Tag: Research

How interventions are spread: Winning second prize at the Research as Art Summer Showcase

By Sophie Spitters, PhD Student, Department of Medicine

The Imperial College London Graduate School organised their annual Summer Showcase on Friday July 13th. The showcase aims to celebrate research undertaken by PhD students at Imperial and invites staff, students and visitors to find out more about their work via a poster and a research as art exhibition. I joined the research as art exhibition, showcasing my NIHR CLAHRC NWL research, and won second prize! First prize was won by Iman Ibrahim, who demonstrated what it takes to get clean drinking water to our taps in her mandala called ‘the ripple effect’. And third prize was won by Laura Braun for her ‘sludge cake’ made from sewage, demonstrating the value of faecal waste treatment in order to return it safely to the environment as a natural fertiliser.

 

How interventions are spread

My art installation, titled ‘How interventions are spread’, aimed to communicate the reality of spreading healthcare improvement interventions, which often does not follow the expected trajectory. Healthcare improvement is often depicted as a linear straightforward process. First, a problem is identified. Then, a potential solution or intervention gets implemented in one area. Finally, if that intervention has shown to be successful, it is spread to other areas. The aim of spread in this context is to replicate the successful intervention exactly as is. Big investments are made to demonstrate that positive outcomes are linked to a particular intervention. So why change a winning formula? Why change an evidence-based intervention?

My research shows how in reality, the process of spread is a lot more complex. Evidence-based interventions often get presented as nicely packaged products with a clear step-by-step manual, not reflecting the messiness of interpersonal relationships, hard work and contextual dependencies underpinning its development. Hence, interventions do not just get picked up in one place and dropped off in another. When spreading to other areas, interventions change and develop depending on local priorities, capabilities and resources. This work is based on the spread of an allergy service improvement initiative.

I tried to communicate these issues through my art installation via two components: the video below and an interactive element encouraging people to build their own intervention with the (flawed) information and materials provided in the black box.

 

Exhibiting at the Summer Showcase

Joining the research as art competition was a great opportunity for me to communicate one of my research findings in a creative way. During the creation of the project, I realised that replicating a simple playdoh sculpture (which I used as a visual analogy) had many subtleties in common with replicating interventions in real-life quality improvement efforts. I never actually expected to see that. The Summer Showcase gave me the chance to explore these similarities and differences further with the visitors. It was great talking to people from different disciplines and different backgrounds about my research and to hear about their thoughts and insights. The art installation proved to be a great vehicle to start discussion, explore connections with people’s own experiences, and to visually demonstrate a key take home message from my research.

Master’s 3.60 – An Opportunity for Public Engagement

by Rosie Dutt, MRes student in the Department of Chemistry

Within academia, each individual is working diligently towards their research aims. It is fair to say there have been many nights where some may be working tirelessly to fix a programming code, whilst others ponder over why their reaction series has not worked. Eventually, we reach the end of our research once our scientific questions have been fully explored, with the aim of a publication into a prestigious scientific journal. However, this results in our work being read by our peers within the field, and on some occasions, by individuals with allied interests into the research area – but seldom by the general public.

This is unfortunate, as most the research conducted at Imperial – and indeed around the world – has significant impact, not only in academia, but also to society, the economy and the environment. Consequently, there has been a lot of emphasis recently to engage individuals outside the discipline and to raise awareness as to how the current research can impact them. I believe the Master’s 3.60 competition endeavoured to do just this, within Imperial itself!

The Competition

This was the second year of the cross-departmental initiative across all the master’s courses at Imperial. The first phase required students to submit a single slide detailing the background, methods and impact of their research; alongside a recording describing their study within 2 minutes. The process of preparing the submission required us to command a detailed understanding of what our research entailed, in order to get the key points across. Hereafter, 16 individuals were selected as finalists, including myself!

The second phase required us to present our research within 3 minutes, to an audience of our peers, and a panel of judges, with the aid of 4 slides. The slides were split such that there was now one for each aspect of the requirements (introduction, background, method and impact). Finalist were required to present in succession of each other, with judges ensuring the 3-minute rule was adhered too. When the results were announced I was awarded second place!

My Experience

My research is in partnership with Great Ormond Street Hospital and focuses on investigating traumatic brain injuries in children, to see how this results in structural, functional and cognitive brain changes – as assessed by imaging techniques and neuropsychological assessments. Preparing for the competition required me to assess what I had done, how I had done it, and the impact it would have on society, the economy and academia itself. This allowed me to identify key aspects of my research, and succinctly deliver it in a manner which was accessible to all.

Whilst preparing for the presentation, I attended a Mastering Presentation Skills workshop run by Dr Helal Ahmed. This required contestants to practice their presentations alongside each other and obtain feedback. I found this exercise extremely useful, as I was able to learn more about what further skills needed to be showcased, that being: confidence, enthusiasm, clarity, accessibility and relatability. I also took the opportunity to present in front of my research group, who provided feedback on how to better the presentation.

Personally, the competition helped me to develop my presentation skills by honing in on being as concise as possible; since conveying research conducted over 8 months, in 3 minutes, was quite a task. This has no doubt helped me with the structure of writing my manuscript and to focus on the application, and wider impact of the study. Furthermore, this was a great opportunity to communicate science, develop public engagement skills, and represent our respective departments.

Having a strong interest in science communication myself, I was very excited to hear about the research conducted by my peers. It was truly inspiring to see the amount of impactful research that was occurring within Imperial. Thus, I would recommend everyone to apply to the competition as it is a great way to start thinking about your research in a wider context, develop your confidence and presentation skills, as well as learn about the great research occurring within the university.

My Three Minute Thesis

By Hannah Maude, 2nd Year PhD Student, Department of Medicine.
hannah.maude12@imperial.ac.uk

I was absolutely thrilled to recently be awarded third place in the Graduate School Three Minute Thesis (3MT) Competition. Not only because it was completely unexpected, but because the standard of the competition was insanely high (classic Imperial?!). Every single contestant gave an excellent talk.

If you aren’t familiar with the concept of a three-minute thesis, I can tell you it means exactly that: describe your three-year PhD in three minutes. Sounds a challenge, right? I confess that my favourite bad habit is signing up to anything outside my comfort zone; bad because it means experiencing all the nerves and potential failure, but good because overcoming the challenge means learning new skills, feeling proud of my achievements, and ultimately having a great time.

What’s involved?

The first brief was quite general, “nominees will present their current research in one slide and three minutes”, so I did what I do best and carried out some research. YouTube revealed that 3MT equals general overview of your research topic: background, clarity, content, confidence, enthusiasm and simplicity were just a few of the recommended qualities. People approach this in different ways, some choose to speak ad-lib, while others—including myself—write a speech and learn it word for word.

What did your speech cover?

My speech covered the background and concepts behind my research, in a nutshell that risk of Type 2 Diabetes can be inherited, and that I spend my days researching exactly how DNA mutations increase your risk of disease. See the published speech: https://hanmaude.wixsite.com/keepcalmreadscience/my-3-minute-thesis

 

The 3MT slide, with quotes below. “This meme, which recently appeared on my Facebook, represents how some people can live healthily, yet still develop obesity and Diabetes. This bad luck has an explanation: it’s in your DNA”. “The DNA you inherit is like a game of cards; we have no control over whether we are dealt a ‘healthy’ or an ‘unhealthy’ genetic hand.” “Mutations at ‘risk loci’ disrupt ‘instructions’ and change the activity of nearby genes.”

How was the experience?

Honestly, the idea of standing up at the front of a lecture theatre and reciting a speech word for word within a strict time limit is pretty daunting. Once on stage however, I really enjoyed myself. I was able to be fully enthusiastic about my work and explain it to an audience who were genuinely curious. I also loved listening to all the other fascinating 3MT’s – who knew the concept of mixing two liquids could be so interesting?!

What did you learn?

The aim of a 3MT is to help a lay audience understand what you are researching. Not only is this super fun (and my Mum finally understands what I do) but taking a step back to think about your research in very basic terms, is totally underrated. I learnt to overcome my nerves, to be disciplined within a time limit, and how to communicate my research.

Take home message?

I would recommend the 3MT competition to all graduate students. It’s one of my biggest achievements this year and was so much fun. If you’re not one for presenting, I would absolutely recommend watching. It’s an inspiring event with engaging talks and you get a real feel for the huge variety of PhD projects going on at Imperial.

Maria Lucey (2nd place), me (3rd place), Paulina Rowinska (1st place) and Matt Douthwaite (People’s choice).

180 Seconds

by Paulina Rowinska, PhD student in the Department of Mathematics.

Years of research squeezed into three minutes? That was the task I and eighteen other participants of Imperial College Three Minute Thesis competition had to face on Tuesday 24th April 2018.

The rules are very simple. Contestants get exactly three minutes to describe their research to a general audience, using only one static slide. Sounds easy, but trust me, it’s extremely difficult. How do you introduce your narrow topic, explain what your research involves and persuade the audience that they should care in the first place?

All nineteen of us managed to do that. I learned a lot about a variety of research areas, from planting forests in Brazil, to optimal mixing of coffee and milk, to gravitational waves. I was impressed by the amount of information other contestant were able to convey in such a short time.

Because my last name starts with “R” and the order of presentations was alphabetical, I had to wait for what felt like AGES for my turn. These were very stressful hours! However, as soon as I stepped on the stage, I felt much better, especially since the audience was lively and reacting very positively to my words.

Our host, Professor Tom Welton, the dean of the Faculty of Natural Sciences, made the event truly entertaining. His jokes, smiles and charismatic personality let us, the contestants, forget about the challenge ahead of us.

Finally the panel of judges consisting of Dr Helal Ahmed, Dr Amy Seakins and Simon Schöller picked their favourite talks. The third place went to Hannah Maude from the Department of Medicine for her talk ‘Genomics of Common Disease’ that explored the link between the genes and diabetes. The second place was awarded to Maria Lucey from the same department. During her presentation ‘Food for Thought: Inhibiting Appetite with Prokineticin’ she explained how our appetites works. And the first prize… to me, for my talk ‘Winds of Change’! I used my three minutes to describe how I’m applying mathematics to help investments in renewable energy sources. The audience also voted for their favourite presentation, which turned out to be ‘Wearable Integrated Circuits for Sweat Analysis’ by Matt Douthwaite from the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, who made us feel a bit better about our stress sweat 😉

I signed up for this contest spontaneously and I’m truly happy I did it! During this fun event I got a chance to hear about the research of fellow PhD students as well as practice giving talks, which is the key to get over the fear of public speaking.

Make sure that in 2019 you sign up yourself and get your own three minutes of fame. Good luck!

The 2018 Three Minute Thesis Contestants
The winners! L-R: 2nd place, 3rd place, 1st place and People’s Choice winner

ICL-TUM Global Fellows Programme 2017

by Seth Wilson, PhD Student, Mechanical Engineering

After the successful completion of the ICL-TUM Global Fellows’ Programme 2017, entitled Cities of the Future, I was fortunate enough to remain in Munich, Germany for a further three-weeks. During this time, I carried out a short research project within the Lehrstuhl für Nuckleartechnik (Chair for Nuclear Technology) at the Technische Universität München (TUM) under the supervision of Professor Macián-Juan.

Germany has decided to discontinue its use of nuclear energy and will have phased-out its remaining functioning nuclear power plants by the end of 2022. Without wanting to completely abandon nuclear, research within this field has become more general to processes and systems, such as to have a wider range of applications.

During my research internship, I worked with two best-estimate thermal-hydraulics systems codes: TRACE, developed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the United States; and ATHLET, developed by the Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS), Germany’s central expert organisation in the field of nuclear safety and radioactive waste management.

These computer codes are used to simulate typical pressurised-water (PWR) and boiling-water (BWR) nuclear reactors during normal operation; and more interestingly for the general analysis of abnormal transients and accident situations, in particular the Loss of Coolant Accidents (LOCA). Furthermore, ATHLET couples neutronics and nuclear reactor physics with thermal-hydraulic engineering for a coupled multi-physics analysis.

At the very best, computer codes provide good approximations; it is therefore necessary to quantify and rank any sources of uncertainty that may propagate through into the output. I performed such uncertainty and sensitivity analysis with SUSA, another piece of software developed by the GRS.

I am very grateful to have had this opportunity to collaborate with researchers from further afield. As a result, I now have a better appreciation for my own work at Imperial College. I have increased my network of engineers and researchers, as well as maintained old contacts; I was pleased to discover an old colleague of mine, from my school in Paris, was working on his PhD in the Nuclear Technology department at TUM.

ICL-TUM Global Fellows Programme 2017

By Firdous Ul Nazir, PhD Student, Electrical Engineering

I got a chance to participate in the ICL-TUM global fellows programme: Cities of the future, thanks to the Imperial Graduate school. This was a week long course involving 51 participants from 7 globally renowned institutions. The first day of the course was mainly aimed at acquainting the participants of the practical challenges and expected transformations in cities of the future which was aptly conveyed through presentations by experts of the field. In the remaining four days we were involved in a lot of group activities which culminated in a collaborative group project from each group. The groups involved students from different universities and diverse disciplines which helped us to improve our communication, team work, idea generation and collaborative skills. During the course of time the efficiency of each group improved drastically as the group supervisors were constantly helping us to overcome our mistakes in the previous tasks. We also had a guided visit to the Munich city which helped us to understand its digital transformation planning.

I completed my three week research visit in renewable and sustainable energy systems group which is under electrical and computer engineering department TUM, thanks to my host supervisor Prof. Thomas Hamacher. I got to know about the research activities in Prof. Hamacher’s group and had a chance to discuss with his students about their upcoming micro-grid lab in the department which helped me to have a better understanding of micro-grids. I was given the freedom to carry out my own PhD research during the research visit. This was a very unique experience and would certainly like to recommend the course to all the future aspirants.

Finally I feel highly grateful for being given this wonderful opportunity to participate in the global fellows workshop and undertake a three week research visit.

 

A Multi-Disciplinary Communication on Climate Change and Energy

By Dapeng Chen,

Tsinghua University

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims, the warming of the climate system is unequivocally supported by scientific evidence. It is a vital task of human beings to work out practical solutions and put them into real effect in this century. This year, the Imperial-Tsinghua Global Fellows Programme, co-organized by Imperial College London and Tsinghua University, focused on climate change and energy, through 5 days of intense communications and collaborations amongst early stage Ph.D. students in multiple disciplines from both universities. As a third year PhD candidate in finance, I was honoured to be part of the programme. It impressed me in three important aspects.

First, highly interactive and inspiring group challenges. We were separated into groups to take part in some well-designed interactive activities. In one, we had a simple collaborative task. It did not take long before all groups figured out an efficient way to achieve it, but suddenly, the coaches made some alterations. We soon started conversations, built up mutual trust and carried on with the task. This challenge put me in deep thought and reminded me of my own experience of joining a new research project two years ago. Such changes had put me under huge pressure but I finally managed to fit into my new surroundings. Positive communications and active adaptations are the keys to successful accommodation in a new research project with new collaborators.

Second, jargon-free academic communications. With the poster fair, we got opportunities to learn about each other’s research while improving our own presentation skills to tell research ideas to a general audience. The students are indeed from a variety of disciplines, from chemistry to electrical engineering to arts and design. I had my doubts at the very beginning over how we should present academic research to someone not in the area. But luckily, the organizers put an emphasis on “no jargon” and everyone followed it. With a finance and economics background, I found little difficulty in understanding presentations about electricity generating systems or ultrasound therapy to cure cancer. Also, I followed the very useful researcher pack provided by the programme to frame a presentation in an academic way: from the question it aims to answer, to the impact it may have, to its methodology and how it is related to climate change.

Third, remarkable collaborative research proposal presentations. For the final presentation on collaborative research, we chose teammates and came up with our own research ideas to offer possible solutions to climate change. In my team, we had one engineer, one policy research expert, one business model analyst and one financial analyst. We set up a research plan to evaluate the economic and political feasibility of substituting coal with natural gas in China’s energy consumption, via a new pipeline system. Shortly after our presentation, on July 12th, the National Development and Reform Commission in China released a report on “medium to long term plan over oil and gas pipeline system”. Although there seems to be not much causality here, we are glad that what we aimed to research into is actually what the government cares about. Other teams’ presentations were also more than great, of which a particularly interesting one was a video game incorporating data simulations about global climate change and providing players with realistic experiences of the catastrophes caused by global warming. I would definitely invest in this game if I were a venture capitalist.

All in all, the 5-day program was a most rewarding experience for me. Besides the training and academic communications, I made quite a few nice friends. I want to offer my special thanks to my teammates. They encouraged me to be bold in expressing my ideas whenever I wanted to shy away. Also I’m grateful for their company every morning when jogging around the most beautiful Easthampstead Park area.

Next July, the Ninth Imperial-Tsinghua Global Fellows Programme will be held in Tsinghua University. Looking forward to seeing you in Beijing, an enjoyable city with rich history, friendly people, tasty food and numerous places of interests to visit.

“East meets West to Combat Climate Change!” Imperial College – Tsinghua University Global Fellows Programme

by Ruth Davey – Year 2 PhD Student from Earth Science & Engineering

I signed up to the programme back in the Spring, thinking it sounded like a unique opportunity to collaborate with students from China so I was very excited to find out I’d been accepted! As the programme date drew closer however, I became bogged down with several unexpected and large workloads relating to my PhD research. I began to wonder if losing a week of research time was such a great idea. As it was, I arrived at the coach on Monday afternoon with some trepidation. My worries were quickly dispelled and, as the course evolved, it made me so aware of how much we, as PhD students, become isolated in our own research bubble. Not only within our own departments within a single institution, but also cross institutionally!

By the first evening it was clear that everyone was keen to integrate and immerse themselves into the programme, becoming a single group of like minded peers. My home team composed of four Tsinghua students from varying disciplines (Art and Design, Green Policy, Product Manufacturing and Geotechnical Engineering), plus one other Imperial student studying Electrical Engineering. Quite a diverse bunch! Each day was intense but well organised with several team-building outdoor activities that were super fun (and hilarious, we failed so badly at herding!!). These activities really helped us learn to communicate and understand each other effectively even with the obvious language barriers.

We also had time to present a poster about our own research and question the other students about theirs; the aim of this being to choose a team to collaborate with on a research proposal. This poster event was incredibly insightful. Not only did I have the chance to explain the fundamental theory behind my own research, but I also had my eyes opened to the different ways in which my peers are intend to mitigate the impacts of climate change and reduce carbon emissions. For example, I had never considered that specific trees absorb specific pollutants and that the pomegranate tree could play a key role in cleaning our air!

The course was a mixture of interactive discussion sessions, lectures, team-building activities, team evaluation, as well as self-evaluation sessions. Even though each day was full and intense, the time never dragged. We never spent too long listening to a lecture or too long doing a single activity so the mind was constantly engaged. For me personally, the feedback sessions were most constructive. I have always been vaguely aware of my instinct to jump straight into a task and just get it done. These times of self-reflection allowed me to realise that the old saying of “failure to prepare is preparing to fail” don’t just instruct exam revision or report writing but smaller, everyday tasks.

 

The absolute highlight of the course for me was the surprise group activity on Wednesday evening. A Tsinghua Researcher showed us Chinese traditional dancing and a group coach showed us all how they rocked it back in 17th century Britain. I have never witnessed such a combination of cultures in an academic setting before! Everyone lost their inhibitions and joined in and it was fantastic.

Working with others is such a key skill, even more so when dealing with cultures that are so expansively different. Instead of seeing it as 5 days “lost” from my individual research, I had 5 extraordinary days to work alongside some brilliant minds and pull together the different, unique strands of each person’s knowledge culminating in an innovative, exciting, collaborative research proposal. Yes, in the short term, I missed out on collecting a few new data points for my PhD project but the long-term benefits for my own personal development and cross-culture understanding, far outweigh this and I was foolish to have these doubts in the first place! I would strongly recommend this course to any PhD student. It reminded me that doing a PhD is not just about the research you produce as an individual but your self-development, your teamwork and collaboration skills and your willingness to learn and open your mind to new cultures, people and experiences.

CDT Festival of Science and Art

by Jennifer Hack

Science and art are two disciplines that would not normally be put together, which is why the choice of theme for this year’s CDT Festival of Science “Science and Art-Exploring Creativity” presented an intriguing challenge. The festival‑in‑a‑day is an annual event, which is organised by a committee of PhD students from the 12 Imperial‑affiliated Centres for Doctoral Training (CDTs) and this year it took place on Friday 21st April in the Sir Alexander Fleming building of Imperial.

The planning of the festival happened over 5 months, during which we invited scientists and artists working at the interface between the two to come and speak about their work. It was also decided that we would install a “pop-up” art exhibition on the day of the festival, so we invited students from two of London’s art colleges, the Royal College of Art and Central Saint Martens, to submit work on the theme “science and art” for the exhibition. Although it was a lot of organisation, the planning of the day went really smoothly and aside from a last minute purchase of black table cloths, everything was ready to go!

The day kicked off with an entertaining talk from polymer chemist Tony Ryan, who discussed about his collaborative work with the artist Helen Storey creating “Dissolving Dresses” and “Catalytic Clothing”. The idea of their work was to create beautiful pieces of clothing, whilst also raising awareness of how fashion has become a “throw-away” industry. Geraldine Cox, who is the artist in residence in the Imperial College Physics department, then talked about her fascinating work, inspired by Richard Feynman, creating art to represent the way hierarchies in nature, from humans to atoms, interconnect.

Tony Ryan discusses the idea behind his dissolvable dresses

Charlotte Jarvis, who stunned the audience by discussing two of her pieces of work, gave the final talk of the morning session. In “Music of the Spheres”, Charlotte worked with scientists to turn a DNA sequence into a piece of music, as well as creating soap bubbles from the DNA. We were lucky enough to commission Charlotte to display this piece at the festival, so attendees could experience the DNA bubbles first hand! She then talked about her work with scientists to grow a real-life cancerous tumour in a laboratory from her own stem cells!

Committee members test out Music of Spheres

Thankfully, this wasn’t enough to put attendees off their lunch and after everyone was refreshed, artist Anna Dumitriu presented her work investigating the relationship that humans have with microbes. Using living microbes, she has created stunning pieces of artwork and at the time of the festival, she was displaying her work in the Imperial College Blyth Gallery, so no doubt, some people headed over there to take a look. The final talk of the day was given by scientist Andy Beeby, a professor at Durham University. As a member of “Team Pigment”, he has been working with other scientists and historians to use light to investigate the pigments found in ancient manuscripts. Andy entertained the audience with the challenges of handling centuries‑old manuscripts without damaging them!

Following the talks, tea and coffee was served and guests were invited to take time to explore the art exhibition. Installed over four seminar rooms, the artwork ranged from slime moulds to black holes, virtual reality to big data mapping. Entries to the “Science and Art” competition were also displayed, where entrants had been asked to present their scientific research in the form of a piece of art. The speakers were asked to pick the final winners and the top prize of £200 was awarded to Margarita Kopniczky and two runner up prizes of £50 went to Andrew Simmons and Francesco Gianoli.

Attendees interact with the exhibition

The final session of the day was a heated panel discussion about the differences and similarities between the creative processes used by scientists and artists. Panellists came from both disciplines and it was clear that some of the methods used in creating science were identical to those used for creating art.

Panellists are ready to discuss the relationship between science and art

The discussion continued over a drinks reception in the foyer, where attendees could mingle with the speakers, panellist and exhibitors over a glass of wine or a beer. Overall, the event was really well received and the hard work of the committee really paid off. Just over a month after the festival, the committee have plans to keep the conversation between scientists and artists going, so watch this space for further science‑art collaborations!

The Facebook page for the festival can be found here, with more pictures of the day: https://www.facebook.com/CDTFoS/

Words: Jennifer Hack

Pictures: Shengyang Chen

Evidencing Leadership and Management within a PhD

By Dr Paul Seldon

As researchers we are used to talking about our research to different audiences, explaining the ideas and findings. Often we are less able to see the wider value in our practices and how these can be translated to other roles and positions.

This became very relevant for me when having completed a PhD and several post-doctoral positions I wondered if I had relevant experience that I could evidence to gain full membership of the Chartered Management Institute (CMI). The challenge was to examine my academic progress through a leadership and management perspective. Looking through the activities of my PhD I found evidence in the five areas below.

  • Research vision – knowledge progression and impact, understanding of different research areas and importance of working across interdisciplinary boundaries,
  • Leading a research project – meeting deadlines and miles stones, delivering project deliverables and generating outputs. Upward trajectory in quality of research and innovation. Challenging, original and productive research. Outstanding independent research, with impact in the field. Problem solving and creativity, innovation and application
  • Development – Training of others, process, technique, subject expertise
  • Performance review – report generation, peer review publication
  • Finance – negotiation of quotes, use of ordering and invoicing systems, managing a research budget

The process of examining my research experience allowed me to identify and translate these into the leadership and management context. As a result of this I was approved for full membership of the CMI, this is and has been very useful for career progression.

Thinking about the examples above and other possible areas, what evidence could you provide of leadership and management. Other potential opportunities might include:

  • Leadership – Organisation of peer activities, Public engagement – Outreach? Innovation? Commercial awareness
  • External visibility – volunteering, job placements and internships – leading? Supporting others?
  • Development of excellence – Design and leading of Undergraduate research projects
  • Finance – Application for funding, success securing funding, for example Research Community Funding from the Graduate School
  • Self-development – undertaking Management and leadership training

Leadership and management may not be on your mind now, but in a few years your career progression may depend on providing evidence and taking the time to undertake appropriate activities is a worthwhile investment.