truemilybell-blog

[truemilybell-blog]

5 reasons why trainees should be inspired by the political stump speech

I’ve recently become quite captivated by the American political elections happening this year. Of course, there are many reasons why this particular election has drawn Canadians in, but with awe I watch the speeches given by the main candidates for this reason - these people (the skilled, career politicians at least) have the canned speech down to an art! In fact, by definition this is the stump speech. It is a “standard speech used by a politician running for office. Typically a candidate who schedules many appearances prepares a short standardized stump speech that is repeated verbatim to each audience, before opening to questions.” And so I began to wonder, is there an equivalent to the stump speech used by researchers (including graduate students and postdocs) in science and academia and is there value to an activity that would see trainees create their version of an academic stump speech?  

Do researchers sometimes present canned talks?

In my experience, senior researchers will be frequently invited to give conferences or lectures and offer a broad view of their field. Experts are invited because of their ability to see the very big picture, are recognized for their marked achievements in research, and possess knowledge of the most important advancements. Senior researchers are the most likely to have this canned talk, per se, in their pocket, to give it over and over again at invited seminars and conferences, and I feel that this is totally appropriate. At times, as conference participants, we may groan at having to listen to the same talk on many occasions, but these experts help us to see where our own work fits in the whole by providing a thorough overview of contributions in the field. They essentially ‘hammer the message home’.

But what about the junior researcher, or research trainee – are there benefits to developing a canned talk similar to those given by more senior colleagues? Even if these talks never leave the “local” lecture circuit?

Reasons why trainees should consider creating a canned (or stump) talk?

1. Helps you to organize your thoughts and create a focused story of your work (not your experiments!)

When I started going on academic job talks, I realized the value of creating one (or two) canned presentations because it made me narrow in on the message that I wanted to convey about my work; a story that I could tell over and over again. I guess it seems obvious that an academic job talk should be high level and present a strong knowledge of the field but my canned talk made the pieces of my individual research studies or experiments fit together into a story. At the time, I was working on really diverse research projects (a study of ethical challenges in transition for children with neurodevelopmental disabilities, a study about vulnerability in research participants with psychiatric illnesses, a study of patient centered care in chronic neurological illness) and my choices were simple – either I could pitch one of these as my main area of research losing the strength brought by work in other areas, and the demonstrated flexibility and breadth of my research or I could find a way to connect all the pieces. To do so, I created a story that didn’t actually focus on the area of research but on the methods that I held important in my research (patient participation, consultation) that contributed to my view of the field (in my case, bioethics) and defined my approach to a variety of research questions (and research projects). I’d encourage you to think about different stories that could be told about your work and not only to look at your direct field of research in defining what story you want to tell, i.e. cancer, diabetes. Think about the unique things you bring to current thinking about the larger picture.

2. You are going to find it a lot easier to explain what you do after you have created one

If you struggle to explain to a general acquaintance what you do, your canned talk can help. The general public doesn’t want to know about the specifics of your experiments but they want to understand why the problem needs to be addressed, and how things (in health, in disease, in understanding, in training, in provision of services) will be improved by your dedication to this area.

3. It fills a gap in teaching that many health research trainees don’t get experience in

Many health research trainees don’t get any, or get minimal, experience teaching but you can use your canned speech in at least two ways that will benefit you. First, you may be able to use development of your canned talk to reflect on course and curricula design. If this was a lecture, what would someone more junior need to understand to see the big picture, what do you hope they would take away from your talk, how would you adapt this talk’s design or materials for this purpose? Second, once you have designed your canned talk it may be easier to demonstrate your preparedness to lecture in courses that are group taught in your Department or University. Are there related courses that need guest lecturers? Now you have the talk and you can volunteer yourself and pitch yourself and the design of your talk with confidence.  

4. Now you have an archive of slides to pick and choose from later

They will never let you down, especially if an invited speaker cancels at the last minute and you are there to step in!

5. It may present new opportunities to speak and be seen

Once people have heard you put forward the same message, they may start to see you as the go-to person in this field. This could lead to more invites to speak and you should take as many of these as you can; they will be low effort if you have a canned talk to adapt.

 Be careful of:

Making it seem like something it is not or getting ahead of yourself – if you are not the senior expert admit to that, it doesn’t mean that you don’t have something to offer. This talk is a synthesis of what has been done in the field and you need to cite those whose work is important and be humble about your place in it. Modify your talk as you gain experience to demonstrate this (for instance, more of your research achievements and outcomes make their way into the talk)

A tip for even senior researchers:

Take advantage of new learning technologies of instructional techniques. Can you improve the talk with video, with graphics or visuals, by using learning software or asking the audience to weigh-in or participate to the presentation/conversation.

[truemilybell-blog]

“Should I stay or should I go”: why values and where you want to live are important in your academic job search

“Values” have been defined as the principles by which we live. Put simply, values dictate what is most important to us and our values should be considered when making big life decisions, including decisions about our careers. Values may also change with circumstances and they sometimes become clearer over time. For instance, if we get ill, get married, or have kids, our values might change; work life balance might become more important, good pay, benefits, affordability and cost of living might be values of higher priority than before. Similarly, over time we may come to better understand what is truly important to us in terms of the kind of work we want to do; that freedom and creativity are values we prioritize in our work, that working to advance public interests are prioritized over private or industrial ones.  An assessment of values is an important step in self-assessment and when we make decisions about our career. For the scientist pursuing an academic career, consideration of lifestyle values that describe how you want to live and where you want to live, are especially crucial.

Why do I need to have an understanding of my values when looking for an academic job?

You don’t have to go home but you can’t stay here!! This is essentially the motto of the institution who is training you as a postdoc. So if the next step is an academic career, you need to consider where you could see yourself having that academic career and what that lifestyle would look like. Of course values are also important in determining what kind of academic position you may want to pursue. For instance, do you want a position that weighs heavily on teaching or limits your responsibilities to research? An increasing crunch in the number of academic (research) positions available across North America, and elsewhere, means that some of your first decisions may need to take into account values about where and how you want to live. A good understanding of your lifestyle values could prevent you from wasting time pursing positions that are not a good fit, or from taking up a position that you later realize doesn’t align with your values and leaves you unsatisfied or unhappy. It is important to remember that values need to be prioritized, and no job will necessarily be everything and only what you want. However, I think too often postdoctoral fellows and students are indoctrinated to the idea that sacrifices in lifestyle, specifically, are necessary for an academic career. Practically we may make concessions to our lifestyle values to land the academic job but we must make these decisions with purpose and reflection. Only then will we also see how a place we thought we didn’t want to live is really a great fit.  

There is a survey for that!

Did you know that there is a survey to help you think about where you might want to live in the US (you could infer from this about where you want to live in Canada) (www.findyourspot.com). The decision is not unimportant because our country and continent is big, our world even larger and for the scientist, often this whole world is open to them! Think for a minute about the largest cities in Canada: there are pretty significant variations in temperature, seasons, size, and landscape. On a personal level, there are large or small distances between family and friends depending on where you live. In Canada, and major cities in the US, where our largest universities are located, there are more and more extreme variations in affordability and cost of living, including the cost of purchasing a home. Add to all this, that you may be visiting a campus for only two short (stressful) days during an academic interview, and that you may be in a city that you have never visited before. There is a reason why people often want to return to a faculty position in a city where they completed their PhD, or the city where they grew up!

What are some of the things that you might want to consider?

You will want to consider what lifestyle values you prioritize ahead of reviewing how they fit with a specific position. Use these also as research questions to investigate the cities where you have been invited for academic interviews.

·        Cost of living/affordability of housing: Will I be a homeowner? A renter? Will I be saving money? Will I be able to afford vacations if I live here (will I need vacations if I live here)? Will my spouse and I both have to work?

·        Quality of life: What will a day look like for me (and my family)? Will I live in a big city or live in the suburbs or rurally? Is there a community that I can get involved in? Is the pace of life slower or faster?

·        Opportunities: opportunities are available to me to travel, to have fun, to grow personally, to my family to have a good education or job, to do cultural or physical activities.

·        Long-term: Is this somewhere I can see myself long-term? If not, what would it look like to have to move after starting? When could be possible times that I could move on (as senior professor, on sabbatical, after a short contract?)

When you take on that academic job search, don’t be naïve – consider everything about a new position including its location and how it fits with the lifestyle you know you want.

[truemilybell-blog]

Fast tracking from the MSc to the PhD: is it really fast tracking if it doesn’t get you ahead?

Are you currently an MSc student thinking about fast tracking to a PhD in the biomedical sciences? Do you wonder what the benefits or risks might be of fast tracking? In this blog post, I discuss some of the possible issues you may want to consider in deciding whether fast tracking could be a good option for you. Just as you considered whether or not to enter graduate school, you should see this as a personal decision. The ultimate question is: how would fast tracking help you to achieve your goals?

Universities have different policies related to fast tracking. For instance, there may be time limits about when you can make the move from MSc to PhD without completing the MSc (for instance, you must have completed two years of MSc but not more than four years). There may also be regulations about a minimum GPA, and supervisor and program support for the transfer to the PhD program.  

What are the options?

Option 1: Completing the MSc and going on to a separate PhD (no fast tracking)

What it looks like: You will obtain two degrees, participate to two convocations, write two theses. You may have two different supervisors or stay with the same supervisor, you may work on different research projects during your MSc and PhD or even in different areas of focus. You may register in different departments or even obtain your MSc and PhD from different universities.

Option 2: Fast track from the MSc to PhD

What it looks like: You will obtain one terminal degree, and write one thesis (surely a part of the draw!!). You will likely have the same supervisor for all the years of your MSc/Phd and stay in the same training environment, with an increased length of time spent on one project which will be expanded to accommodate the PhD.  

What do you need to consider?

1. Is spending more time with your supervisor going to advance your goals?

Probably one of the most important things to consider is whether or not you can see yourself working with the same supervisor for this period of time (possibly 6+ years) and whether staying will help you to achieve your goals. Is this person the ideal mentor that you believe will invest in your goals and objectives, career development? Do they have success in mentoring demonstrated by past trainees? You may also consider the potential that this supervisor will be willing to grow with you. For instance, I have encountered supervisors who continue to see you as the person who entered their door the first day of an MSc, or PhD, or postdoc. If your supervisor is unable to see your growth and give you more responsibility as you fast track, this is important to consider because it may limit your overall ability to grow, and their ability to speak to other about your newly developed skills, abilities.

2. Are you just dragging out an MSc project?

If I am being honest, both when I was a graduate student and a researcher, I have seen students fast track to a PhD because they were not progressing fast enough in their MSc to prepare a thesis within 2-3 years. If you are choosing to fast track either because you don’t feel like you are making enough progress or because you don’t know what else to do with your life, it might be time to look more into the reasons why you are having difficulty progressing. This is unlikely to get easier or better once you fast track into the PhD and there are many challenges and negative ramifications associated with extending your degree beyond 6+ years.  

3. Does your supervisor have funding to turn your project into a longer one?

A huge impact for many students is whether or not the funds exist to support fast tracking to the PhD. I’m not aware of any data that suggests that you are more or less competitive for PhD scholarships if you fast track. Discuss funding options with your supervisor.  

4. Are there impacts of staying at the same department or university for the MSc/PhD?

In short, not really. Although once many students would have been advised to do their degrees at separate institutions, at least for the MSc and PhD (or fast tracked MSc/PhD), there is no longer any negative association with staying at one institution. Myself, I completed undergraduate, MSc and PhDs at the same university.  So you can pay less attention to where you are and more attention to whether the work that you are doing is important in your field and whether your PhD will demonstrate an impact. If you are going to spend more time at one institution either because you will do two degrees there or fast track, think about whether your training environment/supervisor are well respected in your field, encourage your growth and make other training opportunities available (career enhancement or outreach opportunities).

5. What impact will fast tracking have on your CV and the attainment of your future goals?

It goes almost without saying that whether you decide to fast track or not will impact your CV.  If you do fast track, you will only note that you have completed a PhD and not an MSc and PhD. Again, there is no evidence that I know of that indicates that one of these is better than another, but you should look ahead with your goals in mind and think about what a hiring manager or hiring committee might want to see on your CV. If you are planning to stay in academia, would completing a MSc and a PhD allow you to demonstrate worth to two projects, two teams, mastery of different methods or techniques, differentiate the impact of your work, work with two supervisors of high quality in your field, etc? As someone who has hired graduate students and summer interns, I can tell you that I do find it helpful to see people engaged in more activities rather than less.  It can be easier to identify what they got out of each opportunity and how their academic contribution is progressing. But there are other ways to do this. For instance, having a strong publications track record can override all of this if you are someone fast tracking. If you think that you may transition out of academia, more important that two advanced degrees are the skills you can demonstrate from your time in graduate school.

Fast tracking can be a way to decrease the time to completion of the PhD, a goal that many universities think is laudable.  But it isn’t always this, nor does it always complement a trainee’s long term goals and objectives. Trainees should thoughtfully consider the pros and cons of this switch and make the decision that is right for them.

[truemilybell-blog]

Finding and securing your first position as a Principal Investigator: What’s it going to take?

If you want to be the Principal Investigator of a lab in the health or biosciences, you have likely asked yourself some of the following questions: “What’s it going to take to get hiring committees to consider my application? Do I have to be willing to move anywhere? Should I only apply for job advertisements that clearly fit my research profile? How many applications am I going to have to submit?”  You are definitely not alone. As part of a series of seminars on career options for health scientists, on March 11, a panel of early to mid-career principal investigators discussed their own paths to the PI position, shared their tips about the academic search process, and left the audience with important take away messages about not getting discouraged and using the resources at your disposal to put yourself in the best position possible for the academic job hunt.  For further reflection and for those who were unable to attend, I’ve summarized some of the panel’s take away messages below.

Briefly, our three PIs on the panel were: Dr. Kolja Eppert, Dr. David Stellwagen, and Dr. Brain Chen, all early to mid-career PIs at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre and faculty at McGill University. It has to be foremost said that these three PIs have distinguished research careers (already), publishing in some of the most high impact peer reviewed journals in their fields, and having trained with leaders in the fields of neuroscience and stem cell science.

What tips and take away messages can help trainees navigate the academic job search?

1) Don’t get discouraged:

Almost no one applies for one faculty job and gets it. Today, most people who are really committed to landing an academic job will apply to as many positions as they can and will stretch their search out geographically.  Yes it is entirely possible that you will apply to +50 academic positions.  That being said, if you are limited in your search area, acknowledge that off the bat and do what you can to maximize your chances in that location.  In that case you may have to talk more to colleagues in departments that are not hiring right now to know when there might be openings. Just remember, talk is just talk until there is a concrete job advertisement.  

2) Go when you are ready:

If you try to move to the job search too early, you could become easily discouraged and it will take up a lot of time without yielding rewards, so wait until you have at least one very important paper published in (hopefully) a prestigious scientific journal. That being said, some believe that it’s worth going to market a year earlier than you actually expect to get a position because you will have a chance to try out the academic job search and get accustomed to its workings, and academic interviews (an art!). That approach is not for everyone and the benefits and costs need to be weighed.

3) Perhaps nothing is more important than FIT:

The right fit – you as the candidate for a specific institution, and the institution as a potential employer for you – is perhaps the most important but ambiguous part of the job search process.  You must decide if an institution is a right fit for you – Do you have enough colleagues? Is the balance of teaching and research right? Are the facilities what you imagined? Does the institution uphold values that are important to you? Is the institution well-funded? Will there be room for growth and promotion?  

I think most people would agree that you will get a sense of whether or not the fit is right for you. But it’s important to remember that institutions are also looking for the right fit – so if you have a sense of what that means and you want to work there try to make sure they know that you can be that right fit.  Just don’t get discouraged if you and an institution are not a good fit – this part of the job search is like dating and you have to be willing to say “it’s not me, it was just not a good fit”.

4) The skills of a PI or a graduate student or postdoc are useful in any career:

The responsibilities of a PI today are broad – they are basically entrepreneurs. So are you! Don’t ever think of your skills as limited to a career as a PI because you are great communicators, project managers, problem solvers, and analysts. These skills are useful in careers in private and public domains.

5) Pick your postdoc carefully and deliberately with the future job search in mind

It is more than reasonable that you will do +5 years of postdoctoral work, either in different laboratories or in one. Your postdoc is maybe the most crucial time for your scientific and career development – it’s important to pick the right postdoc for you. A postdoc position should allow you to develop independent lines of research and publish qualitatively high impact papers in the field that you want to hold a faculty position in. When you are looking for a postdoc position then, look to your PIs record of placing past students in academic positions (or in their desired occupations).  Can they show you that they have had success? You will absolutely need your postdoc supervisors support when you want to move on the job market and by looking at their track record you can get some idea of whether you will get sufficient support, as well as whether they might be open to keeping you on a bit longer if you need to apply across a few cycles of academic job searches.

6) Use the resources at your disposal to perfect your applications and interviews:

Seek out additional mentors than your postdoc supervisor who are willing to give you some guidance and share their experience about the job search.  They may have done the transition more recently, or they may have sat on many hiring committees. The importance is that you reach out to others and ask them for help with your documents and your job talks. Critical review will be particularly important for your research statement, and to prepare you for the academic interview.  Solicit as much feedback as you can on these items and it will serve you well. When you become a PI, the same advice should hold true when you are writing grants – seek out review in your department or institution regardless of whether there are formal procedures in place to do so.

7) Hire early:

Once you have landed your dream job as an academic, your responsibilities will shift dramatically.  In fact, you may find that your day to day job looks quite different than it did as a postdoc. For that reason, one of the best things you can do is hire students or postdocs as early as possible who are bright, independent, and will help you accomplish the research you want to do in the first few years. These initial hires will also help you to learn what kind of composition of personnel you want in your lab.  Do you want more postdocs? Do you want more PhDs, or MSc? Is there funding and need for technical staff? For more discussion on this interesting topic see a recent Nature paper “Group dynamics: A lab of their own” by C. Woolston  (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7593/full/nj7593-263a.html)

[truemilybell-blog]

The career interests and prospects of today’s life science trainees

What do we know about the career prospects of advanced life sciences students? What tips can we assemble from understanding the challenges that might be faced during the transition to non-academic careers? As part of a series of seminars on career options for health scientists, on Feb. 17 I reviewed the small existing literature on the perspectives of life science trainees on career preparedness and options. We discussed the challenges that can face trainees in making the transition and covered tips for approaching the career exploration process.  

What do we know?

Data suggests that most PhDs who do not become university professors find meaningful work but the transition can be unclear and stressful for even the brightest students. Survey data shows that many current life science trainees are uncertain about their future career goals (Fuhrmann, 2011). More than 60% of life science students in one study were strongly considering both academic and non-academic career paths at the same time (Fuhrmann, 2011). Similarly, postdoctoral trainees report that they are less clear about their career path at the time of completing their PhD and during their postdoc training than they were at the beginning of their PhD (Gibbs, 2013). There tends to be a general decline in the number of trainees interested in academic faculty positions in research-intensive universities by the end of the PhD; gender and ethnicity may also impact a trainees’ interest in pursuing these research paths. The declining interest in academic research careers may be influenced by watching and learning from mentors with poor work life balance and by watching the mounting stress associated with a competitive funding atmosphere.    

What about the transition?

I’ve previously reviewed some of the challenges that PhDs face in making the transition to non-academic careers, identified by the Conference Board of Canada. Important take aways remain: we don’t really have clear data that helps us to understand why challenges are encountered when making the transition (anecdotally we have much evidence though that there are challenges); any understanding of challenges would have limited generalizability across industries or over time (being that job markets change constantly); trainees from different disciplines may face diverse challenges depending on the context of their training environment and skill acquisition. One thing is for certain, we are not doing enough to track trainees after completion of their degrees which could help us to better understand their career paths. Initiatives to do so are underway in the humanities (the Canadian initiative TRaCE), but also need to be undertaken in the life sciences. Such initiatives, while important, can be accompanied by large administrative burdens and require many resources. Their value therefore must be considered relative the challenges identified above.

What can be done?

All this being said, what are the general tips for today’s advanced life science trainee pondering their future and career:

1. Be open to discussing and engaging with your peers about career and uncertainties. We actually could learn a lot from our peers (for instance those slightly closer to the end of their degrees) about how to go about career exploration. What worked for them? What didn’t? Peers can also offer social support.

2. Learn to acknowledge your skills and value. Trainees are so busy everyday, and they accomplish such diverse tasks sometimes it can make it hard to see “the forest from the trees”. Look at the big picture of skillsets that you have mastered to get your daily work completed. These likely include: project management, data organization, communication skills, problem solving and assessments of situations, setting of timelines.   Once you recognize the skills you employ, find ways to learn the language that those in other fields use to describe the use of these skills. Attending professional skills training in a specific area (i.e., communication, leadership, project management) can be an excellent way to learn a common language.

3. Network. I know it’s one of the hardest things to do, but the best advice I can give is to start small.  Connect with the least threatening people first on platforms that are maybe not in person (i.e., LinkedIn). Once the ball is rolling, connect with the more senior people on similar platforms, or identify common contacts that could make the connection between you and them.  It sounds cliché to say, but most people will really want to help.  It feels good to help others and likely you are more uncomfortable asking them then they are in being asked!

Now that you are armed with more knowledge, get out there and engage with the wide opportunities that await you!

[truemilybell-blog]

Want is not enough: Setting up the right building blocks for an academic career

It is no secret that academic jobs today, in the sciences and humanities, can be hard to come by. I didn’t concern myself much with the potential availability of academic jobs when I was a graduate student or even when I was two years into a postdoc. That probably sounds ridiculous like I was burying my head in the sand, but I can honestly say that during this time I had never planned on having an academic faculty-type career.  I pursued graduate school and continued into a postdoc because I was curious about the research questions that I wanted to pursue, and the more research-related tasks that I became involved in the more I just enjoyed my days doing the work (designing, carrying out, analyzing and writing research studies) and engaging with my colleagues. Say what you will about my procrastinated entry into the workforce, in those years I bought myself out of almost 10 years of entry-level work that I don’t necessarily envy my friends for doing.

By the time I was finishing my postdoc, I could see what a faculty position at a research-intensive university involved and I was pretty happy playing a support role. I would have been equally happy at a teaching-intensive university or college but found that path hard to pursue when I moved to a new city to do my postdoc and union rules governed these types of teaching positions. As I saw it, staying in a supportive role, as a research associate, meant continuing to do all the things I really enjoyed doing, and was good at – the research, the writing, the on-the ground work (btw – I was absolutely wrong about this being the job).  But slowly I started to realize that it wasn’t enough – that the whole point of these different stages of a graduate career were about growth, and my desire for growth hadn’t stopped even if my professional path seemed like it had. A realization then - I wanted an academic job! And guess what I found out - want is not enough.  

Once I launched myself into the academic job search I learnt many things, including the fact that I was working against the clock; that some of the building blocks that I needed to align years before to prepare me for a search and successful candidacy were not there. So I want to share with you some of my key building blocks for setting you up for the academic career you want (or may want in the future!):

1.     Graduate scholarship applications require effort and persistence: Apply for graduate scholarships early and often. Don’t limit yourself to the standard national or provincial funding bodies that everyone applies to – look for internal scholarships at your university.  Some of these (I held a Killam Trust scholarship) are more prestigious that the ones that everybody holds!  They may also open doors for you at your university – someone local now knows your name! Good graduate scholarship applications tell a story and have clear organization (repeat, repeat, repeat).  Take advantage of opportunities at your university or in your department to get feedback on your application. McGill University’s Skillsets runs a Would You Fund It? session every Fall. Pay specific attention to the adjudication criteria – I know that’s for the reviewer and not for you – but there is a reason they provide you access to it. Reviewers will look at your application in the order they are asked to adjudicate it and so understanding how they will review your application can clarify if the story you have told is in the right order.  I have read applications where I can’t even tell where a person was planning on studying, or what relationship they had to a referee.  For this reason don’t view your project proposal in isolation to the rest of the application.  

2.     Conference posters are not posters, they are presentations: For those of us who have a difficulty overcoming shyness and networking, posters can be a way to ease into uncomfortable territory.  After all, it is less about your poster, and more about the story you will tell using a visual aid. Don’t pass up an opportunity and let an attendee read your poster! Ask them if you can walk them through what you did and prepare in advance with a short, clear presentation – the conversation will flow from there.

3.     Volunteering for a committee shows that you are a good colleague: Working on any type of committee (think student committee) shows that you have teamwork skills, communication skills, organizational skills, and leadership skills. It diversifies your CV and appeals to department chairs and university administrators.  Why? – well because academic positions require a great deal of administrative work and your work on committees not only lends confidence that you can get this work done, but also suggests that you will take on your fair share of higher departmental and institute responsibilities.  Evidence of committee work means that others won’t have to twist your arm to have you participate when you are on faculty. 

4.     See a grant, work on a grant, expose yourself to grant applications: Definitely more important for those at the later stages of their degrees or postdocs; you absolutely will be more prepared, both practically and for the job search process, if you understand the grant cycle and structure of funding applications. Ask your supervisor or another mentor for a successful grant application, or two from different competitions, and study it.  What is done well, how is it structured, what are the different sections? If possible, participate to a grant application’s writing – graduate students and postdocs can often be listed as co-investigators or collaborators and if you are this should feature principally in your CV. Even if you are not, indicate your grantsmanship skills on your CV if you have been involved in writing or editing applications. Become also familiar with the key structure of funding mechanisms in other countries if there is a potential that you will apply there.  For instance, I was very surprised by the differences in funding for ethics research between the US and Canada, and this fact also helped me enormously in making judgements about what funding expectations I could have in the US (low expectations which made soft money funded positions seem all the more treacherous).

5.     Publishing papers is a must but aiming high could get you further: Of course publishing your work in peer reviewed academic journals is an essential part of preparing yourself for an academic position.  Today, I would be surprised if you would have a case without any published papers (although I have read accounts of this in the past) but sometimes we still aim too low in publishing. If you think your work is important than shouldn’t it be in a high impact journal? Tell the story that you would tell to make that impact known and consider submitting your paper to a prestigious journal. Don’t ignore top tier journals because you assume your work will never get in one – many of these journals have quick editorial review ahead of peer review so you won’t be delayed if they are not interested.  I once published a paper in a top tier neuroimaging journal without any pictures of the brain even though everyone said there was no way it would get accepted for that reason!  All this being said, make sure that you tailor your paper to the audience that reads the journal (researcher, clinician, general scientifics).

6.     You wrote your thesis, now own it: Yes, most science is collaborative and lots of people have contributed to your research outcomes, but your thesis is different.  By the time you have a thesis, you should have your own story about the research you have conducted, what it means and where it could go.  Your thesis and defence are opportunities to try out the story and fine tune it, but make sure everyone knows it is your story.  I frequently tell students heading into a defense that every answer should start with I instead of We. Credit is shared for a lot of the work that we do, but it’s important that you start to speak of yourself as a leader, and have others see you in this position.

7.     I know you get sick of your supervisor, but keep in contact anyways:  In today’s academic environment, I know more people who have landed academic jobs at their alma mater than anywhere else. The relationships you make in graduate school, especially, are important to your future. Start talking to these people before you leave for that postdoc about the possibility of coming back in a faculty role.  These conversations are pretty low stakes for them because you aren’t ready yet but it allows time for reflection on their part.  There is always a possibility they could develop a position that you might be qualified for. There is no guarantee of course, but you will look like a strong ambassador of the program or department if you are looking to return. 

I don’t believe that there is any magical recipe for preparing yourself for a faculty career – and if there ever was the ground is shifting so quickly I’m not sure today’s recipe will work tomorrow.  But I do believe we can stay conscious about our goals, and act deliberately to keep our options open and these seven tips are some of the ways that someone preparing for a faculty position can do so.

[truemilybell-blog]

Mental health research: who sets the priorities?

This week, we learned a little bit more about the questions that persons affected by depression want answered by research (http://www.depressionarq.org/). It seems obvious to suggest that we should survey those affected by mental health conditions about the priorities for mental health research. Yet, it has most definitely not been the case that most research, or even care, priorities are driven by patients’, carers’, or family members’ perspectives. 

In this case, 3,000 people, I imagine, jumped at the chance to participate to a process where their voice would be heard and together they came up with more than 10,000 questions that they want answered about depression. Knowing that there will be some benefit from asking those affected by health conditions generally about the questions they want, or need, answered is not rocket-science. It’s also good ethics. It shows a general level of respect and reinforces the value of personal perspectives, and it acknowledges the importance of the lived experience. It’s also more likely to lead to research that can be carried out with the participation of an engaged community, and that ultimately finds home in practices of care and support. This is important because in other health conditions we’ve sometimes seen a real disconnect between the priorities of those affected and the research questions being addressed by researchers. Autism is a good example; communities have repeatedly said they want to see research that impacts the day-to day lives of families prioritized but funding of research in autism (in the UK, and many other countries) has been largely directed towards research on the biology, the brain and cognition. Much less funding is given to investigating interventions, diagnosis or societal issues. For a good review of this disconnect in funding and priorities see What should autism research focus upon? Community views and priorities from the United Kingdom (full reference below). 

I desperately believe that we don’t want to see this kind of a disconnect exist in any kind of mental health research such as in depression.  

Whether the priorities of those affected by depression align with the funding of research in Canada is not known, but by this survey (conducted in the UK) we at least gain a better understanding of the key questions that those affected would like to see answered.  Included in the top ten questions to ask are: understanding the barriers to accessing treatment, the best ways to empower people and encourage self-management; ways to train healthcare professionals; and the most effective ways to prevent the occurrence and recurrence of depression. Not surprisingly, number 7 on the list is about how depression impacts employment, and how stigma in the workplace can be overcome. In Canada, organizations like Partners for Mental Health know that workplace mental health is an important issue for employers and employees and their Not Myself Campaign tries to affect important chance in the way that companies and employers manage mental health. You can learn more about their campaign by visiting the following link: http://www.notmyselftoday.ca/.  

What surprised me was what was missing from the list of priorities. We know that many youth in Canada struggle with mental health conditions and I was surprised to see that investigating the best ways to care for youth with depression was not identified as a priority. Of course, this fact may be affected by the sample of people who participated in setting the priorities, for instance if a concise effort wasn’t made to include young people in the exercise.  

This post may bring me a lot of grief from colleagues in research who claim that researchers and funders rather than the public should set the priorities of research. That is how it’s frequently been. But what these kinds of exercises show is that there is value in asking and listening to those affected by illness. I think that understanding the community perspective is an important step needed in directing today’s research into mental health.     

For more on the divide between autism research priorities and funding in the UK see:   What should autism research focus upon? Community views and priorities from the United Kingdom http://aut.sagepub.com/content/18/7/756.full.pdf+html

[truemilybell-blog]

Follow the leader: Why watching others and knowing oneself is important for emerging leaders

Sometimes the easiest way to know what kind of a leader we want to be is to look at the leaders we don’t want to be. When I was in academia, I came across a lot of great leaders, by definition. They had influence and they definitely had people who followed them (let themselves be led). But they were often assertive, vocal, and in positions in organizations that made them leaders de facto without much self-reflection. They were also mainly men. It always bothered me that I couldn’t see myself in what they were modelling. I am not an introvert, but I am quiet and thoughtful in how I interact with others and I put a great deal of effort into building relationships with colleagues. I am also conscious of the fact that I can wear people out by setting goals and targets that have to be met, and then by setting more goals and targets.

I realize from watching others that we are all acting out a form of leadership that is comfortable for us, that fits with the person that we are. Their style of leadership is not wrong, nor is mine right but we would each feel uncomfortable in the others shoes. It may seem trite – of course we are all different people and we lead in different ways but coming to understand that I didn’t have to model others, or even that there was no point in modelling others, marked a real shift in the way I approached leading others. It freed me of all the efforts I exerted in trying to imitate others – to be more vocal, more assertive, to formalize my positional role as leader.  In its place I moved my energy towards acknowledging my own strengths and weaknesses as a leader, taking responsibility for my own growth and finding great pride in the fact that becoming a better leader is something that I am devoted to.

I am still disappointed by the exposure that I had to various models of leadership throughout my time in academia, and I feel personally responsible for not seeking out more diverse mentorship. When I think back now, there were definitely senior people that I encountered along the way that seemed to share the same values and ideals as I did. Some of them were men, more of them were women, but all were able to mobilize and influence others with their unique sense of leadership that was often quiet, purposeful and based in deep respect for colleagues. My recommendation for those early in their career or advanced studies is to find a variety of leaders and mentors to watch and learn from. Do not assume that these people need to be in formal positions of leadership in your organizations; in fact look for those who are not or seek out informal leaders in volunteer positions.

We could all benefit from thinking more about how we lead or influence others. For those who are interested, there are many workshops and seminars on leadership that focus specifically on the emerging leader within each of us or on how we can achieve personal growth as leaders. A formal vocabulary about leadership can be helpful, especially when reflecting on our own methods and strategies for motivating others, yet we should remember that simply knowing ourselves will help improve our chances of becoming a great leader.

�

[truemilybell-blog]

Canadian PhDs need employers to take notice of their skills – what conditions are necessary to do so?

Last month, a report released by the Conference Board of Canada (“Inside and Outside the Academy”) reviewed some of the serious challenges facing PhD holders in Canada looking for employment.  The report is not the first, nor do I expect the last, to discuss the central tension that faces most PhDs who are trained in environments where the dominant narrative sees success of the PhD as defined by entry into a tenure track position but where the number of qualified candidates for such positions heavily outweighs their availability.  By any measure, there is far greater likelihood that PhD holders find themselves in non-academic positions than in academic ones which raises serious concerns about the sometimes narrow early career expectations that are sought by, or impressed upon, PhD students. Other central issues raised by the report, such as the need for best practices in complementary professional skills training among graduate students and the importance of learning the language of non-academic employers, have also been discussed in some detail in higher education forums.

Especially striking was that the report revealed concerns about lagging innovation and research by Canadian employers, including a potential lack of preparedness of employers to take on PhD holders, and a potential gap in appropriately skilled positions in the non-academic workforce. Of this we should take note, because the report, unlike many international or American policy pieces, raises concerns specific to the Canadian context that deeply impact the opportunities available for the PhD with advanced skills in research. Not only that, but it suggests that Canadian industries and the Canadian economy are letting the value and advanced skills of PhDs as knowledge generators, leaders, innovators, and experts to advance productivity, growth and wellbeing, slip right through their fingers. In Canada, any reflection on PhD training must take into account the potential lack of receptors or unpreparedness of employers to use the full skills of our advanced graduates.  

On the heels of this report, comes an article by Julie Gould in the journal Nature on “How to Build a Better PhD” in the biomedical sciences.  One of the solutions proposed is to create two tracks of the PhD (an academic-track and a specific vocational track) and such a solution is premised under the idea that “there is plenty of demand for highly educated, scientifically minded workers elsewhere [than academia]”.  I personally disagree with the idea of formalizing two tracks of the PhD but largely because I am not convinced that it would change much about the search for employment after the PhD; others have dissected the challenges associated with this proposal more fully (see “Some good and bad ideas for restructuring the PhD” by David Kent in University Affairs). What concerns me is that much of the basis for rethinking the PhD rests on the assumption that receptors are there, willing and able to put to use the advanced skills of the PhD. At least in Canada, we should strongly question whether this is the case, and if it is not than our attention should shift towards creating the conditions that would make it so.

Universities, research institutes, academic programs, and at least one provincial government, have stepped up their role in preparing graduate students for the non-academic workplace by investing in professional skills training and career development initiatives. It is now time to shift some of our attention as institutions to ensuring that potential employers understand the value of the PhD. This is also one of the key recommendations of the Conference Board of Canada’s report. Internships, such as those offered by Mitacs during the PhD or postdoc, can influence employers to find positions for interns after graduation but in order to make a large impact, we will have to campaign more broadly on the skills and possibilities brought by advanced degree holders. Such campaigning should also draw on alumni who are already in the workforce, who can articulate how their skills have been useful and whose non-academic networks are arguably larger than most of those in academia. Research institutes charged with the research training of PhDs are especially well placed to offer perspective on the value of PhDs when matched with conditions that foster innovation. Trainees as well would benefit from hearing this message shouted loud and proud by their training institutions.

Interested in the advancement of Canadian industry and society, those involved in PhD training should consider how encouraging more corporate spending on research and development, as well as start-up and entrepreneurial support could further maximize the return made by PhDs.

[truemilybell-blog]

Graduate skills training and career development – are we doing all we can for women?

It’s a clear reality that most graduate students today will not go on to have academic careers. Women, particularly, fall out of this academic path at a higher and faster pace then their male colleagues for likely a variety of reasons. At the same time that there is increased focus around the need for graduate skills training and career development as a means of preparing graduate students for non-academic careers, I’m suggesting that we should devote some time to thinking about how we can best engage female graduate students in these efforts and prepare them to access strong opportunities after graduation, particularly in domains such as entrepreneurship and leadership.

Universities are taking responsibility for their broad role in graduate training as never before (nothing like this existed when I was in graduate school).  Today, graduate skills training  and career development programs are showing up in many top institutions across Canada. They are university run, research institute run, run by non-profits, and their value may be reinforced by the sheer number of programs popping up. Generally, they focus on nurturing a set of transferable skills that compliment students’ academic work, and that will support their preparedness for future careers. For instance, many programs address topics such as leadership, project management, people management, and entrepreneurship. Offered mostly for free and open to graduate students across campus I’ve often wondered who is participating to the programs; who is availing themselves of these opportunities?

Let me first say that there is no evidence to suggest that women are not participating to these programs. However, if sessions are inadvertently geared towards a version of skills training that doesn’t compliment the style of many women, or even more importantly, if women leaders or session instructors are not evident than I’d suggest a few key modifications could ensure the engagement of women graduate students in skills training and career development programs.

1.     Ensure equal participation of women graduate students by collecting data on attendance.  Additionally, examine how women evaluate the sessions offered.

2.     Make sure that positive female role models are available within the context of some sessions. For instance, it has been shown that men are twice as likely to be engaged in entrepreneurship; making female entrepreneurs available as role models could help to close this gap and increase the participation of women in sessions on these topics.

3.     Assess whether women would benefit from some gender specific skills training sessions. For instance, Imperial College London has offered a session entitled “Enterprising women: developing enterprise and entrepreneurs” to fill exactly this kind of gap. Such a session has the benefit of also exposing women to role models.

We could do more to ensure that women are benefiting from graduate skills training and career development programs. Armed with graduate degrees and the ability to articulate their strong skillsets, women should thrive and contribute in broad types of careers post graduation.

[truemilybell-blog]

Whose “lived experience” matters most?

This past year I attended a conference on research in mental health and it was the first time I have ever heard the exact term persons with lived experience. Here, it was used to describe those who had personally experienced mental illness and they told their stories with brilliance. There they were, persons with lived experience on panels, joined with researchers, healthcare workers to talk about ways to advance mental health research. Of course sometimes researchers or healthcare workers also identified themselves as persons with lived experience – I mean of course, how could they not, has not almost everyone had some close encounter with mental illness. I am no different, for many years I have done research in the area of mental health and people close to me have been affected by mental illness in a variety of ways. Yet, I wasn’t identifying myself as a person with lived experience and so that made me wonder – what do we mean by lived experience? Whose lived experience matters? What kinds of lived experiences are important?

The truth is that I have been thinking about this for a few years – since another conference when I found myself seated at dinner next to a more senior physician-researcher who flat out asked me what I was going to do about the fact that I had “no life experience”. I would learn through the course of this conversation that I had been judged to have no life experience by the sheer fact that I had (have) never seen a dead body.  That’s how he described it to me – not a dead person, not a dying person, but a dead body. Of course there were other factors that I am sure he considered in making this judgement – I am a relatively young and petite woman and although I am older than I look I am quite used to people assuming that I lack all kinds of experience. But, I still wondered, if I had no life experience than what had I been doing for the last 30 some years and especially the last 10 years of my professional life?

Really when I thought about this, I knew that a range of valuable life experiences had shaped the person and researcher that I was. Raised in a family where generations had worked as doctors or nurses it felt almost drilled into us that our lives would be given meaning by service to others. Even without this, I wasn’t a stranger to the health care system and had many more encounters with specialized health care than most of my peers before I was a teen. When you are young you don’t always think about how these experiences are shaping you and your experience of the world.

Yet here I am the sum of my experiences, years worked in my fathers medical practice, schooling that eventually directed me towards the neurosciences and then towards research in mental health, a set of personal values that drive me towards work that will improve the care of those who are suffering. But then why did I feel like an outsider, the person without the right lived experience, at a conference in my own field of research.

I realized, it wasn’t that I didn’t have life experiences, of course I did. It also wasn’t so much that I lacked the right lived experience. Rather, it’s just that I maybe hadn’t honed a way to tell my story properly. It’s easy to forget that we know ourselves and our stories, how we got where we are so much better than those who see us in one context, or as one dimensional characters. Of course we are not, our experiences shape us, our values and our choices, our goals and dreams. Maybe we don’t need to reveal everything about ourselves, but we do need to be comfortable describing who we are and why our experience matters. Whether we are patients, or parents, or caregivers, or researchers, or healthcare providers, it is not who has the right experience but rather how each of us can articulate how our own experience sheds light on a similar problem. After all, if we have all come to the table wanting to advance a cause, it’s likely that we all have something to offer and that we have all been brought there by different paths. I have found most people are, in fact, happy to hear the stories of others.

Those that I heard speak about their lived experience of mental illness had powerful stories and were impactful storytellers. We could all probably learn a thing or two from their example. So for me this blog is part of honing my own story – where I can write about what is important to me, the issues that I confront in my work and my daily life, and the thoughts that preoccupy me. It’s a window into my own lived experience, and I hope you will agree that it is a story worth sharing.