GeoLog

research

Sharing & talking isn’t enough – we need a change in culture around mental illness

Sharing & talking isn’t enough – we need a change in culture around mental illness

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.

Early career scientists (ECS) demand more open and honest discussions around mental health in academia to combat stigma and create supportive environments – they also acknowledge that, while their own approaches are part of the change, assistance from the top is required as well.

At this year’s ECS Great Debate, the topic was mental wellbeing.  The main question was “How can Early Career Scientists prioritise their mental wellbeing?”, which was discussed by almost 100 participants – mostly ECS but this topic is relevant to everyone. To guide our debate of this very broad topic we focused on two aspects:

  1. What can ECS do themselves
  2. What support would ECS like to see from institutions

Even though this is a very personal topic, we could have discussed both aspects all night, and in fact just having the topic in the General Assembly programme sparked debates during the week. I’m grateful that all participants debating this topic with us felt safe to share some very personal stories.

Early career scientists having round-table discussions on mental wellbeing in research and academia at the EGU General Assembly 2019.

Approximately one in four people will experience some form of mental illness in their lifetime – this number is even higher for PhD students, early career scientists and academics. This means it is time to discuss this aspect of research life more openly, not only to provide support but also to reduce the stigma around mental illness and ensure it does not turn into career enders. By openly discussing all aspects of research careers, we make certain that diversity is celebrated and ECS feel supported.

Increasing demands on researchers, highly competitive working environments, uncertain career paths and expected relocations were some of the challenges highlighted at the event that can impact ECS mental wellbeing. As ECS face these challenges, it is important to find ways to protect and care for oneself to ensure that mental health is not ignored and that ECS feel supported to seek help or guidance if they encounter mental health issues. The top tips from the ECS debating this topic can be summarised in three key themes:

  1. Be more than your research: have hobbies and find communities outside your lab or office. This helps to find perspective, get additional assistance or just to distract yourself. This can be difficult if you are new to a research group and have to relocate regularly. This is where online communities can be very helpful as they provide support and local knowledge irrespective of physical location.
  2. Be kind to yourself: selfcare is important, so know your limits and don’t fall down the trap of overworking; work smarter not harder. Take regular stock of your achievements, such as a DONE list rather than a To-Do list. It can be tempting to compete with your colleagues who is in the office first and who ends up staying the longest, but are all these hours productive? Figure out your best times to be productive and let the flexible working hours of academia work for you.
  3. Share with others and learn to be an ally: it’s ok to not be ok; we play a part in sharing this to help to create a more open, accepting environment. It’s not only about speaking openly about your own mental health but it’s also about listening without judgement when others share their experiences – this allows supportive environments to flourish. In this kind of space, everyone can feel comfortable to share their experiences, worries and fears, as well as celebrate successes, good practices and support.

These are big asks, and it was acknowledged that a supportive workspace environment is also key to allow researchers to look after their mental wellbeing. Institutions have a key role in creating and maintaining the right kind of working environment and office culture. Stigma around mental illness is probably the biggest barrier, and employers have to do more to both reduce the stigma and foster kind, safe and judgment-free office environments. Offering awareness training and handing out phone numbers for support or help lines is a start but not enough. ECS listed these things as key actions they would like to see implemented to create supportive environments:

  1. Specialised training and guidance for supervisors and managers: These kinds of workshops should not only teach employers how to identify needs and offer help but also how to raise awareness and create a more open working culture.
  2. Open discussions (such as coffee mornings or discussion groups) should be encouraged by institutions across all career stages to allow people to share their experiences.
  3. Celebration of available support: far too often finding guidance or the right person to talk to is a difficult task, especially when you are in crisis or difficult situation. Raising awareness and celebrating support programs provided by institutions and other organisations can make it easier for people to reach out and get help at the right time.
  4. Research culture changes: work environments that bolster and celebrate diversity are key for ensuring that ECS feel supported.

The overarching theme of the debate was that mental health management cannot be left to the individuals alone, but instead together we can all play our part in making sure our work environments become more accepting, less judgmental and truly value diversity.

By Stephanie Zihms, lecturer in researcher development, University of the West of Scotland, UK 

If you are looking for someone to talk to or resources, here are some phone numbers and websites:

UK:

Samaritans: 08457 909090
Abuse Not: 0808 8005015
Brook Young People’s Information Service: 0800 0185023
Eating Disorder Support: 01494 793223
Anxiety UK: 0844 477 5774
Depression Alliance: 0845 123 23 20
Rape Crisis Centre: 01708 765200
Rape/sexual assault: 0808 8000 123 (female) or 0808 8000122 (male)
Miscarriage Association: 01924 200799
LLGS Helpline (LGBT): 0300 330 0630

Germany:

TelefonSeelsorge Deutschland: 0800 111 0 111 or 0800 11 0 222
https://www.telefonseelsorge.de/?q=node/6293

China:

Helpline 1: Beijing Suicide Research and Prevention Center Hotline: 800-810-1117 or 010-82951332
Helpline 2: Lifeline Shanghai: (english-speaking) (021) 6279 8990
Website: http://www.lifeline-shanghai.com
Helpline 3: Shanghai Mental Health Center: 021-64387250

Italy:

Helpline 1: 199 284 284
Website: http://www2.telefonoamico.it/

France:

Helpline 1: (+33) (0)9 51 11 61 30
Website: https://www.sos-amitie.org/

USA:

Lifeline: 13 11 14
Depression Hotline: 1-630-482-9696
Suicide Hotline: 1-800-784-8433
LifeLine: 1-800-273-8255
Trevor Project: 1-866-488-7386
Sexuality Support: 1-800-246-7743
Eating Disorders Hotline: 1-847-831-3438
Grief Support: 1-650-321-5272

Austria:

Helpline 1: 142
Website: http://www.telefonseelsorge.at/

Krisenhilfe: 0732 2177

Switzerland:

Die Dargebotene Hand (Schweiz) phone 143 or https://www.143.ch

Netherlands:

Helpline 1: 0900-0767
Website: https://www.deluisterlijn.nl/

Collection of helpline numbers around the world:

https://togetherweare-strong.tumblr.com/helpline

Coping tips:

https://www.rethink.org/diagnosis-treatment/symptoms/suicidal-thoughts/today

Resources to be a better ally:

https://www.time-to-change.org.uk
http://www.sane.org.uk
https://www.wie-gehts-dir.ch/de/

Geosciences Column: Flooded by jargon

Geosciences Column: Flooded by jargon

When hydrologists and people of the general public use simple water-related words, are they actually saying the same thing? While many don’t consider words like flood, river and groundwater to be very technical terms, also known as jargon, water scientists and the general public can actually have pretty different definitions. This is what a team of researchers have discovered in recent study, and their results were published in EGU’s open access journal Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. In this post, Rolf Hut, an assistant professor at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands and co-author of the study, blogs about his team’s findings.

On the television a scientist is interviewed, in a room with a massive collection of books:

“Due to climate change, the once in two years flood now reaches up to…”

“Flood?” interrupts my dad “We haven’t had a flood in fifteen years; how can they talk about a once in two years flood?”

The return period of floods is an often used example to illustrate how statistically illiterate ‘the general public’ is supposed to be. But maybe we shouldn’t focus on the phrase ‘once in two years’, but rather on the term ‘flood’. Because: does my dad know what that scientist, a colleague of mine, means when she says “flood”?

In water-science the words that experts use are the same words that people use in daily life. Words like ‘flood’, ‘dam’ or ‘river’. Because we have been using these words for our entire lives, we may not stop and think that, because of our training as water scientists, we may have a different definition than what people outside our field may have. When together with experts on science communication, I was writing a review paper about geoscience on television[1] when we got into the discussion “what is jargon?”. We quickly found out that within geoscience this is an open question.

Together with a team of Netherlands-based scientists, including part-time journalist and scientist Gemma Venhuizen and professor of science communication Ionica Smeets and assistant professor on soils Cathelijne Stoof and professor of statistics Casper Albers we decided to look for an answer to this question. We conducted a survey where we asked people what they thought words like ‘flood’ meant. People could pick from different definitions. Those definitions were not wrong per se, just different. One might be from Wikipedia and another from a policy document from EU officials. We did not want to test if people were correct, but rather if there was a difference in meaning attached to words between water scientists and lay people. For completeness, we also added picture questions where people had to pick the picture that best matched a certain word.

The results are in. We recently published our findings in the EGU journal Hydrology and Earth System Sciences[2] and will present them at the EGU General Assembly in April 2019 in Vienna. As it turns out: words like ‘groundwater’, ‘discharge’ and even ‘river’ have a large difference between the meaning lay-people have compared to water scientists. For the pictures however, people tend to agree more. The figure below shows the misfit distribution between lay people and water scientists: the bigger the misfit, the more people have different definitions. The numbers on the right are the Bayes factor: bigger than 10 indicates strong evidence that differences between lay people and water scientists are more likely than similarities. The words with an asterisk are the picture questions, showing that when communicating using pictures people are more likely to share the same definition.

Graph showing the posterior distribution of the misfit between laypeople and experts by using a Bayes factor (BF) for every term used in the survey. Pictorial questions are marked with an asterisk. A value of the BF <1∕10 is strong evidence towards H0: it is more likely that laypeople answer questions the same as experts than differently. A value of the BF >10 is strong evidence towards H1: differences are more likely than similarities. In addition to a Bayes factor for the significance of the difference, we also calculated the misfit: the strength of the difference. The misfit was calculated by a DIF score (differential item functioning), in which DIF =0 means perfect match, and DIF =1 means maximum difference. (Figure from https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-393-2019)

Maybe that scientist talking about floods on the television should have been filmed at a flood site, not in front of a pile of books.

Finally, the term ‘flood’ proved to be one of the words that we do tend to agree on, so maybe dad should take that class in basic statistics afterall…

By dr. ir. Rolf Hut, researcher at Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands

[This article is cross-posted on Rolf Hut’s personal site]

References

[1] Hut, R., Land-Zandstra, A. M., Smeets, I., and Stoof, C. R.: Geoscience on television: a review of science communication literature in the context of geosciences, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 2507-2518, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2507-2016, 2016.

[2] Venhuizen, G. J., Hut, R., Albers, C., Stoof, C. R., and Smeets, I.: Flooded by jargon: how the interpretation of water-related terms differs between hydrology experts and the general audience, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 393-403, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-393-2019, 2019.

Imaggeo on Mondays: Crowned elephant seals do citizen science

Imaggeo on Mondays: Crowned elephant seals do citizen science

In the Southern Ocean and North Pacific lives a peculiar type of elephant seal. This group acts like any other marine mammal; they dive deep into the ocean, chow down on fish, and sunbathe on the beach. However, they do all this with scientific instruments attached to their heads. While the seals carry out their usual activities, the devices collect important oceanographic data that help scientists better understand our marine environment.

The practice of tagging elephant seals to obtain data started in 2004, and today equipped seals are the largest contributors of temperature and salinity profiles below of the 60th parallel south. You can find all sorts of data that has been collected by instrumented sea creatures through the Marine Mammals Exploring the Oceans Pole to Pole database online.

The female elephant seal, pictured here at Point Suzanne on the eastern end of the Kerguelen Islands in the Southern Ocean, is a member of this unusual headgear-wearing cohort. This particular seal had been roaming the sea for several months with the device (also known as a miniature Conductivity-Temperature-Depth sensor) on her head. As the seal dove hundreds of metres below the sea surface, the instrument captured the vertical profile of the area, recording the ocean’s temperature and salinity, as well as chlorophyll a fluorescence and concentrations. When the seal resurfaced, the sensor sent the data it had accrued to scientists by satellite.

Etienne Pauthenet, a PhD student at Stockholm University who was involved in a seal tagging campaign, had a chance to snap this photo before tranquilising the seal and retrieving the tag.

Using elephant seals and other marine mammals to collect data gives scientists the opportunity to analyse remote regions of the ocean that aren’t very accessible by vehicles. Studying these parts of the world are important for gaining insight on how oceans and their inhabitants are responding to climate change, for example. With the help of data-gathering elephant seals, researchers are able to amass in situ measurements from regions that previously had been hard to reach, apply this data to oceanographic models, and make predictions on ocean climate processes.

While gathering data via elephant seals are crucial to oceanographic research, Pauthenet explains that the practice is sometimes quite difficult. “It can be complicated to find back the seal, because of the Argo satellite signal precision. The quality of the signal depends on the position of the seal, if she is lying on her back for example, or if she is still in the water.”

While on the research campaign, Pauthenet and his colleagues were stationed at a small cabin on the shore of Point Suzanne and they walked the shore every day in search of the seal, relying on location points transmitted from a VHF radio. After seven days they finally located her and removed her valuable crown. The seal was then free to go about her business, having given her contribution to the hundreds of thousands of vertical profiles collected by marine mammal citizen scientists.

by Olivia Trani, EGU Communications Officer
Imaggeo is the EGU’s online open access geosciences image repository. All geoscientists (and others) can submit their photographs and videos to this repository and, since it is open access, these images can be used for free by scientists for their presentations or publications, by educators and the general public, and some images can even be used freely for commercial purposes. Photographers also retain full rights of use, as Imaggeo images are licensed and distributed by the EGU under a Creative Commons licence. Submit your photos at http://imaggeo.egu.eu/upload/.

Preprint power: changing the publishing scene

Preprint power: changing the publishing scene

Open access publishing has become common practice in the science community. In this guest post, David Fernández-Blanco, a contributor to the EGU Tectonics and Structural Geology Division blog, presents one facet of open access that is changing the publishing system for many geoscientists: preprints.

Open access initiatives confronting the publishing system

The idea of open access publishing and freely sharing research outputs is becoming widely embraced by the scientific community. The limitations of traditional publishing practices and the misuse of this system are some of the key drivers behind the rise of open access initiatives. Additionally, the open access movement has been pushed even further by current online capacities to widely share research as it is produced.

Efforts to make open access the norm in publishing have been active for quite some time now. For example, almost two decades ago, the European Geosciences Union (EGU) launched its first open access journals, which hold research papers open for interactive online discussion. The EGU also allows manuscripts to be reviewed online by anyone in the community, before finally published in their peer-reviewed journals.

This trend is also now starting to be reflected at an institutional level. For example, all publicly funded scientific papers in Europe could be free to access by 2020, thanks to a reform promoted in 2016 by Carlos Moedas, the European Union’s Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation.

More recently, in late 2017, around 200 German universities and research organisations cancelled the renewal of their Elsevier subscriptions due to unmet demands for lower prices and an open access policies. Similarly, French institutions refused a new deal with Springer in early 2018. Now, Swedish researchers have followed suit, deciding to cancel their agreement with Elsevier. All these international initiatives are confronting an accustomed publishing system.

The community-driven revolution

Within this context, it’s no surprise that the scientific community has come up with various exciting initiatives that promote open access, such as creating servers to share preprints. Preprints are scientific contributions ready to be shared with other scientists, but that are not yet (or are in the process of being) peer-reviewed. A preprint server is an online platform hosting preprints and making them freely available online.

Many journals that were slow to accept these servers are updating their policies to adapt to the steadily growing increase of preprint usage by a wide-range of scientific communities. Now most journals welcome manuscripts hosted by a preprint server. Even job postings and funding agencies are changing their policies. For example, the European Research Council (ERC) Starting and Consolidator Grants are now taking applicant preprints into consideration.

Preprints: changing the publishing system

ArXiv is the oldest and most established preprint server. It was created in 1991, initially directed towards physics research. The server receives on average 10,000 submissions per month and now hosts over one million manuscripts. Arxiv sets a precedent for preprints, and now servers covering other scientific fields have emerged, such as bioRxiv and ChemRxiv.

Credit: EarthArXiv

EarthArXiv was the first to fill the preprint gap for the Earth sciences. It was launched in October 2017 by Tom Narock, an assistant professor at Notre Dame of Maryland University in Baltimore (US), and Christopher Jackson, a professor at Imperial College London (UK). In the first 24 hours after its online launch, this preprint server already had nine submissions from geoscientists.

The server holds now more than 400 preprints, approved for publication after moderation, and gets around 1,600 downloads monthly. The platform’s policy may well contribute to its success – EarthArXiv is an independent preprint server strongly supported by the Earth sciences community, now run by 125 volunteers. The logo, for example, was a crowdsourcing effort. Through social media, EarthArXiv asked the online community to send their designs; then a poll was held to decide which one of the submitted logos would be selected. Additionally, the server’s Diversity Statement and Moderation Policy were both developed communally.

Credit: ESSOAr

In February 2018, some months after EarthArXiv went live, another platform serving the Earth sciences was born: the American Geophysical Union’s Earth and Space Science Open Archive, ESSOAr. The approach between both platforms is markedly different; ESSOAr is partially supported by Wiley, a publishing company, while EarthArXiv is independent of any publishers. The ESSOAr server is gaining momentum by hosting conference posters, while EarthArXiv plans to focus on preprint manuscripts, at least for the near future. The ESSOAr server hosts currently 120 posters and nine preprints.

What is the power of preprints?

How can researchers benefit from these new online sources?

No delays:

Preprint servers allow rapid dissemination. Through preprints, new scientific findings are shared directly with other scientists. The manuscript is immediately available after being uploaded, meaning it is searchable right away. There is no delay for peer-review, editorial decisions, or lengthy journal production.

Visibility:

A DOI is assigned to the work, so it is citable as soon as it is uploaded. This is especially helpful to early career scientists seeking for employment and funding opportunities, as they can show and prove their scholarly track record at any point.

Engagement:

Making research visible to the community can lead to helpful feedback and constructive, transparent discussions. Some servers and participating authors have promoted their preprints through social media, in many cases initiating productive conversations with fellow scientists. Hence, preprints promote not only healthy exchanges, but they may also lead to improvements to the initial manuscript. Also, through these exchanges, which occur outside of the journal-led peer-review route, it is possible to network and build collaborative links with fellow scientists.

No boundaries:

Preprints allow everyone to have access to science, making knowledge available across boundaries.

The servers are open without cost to everyone forever. This also means tax payers have free access to the science they pay for.

Backup:

Preprint servers are a useful way to self-archive documents.  Many preprint servers also host postprints, which are already published articles (after the embargo period applicable to some journals).

Given the difference between the publishing industry’s current model and preprint practices, it is not surprising to find an increasing number of scientists stirring the preprint movement. It is possible that many of such researchers are driven by a motivation to contribute to a transparent process and promote open science within their community and to the public. This motivation is indeed the true power of preprints.

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.