What are the ingredients for creating a supportive, inclusive research culture? Nina Molin Høyland-Kroghsbo from the Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences , Microbial Ecology and Biotechnology at the University of Copenhagen discusses the Research Environment Prize established three years ago by the Danish Young Academy to promote and celebrate good research environments, as experienced by early career researchers in those environments.
We are joined here by the 2024 prize winners, PhD students Line Maj Sternberg and Nicklas Stott Venzel who nominated their Research Unit in Psychology of Sport, Excellence and Health at the University of Southern Denmark. They share what makes their environment great, and how the group translates their research on what makes a great sports environment into what makes a great research environment. In particular, they talk about encouragement for taking initiative, a focus on long-term development, open communication, psychological safety, promoting mental health, and a sense of belonging, as key factors. Nina also reflects on the common themes that the awarding panel has seen across over a hundred nominations, such as belonging, collaboration, creative practices, and celebrating both successes and failures.
Overview:
00:34 Episode Introduction
03:26 Meet the guests
06:44 The Danish Young Academy and the Research Environment Prize
11:51 Line and Nicklas on applying sports research to academia
18:38 Building trust and open communication
22:34 Support for long term development and wellbeing
25:55 Psychological safety in research
26:55 Creative methods for sensitive topics
29:56 Common themes from nominated research environments
34:47 More examples of good practices
38:41 Having clear values
44:03 Learning from failures, celebrating successes
45:56 Value of good research culture for scientific integrity
49:51 Wrapping up, final thoughts
53:48 End
Related links:
Prize announcement by the Young Academy on LinkedIn
LinkedIn profiles for Nina and Line
Transcript
Welcome to Changing Academic Life. I'm Geraldine Fitzpatrick and this is a podcast series where academics and others share their stories, provide ideas and provoke discussions about what we can do individually and collectively to change academic life for the better. So what are the ingredients for creating a supportive inclusive research culture? And what can you do to contribute to that? Well, hopefully you'll come away from this episode with lots of ideas. I'm joined here by two PhD students, Line and Nicklas from Southern university Denmark who are going to talk about their award winning research environment. And we're joined by Nina, a member of the Danish young academy who set up the prize three years ago? So, let me introduce them all a bit more. Nina Molin Høyland-Kroghsbo is from the department of plant and environmental sciences, microbial, ecology, and biotechnology at the University of Copenhagen. And she's here with her hat on as a member of the Danish young academy. The Danish young academy set up a prize three years ago to promote and celebrate good research environments as experienced by early career researchers. And so the 2024 winners were PhD students, Line Maj Sternberg and Nicklas Stott Venzel. And they nominated their research unit in psychology of sport, excellence and health at the university of Southern Denmark. Line and Nicklas share what makes their environment great. And it's interesting how the group translates their research on what makes for a great sport environment into what makes a great research environment. In particular, they talk about things like the encouragement they get for taking initiative, the focus on long-term development. The very open communication structures that they have in place. The psychological safety and being safe to try things out and make mistakes. The support for good mental health and having a strong sense of belonging. Nina also reflects on a lot of the common themes that they see as the awarding panel across over a hundred nominations. And she compliments these observations with things like belonging, again, and collaboration, creative practices, and celebrating both successes and failures. We hope this episode will encourage you to think about how you can recognize and celebrate great research cultures. And also pick up ideas to try out for yourselves. As Line and Nicklas repeatedly stated: a good research culture is created together. I'm really excited today to have three people to talk to about award winning research culture environments. First, do you want to introduce yourselves? Nina.
Nina:Yeah, so my name is Nina Molin Høyland-Kroghsbo. I'm an associate professor at the University of Copenhagen, and then I'm a member of the Danish Young Academy, which is an agency under the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters. And so we've started this Research Environment Prize that we are going to talk about today.
Geri:Great. And our prize winners, who are sitting together in a studio. Line.
Line:Yes, um, I'm a PhD student at the research unit in Psychology of Sport, Excellence and Health, and I have been working on my PhD project for about a year now. And in my PhD project, I'm looking into sport environments for athletes between 12 to 16 years. So we are basically trying to see some factors in youth sport environments for athletes.
Geri:Mm hmm. And just curious, did you do your previous degrees, in the same unit, same university?
Line:Yeah, I have a bachelor and a master degree in sports science from the same university. And then I have been working as a dual career manager for elite athletes for the past six, seven years before I started my PhD, and as a Sports Psychology consultant as well.
Geri:Right. So there was that gap between doing your initial degree and now coming back to do a PhD.
Line:Yes, exactly. So I, I have a small gap there and then coming back to academia.
Geri:Yeah. Yeah. Which means that you come back with all that experience as well.
Line:Yeah I would definitely say that I, I learned some things between my master's degree and then coming back seeing how is it actually that our athletes are struggling? What is it they they are meeting in, in their life?
Geri:Yeah. Lovely. And Nicklas.
Nicklas:Yeah, my name is Nicklas and I'm a PhD student here at the University of Southern Denmark. I started my PhD project for, yeah, almost a half a year ago now. So I'm pretty new into it. Um, my project is about injuries in youth sports environments, from a more sports psychology approach than sports medicine. But we're trying to combine the two, two approaches in, in my project here.
Geri:So a little bit interdisciplinary then
Nicklas:Yeah, exactly. Trying to get some inspiration from both research areas,
Geri:Yeah. And what about you is in relation to doing your degree, where did you do your degree before this?
Nicklas:Both my master and my bachelor degree is from here, the same place. Um, and then I spent the three and a half year as, as a teaching assistant and a research assistant before I got the funding for my PhD project. So I've been a, a part of the environment out here for a couple of years by now.
Geri:So even though you're only half a year into your PhD, you've got a longer experience working there.
Nicklas:Yeah, exactly. And I've been working on other projects with my supervisor and so on for the last year.
Geri:Oh, that's excellent. And Nina, do you want to just tell us about the prize?
Nina:Yeah, so, um, The idea behind the prize originated at a retreat where we were discussing new ways of doing academia. So one of our focus areas is to better the possibilities for the next generation of researchers. And we were thinking about the research prizes. They often are awarded to PIs, so heads of big research labs. And you never know if it's a At the expense of the younger researchers or how those, uh, groundbreaking data work sort of came about. And sometimes there are some labs where a lot of people are broken and they have to leave academia because the environment is so tough. So if we're not awarding, a group, a PI. As head of a group, then how can we award research in a different way? So there was a discussion, uh, what comes instead. So if we remove the PI. What's left is the research environment and more and more also with, what Nicholas touched upon with this interdisciplinary research. We need research to be done in teams where people have different competences. And so then we were thinking about awarding a prize for the best research environment. Where. Younger researchers or, um, early career researchers can grow and develop and, and, foster and work on the best ideas. And so we wanted to bring about a discussion on how to create such environments, and, and create a list of best practices.
Geri:And you said we at a research retreat. So this is the young, um,
Nina:Young Academy. Yeah.
Geri:And so how many of you were part of this
Nina:So almost all of the members of the Young Academy go to this retreat every year. And this is where we have two days of discussions and communication. So we can really go in depth with some topic of choice. And that year it was research environments. And so we have been awarding the prize for the past three years.
Geri:Three years. Okay, do you remember what the trigger was for that becoming a topic? I mean, it's such an important topic, isn't it? But I'm just curious if there was a particular trigger.
Nina:So there's been more and more focus on the bad research environments and stress and burnout. And so I think this is a different way of flipping things on their head and looking at the best research environments and, and put a spotlight on those. So, uh, the
Geri:Yeah. We should first of all say congratulations to Line and Nicklas for winning the prize. That's really brilliant. And what were they asked to do or what do you ask people to do in submitting an application?
Nina:So the application has to be filled out by two younger, early career, researchers, so often that will be a master thesis students, PhD students, or, uh, recent associate, uh, assistant professors. So they write the application together and they write, uh, a small paragraph about, their research group or their research unit. It can also be a network of PhD students. It can be in different areas of research. You don't have a classical research group with a head of the group and members, but it's a collaboration between sort of a more horizontal network. So a description of the research environment. And then a description of why the environment should be awarded the prize with, and we're asking for specific examples, um, for
Geri:Overall, how long do these applications tend to be?
Nina:So it's a two page application. And then we meet, we read all of the applications and we meet and we discuss them. So we have people on the panel spanning all different types of research topics. Thank you.
Geri:hmm. Mm hmm. So and the panel drawn from the academy
Nina:Yes. Yeah. Yeah.
Geri:And do you have particular criteria that you're using?
Nina:So so we were also curious on how the next generation of researchers, what they value.
Geri:Mm
Nina:And so we left it a little bit open, but we said something that people could talk about was diversity, inclusion, onboarding, how people resolve conflicts. So those have been some topics that people could dive into.
Geri:hmm. Mm
Nina:But it was left open to come up with answers that we could not think of ahead of time. So it has been very rewarding to read all of the different topics that people value in their research environments. And there are some, some very common criteria for what people value.
Geri:Lovely. I want to come to that later. And, but first I'd love to hear from Line and Nicklas about, well, first of all, what made you think, yes, we'll nominate our group?
Line:I think Nicklas and I discussed what is important in our research group. And a lot of our research is about environment. And we see in our group that a lot of the research that we are doing, some of our senior researchers are actually using the same elements in our research unit. So we've, we've, I see it as a really important research environment and a great place to be. So when we saw this prize, we were like, okay, that could be really great to kind of award the research environment that they are creating together with us.
Geri:Mm,
Nicklas:Yeah. It was also kind of a way to appreciate the senior researcher in our group that you're doing a good job. We see it ourselves, but we also see how we are supporting the job they are doing and how we are inviting a new employees into the environment and so on. So we could see that we, or at least we, we felt that we did something good. And we wanted to, yeah, appreciate that.
Geri:I really like that you both have said, like, it's not just that the senior person has created the environment. You've talked about your roles in that as well, both of you just mentioned that, as in it's a co created thing.
Line:Yes, definitely. In our environment, we don't believe that you can create an environment by yourself. It's the individual that's a part of the whole environment that are together and creating whatever we want in our environment. So, so we definitely play a part. And then we have some of our research, uh, senior researchers creating like the structure and like trying to create the culture in, in how they want to shape the environment.
Nicklas:But we definitely have a role in creating how things are done in, in our research unit.
Geri:yeah. You said about the research that you do in the group is about creating environments. So that's within the sport context. Can you talk a little bit more about what it is from that research that has been applied back in? So I know that in the announcement from the academy about the award, they talked about you walking the talk, which I thought was really brilliant. So I'm just curious to understand a bit more about. What are you learning from sports environments that's being played back into your research environment?
Nicklas:So some of our research is focusing on athletic talent development environments, and we see across several successful environments that there are some shared features characterizing these environments. And I think that some of these characteristics can be translated into the world of academia, for example, making room for free initiatives. So it's possible for me as a early career researcher to take initiative into a new project that I want to create, and then I'm supporting for taking that initiative. Or, uh, for example, also a coordinated effort by people in the environment. So we don't, at least I have an experience in the examples where different senior researchers are giving me different tasks that's, you know, um, How do you say that? I not the [conflicting]. Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Geri:Or everyone wanting you to work 40 hours a week
Nicklas:Yeah, exactly.
Geri:So there's communication to coordinate.
Nicklas:Yeah, exactly. And then I think that one of the characteristics of these environments are also that there is a focus on the long time long-term development, and the mental wellbeing of athletes, and that's.
Geri:hmm.
Nicklas:Also a really important focus for us in the group that we can actually talk about when we need help and we can reach out to other people to get what we need or say, I'm, I'm really in a busy period. So I had to cancel this meeting or I need some, some help on this, or I can't do this task here.
Geri:hmm. Mm hmm. Yeah.
Nicklas:Both in the, you know, in the working world, but also in our life on the side and our family's life or, yeah, other activities in our lives that we also have time and possibility to prioritize that.
Geri:Mm hmm. So that's valued in the group.
Line:And I was in addition to that, we also see in our research that strong role models are very important in our sport environments. And I will say that's the same in our research environment, that we have close and strong role models. So, we help each other a lot in the research unit. So, the researchers on the next level, from me, are very approachable. I can go to them and see how is it actually that they are doing.
Geri:Mm
Line:At the same time, Nicklas and I as PhD students are helpers or, our, Master students so they can see like what is kind of the next level, what are the people doing if I want to move forward in,
Geri:Mm hmm.
Line:kind of world. In the academia.
Geri:Mm hmm. So you talked about this as training upwards and training downwards in your application.
Nicklas:Yeah exactly that's something we see a lot of in the world of sport. Then you train with someone better than you and then sometimes you move a bit down to get some successful experiences in your sport. And yeah, that's, we try to translate it into the world of academia and we can see some similarities
Geri:yeah, so there's the thing of you both helping, say, younger people, and the reward you get from that. And we know helping is good for well being as well, or just, and also learning how to help or how to be a mentor. Is that part of it as well?
Line:Yeah, when, when we help our master's students or any other students,
Geri:Mm,
Line:in our institute, we, we always have the opportunity to talk with our supervisors and then they will help us saying, okay, if, if you need to be a good supervisor or a supervisor, Then you need to focus on these specific parts. So, we have the opportunity to discuss beforehand, like, what is it that we should be aware of in this situation when we, um, are supervisors for master's students. And then we always have the opportunity to have feedback.
Geri:Lovely.
Line:So definitely we. We go that way.
Geri:Nice circle. What are the practical realities then, because you've talked a lot about talking, you know, you've talked a lot about the coordination between people you may work with so there's no conflict in what you're being asked to do or you've talked about being able to raise issues when you've got problems or need help. And you've also talked about being able to go back to your supervisor and getting support for how you supervise. How are the, how did these interactions practically play out? Do you have set meeting times or open door? Like how does that all work?
Line:We have both.
Geri:Mm hmm.
Line:So we have different meetings. We have some meetings with our supervisors. We have some meetings in our research group.
Geri:Mm hmm.
Line:And then we also have the opportunity, we all sit on the same kind of floor in one building. And if the researchers have time and then they have an open door. And then we always welcome to come in and I will say most of the time, everyone have an open door. So, so it's really easy to get access to the
Geri:Mm hmm. Mm
Line:colleagues that we have.
Geri:hmm.
Nicklas:And yeah, it's easier to go into an office with an open door than it is to write in an email that you have to formulate in just the right way to get some help and that's make it makes it a bit easier for us.
Geri:Mm. What things have contributed to building up, I don't know, the trust, and knowing one another that you feel comfortable to go in and ask, or you feel comfortable to say, I'm having issues?
Nicklas:I would say that, uh, I've experienced so many times that my supervisors have asked me, like, being curious about my life and ask me, how are things actually going for you, not just about your PhD project, but also in your everyday life and Curious about who I am. And that just helps me to trust them that I can actually be honest about how things are going.
Geri:Yeah. And that you can be a whole person, you know, they're not just interested in what you can produce for them for their CV in a tick box, it sounds like.
Nicklas:Yeah, I feel like they care for me as a person, not just as a co worker.
Geri:Yeah. And that's important. Line, what about for you, what's contributed to being able to build up that sort of trust and relationship?
Line:I agree with Nicklas, that supervisors are definitely coming with a mindset saying, How can we help you? You're always welcome to come in. So they send a directive to me, if you need any help, please just come in. And I will say, just saying these words, Make me more secure actually going in and asking for help. And at the same time when we have our meetings, like the whole research unit together, we often divide different groups so you have the opportunity to discuss something in smaller groups before we take it up in, in plenum together. And that could be together with sometimes like the younger researchers are sitting together and discussing it beforehand, and other times we are with the senior researchers, so the whole time we have this kind of mix, so we get to know each other even better, day by day, and at the same time, I feel like they want to have our opinions, they want to hear what is our view, so I actually feel seen and heard in the research units as well.
Geri:So important that it, it Sounds wonderful.
Line:It is.
Geri:You also talked about the, the values around long term development and wellbeing. Can you also say a little bit more about how they practically play out?
Nicklas:That's a good question.
Line:I think if you look into like this mental health, how to manage it, I think we have really free, what would you say, like frames. So we don't need to be at any specific time in the office. They encourage us to come into the office, so we could share knowledge and develop together. But if I'm there, Nicklas is often there earlier than me. But I'm coming a bit later, because I have a daughter. So I have the opportunity to, to put her into, like, uh, uh, child care before. Which makes it much more flexible for me and my private life.
Geri:Yes.
Line:Um, and at the same time, we see like, what is it that people need? Do they have any difficulties, then, as Nicklas explained earlier, we try to change our meetings or put them around it, so, so this other part is, then just being a researcher is, is an opportunity.
Geri:So the fact that you're allowed to shape your work in a way that fits well with your life and commitments is an important part towards supporting your wellbeing.
Line:Definitely. And of course, we also have a huge amount of workload sometimes. But then we sometimes have meetings saying, OK, what do you need to prioritize? I think that can sometimes be difficult when you're new into this research area and you want to perform and do a good job. Then it's nice to have someone help you saying, what do you need to prioritize? If we're struggling with a lot of different tasks at the same time
Geri:And to have the environment where you feel free to own up to struggling. That's so important.
Nicklas:Yeah, it sure is and it's sometimes it's not always us who describe how we are struggling with things, but we also experienced that our, uh, senior professors are struggling with things like theoretical aspects or getting some paper published and so on. And they share their experiences too. So we are not feeling like we are the only one struggling.
Geri:They're the perfect ones and you're aspiring to their role model perfection.
Nicklas:Exactly. We get a real world picture of how things are going for them.
Line:I think that we are lucky. Often we have just a small thing as lunch together. And there as lunch you have these informal talks. And there you can hear what is it actually that all supervisors are struggling with. along are the other people in the group in their research? So we have this opportunity to hear and, and feel what is the status on the different
Geri:Mm. Yeah. So both the formal meetings and just hanging out at lunch. Yeah. Nina, I want to come back to you as I'm conscious that I haven't got to you, but I'm just curious to understand a couple of other things from the environment that was awarded. And in the award text that you wrote, you also talked about creative methods to discuss sensitive topics and ensure psychological safety. Now, some people may not know the term psychological safety. Do you want to explain what you've meant by that?
Nicklas:Yeah, it's, it's that you're feel safe in the environment you're a part of. That you you'll safe enough to make mistakes doing the process you're in that you don't have to do it the correct way every single time. And then feel the support both when you're succeeding with things, but also when you're not succeeding. So you feel like, yeah, you feel safe in, in things when you're doing things.
Geri:And you said also at the beginning, one of the things that's valued, both in high performing sports teams or good sports environments, as well as your research was the encouragement to take initiative and that freedom to take initiative on something that may not work, is an example, isn't it of having the psychological safety just to give it a go and you're more likely to try things out.
Nicklas:Yeah, exactly. And, we are encouraged to take the initiative. So when we do, it's really appreciated by our colleagues.
Geri:But what, what did you mean by creative methods then to discuss sensitive topics? Because you have just talked about like people explicitly saying how are you going and being genuinely interested and you have talked about feeling free to bring up issues. And I'm just curious about what might be some other creative methods that you've experimented with in the group,
Nicklas:So one of the best examples I can probably come up with is once I met one of our longer meetings, we did Sarah and the Monopole. It's a famous Danish radio program where people can send in dilemmas they're working with, and we tried to translate it into the world of academia. So, so everybody in the unit could send in a dilemma, a theoretical one, a methodological one, a personal life dilemma if they had something, and then everybody in the unit had to discuss this dilemma. So, it was written anonymously. So we didn't know who wrote it, but we then talked about the theoretical question of how do we understand the environment, for example, and that created a room where we could show our vulnerability and that we don't know everything. And so it's the same case for our senior professors. So, yeah, it created a good meeting where we could actually talk about what what are hard in our everyday life as a researcher.
Geri:Nice. That's interesting. Anything else to add there, Line?
Line:I think Niklas mentions a really good practice example. So yeah, we sometimes have different takes on how to discuss dilemmas and how to be together and stuff like that. But, but I think that's, that's A good example.
Geri:Yeah, and it's also a nice example of the way that everyone, you know, the structure of that is based on an assumption that everyone's got a contribution they can make to discussing it. And that valuing of what you all do together to create that environment.
Line:And I guess it's also shows that everyone do have struggling and do have something that is difficult. So creating this session, we saw that despite the level that you have, everyone is struggling and that's like being transparent and being a bit vulnerable to each other in the research group.
Geri:And, it sounds like very solution focused as well. It's not just the wallow pit of we're all struggling. Woe is us. But what can we learn? What can we do?
Nicklas:Yeah, it's not like we didn't find an answer for every question at all, every dilemma we brought up. But just the fact that people are discussing it are sometimes helping you a bit closer towards the real answer if you can actually find it in this situation.
Geri:Indeed. So Nina, what an amazing research environment.
Nina:Yeah, we were very excited when we went through all the applications, but particularly this one from Line and Nicklas. Yeah.
Geri:Yeah. You, you said before that, in doing this over three years and seeing all the different applications, how many applications might you get in each year?
Nina:So it varies a little bit, but we've had altogether over a hundred applications from very different research environments from all across the country.
Geri:And so what are some of the patterns that you're seeing around what makes a good research environment? And the fact that there are a hundred groups who feel like they've got something to celebrate or to write up about is encouraging that, that there are good environments out there. So yeah, what are some of the patterns?
Nina:The most common thing is that people describe that they have a sense of belonging to their research environment. That's the most important factor. But then exactly how to create a research environment where people get the sense of belonging. That's where we really appreciate when people come up with these examples of what the environment does for them. To create that sense. So that includes having a common purpose within the group or a common identity, a defined mission that people can jump onto. And also, ways of promoting diversity and ensuring that people can be their true selves, that they feel comfortable as the person they are, uh, when they are in the group, it's having a shared set of values that people can agree to having clear expectations. So people know what, uh, what is expected. And that they can feel a sense of accomplishment when they are meeting those expectations. It's supporting collaborations, uh, with both within the group, but with other researchers from different countries. Uh, setting up new collaborations and supporting that these next generation of scientists, of researchers can explore that. It's having a way to foster and value creativity. uh, setting up structures where people have time to explore creative ideas and discussing new ideas in an environment where they're not afraid to express those ideas and they can get constructive feedback both from peers, but also from the top and bottom and from visiting scholars. As Line and Nicklas also said that it builds on initiatives from the top and from the bottom. So everybody contributes, it contributes in their own way to this environment. Also having some structure, so having regular meetings for discussing both research, but also mentoring aspects and career advice. So one example is that some groups have alumni days where they invite past members, uh, back and, uh, they sometimes help the next generation of researchers into their next job opportunities or into new networks. Uh, and it's having social activities and rituals, uh, rituals for graduation parties. It can be writing Christmas cards, to past members or something like that. But then also. One of the most common things that people mention is to celebrate both the successes, but also addressing failures and viewing failures as an opportunity to learn and to grow.
Geri:Mm,
Nina:And some research groups even celebrate advancements in their fields, uh, as a positive twist on this often very competitive environment that if you acknowledge and celebrate when there's a major advancement in the field, that's a very positive thing. Um, which just creates the sense of, uh, curiosity and you want to understand things no matter if that result is from your group or from somebody else. And you're just excited about the new discoveries.
Geri:So much there. I love some of the specific examples as well that you gave. I'm curious if you have any other examples that stand out for you. Of any of those aspects, you've talked about alumni days and celebrating rituals, things like that. So yeah. Any other examples?
Nina:So some groups have a structured time of creativity where they block it out in their calendar and then that's what they focus on. And then for this period of time, they're not working on taking off stuff from that to do list. That's time to walk out in nature and discuss and explore and people sometimes assign time for exploring new ways of communicating their research in different creative ways. And then going for outreach events, not as one person, but as a couple of people from the same group. So they can support each other in communicating what they have discovered. And then there's a quote that I really liked from a past research environment nomination. It has to do with being welcomed as a person where you feel safe and taken seriously. So what they wrote is that you can get thrown into the deep water, but always with a colleague with a life jacket inside. So that's when you grow as a researcher. I just love that picture. And I think that's also the same kind of feeling came across in what Line and Nicklas wrote in their nomination, but in different words, but this sense where you, you just feel safe to say whatever comes to mind. You, it might be the next big discovery of next big research idea. And so we need to, uh, develop those skills and make sure that it's in place because we have so many major challenges and just even asking the right questions and coming up with solutions, people need to come forward with that best ideas.
Geri:Yeah. And, we talked at different points about the interdisciplinarity and the increasing importance of that for solving some of the really hard challenges we have now, we've always had, but recognizing that we need these different perspectives. And What I hear across both Line and Nicklas's specific experiences and what you've reported on from across them is the value of, you know, you talked about belonging and Line or Nicklas, I can't remember which one of you talked about being seen and heard. And, and also being seen and heard as whole people, like belonging isn't just that you wear the t shirt with the name of the lab on it, it is that really human level sense of belonging and being able to show up and be real, like, make mistakes. And what I also heard was creating the spaces for the conversations and the ideas to incubate and grow and to be shared and enhanced as well. And whether that's being able to try out new initiatives or solving dilemmas together or going off. I like the idea of the going off on the walks where you're just, you're exploring ideas together to create that space for creativity. Cause I don't know, it feels like academia can get so focused on the stress and the pressures and the competition and pushing it the next paper that we actually don't create space to think.
Nina:We need more time for deep thinking.
Geri:And that we don't do that alone. Yes. I mean, obviously we think, but we do our best thinking with one another and bringing together all the different contributions. And so it sounds like what's creating these good environments are the more subtle, nuanced aspects of how to do that, creating those spaces. And the trusted relationships in which to have those exploratory, open conversations.
Nina:Yeah, definitely. So that's a part of having a clear set of values in the research environment where, where it's, those things are valued high enough to take actual space in the calendars.
Geri:Yes. So talking about values, and Line and Nicklas may want to come in with what they think the particular values are of their group, although they did talk about that a little bit, but are there any specific values that you saw reflected across the nominations?
Nina:So Thats ways of ensuring that people can share their ideas and get feedback both from our senior researchers, but also learning from everybody in the environment. There might be a visiting person coming from a different university and then making sure that, that visiting, uh, might be a famous professor, that they get time to both discuss with the heads of the research groups, but equally important to schedule one on one meetings with the more junior researchers so that they have some time to bounce their ideas off this person who might have some, some great ideas for, uh, questions regarding the research.
Geri:Yeah. So a value that everyone's voice matters or everyone has a contribution to make. Yeah.
Nina:And then, then maybe it's an idea that, that won't win the next Nobel prize, but the idea might mature by bouncing off different people with different ideas and perspectives, and then maybe it will take a different shape or form, and then maybe then it will become something, uh, very interesting.
Geri:Yeah. Line and Nicklas, do you have anything to add there around what you think about the really core values that matter in a good research environment?
Nicklas:And I think in line with what Nina told about, talked about, the knowledge sharing both within the research unit, but also inviting people in from other research units to, to, share their research projects so you can get some inspiration into your own process. That's something we also appreciate in our unit and we invite other people in to give, uh, talks about how they do things in their, at their university, for example.
Geri:That also sounds like a very practical illustration of the celebrating the successes of the field and celebrating people in the field as well. And I'm sure people coming in would experience that in the group, that they're not there to have their brains picked and ideas stolen, but celebrating collectively.
Nina:And that's also important for people to build their research networks. So maybe people would, uh, want to pursue a postdoc abroad or something like that. And then they have already met one person in a different lab and it makes taking the contact to that person afterwards so much more easy. You know, the person you met them. So it's a, it's a good way of helping people to develop their international network as well.
Geri:And again, another very specific example of the long term development that was in your award proposal or nomination for your group. But Line and Nicklas, do you have any particular rituals? You know, so Nina talked about rituals. And the importance of rituals.
Nicklas:I'm not sure it's a ritual, but, uh, I talked with a PhD student who sometimes is connected to our research unit. So she's been a part of our, some of our monthly research unit. And she told me that what she really appreciated about our unit is that we always spend the first half an hour of first hour of a research unit for everybody to check in. To the meeting to, to just give a quick status on how are things going for them? What are they working on? Do they have some big project coming up or do they need help with something? And that opened my eyes for that being a, a really helpful, activity to do, to just get some knowledge about what I, all of my colleagues doing at the moment.
Geri:Mm hmm. Yeah.
Line:Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't say it's a ritual, but we also have these different kind of meetings. So once a month we have like a, a nerd meeting, we call it, where we go together in a group of the researchers focusing on the same area and then trying to go into the new research or going into the process where we are right at the moment to see how can we improve this part.
Geri:Mm hmm.
Line:So it's also a way to get a bit more specific on the research with the people from the group that are interested in the same area as you.
Geri:Yeah. Nice. So like the, it sounds like very deliberate thought to structuring different types of meetings for different purposes and different rhythms as well to those meetings. Nina, what, what are you doing differently having had the privilege of, as well as the work, I acknowledge that running these award schemes as part of the academy is probably a lot of additional work for you. And what have you learned for yourself? What are you doing differently from what you've read?
Nina:So one of the very easy things from our list of things to implement is, uh, to discuss about, uh, successes and failures. So I have that on a slide for our weekly group meetings, uh, in my research group, we discuss successes and failures. And then just, uh, just this week, I, I, I had to announce that well, there was a grant that we didn't get which I applied for. And of course, that's, uh, it would have been nice to get that grant, but, then we discussed that, uh, this this doesn't happen always, right, and we just, uh, need to try for the next one. And then the students who, uh, just joined the group where they, they ran an experiment once and it worked in the first shot, but then when they tried to repeat it, then, uh, none of the bacteria were growing on the plate as expected. So they all died. And so in the light of me not getting this research grant, then maybe a plate of no bacterial colonies is not too bad. It is repeated next week and then hopefully they will grow. Uh, so we had a discussion on this, uh, yesterday that it's nice to readdress these things, uh, that the new people in my group appreciated, uh, because they can look around and see, Even though you have a protocol and maybe I'm doing air quotes, it should work. It will never always work there. You'd have to optimize and try again. There's sometimes, for whatever reason, the experiment fails and you have to go back and try again and again. And, If you only look at the stuff that works and that gets granted or published, then it's so easy to feel like you're the only person where nothing works. So I think this is one thing that was easy to implement. Yeah, for sure.
Geri:I'm just trying to think of people who may be sceptical and, you know, if I play devil's advocate or try to imagine a critique, I could imagine someone saying, well, it's all very good having these nice research environments and it's okay to fail and you know, someone caring about your life outside work, but we're here to do research. So what does this mean for the science? How would you respond to that? What's the relationship between good environments and good work?
Nina:Yeah, so that's a question we get sometimes and how do we ensure that then there's time to do a really excellent research as well, if you take time away for these other things. But so then there's, the past few years, there's been a crisis in replication of some data and some papers get withdrawn due to fraud. And, sometimes You could imagine that some of these fraudulent data were generated because people were afraid to come forward and say it simply doesn't work. Um, so if you create the space to talk about stuff that's not working, then the incentive to, to come up with fraudulent data, Is reduced greatly. And I think so it's worth. This is another way where it's worth to promoting a good research environment because then it might reduce the risk of having some of this horrible data being published, which might actually harm people, but definitely it will harm the research field in general. And then one of the runner ups for the research environment this year, they highlighted that they actually are publishing negative data. So that's a new thing where some journals will accept research where they have a clear question and a hypothesis and then it comes out that this was just not how it worked. But, uh, it's still possible to publish. And it's good for the research field because then people don't have to spend time trying with the same idea. And also it, it, it builds people's CV. Then they have papers with negative data is also data. And also it would do that reduces the risk that some people would create fraudulent data and publish that. So I think there are more tangible potential outcomes, to highlight or to increase the quality of research at least sort of, uh, so potentially long term.
Geri:yeah, because that's where the learning happens and to do better work. Anything to add?
Line:I was just considering if we want people to do great research and do a really good job, we also know that people perform best if they are mentally healthy and in an environment where they feel safe. So if you want the best research and if you want someone to develop the best, we also need to create the environment that helps them do that. It's not a, an individual who perform, uh, alone. Maybe they can perform despite the environment, but not because of the environment. So we need to create environments where we perform together because of the environment.
Geri:That's lovely.
Line:my thought.
Nina:And so where people don't burn out because we spend up these resources training people and they acquire all these skills and knowledge and if people burn out and then they can of course carry on some of the skills. But if people burn out to the degree that they are not continuing to use those skills in whatever capacity, then that's such a waste of, uh, human, resources and people's time. And, um, so that's, that's
Geri:And the loss of the contribution they could have made Yeah. We should look at wrapping up. Are there any final thoughts each of you would like to make around great research environments or what you'd hope people might take away or do as a result of this conversation.
Nina:I hope that people listening in can continue the conversation and maybe come up with some ideas of how they might, uh, work on improving their research environment or whatever environment. I think all these points we discussed can be transferred to many different environments.
Geri:Yes. Oh, one question I have, Nina, I don't know whether you can answer. You said you got these hundred applications from all sorts of different areas. Do you see any disciplinary related patterns at all?
Nina:I see that people, uh, with major grants, centers of excellence, they have more financial resources to create a bit of framework for initiatives and they would maybe have funding for going on retreats, something like that, whereas smaller research groups or people in the humanities often don't have the resources for those kinds of activities. So we are very much taking that into account when we are looking at the applications, that there are some disciplinary differences. In the foundation for building research environments.
Geri:Really good points. And Line and Nicklas, any final thoughts from you, each of you?
Line:I agree with what Nina said. I think that people listening might hope to take into account that everyone play a role in the environment. So how can we give everyone a voice and, and hear what the different people need, despite different levels.
Geri:And what you've said is what they need and what they can contribute. Like that two way. Yeah.
Nicklas:Yeah. And then I think maybe the examples we have listened up here is not a hundred percent transferable into their environment, but maybe they can try to translate it into something applicable to their context.
Geri:Great. So thank you very much, Nina, Line and Nicklas for your time today and we celebrate with you your award for your excellent research environment and for all the efforts that people everywhere are taking to be part of the change about doing academia differently, because you said at the very beginning, Nina, about one of your most important. Motivations in setting up this prize was about needing new ways of doing academia. We can work on that together as well. And thank you for your contributions towards that.
Nina:Thank you.
Geri:You can find the summary notes, a transcript and related links for this podcast on www. changingacademiclife. com. You can also subscribe to Changing Academic Life on iTunes, Spotify and Google Podcasts. And I'm really hoping that we can widen the conversation about how we can do academia differently. And you can contribute to this by rating the podcast and also giving feedback. And if something connected with you, please consider sharing this podcast with your colleagues. Together, we can make change happen.