group.
So there's no fixed rule on this.
The next thing to think about ishow often you're going to meet at
(06:24):
what frequency and what sort ofcommitment people are expected to make.
So again, using the Graz programas an example, they were looking
for a commitment of a year.
In other programs, it might be acommitment of, say, six sessions
that you'll meet for, and that couldbe over a semester, for example.
(06:48):
How often to meet?
Usually a monthly cycle is acommon frequency that you'll find.
And then there's also thinkingabout what level of commitment
you want people to make.
Do you want people to commit tocoming to all of the sessions as a
priority so that you can build uptrust and deepen connections over time?
(07:09):
Or are you happy forpeople to drop in and out?
My own advice would be, ideally,as committed as people can be
to attend, although we knowthat things can always come up.
So you could also decide that you justmeet ad hoc, whenever people decide they
want to meet or when someone has somethingin particular they want to discuss.
(07:30):
So no a priori commitments to how oftenor how many times you're going to meet.
So that could also be an optionrather than it being more of
an upfront set of commitment.
The next thing to think about is whatsort of format do you want to have?
(07:51):
And there can be a whole spectrum herefrom quite a structured format to a very
freeform, open, conversational format.
Again, it's up to you to decide, andthat would really go to what might
be the why that could influencewhat sort of format works best.
When I walk through some of theexamples later on, you'll see two
(08:14):
different ideas for more structuredformats, and also I'll give some
examples of more unstructured formats.
The next thing to think about, andthis will definitely depend on the
format that you've chosen, is whatsort of roles need to be played.
In the more structured formatthere's always someone who
(08:37):
plays a facilitator role.
Now this can be a trained facilitatoror it could just be someone from
the group who steps up and playsthat role for that group meeting.
If people are unfamiliar with havingmore structured formats, someone
who is a trained facilitator canbe useful in the beginning to bring
(08:59):
people up to speed and then thepeople in the group can take it on.
And again, what Graz have done is havetheir training sessions for people
about how to run these sorts of groups.
So whichever way you go,there'll be a facilitator role.
There's the role of the personwho brings the issue to the group
(09:20):
to be discussed, and that can bedecided in advance or on the day.
And then there's everyone elsein the group who plays the
role of the group members.
Some models also designate a notetaker to capture ideas that come up
when it gets to the discussion point.
(09:44):
I think there are also somecritical ingredients regardless
of format and structure.
I think it would go without saying thata commitment to confidentiality is really
key if people are gonna share honestly.
I think there also needs to be acommitment to show up as your real
self, not as your idealized CV version.
(10:06):
And that's, having good and bad days.
Someone who doesn't know it all,someone prepared to be a learner
because that's what we are, aren't we?
We're all learners and we're all humans.
And I think it's also important torecognize that we're all different.
And so what might seem like a trivialchallenge for you might be a big
(10:26):
challenge for someone else, or torealize that a solution that worked
for you might not work for others.
So that takes both some humility andsome sensitivity, and a commitment
to no judgment and not imposingyour own view or values on others.
(10:46):
I think participation in peer groups, peersupport groups also requires a commitment
to develop good listening skills.
And this isn't just listening tothe words that are said, but how
it's said, body language and so on.
It's listening to what's not said.
(11:06):
It's listening to your own reactions.
Because whether you're asking goodquestions or giving good advice and we'll
talk about that soon, you can't ask goodquestions or give good advice unless
you have really deeply listened to theperson and understand what's going on
for them and where they're coming from.
(11:29):
And here too, curiosity can reallybe a key superpower to develop
in support of good listening.
They were just some keyaspects to think about.
Now to help bring it to life a bit more.
I'm going to walk through a moredetailed process for a couple of
the different approaches here.
(11:51):
I'm going to start off with morestructured formats and then talk about
more, so a couple of informal formats.
With the more structured formats,these can tend to fall into
one of two broad categories.
(12:12):
One category of approaches tends totake more of a coaching type approach.
So it's much more of that supportivelistening, asking good questions.
The other style, the other approachtends to take more of a mentoring,
consulting expert advice type of approach.
(12:35):
So let's start with action learningsets as an example of how a coaching
type approach might play out.
An action learning set is usuallydefined as a small group of people,
usually of about four to six people,who have contracted together to
meet about five or six times atsome sort of regular frequency.
(12:59):
Normally once a month, as I said.
The focus of a set is creating a spacefor a person to bring a real situation
or challenge, and then facilitatinga process that enables them to
think through that with the supportof peers and to eventually get to
trying out some new ideas at the end.
(13:21):
So it's very much a supported,reflective learning approach.
It is based on the assumption thatwe learn best by reflecting on our
own experiences and being challengedto think outside of the box, if
you like, and to expand our ideasand explore options and experiment
with just trying different things.
(13:44):
It is also based on the assumption thatthe person themself is the expert in
their own domain, in their own context,in their own problem area, and that they
can be really resourceful in solving that.
The cycle of meetings normally starts offwith a trained facilitator because it is
(14:05):
quite a structured process and it doesrequire some skills to facilitate well.
And then over time, as I said, this isan example of whereas the group gets
to know the process, the facilitator,the trained facilitator can step back
and maybe even step out of the group.
And then different people will takeon the role as the group decide.
(14:26):
So then how to run a meetingor it's called a set then.
Normally these sessions will lastfor about an hour and a half.
An hour maybe, but I thinkan hour and a half is better.
People will come to the group.
And there's usually a check-in roundjust checking in how everyone's going.
(14:47):
There might be reporting back if someonehad committed to some actions last time.
So just checking back in,that accountability piece.
Then there's a round where peopleare invited to say what problem or
issue they could bring to the group.
And then there's a process facilitatedby the facilitator to decide which one
(15:07):
or ones they might focus on that day.
So it's up to the group to decidewhether you have, say, two cases per
session, or use the whole session onone case or have three cases, whatever.
It's up to you.
Often a case, typical case couldbe given about 20 to 30 minutes.
(15:27):
But there'll be some sort of roundanyway where all of the potential issues
to be discussed are put on the tableand there's the decision process about
which one or ones will be discussed.
So the next step is the person who hasthe case or has the problem situation,
presents that to the group as preciselyand as concisely as they can, and.
(15:51):
They try to draw out the keything that they want to think
through in this process.
Note the language here of the key thingthey want to think through or think
about rather than the key thing theywant to ask advice about or talk about.
Then there's a short phase where the restof the group can ask clarifying questions.
(16:11):
So this isn't giving advice orstarting to dig into anything.
It's just much more if they don'tunderstand the exact problem.
It just helps ensure thateveryone's on the same page.
And then once everyone is clear thatthey understand what the problem is
that the person is bringing and whatabout it they want to focus on to think
about, then the rest of the group membersmove into a coaching style process,
(16:37):
and this is where the group membersplay the role of thinking partners.
They are thinking partners with theperson who's brought the problem
and their role is to ask good, openquestions that encourage the person
to think through their issues.
And note, this shouldn't be advicecouched as a question, have you thought
(16:58):
of doing X my favorite solution?
But rather it'd be something muchmore of the options that you've
thought about so far, which ones arestanding out for you most, or what
do you feel most uncomfortable about,or what you feel most challenged by?
Or can you give an example of something orwhat else matters for you on these issues?
(17:20):
And we can have a whole other sessionon different types of questions and
good questions, good thinking questions,but that can be for another time.
So the role of the facilitatorhere is just to keep an eye on the
question flow just to check thatthey're all still kept quite open.
So they might ask someone toreframe a question if they thought
it was too closed or leading.
(17:42):
And the key thing about this approachtoo is that the person who has brought
the case is also totally free to saythat's an interesting question, but I
don't think it's going to help me somuch now and invite another question.
So they don't have to answer aquestion, just because it's been asked.
Or think through a question.
So they can really take control overwhat they want to think through,
(18:05):
what's useful for them at that time.
So then at some point, depending on whattime you've decided to allocate to discuss
the case, the facilitator will move toclose the open question part and then
invite the case presenter to review whatthey've heard, talk about what connected,
(18:25):
and to start to get to some decision aboutwhat action they might take as a result.
And then as a final move, the wholegroup in closing will reflect on what
they think was useful about the process.
Now, note, this isn't about the contentof what was discussed, but the process
of how the group worked together tofacilitate that thinking process.
(18:47):
Were there particular stylesof questions that seemed
particularly helpful and so on.
So it becomes a mutual learningas well about the process.
So that's the broad structureof an action learning set.
It can be particularly useful say for,say, leadership development or reflective
academic practice and problem solving,solving research challenges and so on.
(19:12):
It's very much about putting the focuson the person with the problem or
the issue, and it's about helping tobuild their problem solving capacity.
And there's the added value, Ithink, of the focus on action and
accountability that comes with it.
And for the other people, I think it'sreally great practice at developing
really strong listening skills and howto be a good supportive thinking partner.
(19:38):
If I think about it, how often havewe been to courses or been offered
courses about how to speak or how togive a presentation, but are we ever
offered courses about how to listen?
And yet listening is a great skilland in developing this skill here,
you can also take that skill back andapply it to all sorts of different
relationships you have, especially insome leadership or supervisory situation.
(20:02):
Or just informal peer discussions.
And it's interesting to reflect onhow it's actually not an easy role
to be a good thinking partner andto listen well because we are really
primed to be the experts and be theproblem solvers and jump in for people.
But this often isn't the mosthelpful thing we can do for them.
And there's a whole lot of researchsupporting the value of such a coaching
(20:25):
like mindset in helping people develop.
To be honest, I also clearly have aparticular bias towards this model
as a trained coach and also a trainedaction learning set facilitator.
So moving on to another example,this is also of a more structured
(20:46):
approach, but this time it'staking more of the expert oriented,
mentoring, consulting type of approach.
And this is what Johanna talked about lastweek in the Graz Collegial Development
Program and the model that they work with.
Johanna also talked about aGerman model called Kollegiale
(21:10):
Fallberatung, which literallytranslates to collegial case advice.
I will provide a link to this model andit's a lovely webpage that has a good
description of the process and the steps.
If you're not a German speaker, youcould do a translation on the page
and it sets out the steps very nicely.
Johanna also talked about a similarFrench Canadian model, There's also a
(21:34):
model called Descriptive Consultancy.
And again, I'll put a link toDescriptive Consultancy on the webpage.
And that link also points toa nicely elaborated set of
steps that you could follow.
And Johanna talked about the BalintGroup model, although that's used
(21:54):
within, as she said, a psychotherapycontext, but also more generally for
professional client relationships andexploring the emotional aspects of that.
So while all of these differentmodels that I've just named have a
slightly different flavor and slightlydifferent interpretation in their
process steps, in general, they allhave a very similar sort of approach.
(22:19):
And as Johanna describes in theirlatest call for participation, these
approaches are generally based on,to quote this call, "the assumption
that each of the group members has anadvantage of knowledge, skills, and
experience in a specific domain thatthey can make accessible to the others."
So what are the steps in this morestructured advising, consulting process?
(22:44):
They have a similar setup phase to whatwe discussed for action learning sets.
There's the check-in and usuallyan update from the last session.
Then there's a process of decidingwhat roles people will take on.
There's usually the facilitator role,the person who's presenting the case,
maybe a note taker, and then therest of the group take on the role
(23:04):
of consultant or expert or advisor ormentor, whatever language works for you.
You can hear how that's quite differentto the coaching type model where the other
members play the role of thinking partner.
Then the person who's coming with the caseagain will present their case and this
(23:25):
time they talk about, presenting the keyquestion or challenge they want input on.
And again, note the change of languagehere versus the action learning set
approach where we asked, the key thingthat people wanted to think about.
So this might seem like a trivialdifference, but it's actually a
really important one 'cause it pointsto who's doing the thinking work.
(23:47):
In the peer mentor approachhere, it's the group members.
As Johanna explained, once the personhas presented the case and everyone is
clear on it, then the presenter sits backand stays silent and they just listen
to the rest of the group who then walkthrough the case and talk about it,
brainstorm ideas, offer their advice,offer their suggestions, and so on.
(24:13):
And then again, at some point thefacilitator closes the discussion,
brings it back to the person whopresented the case to pull out what
was new or useful or what ideasthey're considering, and eventually
moving to what solution they want totake forward, what they might act on.
And again, there's an accountabilitything built in where they can
report back the next time.
(24:34):
So two Structured methods quitedifferent in the role of the person
who brings the case and the role ofthe rest of the members of the group.
In the action learning sets, theperson is the thinker and the group
members of the thinking partners.
In the more of the consulting style,the person is the case presenter
(24:56):
and the rest of the group are theexperts, advisors, consultants.
And then there are many examples of moreinformal peer support groups and you can
probably already think of lots of these.
So they're not so structured andnot being so structured, they're
not gonna have such a strong notionof roles, nor of a strong notion of
(25:19):
how the conversation should flow.
So some examples.
You could think about writing groups,the shut up and write groups that are
becoming increasingly popular as oneform of peer support group focused on
committing to a writing practice and theaccountability for showing up and the
accountability for working on what yousaid you're gonna work on in that session.
(25:45):
And yes, of course there may be acouple of simple roles there, like
facilitator there, who's keeping aneye on the time , or the person who's
brought the cookies, the cookie bringer.
You could also think of an informalpeer support group where a group of
you decide to be critical friends forone another around a particular role.
For example, you might decide that you allwill take a turn where your other group
(26:09):
members will sit in on your lectures,a couple of your lectures, and then
you might get together to discuss whatworked well and what could be improved.
And, repeat that for allof the group members.
So that could be somethinglike a critical friends group.
And there's another lovely example ofan informal peer support group in a
(26:32):
book that I would highly recommend,and the book is called The No Club.
Putting a stop to Women's Dead End workby Linda Babcock, Brenda Peyser, Lisa
Westerland, and Laurie Weingart, and I'llput a link to that on the webpage as well.
And they connected together because theywere realizing that they was spending
(26:55):
so much time on what call non-promotabletasks, service tasks in their faculties
that they were not having time to dothe research that they wanted to do.
So I'm just going to read frompage six on the version of the book
that I have about them setting upthis club, this peer support group.
(27:17):
"During the dreariest time in Pittsburghwinter in 2010, we kicked off our
inaugural, I just can't say no club.
Meeting at a cozy restaurant where wecould get a meal and $10 bottles of wine.
Really.
We went around the tablesharing or actually confessing.
(27:39):
We each described the things wehad agreed to when we were asked.
This turned out to be a lengthy listfor all of us and then contrasted
that with what we had said no to,and these were very short lists.
We asked one another for advice on how tosay no since we found it so hard to do.
(28:00):
Wanting to get a better handle onour workload, we knew the extra
support from the group would help.
So we agreed to meet every few weeks.
We left the meeting feelingunburdened and exhilarated.
None of us realized what atransformative experience this
would become for each of us".
(28:23):
So in summing up, I hope that you canfind ways to connect with peers and
have transformative experiences as well.
In this short episode, what I've triedto do is walk through some of the
things to think about, like why youwant to get together as a peer group
(28:44):
or what people would want to get outof it as a peer group, and then what
might be the particular focus whichalso points to who might be part of it.
And then we talked about how manyshould ideally form a group and deciding
how often you want to meet, what sortof frequency, and if there's gonna
(29:05):
be some sort of minimum period ofcommitment, or whether it's going to be
some more informal group ad hoc group.
And then thinking about what sort offormat you wanted to have, whether it
was more structured or unstructured,and depending on the format, what
sort of roles need to be played.
And then the process of how your meetingtogether might play out in a session.
(29:31):
And I walked through a coupleof structured examples.
Looking at both an approach that takesmore of a coaching model where the
members of the group help the caseperson as thinking partners or whether
it's more of an expert consulting,mentoring approach where the members of
the group, discuss the case on behalf ofthe person and come up with solutions.
(29:55):
And then we talked about some sort ofmore informal unstructured approaches
where people are just getting acommitment to get together in more
of a mutual support type of style.
You'll find some links on the webpagethat actually elaborate some of
these more structured processes.
And I think in closing I'd justsay, do whatever works best for you.
(30:23):
Despite my personal bias herefor more of a coaching approach,
there's no right or wrong way.
And of course, it just depends whatworks best for you and what works for
the why of why you're meeting together.
What works for the person andthe issue that they're bringing
and what works for the group.
(30:44):
So if you've not done this before,you could start off just trying
to follow one of the structureddescriptions as it's laid out.
And these often also providesuggested timings as well.
And then as you become more comfortablewith it, you could start to adapt it.
And I could imagine combiningaspects of different approaches.
(31:06):
For example, you could start off withmore of a coaching approach, from
the position as the person beingthe expert in their own problem.
So you start off with more of that,helping them think through and
prompted by good questions fromthe group as thinking partners.
And then you could decide to havea phase, for example, where you
might move into an advice phase.
(31:28):
So all of those things that everyone'sbeen sitting on, and the person who
brought the case might say, I now I wouldbe interested to hear what advice you
might suggest, or what options I couldthink about that I hadn't thought about.
So you're doing a bit of a mix of boththe coaching and the expert consulting.
Or you could have just a more openstructure and the person who's
presenting the case is the one whoalso takes ownership of saying what
(31:52):
would be most useful for me right now?
Because you know that for someparticular sort of cases, you could
imagine that I don't have a lot ofexpertise, for example, in whatever this
new challenge is that I'm taking on.
So at this new phase, I'm reallyinterested in hearing what other
people have done, what have theyfound works what would be the
(32:13):
pitfalls I should be looking out for.
So I might want more of anadvice consulting model there.
But if it's something where, I don'tknow, it's a particularly complex
leadership challenge with the groupor with particular people where I
understand, the dynamics and a lotof the interpersonal issues, and I'm
not gonna be able to explain all ofthose complexities to the whole group.
(32:36):
It may be much more useful justto have thinking type questions.
Because if people move into advice mode,they may start going down rabbit holes or
be making assumptions or not understandexactly how what they're saying doesn't
fit the situation that you're bringing.
So you could leave it up to theperson bringing the case to say
(32:57):
what would be useful for them rightnow, whether it's advice and hearing
other people's experiences or gettinggood thinking questions and so on.
Whatever you decide to do,it's just a useful reminder.
We never do academia alone.
We build on the work of others.
We work in social contexts.
(33:18):
We're all often dealing with similarsorts of issues, and we all have
enormous expertise that we can bringto each other and that we can share.
And just knowing as well that thereare other people who have similar
experiences can be so importantto feeling like we are not alone.
(33:38):
So I encourage you to think about whatmight be ways that you can connect
with peers and what might be somesupportive structures that you can
put in place to set up peer supportgroups, whether they're more in the
coaching model or more in the mentoringconsulting model, or more informal model.
(34:01):
And you could also think about whatother things that you need right now.
But it also could be what could I do?
What are the problems and needs thatI'm hearing about in my context and what
could be useful to set up for them now?
So have a think about it.
Connect, support.
(34:22):
We can do this together.
And finally, just as a reminder, youcan find links to some descriptions
of action learning sets, the Graz callfor participation in their collegial
development program, the KollegialeBeratung in six phases, the descriptive
(34:43):
consultancy, and the Balint method.
And they all will walk through, somesteps for how you might actually
run the session with suggestedtimings, as I said, many of them.
I'll also have a link tothe book called The No Club.
And on their webpage they have, whatthey call No Club Guidance, which
(35:04):
gives you some questions that you mightthink about if you do come together
for that sort of peer support group.
And you might be interested inlistening to some of the podcasts that
have previously been released here.
There's one with Michael BungayStanier on the Power of Curiosity
and taming your Advice Monster.
(35:24):
There's another follow up I did aftertalking with Michael about asking
good questions, empowering goodpeople, and there's a two part series
with Oscar Trimboli on being betterlisteners and on how to listen deeply.
So all of those might be nice complimentsif you are thinking of actually trying
(35:45):
to set up and run a peer support program.
And I'd love to hear what you do if youdecide to do anything and how it goes.
And feel free to reach out if I canhelp in any way in supporting that.
You can find the summary notes, atranscript and related links for this
(36:06):
podcast on www.changingacademiclife.com.
You can also subscribe to ChangingAcademic Life on iTunes, Spotify,
and I'm really hoping that we canwiden the conversation about how
we can do academia differently.
And you can contribute to this by ratingthe podcast and also giving feedback.
(36:27):
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.