GeoLog

Great Debate

Give us the foundation to build our transferrable skills!

Give us the foundation to build our transferrable skills!

The EGU Early Career Scientists’ (ECS) Great Debates offer early career scientists at the EGU General Assembly the chance to network and voice their opinions on important topics in the format of round-table discussions. At the end of the debate, each table delivers a statement that summarises the discussion and recommendations. By publishing the results, we hope to highlight some of the needs of the EGU ECS community and how these matters should be addressed.

At this year’s ECS Great Debate, the topic was transferrable skills in science. The main question was “should early career scientists use time developing transferrable skills?” You may say this is a simple question to answer. Indeed, all the resulting statements indicated that the EGU ECS answer is YES. However, the simple statements hide a much more complex situation; a situation that varies considerably for each individual researcher. Different countries have different standards, different universities set different curricula, and different supervisors have different priorities. Some early career scientists are lucky to have many opportunities to develop transferrable skills, whereas others strive to gain these skills.

Groups defined transferrable skills as ones that could be used in other scientific disciplines and not least, in industry. Indeed, many scientific skills are transferrable. For example, data analysis and statistics were noted as valuable tools across various scientific fields and industry careers. Some groups gave extensive lists of transferrable expertise, and most were not strictly science-based. These included writing, presenting, social media, teaching, team working, project management, networking and critical thinking, to name a few. However, developing these skills do not traditionally fall into the curricula of the geosciences.

Early career scientists having round-table discussions on the importance of developing transferrable skills. (Credit: Olivia Trani)

It was evident that ECS in the EGU consider transferrable skills as extremely important to their careers and their science. They furthermore suggest that researchers should be given time and appropriate credit to develop these skills.

At the same time, many of the ECS debate participants believe in striking a balance between establishing these skills and the scientific skills that their PhDs and publications depend on.

Below you will find a list of the summary statements from the ECS that were present at the Great Debate. These reports, based on the discussions from more than 100 early career scientists, show solid support for transferrable skill training. These results are a clear indication that EGU must continue to work towards offering short courses at the General Assembly on a variety of transferrable skills. Additionally, these statements can help ECS persuade their universities to invest in opportunities to develop these skills if they do not already do so. It is clear that the EGU early career scientist community believes these skills not only help ECS develop their careers, but that they also benefit science and society!

Here are the table’s conclusions:

“Instead of currently developing random skills ourselves, on an ad-hoc basis, we need an environment to support more organized, collaborative, efficient, and recognized skill sets”

“We need transferrable skills to communicate knowledge and help society, therefore learn them, when you need them or want them, others will thank you”

“We should focus on developing these [transferrable] skills but we need to manage our time in order to go deeper into [our] own science”

“Yes, because whether you decide to stay in academia or in industry, these skills will help you be better in your field, help you work on interdisciplinary topics and communicate your work, thus increasing your success. The pros outweigh the cons!”

“Yes, to be a good scientist, researcher, or general human being, it takes more than one skill or field. It takes being open and brave to pursue new experiences to change both yourself and those around you.”

“Scientific careers are not just about getting specific knowledge in your field specialty but being able to adapt yourself to different disciplines.”

“Yes, because you get more job opportunities, it gives you flexibility, it’s fun, it makes you happy, it helps define you and strengthens your personality.”

“Yes, it is important for improving our possibilities after a PhD. We should take these opportunities as early career scientists [and] have more chances to learn these skills.”

“All scientists should be required to take time to develop useful skills for professional and personal development. These developments should not be exclusive to certain groups, should be obligatory with freedom to choose topics, should be offered to supervisors and managers, should include more courses at conferences and there should be more money for travel funding.”

“We need to find a good balance during PhD between doing science and attending courses about transferrable skills.”

“Yes, but plan which relevant transferrable skills you need to develop in the short term in relation to your project, and then update your long-term plan.”

“Transferrable skills will always be useful in your current and future situation. They should be learnt at university. It should be acceptable to spend time learning these skills in courses in tandem with your research.”

By Mathew Stiller-Reeve, co-founder of ClimateSnack and researcher at Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, Norway

Editor’s note: This is a guest blog post that expresses the opinion of its author and those who participated at the Great Debate during the General Assembly, 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.

Union-wide events at EGU 2018

Union-wide events at EGU 2018

Wondering what to expect at the General Assembly this year? Here are some of the highlights:

Union Symposia (US)

For events which will have general appeal, regardless of your field of research, look no further than the Union Symposia. The very first session, organized in collaboration with the European and American space agencies (ESA and NASA) will highlight observation missions focused on Earth and other planetary bodies, as well as discuss the challenges of organising future missions in an international framework.

Following this session will be Union Symposia 1: Past achievements and future challenges for the Geosciences, co-sponsored by the American Geophysical Union. The Union Symposia on Wednesday will reflect on the fifty years of international ocean drilling. Thursday’s session will then feature reports on the Cassini mission and future perspectives for the exploration of the outer solar system.

And finally, Union Symposia 5 on Friday will cover Scientific research in a changing European Union: where we stand and what we aim for. Panelists will explore some of the challenges and potential threats to academics in the EU and how these issues can be addressed and overcome. The session will also outline some of the advantages of the EU, funding programmes that are currently provided and how the European Union can continue to develop and nurture its researchers.

Great Debates (GDB)
This year we’re holding four Great Debates! The topics covered this year are varied, from Natural versus anthropogenic threats for life on Earth to Low-risk geo-engineering: are techniques available now? The role of scientists in policy-making is another hot topic on the Great Debate agenda, with one debate dedicated to the subject on whether to be hands on or hands off in the political sphere. Continuing with the success of last year’s Early Career Scientist (ECS) Great Debate, the 2018 General Assembly invites participants to join a round-table discussion where everyone will be given the opportunity to discuss this year’s chosen topic: “Should early career scientists use time developing transferrable skills?” Whether you are in Vienna or elsewhere, be sure to follow and join in the debates using #EGU18GDB on twitter.

Educational & Outreach Symposia (EOS)
Educational and Outreach Symposia are sessions dedicated to all things education and outreach, and include the Geosciences Information for Teachers (GIFT) workshop, a long-running event for high school teachers that helps shorten the time between discovery and textbook.

Medal Lectures and Lectures organized by related scientific societies (ML, LRS)
There will be 3 lectures organized by related scientific societies as well as a grand total of 46 Medal Lectures this year!

Meet EGU (EGU)
Meet EGU does exactly what it says on the tin – these sessions are a great opportunity to get to know your division president and early career representative, put faces to names and find out what’s going on in the Union.

Townhall and Splinter Meetings (TSM)
Townhall Meetings allow participants to take part in a lot of open discussion. This year’s meetings cover a huge variety of topics, from a general discussion of the use of preprints and preprint servers like EarthArXiv, through to a talk on how geoscientists should address urbanisation. Like Townhall Meetings, Splinter Meetings are organised by participants, but they are typically smaller and can be either public or by invitation only.

The EGU General Assembly is taking place in Vienna, Austria from 8 to 13 April. Check out the full session programme on the General Assembly website.

The publication issue: the opinions of EGU early career scientists!

The publication issue: the opinions of EGU early career scientists!

The EGU’s General Assemblies have a long tradition of Great Debates – sessions of Union-wide interest which aim to discuss some of the greatest challenges faced by our discipline. Past topics have included exploitation of mineral resources at the sea bed, water security given an ever growing population and climate geoengineering, to name but a few.  This year’s meeting saw the first Great Debate aimed, specifically, at an Early Career Scientist (ECS) audience which boasted an innovative format too: Should early career scientists be judged by their publication record? A set of group debates. Today’s post, written by Mathew Stiller-Reeve, a convener of the session, summarises some of the main outcomes of the discussion.

We, early career scientists, are told that we need to become expert writers, presenters, and teachers if we are going to make it in the world of research. Many of us agree such transferrable skills are extremely important. But if we invest time in developing these skills, it sometimes feels like time wasted. All said and done, we only seem to be judged on our publication record and our h-index. How many papers have we published in high impact journals, and how often have they been cited?

Early career scientists seem very clued up on transferrable skills. They want to invest in these skills. Therefore, we wanted to hear from them about whether ‘early career scientists [should] be judged mainly on their publication record?’ And so we put this question to them (and others) at a Great Debate at the EGU’s 2017 General Assembly. We also wanted to test out a new format where the audience had the opportunity to voice their opinions about important issues concerning modern academia. The publication issue affects us all, so we should have a say.

With only 8 people at each table and over 40 minutes to debate, everyone had an opportunity to speak their mind and contribute to developing solutions. The room was buzzing with over 100 early career and more established scientists discussing, agreeing, disagreeing, and finding compromises.

In the end, each table was tasked to debate and boil their thoughts down to one or two policy-type statements. These statements will be presented to the EGU Council to inform them of where EGU early career scientists stand on this matter.

So without further ado, here are the conclusions of the tables:

– We need more criteria. Quality is most important, measured by prizes, PhD results and the incorporation of the community via new media.

-More activities need to be taken into account in a measurable way, but according to scaled categories #notjustanumber.

-The current system is cheap, easy and fast. A person should be judged on the broader contributions to society, to their colleagues, to their disciplines. We should move beyond metrics.

-Because scientists are more than a list of publications, assess them individually. Talk to them and read their output, including publications, blogs and chapter/book contributions.

-We should not be judged on publication record alone. We need a multi-variant set of criteria for assessment for judgment of impact beyond just academic publications.

-One suggestion is a weighted metric depending on the position you’re applying for which considers other factors such as teaching, outreach, conference participation etc.

-No, the h-index should not be the sole number, even though it is not a totally useless number.

-Quality should be judged on more than quantity and the large number of authors on publications devaluates the contributions of early career scientists.

-Publications are the accepted way of communication in science, but there is not any one number describing the quality of the early career scientist, whom in our humble opinion should not only be judged on the quantity of papers but also on their quality as a part of a complete set of research skills, including other contributions such as project development.

-We acknowledge the publication record as a reliable metric, but we suggest an additional step for assessing applications, based on video or audio presentations to emphasize your other outstanding qualities.

-We doubt that we are mainly judged on our publication record and we think that publications should be part of what we are judged on.

-When hiring, follow the example of the Medical Department at Utrecht University: only ask for the 3 papers, teaching or outreach experiences you think are important for the position you are applying for: we are more than numbers.

Should they be adopted? Do you agree? How can we adopt them?

The message in many of the statements from the Early Career Scientists at the European Geosciences Union is quite clear: We are more than numbers! Several suggestions arose from the debate: new metrics, video presentations, and even new application processes. Now the statements from the debate are recorded. This will hopefully inspire us (and others) to find better solutions. At the very least, the discussion has begun. Solutions are impossible if we don’t talk!

By Mathew Stiller-Reeve, co-founder of ClimateSnack and researcher at Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, Norway

Editor’s note: This is a guest blog post that expresses the opinion of its author and those who participated at the Great Debate during the General Assembly, 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.

Union-wide events at EGU 2017

Union-wide events at EGU 2017

Wondering what to expect at the General Assembly this year? Here are some of the highlights:

Union Symposia (US)

For events which will have general appeal, regardless of your field of research, look no further than the Union Symposia.  In particular, if you want to stand up for science at a time when (some) politics seems at odds with science, come along to Union Symposia 3, Make Facts Great Again. An impressive panel composed of Christine McEntee (AGU Executive Director), Sir David King (Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government 2000–2007), Christiana Figueres (Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2010–2016) and Heike Langenberg (Nature Geoscience Chief Editor) will discuss what can scientists do to further the progress of scientific research and ensure mainstream scientific views are accepted and taken seriously by policymakers and the public.

The very first of the Union Symposia, organized in collaboration with the European and maerica space agencies (ESA and NASA) will highlight Earth observation missions and there will be talks on ESA’s and NASA’s planetary and space programmers. On Wednesday, scientists from different fields will come together to explore the key role plants play in the climate system in Union Symposia 1: Vegetation-climate interactions across time scales Finally, there’s the EGU Awards Ceremony – set to celebrate excellent research and achievement in the Earth, planetary and space sciences.

Great Debates (GDB)
This year we’re holding not one, not two, but six Great Debates! The topics covered this year are varied, from: Arctic environmental change: global opportunities and threats (organized with AGU), through to whether 2 degrees is possible without relying on carbon storage and capture? Scientific publishing is also hot on the Great Debate agenda, with two debates dedicated to the subject, including the very first early career scientist (ECS) specific Great Debate: Should early career scientists be judged by their publication record? A set of group debates.  Discussions also explore the Earth’s deep past (Great Debate on Great Extinctions) and the planet’s future (transition to next generation cities and planet Earth future).  Whether you are in Vienna or elsewhere, be sure to follow and join in the debates using #EGU17GDB on twitter.

Educational & Outreach Symposia (EOS)
Educational and Outreach Symposia are sessions dedicated to all things education and outreach, and include the Geosciences Information for Teachers (GIFT) workshop, a long-running event for high school teachers that helps shorten the time between discovery and textbook.

Medal Lectures and Lectures organized by related scientific societies (ML, LRS)
There will be five Lectures organized by related scientific societies as well as a grand total of 45 Medal Lectures this year!

Meet EGU (EGU)
Meet EGU does exactly what it says on the tin – these sessions are a great opportunity to get to know your division president and early career representative, put faces to names and find out what’s going on in the Union.

Townhall Meetings (TM)
Townhall Meetings allow participants to take part in a lot of open discussion. This year’s meetings cover a huge variety of topics, from a discussion, moderated by ESA’s Director of Earth Observation Programmes, on how space data impacts EGU participants, through to questioning the formalizatin of the “Anthropocene” and how the interconnection between Open Access, Open Data and Free Open Source Software can be improved to develop the Open Science movement.

Splinter Meetings (SPM)
Like Townhall Meetings, Splinter Meetings are organised by participants, but they are typically smaller and can be either public or by invitation only.

The EGU General Assembly is taking place in Vienna, Austria from 23 to 28 April. Check out the full session programme on the General Assembly website.