July 15, 2025 • 30 mins
Sarah's guest is impact consultant, Chris Pahlow. Based in Melbourne, Australia, Chris runs the consultancy business Amplifying Research and hosts the podcast of the same name.
Sarah and Chris talk about
- Blagging his way into a university teaching position whilst an indie filmmaker
- Why impact is really all about relationships
- Being honest – even when it’s not what people want to hear
- The often-invisible work of research professional staff
Find out more
- Read the show notes and transcript on the podcast website
- Connect with Chris on LinkedIn
- Listen to the Amplifying Research podcast
- Find out about Chris’s business Amplifying Research
About Research Adjacent
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Chris Pahlow (00:01):
Relationships are at the heart of impact.
You can't really do a wholelot just working away on your
own in the lab or at your desk.
We need connections.
You don't have unlimited resources.
You don't have unlimited time.
So it's really important to thinkabout for the life cycle of the
(00:21):
project, who are the different typesof people or organizations where
your time is gonna be best spent.
A personal mission is trying tocreate a better work environment
for those professional staffwho are working so, so hard.
And I think they deserve alot better a lot of the time.
Sarah McLusky (00:40):
Hello there.
I'm Sarah McLusky andthis is Research Adjacent.
Each episode I talk to amazing researchadjacent professionals about what
they do and why it makes a difference.
Keep listening to find out why wethink the research adjacent space
is where the real magic happens.
(01:01):
Hello and welcome to anotherepisode of Research Adjacent.
Chris Pahlow, my guest today, isjoining us all the way from Australia.
I first heard of and heard Christhrough his excellent podcast
Amplifying Research, and if you haven'tlistened to it yet, make sure you go
and check it -out after you finishlistening to this episode of course.
Chris runs a consultancy business,also called Amplifying Research, where
(01:24):
he helps researchers think throughresearch impact, and importantly the
relationships that underpin that impact.
Chris didn't have the mostconventional path into this work.
He started out as an indiefilmmaker and took on some teaching
work to help pay the bills.
This turned out to be a baptism of fire,but also the path that led him into
research communications, and impact.
(01:45):
Chris and I talk about why relationshipsare at the heart of the work he does,
how being independent can help him behonest, even when it's not what people
want to hear and the often invisiblework of research professional staff.
Listen on to hear Chris's story.
Welcome along to theResearch Adjacent podcast.
Chris, it is fantastic to have youhere all the way from Australia.
(02:07):
Tell us a bit about whoyou are and what you do.
Chris Pahlow (02:10):
Sarah, thank you very much for having me on the show.
Big fan of what you're doing andthe mission, of championing research
adjacent folks is something I'ma big believer in and I'm looking
forward to chatting about it.
What do I do?
I run a consulting companyhere in Melbourne, Australia
called Amplifying Research.
I work with academic teams,primarily focused on research
(02:34):
centers and folks like that.
And I think if I had to think oftwo words to sum up what my focus
is, it's impact and relationships.
I don't think the language thesector uses is always that helpful.
Terms like comms and engagement,and dissemination and science
communication get thrown around a lot.
(02:56):
And so sometimes I getput into those buckets.
But the way I think about it if someonesays, Hey Chris, we wanna do a podcast
series to disseminate our research,or we wanna hold an event, or we
need to update our branding or updateour website, inevitably when we are
thinking about external audiences thatresearchers need to work with, whether
(03:18):
that's practitioners, whether that'sindustry, whether that's the dreaded
general public in quotation marks.
Ultimately, when we start talking aboutthings we end up talking about the team
within the research center or withinthe department or whatever it is.
And it's all about relationships.
(03:39):
I'm thinking about something SarahMorton said, Sarah Morton, from
Matter Of Focus, basically saying thatrelationships are at the heart of impact.
You can't really do a wholelot just working away on your
own in the lab or at your desk.
We need connections.
And so what I do, when I'm workingwith researchers and academic
(04:02):
teams, I help them think about.
What do they want to do?
What impact do they want to contribute to,and what are the different relationships
they need to build and strengthen overtime to make that impact possible?
Sarah McLusky (04:14):
I think that sounds very much aligned with
my take on things as well.
And I agree that the language that weuse around it is not always helpful.
Where I find myself talking about, oh,I do things like communications, but
it's but that isn't really what I do.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It is.
As you say, much more about people.
So tell us a bit about, so you'rebased in Australia and I think
impact, as we said, thinking a littlebit about the language, impact is
(04:38):
a really big deal here in the UK.
I'd love to hear about whetherthat understanding of impact in
Australia is the same or whetherit's slightly different and what are
the priorities there around impact.
Chris Pahlow (04:51):
I think we're probably still a little bit behind where
things are at in the UK, but impactis becoming increasingly important.
If we think about things like grantapplications, the government funding
bodies, the big funding bodies,they do want to see some sort of
evidence of impact if they're gonnabe awarding taxpayers, money to to
research projects, they want to see it.
(05:13):
I think.
I'd like to think it's becomingmore and more something that's
on the radar of academics.
Certainly the people that I workwith regularly and the people that
inspire me and even inspired meto completely change my career are
the ones who are focused on impact.
And yeah, I feel super grateful to beworking with people like that every day.
Sarah McLusky (05:33):
Oh, that's brilliant.
And I think what I particularly loveabout, I know the concept of impact.
It isn't, sometimes it's alittle bit of a tricky thing for
people to get their head around.
Sometimes it's a bit of a love hate thing.
I know here in the UK it's allbecome very incentivized, which
has become a little bit difficult.
But the general concept of it that it's,it is about not just let's randomly put
(05:56):
stuff out into the world, but thinkingthrough really carefully who you want
to reach and why you want to reach them.
So tell us a bit about your processyour kind of thinking of when
you're working with somebody.
Chris Pahlow (06:09):
That's a great question and you've caught me
at a very interesting time.
If I can share a little bit about, Iguess me and my motivation, something
I've been saying a lot recently is.
I just get really cranky sometimes andI've I've ended up doing the work that
I do and indeed focusing on trying todevelop new ways of working and thinking
(06:31):
about impact and thinking about therelationships academics need to have.
It's just because I get toocranky and too frustrated with
the way things have been done.
And I can give you some specificexamples at varying levels of
infuriatingness, that's not even aword, but various levels that can make
my blood boil or, make your eyes roll.
(06:52):
And for a long time.
I was consulting specifically on academicvideos and podcasts, 'cause we can,
maybe we can talk about this later,but I have a long background in the
film industry and so I ended up workingwith academics almost by accident.
And so yeah, people would come andsay, Hey, we finished our research
project, or we're almost finished.
And let's disseminate it and then you'dbe like, okay, well it would've been nice
(07:16):
if you came and talked to us at the startof the project that you're here now.
That's good.
That's a start.
Let's talk about
Sarah McLusky (07:22):
That's such a recurring theme.
Chris Pahlow (07:24):
I know.
I know.
And the thing is, everyone'strying their best.
So there's a, I hope, ahappy ending to this story.
Certainly.
I'm very optimistic, but people wouldcome and they know they need to do
something with their research, whetherit is because on a personal level
they have a, an impact driven missionor whether it's just because the
incentives are changing, as you say.
(07:47):
But then you'd start to ask them questionsabout, do you have any behavioral goals?
Do you want people to change what they do?
Do you want people to changetheir beliefs and who?
What type of people doyou need to be engaging?
And sometimes they would say, I don't,I dunno, I didn't think about that.
And sometimes they would give you a verylong list of my grandma, every person
(08:07):
in the village I grew up in, scientists,you people in space, alien, the general
public like I was saying before, right?
And again I don't put any blame on anyof them, and this is something I've been
thinking about a lot the last few years.
I just don't think there'sbeen nearly enough support.
Certainly not what I'veexperienced here in Australia.
I'm yeah, keen to hear what it's likein your experience over in the UK,
(08:31):
but I just saw so many researchersdoing incredible stuff in all sorts
of fields and some of it very moving.
I felt really humbled to be just sittingin on some of the meetings where people,
they're dedicating their life to reallytrying to make a positive difference
and it just didn't seem like they weregetting the support they needed to,
(08:52):
to drive that impact and the longer Igot to work with people like that and
was kicking around the universitieshere in Melbourne, it just seemed like
there are some big structural issues.
And on the one hand, universities aretrying to take lessons from industry,
whether, that's something like the filmindustry or podcasting is increasingly
(09:14):
big in the academic world now.
So whether they're trying to take lessonsfrom those kind of folks, or whether
it's from consulting firms or whetherit's from, advertising and marketing.
There's a lot of great stuffthere, but the way it's applied,
in my opinion, in the academicworld really has a lot of gaps.
And so that's what I'mtrying to tackle now.
And so to go back to your questionof what's my approach when it comes
(09:38):
to helping people think about whothey work with, this is hot off the
presses I haven't even publishedit on my website yet, but I feel
like people need to prioritize.
That's a really big thing, I understand.
Your work is super important andyou're dedicating your life for
a huge part of your life to it.
But you don't have unlimited resources.
(09:58):
You don't have unlimited time.
So it's really important to thinkabout for the life cycle of the
project, who are the different typesof people or organizations where
your time is gonna be best spent.
And there's been some great thinkingdone like Professor Mark Reed and his
team developing the three I framework,encouraging people to think about
not just influence and interest,which those are two criteria that
(10:22):
have been used for a very long time.
But we also need to think about who arewe potentially impacting with our work.
So people have been doing great thinkingabout that, but I also think on top of
prioritizing, we also need to do a bitof categorization and differentiation.
Because in my experience on the ground,working with research teams, when
I'd asked them, okay, who are thestakeholders or who are the relevant
parties you think are most important?
(10:45):
We end up with a huge list ora huge Eisenhower matrix just
with so many different namesand so many different cards.
And we'd look at them all, and peoplewould ask, I think, very legitimate
questions of how are we supposed to choosebetween community members who might be
affected by our work and a funding body,or the faculty executive or, a peak
(11:05):
body, like they're just categoricallydifferent types of relationships.
And what I'm trying to do at themoment is to get teams thinking about
not just the dissemination or thetranslation or knowledge mobilization.
It's really good to thinkabout the beneficiaries or
end users of the research.
But you also gotta think about whatI'm calling ecosystem enablers.
(11:27):
So who are the people or organizationsthat are gonna set up your team
for success and if you're in auniversity that probably is gonna be
decision makers in the faculty or inchancellery or something like that.
It's really important thatyou understand the strategic
priorities of the funding bodies.
Increasingly I'm talking with peoplewho are looking for philanthropic
(11:48):
funding or, or, industry partnerships.
So they're not just thinking aboutfunding on a project level, but
they're thinking about the future oftheir center or their organization.
How can it last more thanthose first five years?
So I guess that's just an example yeah.
Prioritization, but categorizationand thinking about the fact that
not all relationships are the same.
They do have different purposes inthe lifecycle of your project or your
(12:11):
organization or indeed your career.
And I guess I'll say one other thing.
I really like the word relationships'cause I think it has some
really helpful connotations.
And if we go back to my criticism ofthe existing language it's very common
for me to hear people say thingslike, oh yeah, comms is one way.
I'm just gonna be broadcastingout my ideas, which I think
is based on a fundamental andvery unhelpful misconception.
(12:34):
And they talk aboutengagement is two ways.
So comms is one way.
I'm just gonna be shouting into thevoid and hoping someone listens.
Engagement, I, maybe I'll dosome listening and I'll do some
talking and we'll split it 50 50.
But when people think aboutengagement, I think that can still
have some pretty heavy limitations.
They might think about consultation.
Like I, I'll go and do a focusgroup with some representatives
(12:55):
from a community group.
And it could just be a one-off ora short term kind of situation.
Whereas I think relationships suggestsomething that's ongoing, something
that's reciprocal something thatrequires, investment and even like
love and care from all parties.
And I think those thingsare all really important.
I guess just for life and just for beinga person, but especially if you really
(13:18):
do want your work to have lasting impact.
Sarah McLusky (13:22):
Yeah, I think it's so true.
I think when you say they'reshouting into the void there's many
a research communication thing I'veseen that it just felt like that.
It's just yeah, we've got some money.
We're just gonna create thisthing and then we don't quite
know what we're gonna do with it.
I think it's so interesting is alwayswhen it's a tagged on part of the
research, there's always that peoplealways say, I haven't got the time.
(13:44):
Whereas if you think about it as justan integral part of how the research
is done, as you say, not just thinkingabout it as like a one-off thing,
but like an ongoing relationship thatruns, all the way through, that's just
threaded through everything that you do.
And then in those cases, you aregonna have considerably more impact
(14:04):
than chucking thousands of poundsin animation that you're gonna
post once on social media and thenit's gonna disappear without trace.
And actually so much of that impactreally is about the difference
that we make to people, isn't it?
Chris Pahlow (14:19):
A hundred percent.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I would be so happy.
I'd be overjoyed if I, if anyonelistening who's a researcher.
I know we're pro Sarah, we'reprobably preaching to, to the choir
here because it is, I know you
Sarah McLusky (14:31):
I think probably the people who listen to this.
Yeah.
Chris Pahlow (14:35):
I guess what I would, what I'd love to see in the future is if
folks working in research organizationscould just take one day a quarter.
Just take stock of where are yourcurrent relationships at, the
important ones, and just do a bitof thinking about what relationships
might be most important next quarter.
If we could just do that fourtimes a year, I think that would
(14:57):
already make a big difference.
Sarah McLusky (14:59):
Yeah.
Well maybe you're giving yourselfsomething to organize there, to a
kind of online little retreat thing.
Yeah.
Get people to come and talk about it.
I think, as you say, I think our,most of our audience for this podcast
are, will be on board with you.
But yeah, maybe if that message.
Even if people, I think sometimes I findwith this podcast, even if it just helps
(15:20):
people feel that they're not alone,I think that can be really helpful.
And even if the conversations they'rehaving are challenging it know that
other people are facing the samechallenges, I think can be really helpful.
So you've hinted there thatyou're, this isn't a world
that you've always worked in.
You came from a very different background.
Tell us a bit about how you'veended up doing what you do
(15:42):
now, what you did before.
Chris Pahlow (15:45):
It's a pretty long and unusual story.
I imagine I'm probably quite far fromthe average listener of this podcast.
I imagine a lot of them likeyourself, probably went and did PhDs
and had this period where they wereconsidering are they gonna continue
on the academic path or are theygonna do something research adjacent?
That's not my story.
I didn't go to, I didn'teven go to film school.
(16:08):
I went to art school, so I'm reallycoming at it from a different angle.
And um, there's a lot of likelittle steps in my journey, which
at the time just seemed like reallystrange, almost random and at times
really frustrating kind of things.
And I. Only now I look back and belike, oh, they all make sense now.
(16:31):
They all contributed.
And so one of the things that happenedwhen I was doing my Bachelor of Creative
Arts here in Melbourne was the universityvery kindly decided to delete the
degree when I was halfway finished it.
Sarah McLusky (16:41):
Oh, goodness.
Chris Pahlow (16:41):
Yeah, I know.
It's great.
I know.
But it meant I did a bunch of philosophysubjects just from the arts faculty
and really enjoyed that and got alongwith one of my lecturers really well.
And I was, at the time I was pursuingbeing a screenwriter and director
and I was already working on a bunchof short films and documentaries
and having some pretty good successin festivals and stuff like that.
(17:04):
And so I just needed somemoney to live while I made
independent uh, films because if.
If anyone listening knows anything aboutthe film industry, it's a terrible,
terrible way to make any kinda living.
And I real, I thought teachingwould be fun and I thought it'd
be something I would enjoy.
So I just asked one of myphilosophy lecturers like, Hey,
can I come work for you as a tutor?
And he's no I don't need anyone,but I just got offered this
(17:25):
job at another university.
I don't think you're qualified, butwhy don't you just give them a call
and see, and I wasn't qualified.
It was teaching a master's coursein a graduate school of business,
and the subject was criticalthinking and communication.
Sarah McLusky (17:39):
Oh.
Oh, wow.
Chris Pahlow (17:40):
I'd only really done continental philosophy.
I hadn't studied any formal logicor anything, but you know what it's
like in university sometimes theyjust need someone to start next
week, and if you show up at theright time they'll give you a job.
Sarah McLusky (17:52):
You're just the one that's there.
Yeah.
Chris Pahlow (17:53):
And so I went in and had my interview and they're like, okay, great.
Have you read these bookson the reading list?
And I'm like, no.
But I certainly could read themlike, terrific, go to this tute now
you can watch what this tutor doesand then you can do it tomorrow.
And, already I, that's alreadystrange enough as my kind of
induction into the, a academic world.
But then I went to the tute and teachingis now my friend Ashley Barnett, and
(18:18):
he starts the class pretty normallytalking about what critical thinking is.
And then he starts doing magic tricks.
He's like literally like pullingthings out of his sleeves and making
things appear behind people's ears.
And I'm like.
I'm like looking around whatthe, am I supposed to learn how
to do magic to teach this class?
And no, that wasn't the expectation.
(18:40):
He just happened to be an academic who waslike a magician in his part-time and he
was like an exceptionally good teacher.
Yeah.
But if I look back at that was, a realbaptism of fire, but it's really paid off
because so much of what I've done overthe last few years has been, challenging
folks to think about different waysof communicating stuff and not just
going to the obvious kind of situation.
(19:01):
And I did that for about six and ahalf years, and then I taught another
couple of unis in their film schools,which made a lot more sense at the
time when I was making my first movie.
And yeah, like I said, the film industry'sa terrible way to make money, so I
just kept hanging around universitiesand eventually got asked to consult
at the University of Melbourne on abunch of different media projects and I
(19:23):
worked off and on with them for a verylong time, and it was some of those
situations I described before seeingjust how hard researchers were trying
and how big their impact goals were.
And again, I just didn't feel like thestructures were set up to help them.
And I felt like I wasgetting involved too late.
(19:44):
Like I said, it might be the end of aproject but even the fact that I was
consulting with a video and media teamand kind of like you said, it's good to
think about who your audience is and whatyou want them to do differently before
you spend all the, all that money on ananimation or a podcast or whatever it is.
And I found myself in the very awkwardposition of, the video and media team
(20:06):
at this university would say, Hey Chris,can you come and take a look at these
podcast projects, these video projects,and we wanna know what you think about
it and what you think they should do.
And I'd have to say, I don't thinkthey should make a video, or I don't
think they should make a podcast.
And eventually that led me to basicallyjust consulting on comms strategy,
and then the more I work with theseorganizations, like I said at the
(20:27):
start of the episode, very often itwould be like, yeah, great, let's
communicate with your external audiences.
But right now you've got a team of amazingpeople who don't even know what each
other do, and they don't know how to,talk about their work in the same way they
have potentially fundamental disagreementsabout what they're doing, and how
they should talk and think about it.
(20:49):
This is I think, probably particularlychallenging when we talk about
interdisciplinary research, but Iguess a long story sorry, hopefully
there was some LOLs along the way.
But yeah a long, strange journey ofgoing from teaching in universities
when I probably shouldn't to working onpodcasts and movies to, yeah, eventually
like consulting on research strategy,particularly about stakeholders.
Sarah McLusky (21:11):
Yeah.
That is a very unusual andvery interesting journey, but
you are reminding me of Yeah.
I've certainly been the personin the room where I've just
gone, no, you really shouldn't bespending your money on this thing.
And that is quite a brave thing todo sometimes, especially when it's
(21:33):
potentially like putting you out of a job.
I've certainly been there,but when you think Yeah.
But this is the right thing to do.
How do you approach situations like that?
Chris Pahlow (21:44):
You're right.
It is hard and there's definitelybeen a lot of emotions over the years,
particularly in the early years whenI was finding my feet with this stuff.
I used to joke it's lucky that I'm aconsultant 'cause I can just throw a
hand grenade into the room and if, ifpeople don't like what I say, I can, I
just don't have to show up to the officefor a few days 'cause I don't work here.
And I'm joking, but I do think that'sactually been a bit of a superpower.
(22:07):
Like I, I'm thinking of oneparticular meeting where a project
was, had really gone off the rails.
It was like six months overdue.
All the stuff that can happen in any bigorganization like staff have changed.
And, the briefs been changed five timesand everyone's trying their best, but the
circumstance is just not really working.
And I could go into the calland say Hey, this project's not
(22:30):
working, we need to finish it.
These are the things we need to do.
And if we can't do that, I think we justneed to stop and start again from scratch.
And.
That was quite a shocking thing forsomeone to say when there's been what I'm
struggling to remember from my criticalthinking days, the sunk cost bias.
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to think of.
Sarah McLusky (22:48):
Sunk cost fallacy.
Yeah.
Chris Pahlow (22:49):
Everyone's been working it for so long.
They've invested so much time and moneyand energy, but it's just not working.
And if we keep going, they're justthrowing good money after bad.
And I realized when I said that I was theonly one on the call who could say that
and the senior manager, she paused for amoment and she looked at me and she said.
You don't work for the university, do you?
(23:10):
And I was like no, I don't.
Sarah McLusky (23:11):
Yeah.
Chris Pahlow (23:12):
And I found, even though those moments were scary and there were
times I was like, oh, that's it i'mgetting kicked off that project now.
I think people, I. Trusted that Iwas being honest because yeah, I
think it is scary and I don't know,I just couldn't sleep at night if
I just went along with this stuff.
And like I said, I just got too crankyand if I think if I wanted an easier
(23:33):
life I wouldn't be doing anything I'mdoing, but I just can't, I can't bear
the frustration sometimes, Sarah.
I just, we gotta do something about this.
Sarah McLusky (23:43):
Oh, I can completely relate to that.
And I think, again, Ido think it is powerful.
I don't think I could have madethis podcast and said some of
the things I've said if I hadbeen employed in an organization.
So yeah it can be a verypowerful place to, to be.
Power that needs to be used withresponsibility, as you say, when doing
(24:06):
it, when you feel it's the right thing.
Yeah.
Chris Pahlow (24:09):
Yeah and like I don't want us to just be congratulating
ourselves too much, but like I said atthe start, I really do believe in your
mission and I think what you're doingis really important because while I
could make a joke and say, yeah, I'lljust not turn up to the office for
a few days 'cause I don't work here.
Everybody else still did work there.
(24:30):
And it really made me upset to seehow often professional staff and
universities were treated like secondclass citizens and bossed around.
And as my, a big part of my missionis trying to help amazing researchers
drive impact, but I, a secondarymission, a personal mission is
trying to create a better workenvironment for those professional
staff who are working so, so hard.
(24:52):
And I think they deserve alot better a lot of the time.
Sarah McLusky (24:56):
Yeah.
Couldn't agree more.
And I think well perhaps that nicelyleads us onto a question I like to ask
all of my guests, which is, if you hada magic wand, what would you change
about this world that you work in?
Chris Pahlow (25:08):
The whole world or just the academic world?
Sarah McLusky (25:10):
Just, just your little impact, research impact little corner.
Although, it can be somethingconnected, but it's your choice.
If money and time were no object.
Chris Pahlow (25:20):
I mean there's a million things, but something
that's, I think a personal bug bear.
I think the academic world needsto put a lot more money into, yeah,
what would come under professionalstaff or professional services?
I'm biased because most of what I havedone over the years has been communication
sort related, but I've just been intoo many meetings where the leaders
(25:45):
of a department or a center are sayinglike, we don't understand what's wrong
with our operations, or why does ittake so long to get any anything done?
And I have to point out again andagain, this is a multimillion dollar
operation you're running here.
And if we looked at a commercialbusiness who had the same yearly revenue.
They would have it's not even a comparisonI don't know, 10 x, a hundred x in terms
(26:08):
of the spend and amount of staff they'dhave working on things like marketing
and sales and all that kind of stuff.
And so I feel like I, it's, there'sjust, it's just a lose lose situation.
It's bad for academics'cause they get frustrated.
And it's also not fair to the professionalstaff who are working so hard and
(26:28):
they're trying to do five people's jobsand they're not getting paid enough.
Sarah McLusky (26:33):
Yeah.
And I think that is very muchwhat we're about is just making it
apparent this work that is beingdone, because I think so often it is
invisible unless there's a problem.
And if there's a problem,suddenly yeah, it explodes.
And I think also that really genuinelyvaluing the professional staff
(26:55):
who work in these organizations isthe secret to almost everything.
So when academics are saying, oh, we'retoo busy and we can't, and now you
expect us to do all this other stuff ontop of our jobs, it's like well, no, we
don't necessarily expect you to do it.
You could put other people in placewho can do these other things that feel
like it's, another demand on your time.
(27:15):
And yeah.
So I think the secret to makingthings better is bridging that
divide between this kind of senseof academic and professional staff
research adjacent, whatever you wantto call them, and thinking about
how we can get them working togetherbecause that's what they're doing.
They're all working together fora shared aim, but at the moment,
doing it in very different ways.
Chris Pahlow (27:35):
And look, I empathize, like I know things are hard.
I know.
The structures aren't set up tomake what I'm suggesting easy.
And a lot of people would say it'snot even possible, but I guess it's
the magic wand question and I hope
Sarah McLusky (27:49):
Absolutely.
Chris Pahlow (27:50):
If we have this conversation again in 10 or 20 years, I really
hope things have started to shift.
Sarah McLusky (27:55):
Yeah.
Me too.
Me too.
Saying then that, we haven't reallytalked about this, but we're seeing
what you can see on this podcast.
Part of the reason we're thinkingabout that is 'cause you have
a podcast as well, don't you?
So would you like to tell thelisteners a little bit about your
podcast and where they can find it?
The sorts of things you cover?
Chris Pahlow (28:14):
I'd love to.
So the pod is called Amplifying Research,just like my company and I have the
great pleasure of talking to amazingpeople from all around the world people
who are passionate about impact, and wetalk about how research organizations
can communicate more effectively, howthey can engage more effectively, and how
(28:34):
they can collaborate more effectively.
Um, Incredible guests, like peopletalking about how can you co-design
research projects with differentcommunities, people talking about stuff,
more like what we've been talking about.
How can you work in comms orengagement and embed the right
kind of approach in your center?
Yeah, I feel really grateful just toget to talk to super, super cool people
(28:59):
who yeah, they're trying to shareeverything they've worked on and all the
knowledge they've got with the world.
Yeah, so check it out.
You can find it onSpotify, Apple Podcasts.
Just type in Amplifying Research.
Sarah McLusky (29:10):
Yeah, I would definitely recommend it for anybody who is in
this kind of comms engagement impactkind of space you've had some fantastic
guests on and really talking about this,more the strategic piece, isn't it?
It's the whys and wherefors of doing things better.
So yeah, definitely recommended.
And if people want to get in touchwith you personally or find out
(29:30):
more about your company, wherewould you have them go and look?
Chris Pahlow (29:35):
You can find me on amplifyingresearch.com or just come look
me up on LinkedIn and shoot me a message.
Yeah, very happy to have a chatif you care about impact and any
of the things we've talked about.
Very happy to have a chat.
Sarah McLusky (29:47):
Fantastic.
So it just remains to say thank youso much for coming along and sharing
what you do and sharing your story.
Chris Pahlow (29:56):
Sarah, thank you very much for having me.
Again, huge fan and it's yeah, it's likean honor and a pleasure to be on the show.
Sarah McLusky (30:02):
Oh, thank you.
That's really kind.
Thanks for listening to Research Adjacent.
If you're listening in a podcast app,please check your subscribed and then
use the links in the episode descriptionto find full show notes and to follow
the podcast on LinkedIn or Instagram.
You can also find all the links and otherepisodes at www.researchadjacent.com.
(30:23):
Research Adjacent is presentedand produced by Sarah McLusky,
and the theme music is byLemon Music Studios on Pixabay.
And you, yes you, get a big goldstar for listening right to the end.
See you next time.
Relationships are at the heart of impact.
You can't really do a wholelot just working away on your
own in the lab or at your desk.
We need connections.
You don't have unlimited resources.
You don't have unlimited time.
So it's really important to thinkabout for the life cycle of the
(00:21):
project, who are the different typesof people or organizations where
your time is gonna be best spent.
A personal mission is trying tocreate a better work environment
for those professional staffwho are working so, so hard.
And I think they deserve alot better a lot of the time.
Sarah McLusky (00:40):
Hello there.
I'm Sarah McLusky andthis is Research Adjacent.
Each episode I talk to amazing researchadjacent professionals about what
they do and why it makes a difference.
Keep listening to find out why wethink the research adjacent space
is where the real magic happens.
(01:01):
Hello and welcome to anotherepisode of Research Adjacent.
Chris Pahlow, my guest today, isjoining us all the way from Australia.
I first heard of and heard Christhrough his excellent podcast
Amplifying Research, and if you haven'tlistened to it yet, make sure you go
and check it -out after you finishlistening to this episode of course.
Chris runs a consultancy business,also called Amplifying Research, where
(01:24):
he helps researchers think throughresearch impact, and importantly the
relationships that underpin that impact.
Chris didn't have the mostconventional path into this work.
He started out as an indiefilmmaker and took on some teaching
work to help pay the bills.
This turned out to be a baptism of fire,but also the path that led him into
research communications, and impact.
(01:45):
Chris and I talk about why relationshipsare at the heart of the work he does,
how being independent can help him behonest, even when it's not what people
want to hear and the often invisiblework of research professional staff.
Listen on to hear Chris's story.
Welcome along to theResearch Adjacent podcast.
Chris, it is fantastic to have youhere all the way from Australia.
(02:07):
Tell us a bit about whoyou are and what you do.
Chris Pahlow (02:10):
Sarah, thank you very much for having me on the show.
Big fan of what you're doing andthe mission, of championing research
adjacent folks is something I'ma big believer in and I'm looking
forward to chatting about it.
What do I do?
I run a consulting companyhere in Melbourne, Australia
called Amplifying Research.
I work with academic teams,primarily focused on research
(02:34):
centers and folks like that.
And I think if I had to think oftwo words to sum up what my focus
is, it's impact and relationships.
I don't think the language thesector uses is always that helpful.
Terms like comms and engagement,and dissemination and science
communication get thrown around a lot.
(02:56):
And so sometimes I getput into those buckets.
But the way I think about it if someonesays, Hey Chris, we wanna do a podcast
series to disseminate our research,or we wanna hold an event, or we
need to update our branding or updateour website, inevitably when we are
thinking about external audiences thatresearchers need to work with, whether
(03:18):
that's practitioners, whether that'sindustry, whether that's the dreaded
general public in quotation marks.
Ultimately, when we start talking aboutthings we end up talking about the team
within the research center or withinthe department or whatever it is.
And it's all about relationships.
(03:39):
I'm thinking about something SarahMorton said, Sarah Morton, from
Matter Of Focus, basically saying thatrelationships are at the heart of impact.
You can't really do a wholelot just working away on your
own in the lab or at your desk.
We need connections.
And so what I do, when I'm workingwith researchers and academic
(04:02):
teams, I help them think about.
What do they want to do?
What impact do they want to contribute to,and what are the different relationships
they need to build and strengthen overtime to make that impact possible?
Sarah McLusky (04:14):
I think that sounds very much aligned with
my take on things as well.
And I agree that the language that weuse around it is not always helpful.
Where I find myself talking about, oh,I do things like communications, but
it's but that isn't really what I do.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It is.
As you say, much more about people.
So tell us a bit about, so you'rebased in Australia and I think
impact, as we said, thinking a littlebit about the language, impact is
(04:38):
a really big deal here in the UK.
I'd love to hear about whetherthat understanding of impact in
Australia is the same or whetherit's slightly different and what are
the priorities there around impact.
Chris Pahlow (04:51):
I think we're probably still a little bit behind where
things are at in the UK, but impactis becoming increasingly important.
If we think about things like grantapplications, the government funding
bodies, the big funding bodies,they do want to see some sort of
evidence of impact if they're gonnabe awarding taxpayers, money to to
research projects, they want to see it.
(05:13):
I think.
I'd like to think it's becomingmore and more something that's
on the radar of academics.
Certainly the people that I workwith regularly and the people that
inspire me and even inspired meto completely change my career are
the ones who are focused on impact.
And yeah, I feel super grateful to beworking with people like that every day.
Sarah McLusky (05:33):
Oh, that's brilliant.
And I think what I particularly loveabout, I know the concept of impact.
It isn't, sometimes it's alittle bit of a tricky thing for
people to get their head around.
Sometimes it's a bit of a love hate thing.
I know here in the UK it's allbecome very incentivized, which
has become a little bit difficult.
But the general concept of it that it's,it is about not just let's randomly put
(05:56):
stuff out into the world, but thinkingthrough really carefully who you want
to reach and why you want to reach them.
So tell us a bit about your processyour kind of thinking of when
you're working with somebody.
Chris Pahlow (06:09):
That's a great question and you've caught me
at a very interesting time.
If I can share a little bit about, Iguess me and my motivation, something
I've been saying a lot recently is.
I just get really cranky sometimes andI've I've ended up doing the work that
I do and indeed focusing on trying todevelop new ways of working and thinking
(06:31):
about impact and thinking about therelationships academics need to have.
It's just because I get toocranky and too frustrated with
the way things have been done.
And I can give you some specificexamples at varying levels of
infuriatingness, that's not even aword, but various levels that can make
my blood boil or, make your eyes roll.
(06:52):
And for a long time.
I was consulting specifically on academicvideos and podcasts, 'cause we can,
maybe we can talk about this later,but I have a long background in the
film industry and so I ended up workingwith academics almost by accident.
And so yeah, people would come andsay, Hey, we finished our research
project, or we're almost finished.
And let's disseminate it and then you'dbe like, okay, well it would've been nice
(07:16):
if you came and talked to us at the startof the project that you're here now.
That's good.
That's a start.
Let's talk about
Sarah McLusky (07:22):
That's such a recurring theme.
Chris Pahlow (07:24):
I know.
I know.
And the thing is, everyone'strying their best.
So there's a, I hope, ahappy ending to this story.
Certainly.
I'm very optimistic, but people wouldcome and they know they need to do
something with their research, whetherit is because on a personal level
they have a, an impact driven missionor whether it's just because the
incentives are changing, as you say.
(07:47):
But then you'd start to ask them questionsabout, do you have any behavioral goals?
Do you want people to change what they do?
Do you want people to changetheir beliefs and who?
What type of people doyou need to be engaging?
And sometimes they would say, I don't,I dunno, I didn't think about that.
And sometimes they would give you a verylong list of my grandma, every person
(08:07):
in the village I grew up in, scientists,you people in space, alien, the general
public like I was saying before, right?
And again I don't put any blame on anyof them, and this is something I've been
thinking about a lot the last few years.
I just don't think there'sbeen nearly enough support.
Certainly not what I'veexperienced here in Australia.
I'm yeah, keen to hear what it's likein your experience over in the UK,
(08:31):
but I just saw so many researchersdoing incredible stuff in all sorts
of fields and some of it very moving.
I felt really humbled to be just sittingin on some of the meetings where people,
they're dedicating their life to reallytrying to make a positive difference
and it just didn't seem like they weregetting the support they needed to,
(08:52):
to drive that impact and the longer Igot to work with people like that and
was kicking around the universitieshere in Melbourne, it just seemed like
there are some big structural issues.
And on the one hand, universities aretrying to take lessons from industry,
whether, that's something like the filmindustry or podcasting is increasingly
(09:14):
big in the academic world now.
So whether they're trying to take lessonsfrom those kind of folks, or whether
it's from consulting firms or whetherit's from, advertising and marketing.
There's a lot of great stuffthere, but the way it's applied,
in my opinion, in the academicworld really has a lot of gaps.
And so that's what I'mtrying to tackle now.
And so to go back to your questionof what's my approach when it comes
(09:38):
to helping people think about whothey work with, this is hot off the
presses I haven't even publishedit on my website yet, but I feel
like people need to prioritize.
That's a really big thing, I understand.
Your work is super important andyou're dedicating your life for
a huge part of your life to it.
But you don't have unlimited resources.
(09:58):
You don't have unlimited time.
So it's really important to thinkabout for the life cycle of the
project, who are the different typesof people or organizations where
your time is gonna be best spent.
And there's been some great thinkingdone like Professor Mark Reed and his
team developing the three I framework,encouraging people to think about
not just influence and interest,which those are two criteria that
(10:22):
have been used for a very long time.
But we also need to think about who arewe potentially impacting with our work.
So people have been doing great thinkingabout that, but I also think on top of
prioritizing, we also need to do a bitof categorization and differentiation.
Because in my experience on the ground,working with research teams, when
I'd asked them, okay, who are thestakeholders or who are the relevant
parties you think are most important?
(10:45):
We end up with a huge list ora huge Eisenhower matrix just
with so many different namesand so many different cards.
And we'd look at them all, and peoplewould ask, I think, very legitimate
questions of how are we supposed to choosebetween community members who might be
affected by our work and a funding body,or the faculty executive or, a peak
(11:05):
body, like they're just categoricallydifferent types of relationships.
And what I'm trying to do at themoment is to get teams thinking about
not just the dissemination or thetranslation or knowledge mobilization.
It's really good to thinkabout the beneficiaries or
end users of the research.
But you also gotta think about whatI'm calling ecosystem enablers.
(11:27):
So who are the people or organizationsthat are gonna set up your team
for success and if you're in auniversity that probably is gonna be
decision makers in the faculty or inchancellery or something like that.
It's really important thatyou understand the strategic
priorities of the funding bodies.
Increasingly I'm talking with peoplewho are looking for philanthropic
(11:48):
funding or, or, industry partnerships.
So they're not just thinking aboutfunding on a project level, but
they're thinking about the future oftheir center or their organization.
How can it last more thanthose first five years?
So I guess that's just an example yeah.
Prioritization, but categorizationand thinking about the fact that
not all relationships are the same.
They do have different purposes inthe lifecycle of your project or your
(12:11):
organization or indeed your career.
And I guess I'll say one other thing.
I really like the word relationships'cause I think it has some
really helpful connotations.
And if we go back to my criticism ofthe existing language it's very common
for me to hear people say thingslike, oh yeah, comms is one way.
I'm just gonna be broadcastingout my ideas, which I think
is based on a fundamental andvery unhelpful misconception.
(12:34):
And they talk aboutengagement is two ways.
So comms is one way.
I'm just gonna be shouting into thevoid and hoping someone listens.
Engagement, I, maybe I'll dosome listening and I'll do some
talking and we'll split it 50 50.
But when people think aboutengagement, I think that can still
have some pretty heavy limitations.
They might think about consultation.
Like I, I'll go and do a focusgroup with some representatives
(12:55):
from a community group.
And it could just be a one-off ora short term kind of situation.
Whereas I think relationships suggestsomething that's ongoing, something
that's reciprocal something thatrequires, investment and even like
love and care from all parties.
And I think those thingsare all really important.
I guess just for life and just for beinga person, but especially if you really
(13:18):
do want your work to have lasting impact.
Sarah McLusky (13:22):
Yeah, I think it's so true.
I think when you say they'reshouting into the void there's many
a research communication thing I'veseen that it just felt like that.
It's just yeah, we've got some money.
We're just gonna create thisthing and then we don't quite
know what we're gonna do with it.
I think it's so interesting is alwayswhen it's a tagged on part of the
research, there's always that peoplealways say, I haven't got the time.
(13:44):
Whereas if you think about it as justan integral part of how the research
is done, as you say, not just thinkingabout it as like a one-off thing,
but like an ongoing relationship thatruns, all the way through, that's just
threaded through everything that you do.
And then in those cases, you aregonna have considerably more impact
(14:04):
than chucking thousands of poundsin animation that you're gonna
post once on social media and thenit's gonna disappear without trace.
And actually so much of that impactreally is about the difference
that we make to people, isn't it?
Chris Pahlow (14:19):
A hundred percent.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I would be so happy.
I'd be overjoyed if I, if anyonelistening who's a researcher.
I know we're pro Sarah, we'reprobably preaching to, to the choir
here because it is, I know you
Sarah McLusky (14:31):
I think probably the people who listen to this.
Yeah.
Chris Pahlow (14:35):
I guess what I would, what I'd love to see in the future is if
folks working in research organizationscould just take one day a quarter.
Just take stock of where are yourcurrent relationships at, the
important ones, and just do a bitof thinking about what relationships
might be most important next quarter.
If we could just do that fourtimes a year, I think that would
(14:57):
already make a big difference.
Sarah McLusky (14:59):
Yeah.
Well maybe you're giving yourselfsomething to organize there, to a
kind of online little retreat thing.
Yeah.
Get people to come and talk about it.
I think, as you say, I think our,most of our audience for this podcast
are, will be on board with you.
But yeah, maybe if that message.
Even if people, I think sometimes I findwith this podcast, even if it just helps
(15:20):
people feel that they're not alone,I think that can be really helpful.
And even if the conversations they'rehaving are challenging it know that
other people are facing the samechallenges, I think can be really helpful.
So you've hinted there thatyou're, this isn't a world
that you've always worked in.
You came from a very different background.
Tell us a bit about how you'veended up doing what you do
(15:42):
now, what you did before.
Chris Pahlow (15:45):
It's a pretty long and unusual story.
I imagine I'm probably quite far fromthe average listener of this podcast.
I imagine a lot of them likeyourself, probably went and did PhDs
and had this period where they wereconsidering are they gonna continue
on the academic path or are theygonna do something research adjacent?
That's not my story.
I didn't go to, I didn'teven go to film school.
(16:08):
I went to art school, so I'm reallycoming at it from a different angle.
And um, there's a lot of likelittle steps in my journey, which
at the time just seemed like reallystrange, almost random and at times
really frustrating kind of things.
And I. Only now I look back and belike, oh, they all make sense now.
(16:31):
They all contributed.
And so one of the things that happenedwhen I was doing my Bachelor of Creative
Arts here in Melbourne was the universityvery kindly decided to delete the
degree when I was halfway finished it.
Sarah McLusky (16:41):
Oh, goodness.
Chris Pahlow (16:41):
Yeah, I know.
It's great.
I know.
But it meant I did a bunch of philosophysubjects just from the arts faculty
and really enjoyed that and got alongwith one of my lecturers really well.
And I was, at the time I was pursuingbeing a screenwriter and director
and I was already working on a bunchof short films and documentaries
and having some pretty good successin festivals and stuff like that.
(17:04):
And so I just needed somemoney to live while I made
independent uh, films because if.
If anyone listening knows anything aboutthe film industry, it's a terrible,
terrible way to make any kinda living.
And I real, I thought teachingwould be fun and I thought it'd
be something I would enjoy.
So I just asked one of myphilosophy lecturers like, Hey,
can I come work for you as a tutor?
And he's no I don't need anyone,but I just got offered this
(17:25):
job at another university.
I don't think you're qualified, butwhy don't you just give them a call
and see, and I wasn't qualified.
It was teaching a master's coursein a graduate school of business,
and the subject was criticalthinking and communication.
Sarah McLusky (17:39):
Oh.
Oh, wow.
Chris Pahlow (17:40):
I'd only really done continental philosophy.
I hadn't studied any formal logicor anything, but you know what it's
like in university sometimes theyjust need someone to start next
week, and if you show up at theright time they'll give you a job.
Sarah McLusky (17:52):
You're just the one that's there.
Yeah.
Chris Pahlow (17:53):
And so I went in and had my interview and they're like, okay, great.
Have you read these bookson the reading list?
And I'm like, no.
But I certainly could read themlike, terrific, go to this tute now
you can watch what this tutor doesand then you can do it tomorrow.
And, already I, that's alreadystrange enough as my kind of
induction into the, a academic world.
But then I went to the tute and teachingis now my friend Ashley Barnett, and
(18:18):
he starts the class pretty normallytalking about what critical thinking is.
And then he starts doing magic tricks.
He's like literally like pullingthings out of his sleeves and making
things appear behind people's ears.
And I'm like.
I'm like looking around whatthe, am I supposed to learn how
to do magic to teach this class?
And no, that wasn't the expectation.
(18:40):
He just happened to be an academic who waslike a magician in his part-time and he
was like an exceptionally good teacher.
Yeah.
But if I look back at that was, a realbaptism of fire, but it's really paid off
because so much of what I've done overthe last few years has been, challenging
folks to think about different waysof communicating stuff and not just
going to the obvious kind of situation.
(19:01):
And I did that for about six and ahalf years, and then I taught another
couple of unis in their film schools,which made a lot more sense at the
time when I was making my first movie.
And yeah, like I said, the film industry'sa terrible way to make money, so I
just kept hanging around universitiesand eventually got asked to consult
at the University of Melbourne on abunch of different media projects and I
(19:23):
worked off and on with them for a verylong time, and it was some of those
situations I described before seeingjust how hard researchers were trying
and how big their impact goals were.
And again, I just didn't feel like thestructures were set up to help them.
And I felt like I wasgetting involved too late.
(19:44):
Like I said, it might be the end of aproject but even the fact that I was
consulting with a video and media teamand kind of like you said, it's good to
think about who your audience is and whatyou want them to do differently before
you spend all the, all that money on ananimation or a podcast or whatever it is.
And I found myself in the very awkwardposition of, the video and media team
(20:06):
at this university would say, Hey Chris,can you come and take a look at these
podcast projects, these video projects,and we wanna know what you think about
it and what you think they should do.
And I'd have to say, I don't thinkthey should make a video, or I don't
think they should make a podcast.
And eventually that led me to basicallyjust consulting on comms strategy,
and then the more I work with theseorganizations, like I said at the
(20:27):
start of the episode, very often itwould be like, yeah, great, let's
communicate with your external audiences.
But right now you've got a team of amazingpeople who don't even know what each
other do, and they don't know how to,talk about their work in the same way they
have potentially fundamental disagreementsabout what they're doing, and how
they should talk and think about it.
(20:49):
This is I think, probably particularlychallenging when we talk about
interdisciplinary research, but Iguess a long story sorry, hopefully
there was some LOLs along the way.
But yeah a long, strange journey ofgoing from teaching in universities
when I probably shouldn't to working onpodcasts and movies to, yeah, eventually
like consulting on research strategy,particularly about stakeholders.
Sarah McLusky (21:11):
Yeah.
That is a very unusual andvery interesting journey, but
you are reminding me of Yeah.
I've certainly been the personin the room where I've just
gone, no, you really shouldn't bespending your money on this thing.
And that is quite a brave thing todo sometimes, especially when it's
(21:33):
potentially like putting you out of a job.
I've certainly been there,but when you think Yeah.
But this is the right thing to do.
How do you approach situations like that?
Chris Pahlow (21:44):
You're right.
It is hard and there's definitelybeen a lot of emotions over the years,
particularly in the early years whenI was finding my feet with this stuff.
I used to joke it's lucky that I'm aconsultant 'cause I can just throw a
hand grenade into the room and if, ifpeople don't like what I say, I can, I
just don't have to show up to the officefor a few days 'cause I don't work here.
And I'm joking, but I do think that'sactually been a bit of a superpower.
(22:07):
Like I, I'm thinking of oneparticular meeting where a project
was, had really gone off the rails.
It was like six months overdue.
All the stuff that can happen in any bigorganization like staff have changed.
And, the briefs been changed five timesand everyone's trying their best, but the
circumstance is just not really working.
And I could go into the calland say Hey, this project's not
(22:30):
working, we need to finish it.
These are the things we need to do.
And if we can't do that, I think we justneed to stop and start again from scratch.
And.
That was quite a shocking thing forsomeone to say when there's been what I'm
struggling to remember from my criticalthinking days, the sunk cost bias.
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to think of.
Sarah McLusky (22:48):
Sunk cost fallacy.
Yeah.
Chris Pahlow (22:49):
Everyone's been working it for so long.
They've invested so much time and moneyand energy, but it's just not working.
And if we keep going, they're justthrowing good money after bad.
And I realized when I said that I was theonly one on the call who could say that
and the senior manager, she paused for amoment and she looked at me and she said.
You don't work for the university, do you?
(23:10):
And I was like no, I don't.
Sarah McLusky (23:11):
Yeah.
Chris Pahlow (23:12):
And I found, even though those moments were scary and there were
times I was like, oh, that's it i'mgetting kicked off that project now.
I think people, I. Trusted that Iwas being honest because yeah, I
think it is scary and I don't know,I just couldn't sleep at night if
I just went along with this stuff.
And like I said, I just got too crankyand if I think if I wanted an easier
(23:33):
life I wouldn't be doing anything I'mdoing, but I just can't, I can't bear
the frustration sometimes, Sarah.
I just, we gotta do something about this.
Sarah McLusky (23:43):
Oh, I can completely relate to that.
And I think, again, Ido think it is powerful.
I don't think I could have madethis podcast and said some of
the things I've said if I hadbeen employed in an organization.
So yeah it can be a verypowerful place to, to be.
Power that needs to be used withresponsibility, as you say, when doing
(24:06):
it, when you feel it's the right thing.
Yeah.
Chris Pahlow (24:09):
Yeah and like I don't want us to just be congratulating
ourselves too much, but like I said atthe start, I really do believe in your
mission and I think what you're doingis really important because while I
could make a joke and say, yeah, I'lljust not turn up to the office for
a few days 'cause I don't work here.
Everybody else still did work there.
(24:30):
And it really made me upset to seehow often professional staff and
universities were treated like secondclass citizens and bossed around.
And as my, a big part of my missionis trying to help amazing researchers
drive impact, but I, a secondarymission, a personal mission is
trying to create a better workenvironment for those professional
staff who are working so, so hard.
(24:52):
And I think they deserve alot better a lot of the time.
Sarah McLusky (24:56):
Yeah.
Couldn't agree more.
And I think well perhaps that nicelyleads us onto a question I like to ask
all of my guests, which is, if you hada magic wand, what would you change
about this world that you work in?
Chris Pahlow (25:08):
The whole world or just the academic world?
Sarah McLusky (25:10):
Just, just your little impact, research impact little corner.
Although, it can be somethingconnected, but it's your choice.
If money and time were no object.
Chris Pahlow (25:20):
I mean there's a million things, but something
that's, I think a personal bug bear.
I think the academic world needsto put a lot more money into, yeah,
what would come under professionalstaff or professional services?
I'm biased because most of what I havedone over the years has been communication
sort related, but I've just been intoo many meetings where the leaders
(25:45):
of a department or a center are sayinglike, we don't understand what's wrong
with our operations, or why does ittake so long to get any anything done?
And I have to point out again andagain, this is a multimillion dollar
operation you're running here.
And if we looked at a commercialbusiness who had the same yearly revenue.
They would have it's not even a comparisonI don't know, 10 x, a hundred x in terms
(26:08):
of the spend and amount of staff they'dhave working on things like marketing
and sales and all that kind of stuff.
And so I feel like I, it's, there'sjust, it's just a lose lose situation.
It's bad for academics'cause they get frustrated.
And it's also not fair to the professionalstaff who are working so hard and
(26:28):
they're trying to do five people's jobsand they're not getting paid enough.
Sarah McLusky (26:33):
Yeah.
And I think that is very muchwhat we're about is just making it
apparent this work that is beingdone, because I think so often it is
invisible unless there's a problem.
And if there's a problem,suddenly yeah, it explodes.
And I think also that really genuinelyvaluing the professional staff
(26:55):
who work in these organizations isthe secret to almost everything.
So when academics are saying, oh, we'retoo busy and we can't, and now you
expect us to do all this other stuff ontop of our jobs, it's like well, no, we
don't necessarily expect you to do it.
You could put other people in placewho can do these other things that feel
like it's, another demand on your time.
(27:15):
And yeah.
So I think the secret to makingthings better is bridging that
divide between this kind of senseof academic and professional staff
research adjacent, whatever you wantto call them, and thinking about
how we can get them working togetherbecause that's what they're doing.
They're all working together fora shared aim, but at the moment,
doing it in very different ways.
Chris Pahlow (27:35):
And look, I empathize, like I know things are hard.
I know.
The structures aren't set up tomake what I'm suggesting easy.
And a lot of people would say it'snot even possible, but I guess it's
the magic wand question and I hope
Sarah McLusky (27:49):
Absolutely.
Chris Pahlow (27:50):
If we have this conversation again in 10 or 20 years, I really
hope things have started to shift.
Sarah McLusky (27:55):
Yeah.
Me too.
Me too.
Saying then that, we haven't reallytalked about this, but we're seeing
what you can see on this podcast.
Part of the reason we're thinkingabout that is 'cause you have
a podcast as well, don't you?
So would you like to tell thelisteners a little bit about your
podcast and where they can find it?
The sorts of things you cover?
Chris Pahlow (28:14):
I'd love to.
So the pod is called Amplifying Research,just like my company and I have the
great pleasure of talking to amazingpeople from all around the world people
who are passionate about impact, and wetalk about how research organizations
can communicate more effectively, howthey can engage more effectively, and how
(28:34):
they can collaborate more effectively.
Um, Incredible guests, like peopletalking about how can you co-design
research projects with differentcommunities, people talking about stuff,
more like what we've been talking about.
How can you work in comms orengagement and embed the right
kind of approach in your center?
Yeah, I feel really grateful just toget to talk to super, super cool people
(28:59):
who yeah, they're trying to shareeverything they've worked on and all the
knowledge they've got with the world.
Yeah, so check it out.
You can find it onSpotify, Apple Podcasts.
Just type in Amplifying Research.
Sarah McLusky (29:10):
Yeah, I would definitely recommend it for anybody who is in
this kind of comms engagement impactkind of space you've had some fantastic
guests on and really talking about this,more the strategic piece, isn't it?
It's the whys and wherefors of doing things better.
So yeah, definitely recommended.
And if people want to get in touchwith you personally or find out
(29:30):
more about your company, wherewould you have them go and look?
Chris Pahlow (29:35):
You can find me on amplifyingresearch.com or just come look
me up on LinkedIn and shoot me a message.
Yeah, very happy to have a chatif you care about impact and any
of the things we've talked about.
Very happy to have a chat.
Sarah McLusky (29:47):
Fantastic.
So it just remains to say thank youso much for coming along and sharing
what you do and sharing your story.
Chris Pahlow (29:56):
Sarah, thank you very much for having me.
Again, huge fan and it's yeah, it's likean honor and a pleasure to be on the show.
Sarah McLusky (30:02):
Oh, thank you.
That's really kind.
Thanks for listening to Research Adjacent.
If you're listening in a podcast app,please check your subscribed and then
use the links in the episode descriptionto find full show notes and to follow
the podcast on LinkedIn or Instagram.
You can also find all the links and otherepisodes at www.researchadjacent.com.
(30:23):
Research Adjacent is presentedand produced by Sarah McLusky,
and the theme music is byLemon Music Studios on Pixabay.
And you, yes you, get a big goldstar for listening right to the end.
See you next time.
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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