“…From an individual perspective, researchers may risk burnout trying to juggle the demands of large, globalized peer networks (Caretta et al. ), as well as isolating themselves from their core field, jeopardizing their career prospects (Jones ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This has been dubbed the paradox of interdisciplinarity (Woelert and Millar 2013) and is often explained by the difficulties in selecting review panels that are adequately qualified to review all parts of an interdisciplinary proposal (Boix Mansilla et al 2006, Record et al 2016. From an individual perspective, researchers may risk burnout trying to juggle the demands of large, globalized peer networks (Caretta et al 2018), as well as isolating themselves from their core field, jeopardizing their career prospects (Jones 2010).…”
There is a growing need for collaborative and interdisciplinary research in addressing global ecological challenges, and early career researchers (ECRs) often play a vital role in such ventures. But despite the desire for such approaches, forming new and interdisciplinary collaborations is risky, and disproportionately so for ECRs, whose perspectives on this topic are rarely heard. Here, we present common perceptions among ECRs regarding opportunities for intra‐ and interdisciplinary collaboration, and barriers preventing such collaboration from taking place. We also discuss possible solutions, and the ecological outcomes of fostering more collaboration. The perceptions discussed have been distilled from a two‐day workshop in New Zealand, aiming to investigate the potential for collaboration between 34 ECRs in distinct ecological disciplines across ten research institutes. Commonality in methodology or research aims was vital for potential collaborations to be considered worthwhile, but differences in spatial or temporal scales were a key disconnect that hindered numerous potential crossovers. Individual connectivity and institutional structures were commonly perceived as barriers to acting collaboratively in general. Specifically, barriers included having a small peer network, lack of access to funding, and concerns over the risk/reward ratio of forming new collaborations. Overcoming barriers will require active, practical support from institutions, funding bodies and mentors, and participants commonly called for specific funding support and the creation of ECR‐focused spaces to better foster collaborative behavior. Fostering interdisciplinary ECR collaborations in ecology was perceived to be useful in creating larger and more useful datasets and tools, and more scalable and transferable models and outcomes. Adopting practices that facilitate more ECR‐led interdisciplinary collaboration will help generate a more integrative understanding of ecological systems globally.
“…From an individual perspective, researchers may risk burnout trying to juggle the demands of large, globalized peer networks (Caretta et al. ), as well as isolating themselves from their core field, jeopardizing their career prospects (Jones ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This has been dubbed the paradox of interdisciplinarity (Woelert and Millar 2013) and is often explained by the difficulties in selecting review panels that are adequately qualified to review all parts of an interdisciplinary proposal (Boix Mansilla et al 2006, Record et al 2016. From an individual perspective, researchers may risk burnout trying to juggle the demands of large, globalized peer networks (Caretta et al 2018), as well as isolating themselves from their core field, jeopardizing their career prospects (Jones 2010).…”
There is a growing need for collaborative and interdisciplinary research in addressing global ecological challenges, and early career researchers (ECRs) often play a vital role in such ventures. But despite the desire for such approaches, forming new and interdisciplinary collaborations is risky, and disproportionately so for ECRs, whose perspectives on this topic are rarely heard. Here, we present common perceptions among ECRs regarding opportunities for intra‐ and interdisciplinary collaboration, and barriers preventing such collaboration from taking place. We also discuss possible solutions, and the ecological outcomes of fostering more collaboration. The perceptions discussed have been distilled from a two‐day workshop in New Zealand, aiming to investigate the potential for collaboration between 34 ECRs in distinct ecological disciplines across ten research institutes. Commonality in methodology or research aims was vital for potential collaborations to be considered worthwhile, but differences in spatial or temporal scales were a key disconnect that hindered numerous potential crossovers. Individual connectivity and institutional structures were commonly perceived as barriers to acting collaboratively in general. Specifically, barriers included having a small peer network, lack of access to funding, and concerns over the risk/reward ratio of forming new collaborations. Overcoming barriers will require active, practical support from institutions, funding bodies and mentors, and participants commonly called for specific funding support and the creation of ECR‐focused spaces to better foster collaborative behavior. Fostering interdisciplinary ECR collaborations in ecology was perceived to be useful in creating larger and more useful datasets and tools, and more scalable and transferable models and outcomes. Adopting practices that facilitate more ECR‐led interdisciplinary collaboration will help generate a more integrative understanding of ecological systems globally.
“…Caretta et al . () advocate for a type of internal scholar activism or academic citizenship that discourages the strictures of timely completions and output‐based candidature and rather builds social connections, learning and well‐being, and ultimately, a higher chance of completion (Bednall, ).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Making the adverse impacts of neoliberalism visible and heard is an important part of in‐here activism within the system, which geographers should increasingly engage with. (Caretta et al ., )These and other ontological, existential, structural, and pedagogical changes require resources from institutions. Current higher education policy continues to reduce and/or freeze government funding and forces greater reliance on corporate finances and fee‐paying students in ways that have profoundly influenced the delivery and pressures upon doctoral candidates along with staff and other students (Dawkins, ).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Making the adverse impacts of neoliberalism visible and heard is an important part of in‐here activism within the system, which geographers should increasingly engage with. (Caretta et al ., )…”
Doctoral forms of study are now diverse, although debate exists about whether ontological differences separate the research‐based Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) from alternative doctoral forms that contribute to professional practice. The purpose and processes of doctoral study and prevailing market logics that suit the knowledge economy affect the doctoral experience. Solutions entail relationality between the ideas that members of society hold about the ontology and purpose of the PhD and alternative doctoral forms, individual existential desires, and the materialities of the contemporary workplace. The PhD discursively contributes to both academic and professional becoming, with deep disciplinary mastery of threshold concepts. Disciplinary learning groups offer a critical and sometimes transforming experience. In addition to preparing the next generation of academics, the traditional PhD offers high‐level generic skills that are rare outside academia. In geography, especially, these skills are increasingly valued in society, not least when combined with diverse content that is highly relevant to contemporary global challenges. Institutions might help staff and candidates resist neoliberal tendencies for timely completions and offer a more appropriate learning experience, alongside ethical and transparent promotion of the purpose and practices of the doctoral experience. In time, such changes might signal a transformation influencing how all actors from society, the institution of higher education, supervisory staff, and doctoral candidates imagine doctoral and post‐doctoral work—“acknowledging” doctoral expertise and its societal value from both within and outside the academy.
Our chapter builds upon feminist understandings of the more-than-human, using our experiences of working with peasant farmers involved in seed saving (Leila) and activists’ relation to individual environmental practices (Karijn). Through a dialogue around our experiences, we reflect on feelings of discomfort, and how, rather than resolving our anxieties, discomfort has the potential to open up conventional ways of being a researcher. Focusing on relationality through embodied and processual research challenges the notion of method as a tool used by a disembodied researcher observing an inert or external world, a central concern of feminist-oriented research. We show how participating in plural and more-than-human worlds also challenges multiple binary positionings and allows for unwarranted surprises that might undo the assumptions and categories underpinning our research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
