Conference Season

by Kim Brown and Tracy Rogers

Kim

  Photo: Tom Moore inflatable art taken by K.B

I must confess to some uncertainty about the benefits of going to a conference. Not the going overseas for a few days, staying in a hotel and experiencing a new city aspect, I had no doubts about that part. My uncertainty revolved around the amount of effort that goes into preparing a 15-minute presentation, and what I might subsequently gain from that amount of work. 

And it is fair to say that a considerable amount of work goes into a conference presentation, however, being able to communicate key ideas to a group of strangers in a short time is a useful exercise for whatever field we might find ourselves in after completing a PhD. And so it was that the night before my slot, and early the following morning, and during the keynote speech, and skiving off during the session before mine, I was still messing about with my presentation! I had too many slides, too much text, I was missing an image reference, and generally being very paranoid. Presenting is quite a skill; as an audience member it is easy to recognise the presentation don’ts, but people who present well have an ease and assuredness that must only come with practice. We may not all have the luxury (or nightmare, depends on your position) of presenting at international conferences, but my take-home learning is be clear in my own thinking about my key message, and concentrate on communicating that message clearly. The lonely scholar discourse has been around a while now! 

Slide from my presentation 2016

What of the conference? I attended the Quality in Postgraduate Research Conference, in Adelaide. I met some great, like-minded people who I enjoyed spending time with, and who were interested in my research. I learnt a lot about current doctoral discourses, and heard some very thought-provoking presentations. Adelaide is a great city, easy to navigate, and has free bike hire, as well as larger than life art. Amazing fresh food too! 

 

 How did the presentation go? Well enough; I was asked lots of questions that will be useful to think about when writing up my findings, and offered the chance to collaborate with someone I met. Since I was the only person who knew what I'd missed out, I must have said enough!

Tracy

Photo: Tracy Rogers

Before I embarked on my trip to the UK for the International Girls' Studies Association inaugural conference, I thought that it was an awfully long way to go for 15 minutes of 'fame' (my allotted presentation time). But even after enduring two long haul flights and three trains to reach the little city of Norwich, I realised that the trip was absolutely worth it.

Firstly, it was such a rewarding experience to be at a conference solely devoted to the study of girls, in all its many forms and disciplines. There were studies investigating girls' leadership; girls and anorexia; girls' migration; girl culture on YouTube; wartime girlhood; Victorian girls; queering girlhood; girls' activism; and the list goes on. Over the three days of the conference, I never missed a session as I soaked up the information. I attended sessions that related to my own study on girls' schooling and identity in the Global South, as well as other presentations that were totally unrelated, but still really enjoyable and informative.

The second rewarding aspect of the conference was being able to present my study to an audience interested in girls' education. There was a total of three presenters in my session called 'The politics of global girlhood'. The other two women had independently done work with school girls in Zanzibar and Kenya. Our studies complimented each other and it was reaffirming to know that the work I have done so far is of interest to others. (This is not always the case when we, doctoral students, often work away in our little thesis bubble).

Lastly, by far the best aspect of the conference was the networking. I met so many amazing women from a variety of disciplines who really lent to an atmosphere of 'sisterhood'. And as most of us were staying on campus, we had the opportunity to share our work over breakfast and dinner. We even managed a last night fling in Norwich's famous lanes district - an area of small cobblestone lanes lined with quaint restaurants and bars. As a PhD student, and the only Kiwi at the conference, getting to know other more experienced researchers from around the world was hugely rewarding. I have since been in contact with many of the women I met at the conference. And there is talk of hosting another conference next year in Canada!

So if there is one bit of advice I can offer other Postgrads planning to attend a conference, that is to choose your conference very carefully. Think about who else is presenting, what the make-up of your audience will be, and whether the conference really targets your area of interest. Because if the focus of the conference is too broad, it will be more difficult to find academics and other individuals who are interested in your topic.

And you don't want to miss any networking opportunities following your 15 minutes of fame! 


[Unless otherwise stated photostock images in this post are from unsplash.com ]

More than a 'talkfest'

 by Keely Blanch, Kim Brown, Rafaella, Sarah Bartley, Maxine, Shannon, Byron, Prof. John Tarter, and Dr. Keryn Pratt.

This post is a collaborative effort from the last session of our research symposium. We asked the attendees at this final session to join us in blogging about what they had taken from the day. 

We've put this post together after spending the day at the inaugural UOCE Education Graduate Research Symposium. Kim Brown has written in the previous post about the value of research symposia as a way of drawing upon collective knowledge to iron out some of the issues in your research. As she noted in her post, Kim saw this concept in action in another department and, luckily for us, imported it into the UOCE.

As well as providing an opportunity to discuss our research, the 'talkfest' let us meet new people, hear about a variety of research topics and approaches, and create a collegial atmosphere. We've already started discussing when we will repeat the experience later in the year - although there are a few points noted by the experienced academic researchers who attended.

Kim:

Finding commonality of experience takes effort. To learn that there are people encountering similar dilemmas or challenges means making the time to listen. Talking about research with peers and academics does not avoid asking the hard questions, but provides the opportunity to ask in a supportive way. 

Rafa: 

It has been a very fruitful experience because the forum gave me the opportunity to debate issues of my research and gave new perspectives for my research problem. In addition, discussing other people's studies provided me with numerous methodological insights.

Sarah:

Today was a great opportunity to hear the 'process' and journey and pain of the other postgrads. It gave me a real sense that I wasn't alone in my struggles with the aspects of research like methods design and question design. As a new research student, it is easy to get the impression that everyone else has it all sorted. 

Maxine:

I found today helped me consolidate some of my thinking and provided me with new ideas to consider in my research. I thought today was timely to get me back into study for the year. It was also a good time to reconnect with people and share ideas about a range of different topics. 

Shannon:

The research forum today was a good use of time as it sparked new questions and introduced other ideas and methodologies which could be applied to my own thesis. The informal nature of the setting (around the table, not standing up in front of others) and the varied methods of sharing ideas (writing/ pairs/ chatting/ discussing) added to the ease in which ideas could be discussed. Great coffee and food too!

Byron:

Benefits included the identification of a research community of people on the same path; sharing of ideas and troubleshooting, but always allowing me to reflect on my own research. The topics may not all be linked, but methodologies, theories etc could be exactly what you're looking for; friendly faces that you now feel you can ask, "Hey, where is....?" or "How do I....?"; a chance to 'escape' journal articles, library shelves and office space for the day. 

John:

Some tips: in presenting a study, use a theoretical framework - why would one expect a given outcome from a study? The question presupposes a rationale that argues for the 'so what' of a study; give a conceptual definition of the idea being considered and if possible, an operational one as well; research should try to look at the relationship between two variables at a minimum.

Keryn:

It's been great to have an informal opportunity (i.e. not lots of preparation) to get feedback from people in a wide variety of areas/ expertise.There is a danger though that it could be distracting/ confusing to students, especially those new to the research process!

Keely:

There is a risk when introducing something new that the proposed concept may not be clear, and thus not valued as a beneficial form of research engagement. I admit that, even though I had seen a similar format of this in action as an observer, I underestimated the benefits of participating in a symposium. I would say that I am now convinced that no matter how far through the research/thesis process you are, a symposium like this can be helpful. For instance, the discussion in response to my question was robust (and at times put me on the spot!), and the points raised initially mirrored what I had been reading and writing about. However, I also came away with new leads, new phrasing to search, and questions that hold implications for my data analysis. It can be easy in thesis study to become immersed in our narrow fields of knowledge. For me, the research symposium allowed me to draw upon the collective knowledge of people with different theoretical frameworks, methodological understandings, and research experiences.

Research symposia- when a talkfest is good!

By Kim Brown

I recently took part in a two-day research symposium with fellow postgrads, researchers and academics and spent the whole time talking. Yes, two whole days talking! To be fair there were periods when I listened or ate something, but the majority of the time was spent engaged in discussion, problem solving and debate. It was great. I am six months into my PhD, not long enough to know differently, yet already I would describe a distinct managerial tone to the doctoral process. By managerial I mean an emphasis on productivity measured in units of time and incremental research outputs: “set milestones working backwards from anticipated hand-in date”, “write daily for X number of minutes’, “publish publish publish” (so firmly established as a research mantra that the verb now exists in triplicate), “attend conferences”, and so on. Of course, this is all sound advice intended to support prompt completion of the PhD and an academic trajectory, but it feels like the nasty tasting medicine that is supposed to do you good. In such a managerial environment of study, the prospect of two days simply talking and listening may fill some with horror. Fear not, I will endeavour to explain why attending a peer talkfest is time well spent.

For the symposium I attended, each participant had an allocated 20-minute slot, with a maximum of seven minutes talking to the group, PowerPoint presentations were banned and timings strictly enforced. Participants tended to give a brief overview of their research and then presented a research issue, conundrum or dilemma to the whole group. Most participants asked their peers to respond to the given question/issue in smaller groupings, taking feedback in various ways. Participants regularly moved to a new seat around a large table arrangement, enabling (or forcing) people to meet and work with others. The format of the day included generous breaks and good food – both conducive to productive and amiable conversation. If the absence of PowerPoint presentations has not already sold you on the idea of this type of symposium, let me expand upon the benefits.

I was unsure of what to expect so had not prepared for my slot, I did, nevertheless, have a few gnarly research issues plaguing my research design that I could share. I am studying peer learning practices amongst doctoral students, and despite a successful pilot study, I couldn’t quite nail the crux of my overarching research question. And then it came to me, sitting in a room of collective expertise, confusion and collaboration. What I am really interested in is how doctoral students cultivate collegiality in an academic environment. Not quite a eureka moment, but very confirming in terms of locating my research. When my turn came, I was able to ask people to describe what characterises collegiality in a scholarly community. Enough about me however! We got to hear about other people’s research as it was happening in down-to-earth terms.

 

The symposium offered the means for all members of the department equally to seek ideas, insight and feedback. In our time regulated everyday environments, snatched conversations at sites of productive encounters (that’s the water cooler/heater) can be very helpful. The colloquium environment supported breadth and critical engagement with diverse responses. Creativity is often paired with critical thinking in the doctoral toolbox; Vygotsky proposed that creativity is a process by which individuals learn to face conflicts and contradictions, and to focus on future objects or trajectories. Drawing on collective creativity we can rework and process these issues, illuminating and elevating everyday experience. In other words, it was fun, useful and supportive!  

Research symposia take many forms. I have attended formal symposia that involved conventional presentations with the associated pressure to perform. To describe this symposium as informal is perhaps a disservice, since I would be comparing a developmental and collegial environment to a rarefied, and some would say competitive, academic forum. A developmental research symposium is time-well spent because it is demanding of thought and effort, it’s a talkfest where responses are immediate and there’s nothing wrong with a little instant gratification.

We are in the process of organising a postgrad developmental research symposium in the second department I’m associated with, look out for the follow-up blogpost.

Festivalling: Week Two

by Keely Blanch
 
This year Grad Research School treated postgrads to a full-on ‘Inger’ experience by persuading offering The Thesis Whisperer, Dr. Inger Mewburn, the chance to escape Australia for the lovely shores of NZ to present THREE seminars in two days. For anyone who hasn’t seen The Thesis Whisperer presentations, I’d heartily recommend attending if you get a chance. The slides for Thesis Whisperer presentations are available from the ThesisWhisperer website, but they are no substitute for being there. Inger is so friendly that feel you know her - she must feel stalked when complete strangers come up to her and start talking to her! On this visit, her presentation topics included ‘Social media and Academia’, ‘Tragic research mistakes and how to avoid them’, and ‘What do examiners want’. Sprinkled between these seminars were other offerings, such as tips on networking, opportunities to practice networking, and the Thesis in 3 awards (sadly I missed this last event as I was away, but more details are available at the GRS blog).

Social media and Academia 

(or Blogging and Tweeting – do I really have to do it?)

 

I admit I’m a Facebook addict  an enthusiastic user of social media, so I was keen to hear in this seminar about how I could turn the procrastination time-sink potential to an advantage. Other postgrads who are less keen on social media had come along wanting to know if they really did have to use this ‘stuff’ on the internet.

I still haven’t made up my mind about the first half of the seminar. There was a lot of talk about ‘the future’, accompanied by slightly depressing academic job stats and requirements, phrases like ‘more competition and more PhDs than ever before’, etc etc. The stats were Australian figures, but reportedly similar to those for NZ. But it is all in how you view them – for instance, I decided to be optimistic that only 14% of PhD grads were still looking for work 4 months after finishing. However, all these facts were a lead in to the main argument – that social media can be a good way to increase your academic profile and boost your chances not to be one of the 2% still looking for work a year after graduating.

First point - anyone can do social media. Second point – you do not want your first google footprint to be your university staff page. I immediately thought I could live with that as at least that would mean I was a staff member. I also did have to laugh when I googled ‘Inger Mewburn’ and the first result was the uni staff profile. However, the second result was The Thesis Whisperer blog, which illustrates a wider academic profile.

During her talk, Dr Mewburn covered ways to promote yourself online and where you should be focusing your attention. Hint - your 'basic' academic profile should include your uni page, Linked.In, ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Google Scholar, and about.me. Bonus points if you add Twitter, facebook, blogging and other social media.

In summary, using social media is one way to increase your academic profile, to stamp your mark on a concept, to be a networked scholar, and to expand your academic community.

(* for more about academic blogging, see the links at the bottom of the post)

 

Networking with Prof. Rachel Spronken-Smith

Immediately after hearing about networking via social media, we headed off to learn about face-to-face networking. Yes, with people. Was I the only one whose mind went from social media to networking and thought computer tech wizardry?

Professor Rachel Spronken-Smith continued the theme of promoting the importance of networking for academic careers. Labelled as Cats or Dogs, we mingled and completed activities aimed at helping us get to know each other and expand our networks. It was great to meet up with other PhD students from HEDC, as well as make contact with another blogging PhD student, Sherrema from The Smart Girl's Guide to Getting her PhD Abroad. Networking was working already!

PRANC - the networking party

This event was touted as a way to practise our newly-minted networking skills. Having re-caffeinated, and with the promise of more of the Staff Club's delicious nibbles (did someone mention truffles?) I set off to meet, greet, and work out who had the Lego Harry Potter castle in their office (sorry Claire, I already knew about your Lego village). Networking Bingo was tremendous fun, and conversations weren't just confined to 'what category can I put you in?'. By the end of the evening my head was swimming with names. Maybe I should suggest a seminar on how to remember which names and faces go together.

 

 

 

Tragic research mistakes and how to avoid them

Tuesday was all about The Thesis Whisperer.  In the morning seminar, Dr Mewburn discussed how research integrity is woven through all aspects of the project. It encompasses work practices, ownership of concepts, 'plagiarism' or ethical use of other people's work, and ethical research practices, including the ethics process and ethics review boards.

From a selfish view - a lack of research integrity by others may impact upon your work with disputes over claims of authorship, contribution to projects and so on. So protect yourself: keep an audit trail, negotiate and re-negotiate as needed in group projects, keep proof of your thesis progress (and feedback to prove ownership of ideas), etc. Although do remember that 99% of the time there aren't any problems!

For your participants - you want to ensure you act ethically during the research process and treat their data with respect. Part of this is gaining institutional ethics approval for your research before you start collecting data. Ethics is a bit of a hobby horse of mine so I was glad this got a mention! 

One important note is that ethical approval isn't just about protecting participants, it's also about protecting the researcher. On a selfish note again, without ethics approval granted before data collection, you may not be able to get your thesis examined, graduate, or get published in reputable journals.

What do examiners want?

The afternoon session started off with the curly question of what examiners actually want in a thesis. Recently Dr Clinton Golding of HEDC at Otago outlined what examiners do when they assess a paper (you can find his paper here). 

Dr Mewburn decided to approach the topic from a slightly different angle and talked about the 5 ways to fail your thesis. If you want to fail, don't talk to your supervisors about possible examiners for your thesis; send your thesis to a new examiner who is still relatively fresh out of their PhD and still sensitive and therefore hypercritical; write a bad literature review; make sure your introduction and your conclusion look like they come from different theses; don't use a copy editor to check for proofing, grammar, spelling errors. The good news is that only about 2% of PhDs fail outright. Most have to do some revisions. 

Things to think about if you want to pass: keep your thesis as small as possible - it indicates confidence and promotes clarity; make sure you hit key references in your field; check the conventions for your division when deciding what type of thesis and how to present it; go to seminars; ask advice; keep your intro short (about 2000-3000 words); assessment is based upon first impressions of abstract, intro, conclusion; make your thesis an easy and enjoyable read.

So a busy, but useful two weeks of festivalling. I hope you all got a chance to get along to at least one of the events this year. I can't wait to see what's on offer next year :)

 

Acknowledgments:

I'd like to say a thank you to Dr Inger Mewburn, aka The Thesis Whisperer, for generously sharing a link to one of this blog's posts via her popular Twitter and Facebook feeds.

Academic blogging links:

There seems to have been a bit of talk around academic blogging and/or use of social media this year. If you want to know more, Pat Thomson at Patter has written a few posts on the topic. Some of the recent posts have reflected on whether Doctoral researchers should blog, and the way social media offers a chance to experiment with our writing voice. Jonathon Sterne at Sterneworks offers some salient points to consider for academics thinking of blogging in his Blogging 101 for Academics post. The Guardian has also offered tips from Tom Crick and Alan Winfield for Academic Blogging, as well as a post from Pat Thomson and Inger Mewburn questioning why academics blog so much. Thomson and Mewburn have also written an academic paper on this topic, 'Why do academics blog? An analysis of audiences, purposes and challenges'. 

 

Festivalling - Week One

by Keely Blanch
 
Otago Uni has been buzzing lately with all the events for the Graduate Research festival. There has been so much on offer thanks to the wonderful team at GRS, and I'm not sure it's humanly possible to make it to everything available! Here's a quick rundown of my festival experiences so far.

Supervisor of the Year Awards

 

First up in my festivalling was the OU Supervisor of the Year awards. The awards themselves were a swanky affair - several of the presenters even breaking out suits for the event! (I'll admit that fact impresses me, because as a PhD student some days the only thing stopping me from a life in track-pants is having to go into the office - and even then it can be close.) We all assembled in the Staff Club, and partook of delicious food - especially those truffles! Mmmmm......

Competition for these awards is fierce. Students nominate supervisors, sing their praises, and wax lyrical. This wealth of data is then passed on to a hard-working judging panel, who have the difficult task of working through the glowing accolades and making the ultimate decision. Awards are made for Divisional Supervisors, and New Supervisor of the Year, as well as the supreme award. This year saw Associate Professor Ruth Fitzgerald, of Social Anthropology, crowned the OUSA Supervisor of the Year for 2014. Details of all the winners are on the Otago Bulletin Board. 

Otago Day of the Girl Symposium 

 

                    

The first week of the festival ended, for me, with a hectic, but very enjoyable day of symposiums and workshops. Although not part of the official festival programme, the Otago Day of the Girl symposium on Friday morning was a fabulous celebration of 'girlhood', with presentations from a wide range of 'girls'. There were films, pecha kucha talks, games, music, delicious food, and animated conversations throughout the morning. This event was put on by several hard-working UOCE postgrads - Kim Brown, Tracy Rogers, Lara Sanderson, as well as Assoc. Prof Karen Nairn, and a raft of helpers. All credit to the entire team for such a wonderful event!

Pointing the way to the comfortable venue at Executive Programmes, in the Commerce building.

Kicking the celebrations off with music from the Global Sounds Ukelele Group

NZARE Student Caucus Workshops 

 

Immediately after the Day of the Girl celebrations, we rushed (literally!) down to the College of Education for the NZARE Student workshops (also organised by UOCE postgrads led by Megan Anakin - we're a motivated group). It was heartening to see that these workshops drew a range of postgrads from across the campus. Much thanks to the four great presenters who agreed to generously give their time to talk us through various aspects of the postgraduate research journey. 

Dr Clinton Golding of HEDC was up first and presented  'Strategies for a successful research journey'. 

Key point  - it is your thesis, your research journey, your responsibility to do the work and get it finished. Clinton's analogy is that supervisors are like doctors - they can provide advice, but they can't do it for you.

Other points Dr Golding offered:

• Academic work/research is about being part of a community, communicating and sharing ideas with peers etc - Conveniently, there was a Networking seminar offered in the second week ;)
• you need to 'manage' your supervisor. That may fill some people with dread, but essentially it's about figuring out what works for both of you and negotiating. Tips are to consider using an agenda before the meeting to set tone, and follow that with a summary email [this tip also came up in a later seminar by The Thesis Whisperer, coming soon].
• supervisors give advice - you do not have to take it, but they are experts in their field, so ignore it at your peril.
• don't be scared to ask other researchers in your field for advice - just email them.
• Thesis writing is a roller coaster. Figure out what support you need and get it. 
• Plan, plan, plan - for the next ten years. Keep your eye on the end goal. Set micro-goals to get a sense of achievement which will help with motivation.
• write write, write - submit when you're 95% happy because you are never going to be 100% happy

 ----------

Our second workshop was 'Experimenting with our Academic Writing' presented by Assoc. Prof Karen Nairn. During this very interactive workshop, we worked in pairs to analyse a paragraph of our writing and try to improve it using the techniques offered by Williams, J. & Bizup, J. (2013). Style: Lessons in clarity and grace (11th edition). Boston: Longman. This book is available though the University Bookshop - and don't forget uni students get a discount. 

Key points are to concentrate on Subjects and Characters; Verbs and Actions; and Nominalisations. Our writing group has been using this book this year. Personally, I've found that focusing on the techniques can inhibit my first draft writing, but they are a useful tool at the re-write/editing stage. 

Dr Nairn is also offering a course for postgraduates in 2015. The aim of this course is to have a journal article ready for submission by the end of the course. More details are available at the GRS blog, or through the UO College of Education. 

----------

After a brief afternoon tea break with delicious food (there's a theme developing here....) we returned for the afternoon sessions.

----------

Assoc. Prof Martin Tolich from the Dept. of Sociology, Gender and Social Work introduced the topic of 'Planning ethically responsible research' and the need for the ethical review process. MA student Amber Chambers then talked about her MA findings, issues of gate-keeping and negotiating access, issues of confidentiality, and the need to expect the unexpected during the entire research process. This generated a discussion on the ways terminology such as 'gate-keeper' may construct the process of researching as adversarial. The topic of researching in schools drew particular attention, with some of the audience noting that principals have a duty of care to protect their busy staff from intrusions and distractions, although a counterargument offered is that teachers should be responsible for their own time management. 

----------

We rounded off the afternoon with an engaging talk from Dr Vivienne Anderson about her journey to 'Becoming an academic'.  Dr Anderson offered examples from her own roundabout route to academia to show that what may seem a left-field diversion can often turn out to lead you where you want to go. Good advice was to be strategic in your academic decisions, acknowledge all the skills you develop during your many twists and turns, and don't forget there is nothing to lose by applying! Although exhausted after our busy day, it was good to finish on a positive and inspiring note.

The UOCE postgrads and all who attended would like to thank all those who so generously and willingly gave their time to help make the day a great success. 

What was your key take home point from the day? Did you feel inspired? Did somebody say something that resonated with you? I'm sure there is so much more that I've missed from these brief notes, so add away in the comments.