Discussing sabbaticals with Dr. Amber Genau, an associate professor of materials science and engineering within the University of Alabama at Birmingham

Overview: This post is one of 23 interviews with scholars about their research process and career.  My discussion with Dr. Amber Genau focused on what she learned by taking a sabbatical and advice for other faculty who are interested in embarking on one.

---

Dr. Genau recently completed her first sabbatical in Germany (Spring 2019).  Most academics can apply for sabbatical leave every seven years. This break from teaching obligations is meant to allow the faculty member to learn new techniques, expand a research program, or finish a book manuscript or set of articles they’ve been too busy to complete. Most faculty are funded by their institution for nine months (fall and spring) and they typically have the choice between a one semester (fully funded) or two semester fall/spring (partially funded) sabbatical.  The interview began with soliciting Dr. Genau’s thoughts on being a faculty member and pathway into her faculty position, as I believe that every unique path is of interest. However, I specifically sought to speak to Dr. Genau to get her perceptions on the mechanics of taking sabbatical and the benefits of this experience. I hope this information will be useful to other associate professors taking their first sabbatical or any other faculty hoping to get the most of a secondary sabbatical. 

About Dr. Genau:  After finishing her PhD at Northwestern University, she spent two years as a guest scientist at the German Aerospace Center (DLR) in Cologne, Germany, working in the Institute for Material Physics in Space. In 2010, she joined the Materials Science and Engineering Department at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), where she is now a tenured associate professor. Since then, her group has produced research that has helped elucidate the solidification behavior (and microstructure) of alloys. Their work has been supported through many awards including the NSF CAREER award (2016). You can find her most recent publications on Google Scholar.

---

You chose the tenure track rather than pursuing a position within a national laboratory or industrial facility after completing your PhD in materials science. Why?

I decided to get my PhD and then apply for a faculty position because I was really drawn to the idea of teaching and mentoring college students.  These students are going through a very formative experience, growing in terms of both their technical fields and personal growth.  As a faculty member you are often assigned to teach students at several points in their curriculum and can watch this growth in real time.  One of my favorite parts of my job has been watching students mature and gain confidence in themselves as engineers between the time that I meet them as sophomores in our intro to materials class and when they graduate several years later.  As a faculty member, I also enjoy continuously improving my pedagogical skills to help students better master the core concepts presented each term.  

What has been the most unexpected aspect of being a faculty member?

I am not sure that this is unexpected, but its impact on me was larger than expected.  When students cannot see the utility in the course material, I feel like I need to both help them learn the objectives for the course and “sell” them on the importance of the material. I feel it more often when I teach courses to those outside my discipline in introductory courses (such as a first- or second- year course). The flip side of this is that teaching students majoring in materials was always a thrill. I think materials science is fun and getting to engage/challenge students to really think about why things occur leads to great discussions.  Another surprise is that I enjoy helping students develop their non-technical skills such as writing.  In my classes, I really want students to walk away with core knowledge and the ability to convey that to others through clearly written abstracts, etc.  

What has made you “feel” like a researcher at the different stages of your career progression (undergraduate to associate professor)? Why?

During my senior year, I enrolled in a BS/MS program. That gave me the ability to start work on graduate-level research (in my case, characterizing atomized Al-Si powder) while still finishing my undergraduate classes. About a year into my research work, I had my first research “Eureka” moment.  I was characterizing some samples with a scanning electron microscope and while mulling over the results I realized that I had been making a fundamental mistake in phase identification. At that moment, everything I thought I knew about this system rearranged in my head and the pieces came together in a way that made so much more sense. That was the first time I felt like a “researcher.”

Today, I don’t really see myself as a researcher anymore – I supervise other people who do research, which is an entirely different job.

What do you see yourself as since you don’t identify as a researcher?

Now, I am an academic/a professor. On any given day, I transition between roles of instructor, manager, facilitator, trainer, or chief problem solver (for example, figuring out how to repair broken equipment in my lab or why an experiment didn’t work as expected).

I was a “researcher” as a graduate student and as post doc and even during those initial years as a faculty member. That identity for me, however, began to shrink as other academic identities strengthened. It was fun to step into that role again on sabbatical (but those questions are coming later).

Speaking of that, why did you decide to do a sabbatical in Germany? With so many options, why did you choose to return to Germany?

I considered a number of different options and talked to a variety of people before deciding on Germany.  In the end, it was a place that I both knew I could do good work and a place I wanted to spend time. I really enjoyed my colleagues and the German culture when I worked there as a postdoc in 2008-2010 and had always wanted to go back for a longer period.  I had several ongoing collaborations with German researchers that I thought could be strengthened by a longer visit. I also bring UAB students to Germany on faculty-led study abroad trips, where we visit universities, labs and companies across the country, so I hoped to build out the connections I make on this trip as well.

What were your responsibilities when you were on sabbatical?

Because so much communication is digital these days, it was hard to completely break away from my responsibilities at UAB even though I wasn’t physically there.  Except for not having to teach, my job didn’t really change much while I was on sabbatical. I still had students progressing in their research, proposals to write, professional society commitments and a few administrative responsibilities that I didn’t know how to offload.  I now try to tell others preparing for sabbaticals to put as much of that on ice as possible until after they return.  Faculty should try to disconnect from nonurgent responsibilities at their home institution so that they can be fully present in their sabbatical experience. 

How did you know it was time to apply for a sabbatical? What prompted you?

I knew theoretically that sabbaticals existed.  However, my department did not have a tradition of faculty taking their sabbaticals, so it was not on my radar.  In the 12 years I’ve been here, I’m still the only one in MSE who has taken one. 

In 2018, my department held a mock review for an accreditation review by the nonprofit ABET.  This is a practice session for an engineering department who is getting ready to submit for accreditation from the nonprofit ABET who reviews programs offering bachelor’s degrees in applied and natural science, computing, engineering, and engineering technology.  Our external reviewer, Chet Van Tyne from Colorado School of Mines, asked me if I was thinking about sabbatical.  He had taken the time to review my CV and knew I was eligible. At the time, I had been at UAB almost seven years and just earned tenure. After that meeting, I went back to my office and searched the UAB electronic faculty handbook. Sure enough, our handbook laid out the requirements Chet alluded to and sabbatical was something I could apply for. At that point, I started thinking and planning.  To this day, I still say, “God bless Chet.”  Without him, it would not have happened.

How did you determine your priorities or goals for your sabbatical?

Initially, I thought only about the research aspect of the sabbatical. I took some time to decide where wanted to go and outlined a plan before setting up a meeting with my department chair.  I remember enthusiastically explaining how great a sabbatical would be for my research productivity.  I rattled off all the amazing equipment I would have access to when I visited another laboratory. At that point, my chair stopped me.  He reminded me that the word “sabbatical” comes from the Biblical idea of sabbath – of rest. He made the point that if I just wanted to go somewhere and use microscopes not available on the UAB campus, I could do that during the summer without being on sabbatical. He challenged me to reconsider my plans based on those thoughts and to really develop a plan that would make my sabbatical time special. But we both knew that sabbatical activities still must be relevant to a person’s development as a faculty member.  My chair suggested, tongue-in-cheek, that perhaps I could climb a mountain and read research papers at the top.  The balance I struck was that I decided to spend the first month of my sabbatical taking an intensive language course. I had always wished my German were better and given my research and educational connections to the country, setting aside time to improve my language skills seemed like an exciting and appropriate use of sabbatical, since I would be able to collaborate more closely with colleagues in the country.

How early did you need to apply? What was your application process like?

It was September of 2017 when I first got the idea of taking a sabbatical. I started talking to my chair about it the following spring and submitted the official paperwork in summer for 2018. I was then actually on sabbatical the first six months of 2019. UAB requires sabbatical applications to be submitted 6-12 months in advance. There is a short and straightforward form to fill out detailing when the sabbatical will be, how it is being funded, and how your campus responsibilities (teaching, research, admin, etc.) will be handled while you are away. I also had to submit a plan of activities for the sabbatical period, which ended up being about a page long. And I had to sign a document committing to return to my university for at least a year after the end of the sabbatical and promising that I would submit a “concise report of activities” upon my return. All of that had to be approved by my chair, my dean, the provost, and the president before the leave was officially approved.

Sabbatical leave can range between 6 months to a year. Why did you opt for a shorter sabbatical versus a longer one?

The arrangement at many universities seems to be a choice between six months at full pay or twelve months at half pay.  I opted for six months for a variety of reasons, one of which was just that leaving for a full year seemed significantly more complicated to organize.  In addition, I would have felt bad leaving my graduate students (and my husband, whose job kept him in Birmingham) for any longer. While we touched base virtually, it was not the same as being in person.  It was also financially easier to go for only six months because UAB paid my normal salary the whole time. There are opportunities for external sabbatical funding from organizations like Fulbright or the German Academic Exchange (DAAD), but they must be applied significantly in advance and I wasn’t organized enough to manage that.

How did you keep your research group at UAB “moving” while you were abroad?

This was hard.

I exchanged a lot of emails with my graduate students during my sabbatical. I also went back to UAB in the middle of the six-month period for a couple weeks of in-person meetings. If I had to do it over, I would have instituted regular Zoom meetings with my group from the beginning.  While the technology of course existed, I somehow did not consider it in those pre-COVID times.

What advice do you have when selecting a host (researcher and/or institution) for your sabbatical?

Important considerations when choosing where to sabbatical include identifying what you will be doing, who you will be working with, and the physical location of the host institution. I knew I wanted to work with someone in my field who I could learn from and hopefully build or grow an ongoing collaboration with. I made a list of possible places and talked to several people, many of whom I knew through my involvement in professional societies like the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society (TMS).

In the end, I decided to go to Access e.V., an independent research lab associated with RWTH Aachen University, and work with Dr. Ulrike Hecht. The group she is part of is one of the best in the world at solidification science and always has several different cutting-edge projects going on that combine experimental, modeling, and simulation aspects. From my past interactions with her, I knew she was not only an exceptional scientist, but also a good mentor and a very kind person.

So how was your sabbatical? Did you meet the goals you set for it?

It was fantastic, both personally and professionally.

First of all, I got to get back into a laboratory and feel like a researcher again. I’d forgotten how much I enjoy sitting at a microscope and analyzing my own data. I processed and imaged samples from home for my students, using equipment that we don’t normally have access to. I started a new project related to what my hosts at Access e.V were working on and got some great preliminary data for new proposals in a highly fundable area. I also was able to attend a couple European technical conferences, and I was then asked to become part of the scientific advisory committee for one of them. One unexpected bonus turned out to be a connection I made with an RWTH PhD candidate, who came and worked with me at UAB the following year.

Taking the language course was a wonderful break from “real life.” It was really challenging to be on the other side of the classroom and gave me new empathy for my students. I’d forgotten how hard it is to sit and pay attention to a long lecture and how exhausting it is to learn something completely new. The class also made me conversational in German, which was a longtime goal.

Finally, just being in Germany was lovely. I got to travel, to enjoy the food and culture, and to spend time with old friends and make some new ones. Being away from home and my daily routine provided a good chance to reflect on my life and career: what was going well and what wasn’t, what I wanted from the future.

Any advice on the homefront (getting a temporary apartment, finances, etc.)?

An acquaintance at RWTH pointed me towards some websites used by RWTH students to find apartments, which is how I found a sublet.

That same person also showed me the German equivalent of Craigslist, which I used to buy a bike that I rode to work every day (and then used to resell it when I left). Like many large universities, RWTH is used to playing host—they have an office dedicated to helping visiting researchers (and their families) that I wish I had known about and gotten connected to sooner. The institute secretary was also a wonderful source of help and advice.

So, your department chair really emphasized the idea of rest to you. Were you able to bring that concept home to UAB?

That’s a great question. I’m not sure. I definitely have taken more time to rest the last couple years, although often with a guilty conscience. As a faculty member, there are always so many things that can/should/must be done!  I am trying to be better at saying no to some things so that I have the time and energy to say yes to others.  I have some new things coming down the pipeline in the next year, so we’ll see how that goes and if I still manage to find time to rest. 

Interview with Dr. Jennifer Carter, the founder of the Mesoscale Science Lab at Case Western Reserve

 

Overview: This post is part of series of interviews with 23 scholars about their research process and path that will be conducted until the end of 2023. 

Dr. Jennifer Carter founded the Mesoscale Science Lab at Case Western Reserve in 2013 and is now a tenured associate professor and director of the Case School of Engineering Swagelok Center for Surface Analysis of Materials.  Her research involves interface-rich materials and those results have helped her earn both an NSF CAREER award and a Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers. You can explore her publications on Google Scholar.  

We have known each other through our involvement with the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society (TMS) and I am appreciative that she made the time to participate in this blog.  I emailed her a list of questions that I wanted to discuss, she emailed back some initial responses and then we met virtually to discuss further.  I summarized her thoughts, and our editor Kate Epstein did light editing for clarity.

What stood out to me in the interview was Dr. Carter’s strong identity as an academic rather than a researcher.  Academics focus on knowledge development (research) but also spend a significant amount of their time developing human capital.  As we chatted, it became clear how much of her time as a faculty member is focused on the training of early career scientists (undergraduates, graduate students, etc.).  If this surprises you, you should read the article “If you love research, academia may not be for you.”  In it, David Mathews sorted through data from the Rathenau Institute on faculty in the Netherlands and showed that professors spent just 17% of their time on their own research with the rest of their time teaching, research supervision, and “management and organizational tasks” taking up larger percentages.  

***

Q: What is your favorite part of the research process currently? 

Dr. Carter: I adore being the first to make an unexpected connection. For example, coastlines and dendrites look alike if you get rid of the scalebars. If we look at approaches from other fields, we sometimes stumble upon elegant solutions for emergent questions in our discipline.  

Q: What made you “feel” like a researcher at the different stages of education?

Dr. Carter:  At different stages of my career, it has taken different contributions to make me feel like a researcher.   

As a second-year undergraduate, I felt like a researcher as I was polishing samples and setting up experiments.

As a second-year graduate student, I felt like a researcher on the weekends when I was operating the scanning electron microscopy.  In that time spent collecting EBSD [electron backscatter diffraction] scans and simultaneously running the dual-beam FIB-SEM [focused ion beam scanning electron microscopy] to extract TEM [transmitted electron microscopy] foils, I felt excited to discover things no one else had ever seen. 

Now, as a faculty member, I feel most like a researcher at the beginning and end of a project.  As an academic, my time spent doing research is limited and most of the allocated research time is either spent mentoring others who get to do the hands-on work. Where I get to contribute now is in determining what research questions we as a team should focus on. That is, what challenges facing society need our attention and how our team could tackle an aspect of those challenges. 

Q: How do you explain your role as a “researcher” to family or friends?

Dr. Carter: I have always struggled conveying my role on research projects to friends because it depends on each specific project objective and the team assembled. As a faculty member, my technical contribution on research projects are typically aligned with those in mechanical engineering, materials engineering, physical metallurgy, experimental mechanics, microscopy, and data science. Often, I am stretching or pulling across discipline boundaries to bring to light new connections.

Though in reality, I see myself as an academic more than a researcher. When I reflect on the last eight years, my role most commonly is as an enabler for early career researchers, a translator between researchers as we explore science at the interfaces of disciplines, and a facilitator for the research process. While I did not expect this last role to be so prominent, I have found myself really asking the research team members to reimagine the biases that they bring with them and consider solutions that may lie outside of conventional norms. As researchers, it is important to ask ourselves if we as asking the right questions and considering all the solutions.  

I think when people outside of research and academia, they think “professors” work on a single area of focus or question for their entire careers. While this is applicable to some professors, I explain to my friends and family that my role as a “professor” means that I am a guide for early career researchers as they learn the research process and make discoveries across a wide array of topics.  I am passionate about the research process, rather than a specific research question, and enjoy this role.  

Q: Why did you decide to pursue a career that involved research? What was your motivation?

Dr. Carter:  I enjoy identifying meaningful research questions that when answered could have a large impact on society. I decided that I wanted to be an academic because I find joy in helping students find happiness and fulfillment. I can encourage engineering students to take appropriate technical risks and identify engineering solutions for challenges.  

Q: Where there any skills that you thought you would need but don’t as a researcher?

Dr. Carter: Honestly, I have been more surprised at the skills I didn’t think I would need but are important. The most surprising thing is the value of storytelling and the art of communication.

Q: What is your advice for an early-stage researcher (undergraduate or graduate student) who wants to be a lead researcher within their field?

 Dr. Carter:  I have three key pieces of advice. 

(1)   Learn how to clarify your role on a project and be critical about what you need to continue in the research process.  It can feel vulnerable to any researcher to voice that they are unclear of their role or the group’s expectations to the rest of the research team.  However, colleagues on a research project expect their peers to speak up for themselves, to self-regulate to meet the group deadlines, and produce the required results. 

(2)   Learn to sit uncomfortable with criticism. This is hard. It can feel personal. However, you will need to learn to move past your emotions and calmly listen to input.  

(3)   Be your own advocate. No one is going to look out for your well-being as well as you. Ask for any support you need. 

(4)   Clarify your motivation. Ask yourself, “Why am I excited to get out of bed in the morning?” and give it real thought. Don’t just answer this question with an idealized answer, but instead write an authentic response. Knowing your true motivation(s) will help you make better career decisions. 

(5)   Integrate reflection into your calendar. I reflect at the end of each month before planning the goals for the next month. This allows me to be more proactive rather than reactionary. During this reflection, I answer the following questions:

a.     What were my big wins this month?

b.     What worked well this month and what didn’t work? 

c.     What do I want to do more of next month and what do I want to do less of next month?

d.     What is on my mind and needs some attention?

e.     What things do I think I need help with and who can provide that help?

(6)   Cultivate a support group outside of your work colleagues. There are going to be challenging times and you will need to have support. However, this is something that your advisors or work colleagues may not be able to provide. If you need it—get a therapist!   

(7)   Make sure that your planned work week allows you time to think, talk with your colleagues, be healthy (mental health) and spend time on things that matter to you outside of work (for me that is my family). Watercooler conversations with colleagues have really been a benefit for my career by helping me to think about technical puzzles in new ways. We tend to jam so many meetings into our weeks, that we remove the opportunity for spontaneous chats with our colleagues. We should all have the space in our calendar to walk down the hall and chat. This is not (always) procrastination but an active effort of doing collaborative science.  

Q: There are so many *management tools* to help researchers improve their productivity or impact today. Can you highlight one management tool you think researchers should consider utilizing?

Dr. Carter: Hands down, a citation management system. I use Zotero.

Q: I keep hearing the suggestion to “align your research with your passions.”  Is this something that we should encourage researchers to do in all cases?

Dr. Carter:  I have seen this advice also and I am not sure it is the guidance I would give.  My “passions” have ebbed and flowed while my focus on the structure, properties, and processing of materials has been constant.  For example, I am passionate about helping students with mental health.  I can make an impact on student mental health without interweaving it into my materials research.   

I think a better idea is to align your research with your mission, the impact you want to manifest in the world. When I reflect on how I choose what research projects to pursue, I ask myself if the project will allow me to enable early career researchers at our institution (Case Western Reserve) to solve challenges related to energy or human health.  So, while I still apply for single investigator grants, I really want my portfolio to include projects where I can assemble larger groups of principle investigators. For example, I want to look at the collective needs for instrumentation in our region and then apply for a National Science Foundation Major Research Instrument grant.  Or can we engage in Research Experiences for Undergraduates to provide training opportunities that highlight that microscopy and computer vision are ubiquitous challenges in engineering solutions.  

Q: What journal article are you most proud of and why?

Dr. Carter:  I still get super excited whenever a journal article is published. After all the work that goes into doing quality research and writing, I am thrilled when editors accept the manuscript and still do a happy dance. At this stage as a faculty member, I don’t often take the lead on a paper.  It is normally one of my students who is the corresponding author and I think that they all do great work!  

So, I am going to change this question to include opinion pieces instead of articles.  I am really proud of one that I cowrote for JOM in 2019 with Laura Bruckman:  The Elephant in the Room: Where is the Empathy in Science?  There is a real need for our technical communities to both understand the impact of mental health challenges and to be inclusive of researchers who are impacted by those health concerns. A recent international study indicated that graduate students in STEM are six times more likely than the general population to experience clinical symptoms of anxiety and depression. That was so alarming that I grabbed Laura to write something that would present tools and techniques to other faculty on how they could support students while also enabling research advancements. Both can be and should be done synergistically. I really hope that publication helped others with mental health challenges in research to know that they are not alone.   

Q: You relatively recently earned tenure in 2020.  That process takes grit but comes with rewards. When did you first “feel” tenured? 

Dr. Carter:  My stress while on the tenure track eased when I received one of the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers, and that letter still hangs on my office wall.  So, I did not “feel” different the day that I got my official letter.  

However, I did notice a change in my empowerment.  When I earned tenure, I was more likely to both voice my opinion and remain resolved when engaging in discussion. I have also been empowered to take on additional roles that impact my institution and not just my research group. For example, I was asked to lead our electron microscopy facility. I LOVE directing this center. Working with the center staff to sculpt its offerings so that its focus aligned with the mission of our institution strengthened my visionary leadership. I am proud of what the staff have done. This past year, they have helped 150 unique early career researchers to conduct materials characterization for 93 funded grants.  

On a personal level, my tenure coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic. We had lockdowns go into effect in March 2020 and my tenure letter arrived in May 2020. Like many other working professionals with children, I was challenged to balance my work obligations with the additional roles of a kindergarten “teacher,” interpreter of the often-conflicting recommendations by state and national organizations, “daycare” provider, etc., while also trying to work from home. Having tenure helped me approach this really difficult situation calmly. Looking at our responsibilities (work and home), I honestly could only dedicate 20 hours a week to my responsibilities as a faculty member and I strategically put new research projects on ice until society returned to its new normal after lockdowns. I felt relatively prepared for the pandemic compared to other faculty because during my tenure process, I take taken two maternity leaves. Those periods gave me the confidence that could put research projects “down” for a short period and then pick the work up again successfully.  It won’t be easy or pretty, but it was a choice I was allowed to make again because of the privilege of tenure.

Q: What skills are critical for researchers to thrive at an academic institution?

Dr. Carter: It is vital that your mission aligns with that of your academic institution.  It is impossible to thrive when your convictions or personal mission are misaligned or opposing with the institution provided the framework for. If, and when, that ever happens, I would encourage you to find another institution to work at.   

When you are in the right institution, you will still need to have a thick skin and a strong backbone. A thick skin is needed to function in an environment where you have a lot of input on your work from reviewers, administration, peers, students, etc. That can feel overwhelming. The strong backbone is to stick with your own internal research plan and not deviate in response to a reviewer or colleague without strongly thinking about the impact.  

For those joining us in academia, know that you cannot measure your success in the time scale of a single day. The seasons of success and failure can be much longer. Some days I feel like I am not doing well. However, these are balanced with days that I am thriving such as when we have nucleated a new synergistic collaboration or a new idea. 

Q: My spouse and I are both researchers with career goals.  Yet, we have found that there are seasons when each of us needs to invest more at work to obtain our goals. Do you have any recommendations for navigating careers that you could share with us?

 Dr. Carter: During your career, you may need to put a project or goal on “hold” because it isn’t the right season for it. You can only pick apples in the fall and harvest maple syrup in the spring. You can have all the things you value and want; you just can’t have them all at the same time. 

 For navigating the dual-career issue, communication is key. A simple communication trick we have learned is to use shared calendar events. For example, we send the other person a calendar event that says ‘Can I travel’ when we are considering a work trip.  If the other person accepts the invite, we immediately know that they can manage the homefront for those days. And honestly, there are times when this breaks down and you have to apologize, pick up the broken pieces of that day, choose to continue to communicate and try to make it work.

Q: Is there anything else you wish I had asked that you would like a reader to know?  

Dr. Carter:  I think many people have an idealized view of what academic research is. While tenure in some sense gives us the freedom to study what we want, funding (and funding agencies) dictates the focus of our research teams in engineering and science fields. A key part of a faculty’s role is helping to educate funding agencies on how our work is valuable to their needs.  

As we educate early career researchers, we need to have honest conversations with them about their expectations when entering saturated fields (fields where many researchers are already contributing and competing for a limited number of funding opportunities). Early career researchers, no matter how brilliant, will have a hard time winning the attention of program managers away from established groups with large research teams. Program managers are expected to show results and therefore can be risk-adverse. However, that also means that funding is not based on the proposal alone but instead social capital of the research group.  This is a complex issue fraught with emotions surrounding societal inequities, and I don’t have an answer. What I do know is that it is hard to change a system from the outside, and now that I have tenure, I have an obligation to continue to ask if the systems we have are still appropriate. 

Acknowledgements: I must acknowledge Kate Epstein of EpsteinWords who edited this post. She specializes in editing and coaching for academics, and she can be reached at kate at epsteinwords.com.

Interview with Dr. Ryan Need, an assistant professor within the University of Florida Department of Materials Science and Engineering

Overview: This post is part of series of interviews with 23 scholars about their research process and path that will be conducted until the end of 2023. Dr. Ryan Need began their tenure-track position at the University of Florida in 2019, which meant that moved to a new location and were just establishing their research group as the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns began.  While the academic startup process requires focused energy to establish new collaborations, set a research group culture, etc., this time of remote mentoring added additional hurdles as they founded their group Quantum Materials Design Group. Ryan’s technical work currently focuses on creating and controlling interfacial chemistry and symmetry in thin film systems. You can learn more by exploring their publications here: Google Scholar link.  

This post was written in a collaborative manner.  I emailed Dr. Need a list of questions ahead of time and then met with them to discuss. I edited their responses to make sure that the key points of the discussion were clear, and Kate Epstein did light editing for clarity.

*** 

Q: When and why did you start conducting research (high school, undergraduate, graduate student)?

Dr. Need: I did some small “research” projects for science fairs as a high schooler, like building a sloped sandbox to study river patterns created by different flow volumes. While these were probably as much about my dad (a retired geologist turned stay-at-home dad) getting his science fix as they were about me learning, these projects were also fun and memorable introductions to the scientific method. 

The first projects where I really felt like I was doing research were as an undergraduate student; first was a short one-semester research project with a civil engineering group at Clemson, followed shortly thereafter by a position in a National Science Foundation Research Experience for Undergraduates site at Washington State University (WSU).  I decided to pursue research experiences as an undergraduate to fulfill my own curiosity—to better understand how the world around me worked.  By committing to research, I wanted to learn how to ask questions to fill in the unknowns and design the experimentation needed to answer those unknowns.

Q: When did you first “feel” like a researcher?

Dr. Need: The summer REU at WSU was the first time I really felt like a researcher.  That summer, I was working in an experimental laboratory and had the opportunity to collect data, plot it, and then talk with someone else about those results.  Looking back, it was the first time that I had done enough pieces of the research puzzle sequentially and consistently to where I felt like a researcher.  I also felt treated like a researcher by my mentor, David, and the other faculty there.  In the end, I felt like I saw a new piece of knowledge- even though that new knowledge was really, really tiny.  

Q: When did you first solidify that you wanted to pursue a faculty position and lead an academic research group?

Dr. Need: Not until I was a postdoc, but even then, the passion that drew me back to academia was teaching, not research. 

I wanted a career that could have a large impact on the world.  In the grand scheme of things, human lifetimes are relatively short.  As I thought about paradigm shifts, I became convinced many of those happened by luck. As much as researchers can prepare and go through the research steps, they cannot ensure that they will make a breakthrough.  By training students, however, I could ensure a large impact.  In a course where I teach 100 students and help them develop to their full potential, I can ensure that they will go on to impact the world in a positive way.  

I chose to teach at an R1 institution, which puts a larger focus on research than other types of institutions such as a primarily undergraduate institution (PUI).  My spouse was driven to be a researcher at a doctoral institution with very high research (R1) from the start.  As we looked at options, it became obvious that there were few locations where institutions that we would both be happy with were in (what I considered) a reasonable commute to each other.  In addition, there are few other locations beyond an R1 that offer a materials science undergraduate program.  

Q: Have you observed any differences between pursuing a research agenda at a national laboratory versus at an academic institution?  If so, what are those and did they impact your final decision to take a faculty position?

Dr. Need: While I have noticed differences between doing research at national labs and universities, my choice to take a faculty position was driven more by the “two-body problem” [meaning the fact that they have a spouse who also works in a researcher intensive field and want be geographically near each other] than by my personal preference between the two environments. 

Briefly, I’ve found national labs to be more focused on the research, with more time of the day/job spent doing and thinking about research, whereas time in academia for both students and faculty are split between research, teaching, and other activities (outreach, clubs, committees).

Q:  How did you prepare to lead a research group?  You conducted research previously but had not led a group.  

Dr. Need: As best I could, but I’ve learned more on the job and have definitely felt unprepared at times. After accepting the faculty job, I tried to give myself experiences in the remainder of my postdoc that I thought would teach me skills I hadn’t practiced but would need. For example, I started a project with a collaborator using an experimental technique that I hadn’t done but wanted to have in my group’s toolbox. I also took a teaching pedagogy workshop and participated in a professional skills development mentoring program to improve my teaching and management skills.

Q: You worked on your advisor’s research vision as a graduate student and a post-doctoral researcher.  Where in that process did you start to take the time to solidify what your unique research mission would be? 

Dr. Need: Many of the topics I’m interested in today are rooted in subjects and problems I studied as a graduate student (e.g., interface and defect effects in strongly correlated oxides). But the specific questions and approaches I’m employing I developed as a postdoc and along the way as faculty member. In particular, I find conference talks, poster sessions, and conversations have been productive places for me when I want to brainstorm new research directions.

Q:  Has your definition for research changed over the years? 

Dr. Need: Actually, I’d say my definition of research hasn’t changed that much over the years. I feel like starting with my NSF REU and continuing through today, I’ve thought of research as the process of designing, executing, and reporting a science experiment or set of related experiments to test a hypothesis. What has changed is how many of the steps of that process that I’ve been responsible for at each level. As an undergraduate, I was mainly executing small portions of the experiment. During grad school I learned to design experiments, execute them in more completeness, and write them up for different audiences. Now as a faculty member the focus has shifted more toward the design part of that equation, and of course, funding the research projects. But I think of the funding piece as unavoidable “business administration” that enables research but is not really part of the research itself. 

Q: Thinking back over the last two years, what was the most surprising part of the research process as an early career faculty member? Why?

Dr. Need: The independence, or viewed differently, the lack of oversight. I have tremendous latitude to research and teach what I want, with very few people checking up on my progress or vetting my decisions. On one hand, I appreciate the creative license such freedom grants me to dream up new projects and lessons, but it surprises me because it doesn’t seem like a particularly efficient way to run a business. 

Q: What are the skills needed to begin a strong research career? What skills do you look for in early-stage researchers applying to work with you?

Dr. Need: First, being organized and detail-oriented is important to managing and executing complex research projects successfully. Second, because of the culture of independence often found in research environments, the ability to operate, prioritize, and learn new skills independently is also important. Lastly, having curiosity and resilience.  These are needed to help you to try again when your experiments fail or negative reviewer comments arrive.

Q: There are so many “management tools” to help researchers improve their productivity or impact today. Can you highlight one management tool you think researchers should consider utilizing?

Dr. Need: Zotero is much better than Endnote. 

Q: Who is a researcher that you admire? If you had the ability to ask them one question about their experience being a researcher, what would it be? 

Dr. Need: I really admire Chris Leighton at the University of Minnesota. He works on similar research problems to the ones I have chosen to pursue and utilizes related experimental approaches. As for a question I’d ask him, it’d either be:

 (1) How do you minimize stress/anxiety around promising to support students for a ~5 yr average PhD when your funding tends to come in ≤3 year chunks? Or relatedly,

 (2) If given a magic wand to fix/change something about the R1 research environment in the US, what would it be?

Q: How might a researcher build their passion for an area in which they are technically competent, but not necessarily enamored by the work.  

Dr. Need: This is tough. It’s something I’ve struggled with a lot and still struggle with. As a research principal investigator, I’ve found that creating and sustaining interest in my projects – for myself, my students, my funding agencies – falls almost entirely on my shoulders. However, my passion for research is driven by my work’s ability to help others, not uncovering some new fundamental understanding for the sake of the knowledge itself. So, for me, the best way to keep my passion and interest in a project going is to talk with collaborators or other scientists who are working on related problems where I can be reminded of the value of my work. 

Q: How do you know what collaborations to pursue?  

Dr. Need: I am just settling into a place where I have the confidence and space to say “no.”  When I started as a tenure track faculty member, I was not sure what projects would thrive and so I started many in hopes that at least one would work.  I entered into new collaborations trying to build connections, to try new things and get funded. Now, I am at a place where I need to throttle back. I have larger projects with traction, I feel like I have more space and stability to look for the right collaborations.  While many collaborations could be fruitful, not all will stretch me towards my career goals.  In addition, I have learned my own boundaries for the amount of work that I can take on and still feel balanced.  

It also takes some time (and skill) to identify hypothesis that are ahead of the rest of the field.  Seeing the range of proposed studies while a post-doc helping with beamline proposals was really eye-opening. 

Once you decide that a concept is innovative, there are other factors in determining if a collaboration will be fruitful.  I tend to work well with highly organized people.  Since I am organized, being paired with unorganized researchers leads to friction.  

Q: Why did you choose to do research at a university rather than within a national laboratory or industrial facility?

Dr. Need: Dr. Need: Goes back to the fact that teaching more than research is my driving passion, and that my spouse really wanted to be a professor and mentor graduate students.

Q: In most positions, we balance the time needed to conduct research with other obligations like administration, teaching, etc.  How do you manage your time? 

Dr. Need: Not as well as I’d like, but hopefully a bit better every day. I tend to let the minutiae of administration and teaching consume more time than maybe I should. But those are also the activities that I feel support the most students (I have ~100 students in class each year but only 10 research students), and so that seems the way to help the most people and what I’m drawn to prioritizing.

If you’re asking about habits or approaches to time management, I use Google Calendar and create different color-coded calendars for different activities (teaching, writing, email, self-care, community time) so that I can see everything in one place, and the color tells me how balanced or imbalanced my week is/was. Everything on my schedule and all my to-do lists live on this calendar, or temporarily in my head.  I do not have a nondigital schedule, but this works fine since I am typically in reach of a computer or phone. I do use a single running notebook for all my meeting notes and in-between thoughts. I tried having different notebooks for different projects or classes initially, but found myself never grabbing the right one for meetings. So now my teaching, research, and personal notes all go in a single book.   

Q: How do you track ideas for future projects?   

Dr. Need: I make a slide deck that is my own “pitch.”  This deck includes screen of paper, data, etc. that support my idea.  The I save in a folder marked “Research Ideas.”  This idea came from Steve May at Drexel.  

Q:  Is there anything you wished that I asked you or you think other researchers should consider when re-evaluating their research focus to increase success and impact?  

Dr. Need: My advice for folks thinking about the academic research track would be to consider where their drive for the job comes from, thinking along the lines of the question above about building and sustaining passion in projects. What I’ve seen in my two, short years on the job is that the PIs who have that deep passion for solving particular problems, are driven by the love of scientific discovery, and/or have supportive research communities, are the ones who seem to succeed with the most ease. Not that it can’t be done without those things, just that it’s harder.

Q:  There are actually a lot of researchers with two-body challenges.  Since you alluded to it earlier, what advice might you give early career PhDs pursuing their first positions and are partnered with other PhD researchers.  

Dr. Need: There are benefits and challenges when both partners want to pursue academic positions.  The benefits are that each person will be learning the new system together and can be there to support each other in ways that can be difficult for people who don’t understand the job as intimately.  On the other side, you have two people who will each be working absurd hours, be stressed out as they establish themselves professionally, and each person may not always have the bandwidth for the support the other needs.  

If you are in a two-body situation at the early stage of career, take time to critically think about what is driving you towards your dream job.  Be honest with yourself then discuss with your spouse why you each want to pursue that career, so you understand what’s driving each of you and plan for what might interfere with that drive.

In addition, it will help to develop strong communication skills and the ability to lean into difficult conversations.  For example, a difficult conversation might be exploring what your secondary plans are if your first plan turns out not to be the right fit.  Finally, you both are going to grow as humans and researchers over time.  It is not given that you both have the same career trajectory and discussing what happens if you do not change in the same direction is important.  

Q:  What advice do you have for establishing a co-equitable partnership with your graduate students?  

Dr. Need: I have tried to set up the expectation of openness, honesty, and transparency between myself and graduate students working with me. I try to tell the students how I make decisions, the external factors (such as grant expectations), and clarify why there might be an order of priorities.    

I defined my success as my graduating students being hired into the positions they want.  So, one of my first goals with all of my graduate students is to identify their 10 yr. dream job and then build a plan to get them there. We build the plan together and revisit it each year, but it starts with them answering just four questions (credit to Dr. Tori Miller for the method):  

1.     What is your dream job?

2.     What are the credentials need for that position (awards, skills, etc.)?

3.     What are the experiences or skills that you need for that position?

4.     When you look at your résumé, where are the gaps? What do you need to start doing to get your dream job? 

This gap analysis helps us both determine what activities the student should be involved with and prioritize over the next year, which may change or stay relatively similar as the plan is updated each year.  For example, I’ve had one PhD student change his goal from an industrial R&D position to working at a national laboratory. Thinking about this information together helped us make several small adjustments in his plans (e.g., applying for a different kind of summer internship) that when added together and built upon will help his chances getting the job he wants.

Originally posted on Blog 'Evolving PhD' in 2022 and then transitioned to this site in 2024.

Interview with Dr. Davis Ferriell, an instructor at the University of Kentucky for the first-year engineering program

Overview: As part of my journey to re-evaluate my own views of research and research process and identity as a researcher, I am undertaking the process of interviewing 25 researchers about their own research career paths, processes, etc. This is the second post in the series is an interview with Dr. William ‘Davis’ Ferriell.  His most most recent research work was focused on the mechanical response of football helmets (read his published work here) and his bio is on LinkedIn.  In spite of his training and accomplishments in bioengineering research, his current job at the University of Kentucky puts teaching undergraduate engineering students above research in terms of his responsibilities. I emailed Davis my questions and then he sent his responses back to me. I edited this to make sure that the key points of the discussion were clear with Davis’s input (and Kate Epstein did light editing for clarity) and removed parts I felt would be of little interest to the reader. He then did a final review.

***

Q: Congratulations on finishing your dissertation. How did you explain what a dissertation is to family or friends who did not pursue an advanced STEM degree?

This is a great question.

Looking back, I never quite a gave clear explanation of the whole dissertation and instead gave an overview of the journal article that I was focusing on at the time. I would also attempt to relate to what the other person had done in school (such as completing an art portfolio, psychology research paper, master’s in counseling, etc.) to the research project I was working on. This helped to connect ambiguous concepts, like critiques at an art show or teaching demonstration, to the lack of clarity in [the process of] passing my dissertation defense and the manuscript being accepted by the committee.

It was also hard to see the full arc of my dissertation from the beginning. At times, I got lost in the weeds and didn’t really know what the hell I was doing either. If I knew exactly what I was doing, I don’t know that I would have called it research!

During graduate school, I found the expectations to graduate with a PhD were not clear. Sure, a few journal publications may result in graduation… but they may not also be enough to fill a complete dissertation. There was also never a clear timeline (until my advisors said, “Hey, you should graduate this Spring…” ). It was a much more ambiguous program than, say, a medical school or law school program.

Q: How did you identify the “right” PhD program for you?

When I began my search for graduate school, there were a few surface level preferences (location, proximity to family, proximity to my significant other) that influenced my initial search. My preferences were in the southeast or near New York City (where my significant other at the time was living)…. I was seeking a funded doctoral student position in the areas of biomechanics (sports, orthopaedic), computational design, and aerospace physiology. I was also seeking a school that would support my efforts to train as an educator. Considering the strong engineering and science education program at Clemson University already had a direct certificate program (Engineering and Science Education) that was compatible with the required curriculum in the Bioengineering program, I thought it was the best option.

To make the decision [between Clemson, University of Kentucky, and University of Tennessee-Knoxville], I actually had a conversation with a mentor (7^th/8^th grade basketball coach who was a PhD). He encouraged me to forget about location and non-professional influences on the decision. His suggestion was to focus on being trained to do what I want to in my career. I knew I wanted to teach, so the decision was clear when viewed from that lens.

Q: What was your favorite part of the research process during your dissertation (exploring foundational literature, hypothesis generation, experimental design, dissemination, etc.)? Why?

There were few elements that got me excited for the day. For example, a few topics (surrogate modeling, finite element simulations of impacts) were really enjoyable to explore in the literature. Finding the seminal work for some specific tools in computational analysis was also fun as it was almost like being a detective. The experimental design was probably the most enjoyable overall.

Despite that, the way I filled my cup the most was getting to share the information, the justification, the methodology, etc., with undergraduate researchers. Seeing them take on their own tangentially related projects and supporting their efforts was easily the best part about doing research.

Q: You have conducted research as an undergraduate and graduate student. Did your view of research process evolve over that time, or did it stay the same?

I think the more experience I had under my belt, the more I realized how much I don’t know. I certainly had (and have) that imposter syndrome when it comes to research, but as an undergraduate I thought I knew it all. Conversely, as graduate school went on, the more I realized I needed to fail and mess up to progress. Sitting around waiting for progress to be made on my research didn’t work. So, with more experience came more confidence to mess up.

Q: You are now transitioning into your subsequent position. Congratulations. Can you tell us a little bit about your new role at the University of Kentucky?

Sure, so as a Lecturer in the First Year Engineering program, I will be a part of a team of faculty instructors (coordinated courses) that deliver three classes to the traditional first year engineering students. The three-course sequence spanning two semesters is intended to introduce students to fundamental engineering concepts, programming/microcontrollers/circuitry, team building and mental health, and the other engineering majors at UK. I will be responsible for teaching five classes (three sections of a 101 course and two sections of a 102 course). My appointment is primarily for teaching responsibilities with some professional development and service responsibilities also.

Q: Is there an expectation while in that role that you will participate in research?

Well, not specifically. As a part of [my] “professional development” responsibilities, I will be expected to fill this bin with different activities. I may obtain professional engineering licensure, or I may present at conferences, or I may publish research papers. Each (and others) would count towards that professional development bin.

Q: Many of those in academia are asked to teach students and conduct research. Do you self-identify equally as both an instructor and researcher? Or, is one of those identities stronger?

I think I definitely identify more as an instructor. Teaching is how I fill my cup, and my best days at work have always been the days I teach. Sure, I think research is cool and I enjoy my areas of expertise, but I am most definitely an instructor first.

Q: There were a range of positions available to you after finishing a dissertation. How did you decide to become an instructor at a R01 institution?

I applied to almost the whole gamut of positions (minus tenure track at R01 institutions). I single out this type of position for a few reasons. First, I didn’t think I was a strong candidate for a tenure track position at a R01 because I knew my publication and funding record was not strong enough to get a tenure track position at a heavily research-focused university directly out of graduate school. I also didn’t want a post-doctoral position, because my spouse and I were ready to settle down for a longer period of time than would be typical of a post doc position. Second, I wanted a position that would support me (value me) for doing what I love and what I do best—teach. There are many great educators that are tenure track at R-01 schools; however, it was my perception that R01 schools would be most interested in the publication/funding records of faculty on the tenure track—much more so than their teaching record. I think that I could have been content in a range of positions with varying degrees of required research. In order for me to be truly happy, I needed to find a position that wanted me to teach above all else. A major part of selecting the position at University of Kentucky was the specific circumstances of the position. I am a Kentucky native and have—and will always have—a personal commitment to serve the engineering education community in my home state. Being close to family was a major part, too, as my spouse and I hope to start our own family soon. All of that was really a cherry on top. Fundamentally, the position requires me to teach, to teach well, and to train first year engineering students so that they may be more successful upon their transition from high school to college, but also from their first year to when they start taking major-specific classes. I did not specifically seek an instructor position at an R01. I sought many different positions that I thought could be either enjoyable or professional rewarding. After interviewing on campus, meeting the rest of the faculty, and talking with the administration, I knew this would be a great fit.

Q: What skills are needed to sustain a career as an instructor?

If you figure it out, let me know! I am not a seasoned instructor by any stretch of the imagination. I have only taught as an adjunct faculty at a Trident Technical College (Charleston, SC) for one academic year. In my time at Trident, as a TA at Clemson, and as a lab mentor to undergraduate students, I learned being patient is important. I have come to the realization that both the student and the instructor are responsible for a student’s lack of understanding. Being able to admit that you can be wrong while in the role of instructor has helped me manage the classroom and get better buy in from students. I would also argue that being willing to pivot in the classroom is important. I taught the same course four times (Trident does two terms within the same time frame as a traditional semester) and changed it each time (hopefully making it a better experience for the enrolled students).

Q: What is your advice for an undergraduate who wants to pursue an engineering PhD

I would suggest being honest with yourself about why you want to pursue your PhD.

I pursued my PhD because I realized that I needed to fill my cup at work. I couldn’t just grind at work, make some money, and use that money to fill my cup. So, I spent a lot of time delving into what types of jobs I could pursue as a biomechanical engineer. I found three specific positions that stated they required a PhD in biomechanics (three different career paths) that I thought “Dang, that is totally awesome. I would love my job if I could do that!” These were the only jobs that I could find pertaining to biomechanics that I really wanted to do. The first was a teaching/professorship position. The second was a sports biomechanics director for a hospital system (but also these existed for professional sports teams). The third was an injury biomechanics position reconstructing vehicular crashes.

Knowing that I would be able to work an interesting job (fill my cup) if I earned my PhD helped to balance all the stressors that arose during graduate school. THIS is critical for when it gets really ****** rough.

Q: There are so many *management tools* to help PhDs improve their productivity or impact today. Can you highlight one management tool you think PhDs (or those pursing PhDs) should consider utilizing?

Delete social media accounts if possible. If not, make sure your banner or profile says- “I’ll see you in [insert graduation year]!”

Plan on working regular business hours (8 AM- 4 PM at a minimum, 8 AM – 5 PM at an average, 7 AM – 6 PM when you must).

This method worked for me in many ways. It helped me to be in a routine. I was able to get some homework done so that I could enjoy my significant other’s company when I got home. It also kept me honest in making progress on my research.

On a personal level, it also helped me balance my desire to financially support my family in the short term with my desire to support them in the long term by teaching, which required a PhD. I struggled during graduate school with the realization that my graduate student stipend alone would not allow my significant other and I to live comfortably without them working (that is I would not be the “provider” as a graduate student). Working full workdays was how I could bring the best value to my family in the long term. Having said that, my spouse is a professional killing it at their job, and I am thankful they have been able to provide for us.

Q: Who is a researcher that you admire? If you had the ability to ask them one question, what would it be? 

I continue to admire my PhD advisors, but for different reasons. Dr. Gregory Batt, an associate professor in the Clemson University Department of Food, Nutrition, and Packaging, has built a unique and interesting series of relationships with industry partners that fund work in his laboratory. This partnership allows for applied research and supported my own PhD efforts in addition to many other graduate and undergraduate students. My other advisor was from the Clemson University Department of Bioengineering, Dr. John DesJardins, and I respect his incredible output of publications along with his impact on design education. He works insanely hard at his job.

If I had the ability to ask another research one question, I would reach out to Dr. Pellman, the former head of the NFL’s Mild Traumatic Brain Injury committee, or Dr. Viano, a biomechanics consultant. I would want to ask them what their initial impetus for researching American football concussion and helmet design was. Was there a personal event that led them to be interested in the research? Was there a news story that prompted them to investigate concussion in professional football? Was there a singular event that led to this research series or what happened overtime that led you to study in this area? It was their initial series of journal papers that was the underpinning of my work and was instrumental in educating me about the field of head injury biomechanics, sports concussions, and football equipment design.

Acknowledgements: Many thanks to “Perfectly Planned Content” (Zoë Meggert) who provided helpful tips for turning an interview into a blog post. In addition, I must acknowledge Kate Epstein of EpsteinWords who edited this post. She specializes in editing and coaching for academics, and she can be reached at kate at epsteinwords.com.

Copyright (C) 2022 Marian Kennedy – All Rights Reserved