GeoLog

Early Career Scientists

EGU 2018 General Assembly programme is now online!

EGU 2018 General Assembly programme is now online!

The EGU General Assembly 2018 programme is available here. Take a look and – if you haven’t already – register for the conference by 1 March to make the early registration rates!

This year’s scientific programme of the General Assemby includes Union-wide Sessions, such as the medal lectures, great debates, short courses, education and outreach symposia, as well as townhall and splinter meetings, just to name a few.

The Disciplinary Sessions and Interdisciplinary Events, encompass the oral, poster and PICO sessions covering the full spectrum of the Earth, planetary and space sciences.

There are several ways to access the programme, so you can explore the sessions with ease:

  • Browse by day & time: view the oral, poster and PICO sessions by their time and location, each sorted chronologically by conference day, time block and programme group
  • Browse by session: view the scientific sessions and their oral, poster and PICO sub-sessions by programme group
  • Personal programme: a great tool to generate your own personal programme, just select the specific presentations or sessions you’re interested in to create your own personal schedule
  • Sessions of ECS interest: this is a list of sessions of particular interest for early career scientists
  • Papers of special interest: take a look at the abstracts that were selected by their respective session conveners to be of interest to the press, media and the public

Want more ways to browse the programme? We’ll be releasing the EGU 2018 mobile app closer to the conference, stay tuned!

We look forward to seeing you in Vienna for the General Assembly (8 – 13 April 2018).

GeoTalk: Stephanie Zihms, Early Career Scientist Representative

GeoTalk: Stephanie Zihms, Early Career Scientist Representative

In addition to the usual GeoTalk interviews, where we highlight the work and achievements of early career researchers, this month we’ll also introduce one of the Division early career scientist representatives (ECS). They are responsible for ensuring that the voice of EGU ECS membership is heard. From organising short courses during the General Assembly, through to running and attending regular ECS representative meetings, their tasks in this role are varied. Their role is entirely voluntary and they are all active members of their research community, so we’ll also be touching on their scientific work during the interview.

Today we are talking to Stephanie Zihms, ECS representative for the Earth Magnetism & Rock Physics (EMRP) Division and the incoming Union-level ECS representative. Interested in getting involved with EGU and its activities for early career scientists? Consider applying for one of the vacant representative positions

Before we get stuck in, could you introduce yourself and tell us a little more about yourself and your career?

Where to start, I’m originally from Germany but moved to the UK in 2005 for an year and ended up staying. I have had a varied career and would probably call myself a multidisciplinary geoscientist.

After graduating with a bachelor’s degree in Earth Science from the University of Glasgow (2007), I worked for a geotechnical drilling company in Scotland as a geologist. However, I still had a drive to further my education, so following the economic downturn in 2008-2009, I started my PhD in Civil & Environmental Engineering from University of Strathclyde. After my PhD, I left academia again to work for the British Geological Survey, where for 14 months I studied the impact of heat on bentonite for radioactive waste disposal. This wasn’t quite the right fit for me, and I left to go back to academia for a postdoc.

In January 2015 I joined Heriot-Watt University, originally for a postdoc position looking at CO2 bubble behaviour in flow conditions (definitely a ‘tide me over’ position). After 4 months I joined the Institute of Petroleum Engineering for a geomechanics postdoc – finally working with rocks again. Now I have a postdoc in the Heriot-Watt University Lyell Centre studying fracture flow. This postdoc is great since it combines my experience from my previous postdoc and my time at the British Geological Survey.

Outside of work I love running, and I am currently training for a half marathon. I started running again after I was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis to better manage my mental health and increase my overall fitness.

Although we touch upon it in the introduction of this post: could you tell us what your role as ECS representative has involved and explain your new role as the Union-level ECS representative?

I was the first ECS representative for the EMRP Division and was kind of thrown in the deep end, but it was great to have some freedom to shape the role within the division. The biggest part is being the link between the division president and officers and the ECS community. I attend online meetings where all the ECS representatives exchange ideas, discuss issues and find solutions or support. For EMRP, I set up the division Twitter account and recruited some other ECS to help me run a Facebook page. Most divisions have a small team, which is a great way to get involved. At the 2017 General Assembly I organised an ECS dinner (open to all EMRP scientists) which went really well with over 40 scientists attending. We are planning to host a similar event at this year’s General Assembly.

As the Union-level ECS representative, I will be the link between the Union and the ECS via the division representatives. This is a very important role since it will be my job to represent the work the ECS representatives have done and present any changes the ECS representatives would like to see. Of course, I will have help from the new incoming Union-level representative Raffaele Albano, the EGU Outreach Committee, and you as the communication officer*.

I’m looking forward to working with you! So, why did you put yourself forward for these positions?

I volunteered for both roles because I think it’s important for ECS to have a say, get involved and have proper representation. We are the future of research and our voice should be counted. I am a big believer in peer-support and the ECS representatives provide this in a very positive way. It is also a great opportunity to get to know the insides of the EGU better and how it is all organised.

What can your ECS division members expect from the Earth Magnetism & Rock Physics Division in the 2018 General Assembly?

For the 2018 General Assembly we are planning an ECS dinner again (check your emails or our Facebook page for more information and updates). We will have representatives at the ECS Corner at the ice-breaker on Sunday evening, and I hope EMRP ECS will stop by to say ‘Hi!’ In addition to the official ‘Meet EGU’ booth with our division president, I’m planning a Meet & Greet in the ECS Lounge as well to provide another opportunity for ECS to introduce themselves, ask questions or get advice.

We are not planning any EMRP specific short courses this year but would be happy to help organise some for 2019. The short course programme at the EGU General Assembly is always great, and I highly encourage everyone to have a look at what’s offered.

Our division ECS team has four members, with one stepping up as the next EMRP division ECS representative. If anyone is interested in helping out but not sure about becoming a representative, consider joining your division ECS team. They will be grateful for the support.

What is your vision for the EGU ECS community and what do you hope to achieve as Union-level ECS representative in the time you hold the position?

I would like to see the ECS community more involved in organising sessions and shaping what the General Assembly looks like. We are running a short course on this year to accomplish these goals. I would also like to develop ways in which the ECS community could acknowledge established scientists that support ECS activities, but I would be interested in discussing just how to achieve this with the division ECS representatives.

How can those wanting to, get involved with the EGU?

There are lots of ways to get involved!

  1. See if your division is looking for an ECS representative and apply
  2. If the ECS representative position is taken, or if you’d rather not take on that role, ask if you can join the ECS team
  3. Fill in the surveys – this feedback is vital for us
  4. Attend the General Assembly ECS Forum (Thursday, 12 April at 12:15) and provide feedback
  5. Talk to your division ECS representative – either at one of the ECS events (ice-breaker, Networking & Careers Reception, Meet EGU) or you can shoot them an email

 

Interview by Olivia Trani, EGU Communications Officer

 

* The EGU communications officer is the ECS contact point at the EGU office.

Last chance to enter the EGU Photo Contest 2018!

Last chance to enter the EGU Photo Contest 2018!

If you are pre-registered for the 2018 General Assembly (Vienna, 8 -13 April), you can take part in our annual photo competition! Winners receive a free registration to next year’s General Assembly! But hurry, there are only a few days left to enter!

Every year we hold a photo competition and exhibit in association with our open access image repository, Imaggeo, and our annual General Assembly. There is also a moving image competition, which features a short clip of continuous geoscience footage. Pre-registered conference participants can take part by submitting up to three original photos and/or one moving image on any broad theme related to the Earth, planetary and space sciences.

Shortlisted photos will be exhibited at the conference, together with the winning moving image, which will be selected by a panel of judges. General Assembly participants can vote for their favorite photos and the winning images will be announced on the last day of the meeting.

How to enter

You will need to register on Imaggeo to upload your image, which will also be included in the database. When you’ve uploaded it, you’ll have the option to edit the image details – here you can enter it into the EGU Photo Contest – just check the checkbox! The deadline for submissions is 15 February.

Previous winning photographs can be seen on the 20102011, 2012,  2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 winners’ pages.

EGU 2018 will take place from 08 to 13 April 2017 in Vienna, Austria. For more information on the General Assembly, see the EGU 2018 website and follow us on Twitter (#EGU18 is the official conference hashtag) and Facebook.

Migrating scientists

Migrating scientists

Scientific research is no doubt enriched by interdisciplinarity and collaborations which cross borders. This, combined with the scarcity of academic positions and the need to further ones horizons by experiencing varied research environments, leads many scientists to relocate (if only on a short term basis) to a country which is not their own.  In today’s post, freelance science writer Robert Emberson explores the pros and cons of the nomadic lifestyle many researchers find themselves embracing in order to forward their work.

Scientists can consider themselves a lucky group of people. Having colleagues across the world working passionately at advancing the spectrum of human knowledge offers more opportunities to collaborate across national borders than perhaps any other field of human endeavour. Working with researchers of different nationalities is a chance to share ideas and experience; more often than not, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

In many cases though, this collaboration requires scientists to move their whole lives, temporarily or permanently, to new countries. Research on a given topic is almost never focused in one geographic region, and so a significant minority of scientists leave their homeland to pursue their careers. In September this year, the Twitter account @realscientists started a discussion about the implications of this movement, under the hashtag #migratingscientists. Many researchers shared inspirational and personal tales about their peripatetic lifestyles, and these brief snippets serve as a useful insight into the disruptive nature of crossing borders for work.

What are the deeper lessons we can take from scientists who migrate for work? What impact does it have on their scientific, and personal lives?

A recent analysis of published studies has suggested that migrating might well improve the career prospects of scientists. Sugimoto and colleagues analysed the citation scores of 14 million papers (between 2008 and 2015) from 16 million authors, and found that, in general, those written by scientists who moved country during that time have citation scores 40% higher than those by authors who remained put. Surprisingly, despite a perception that international collaboration is widespread, only 4% of the scientists in the dataset moved during the window of observation.

The perception of extensive movement for researchers may be coloured by science in the English-speaking world. Foreign-born researchers make up 27% of scientists or engineers in the USA, and 13% in the UK. These countries seem to benefit significantly in terms of the impact of the research produced within their borders; countries with greater mobility tend to produce more highly cited papers. It’s a mutually beneficial relationship, at least in terms of citations, and moreover researchers returning home can bring with them a wider network of colleagues, potentially boosting research and development in their own countries.

I spoke to the lead author, Professor Sugimoto, about these trends, and she told me that much of it comes down to what is available in these countries.

“Scholars do best when they have access to resources (personnel, infrastructure, and materials)”, she says. “Countries with high scientific capacity and investment also tend to have a critical mass of scholars. Collaboration has been linked to higher production and citation, so it is no surprise that those with access to enlarge their network are likely to be successful on these metrics.”

The US and UK are two countries where open borders are increasingly under attack. Immigration is always a hot-button topic, and while in both countries an opposition to immigration is not necessarily new, increased restrictions on immigration are now more likely with a Republican-led government in the US and Brexit in the UK. Already there are suggestions that researchers are increasingly looking elsewhere for positions; based on the studies, this could lead to a decline in the impact of research from these countries.

As shown by Prof Sugimoto and colleagues, scientists don’t exactly fit into the standard definition of immigrant. The researchers point toward mobility, rather than migration, as the important descriptive term here. Scientists tend to return to their home country after spending time abroad, and as such represent temporary migrants, rather than permanent. Social attitudes towards skilled workers tend to be different to those surrounding long-term immigrants and it would benefit researchers if policymakers went out of their way to emphasise that scientists fit into this category.

According to Professor Sugimoto, the short-term nature of mobility is what is most beneficial.

“Unless these scholars maintain ties with their home countries, emigration is likely to yield to deficits for other countries. Circulation, on the other hand, should yield benefits for all countries. Short-term stays can establish ties and provide an influx of resources, without necessarily removing scholars from their home networks.”

Treating scientists as visiting experts, then, is perhaps a more productive way forward.

But immigration visas and increases in citation indices are just one side of the story for scientists. Reading through some of the tweets tagged with #migratingscientists, many focus on the upheaval of their personal lives, for better or worse. It’s sometimes too easy to think about researchers as ‘human capital,’ but each of those humans have personal connections and a definition of home. Some studies suggest that foreign-born researchers may be more productive than their home-grown counterparts, but their satisfaction with life tends to be lower. What’s the deal?

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, a framework commonly used in sociology to understand the different human requirements and personal development, suggests that the human need for Belonging is more fundamental than the requirement for Self-fulfilment. In other words, before researchers can genuinely accomplish their best work, they have a more basic need for a network of friends and family to belong to, or a place to call home. Finding this sense of belonging can be tricky in a foreign country. Language barriers can make it a struggle to meet new friends, and cultural tropes and mores may be more difficult to transcend than it first seems too, particularly when attitudes towards the researcher’s race or gender differ.

Early career researchers on short-term contracts may also struggle to maintain a sense of belonging to a particular place; extensive travel and fieldwork can exacerbate this. As a PhD student, living in a foreign country and travelling for labwork, field campaigns and conferences I sometimes felt like George Clooney’s character in the film Up in the Air, where he struggles with a life lived out of a backpack and in airport lounges.

Migrating scientists must make choices about close personal relationships; should they leave a partner behind or try to make it work long-distance? It’s doubly difficult to find positions for two people, let alone moving a more extended family. Many of the stories on twitter stress the importance of supportive partner or family.

Pay may also be lower for foreign-born scientists, too. Despite their outsize contribution to research output, foreign scientists in the US may be paid less than their peers, both in terms of salary, and the availability of funding sources. These hurdles make an already tricky transition to a new country significantly harder.

So it seems the research impact on a national and individual scale may benefit from increased mobility of researchers, but at the same time the personal tribulations may make this a challenge for many scientists.

How do scientists weigh up these pros and cons? Well, if Twitter is anything to go on, they’re clearly an enthusiastic bunch of folks, since many of the stories tend to emphasise the fun had along the way, as well as the positive experiences.

Given that these nitty-gritty questions about personal experience are unsurprisingly hard to quantify, our understanding of the impact of mobility on scientists personal lives is often based on these kind of anecdotes; it would be greatly beneficial to survey researchers more widely to ascertain what kind of systematic effects migration induces. A more qualified comparison with the citation-based indices would then be feasible.

For now, even if removing the obstacles to scientists moving across borders may raise questions amongst some policymakers, it would reduce the negative connotations of migrating for research – which might allow for wider collaboration, and a more effective global body of scientists.

By Robert Emberson, freelance science writer

Editor’s note: This is a guest blog post that expresses the opinion of its author, whose views may differ from those of the European Geosciences Union. We hope the post can serve to generate discussion and a civilised debate amongst our readers.