Changing Academic Life

Rosa Arriaga is a developmental psychologist who transitioned into computer science as a senior research scientist in the School of Interactive Computing at Georgia Tech in the US. She talks about the journey becoming a computer scientist and applying the toolkit she brings from her psychology background to technology problems around chronic disease management and the reward of seeing real impact in people’s lives. She has also recently taken on the role of Chair of Graduate Affairs and talks with passion about her role in making processes and expectations clear and easy, and in promoting the importance of whole selves.We don’t know what we are going to prepare our students for. We can’t even imagine. So what we need to do is train them on a toolkit that they’re going to be able to problems we can’t even imagine.I have a toolkit, I have a way of understanding the world. And then I apply this toolkit to these (CS) problems (that) are very different to what I would have encountered as a psychologistIt is a powerful thing to feel like you could change the world, could make things better. And if that’s what you can do it is worth it.Those who can do, and those who care become administratorsIt’s not failure, it’s feedback. How do we give you the feedback that you are doing well or that this is not the right place for you and that is fine too.Overview (times approximate): [You can also download a full transcript here]01:40 Becoming a computer scientist from a PhD in developmental psychology and the transferrable toolkit09:44 How she applies her toolkit to computer science problems19:00 More on finding her way into computer science32:40 Being in a research faculty rather than an academic faculty position38:10 Her role as chair of graduate affairs In more detail, she talks about…01:40 How someone with a PhD in developmental psychology ended up in a computer science department? Related to a question of quality of life for the family, her husband, a theoretical computer scientist, getting a job offer at Georgia Tech (GT) and GT putting out a call for who could use a psychologist. Gregory Abowd responded as doing work with autism. He’s been a friend and mentor since 2006. 04:48 Her favourite quote from Pasteur - “Chance favours the prepared mind”. The kind of training she received taught her how to think. And we don’t know what we are going to prepare our students for so need to train them on a toolkit.05:45 The thinking initially was that she would be there for a while and she would decide what she would do in 3 years and then go to a different uni where she felt more at home. But in those 3 years she came to appreciate HCI, doing the same things, just using a different lexicon. 06:45 Her worldview is still very post-positivist and has also learnt to appreciate all the other approaches that her colleagues bring, when you are trying to answer back to that toolkit to solve problems. Talks about the differences between psychology and computer science, in approaches, publishing and speed. She brings her strengths as a psychologist to a different set of problems. And one of the things she brings to CS is her desire to have these systems work in the real world for extended periods of time. Not as if she came from an applied background. But when you get to CS and see the power to have, “I see the applied work really calls to me”09:44 Playing out a post-positivist approach in fieldwork? Mentions a replication study on text messaging improving lung function. Her interest is in why. Why did it work? And will it scale? And looking for the underlying theory. And if it works for asthma, will it work for other conditions? So ran the study again. Then looks at scaling the program so others can run these studies. Technology that can be transformative for other fields.11:30 What is CS about this? Why not health psychology? Health psychology won’t develop systems or think about scale. Whereas HCI is about the human, the user, providing toolkits to other domains. Finding what technology will help them do their job. How to make the technology better. It’s about the interfaces, being useful and usable.13:30 Did she think this way in the beginning or has it been a journey? Has been a journey. A way of understanding. Learning what the right way is to talk to colleagues (lexicon). But even more it is learning different paradigms. Took a long time for her to internalize and find terms to speak about what these methodologies were. First 6 years. Feeling like she got another doctorate. 14:36 Talking about identity in two different ways? Psychologist and computer scientist. Talks about meeting with Bob Kraut and he said he has never felt more like a psychologist. But she feels like an HCI person, a CS person. But she also asks different questions. Goes back to training. “I have a toolkit, I have a way of understanding the world. And then I apply this toolkit to these problems (that) are very different to what I would have encountered as a psychologist.” And she has augmented her toolkit over the last decade.16:55 Had she thought about her skillset as a toolkit before? No, it’s like when a fish in water, what do you know. Only when she came to CS that she was forced to understand what she brings to the table. She is all about requirements gathering/needs assessment but had to learn that these were the terms to use. 19:00 She talks more about the difference between CS and psychology. In psychology, defining things is important. But it seemed to be more taken for granted in CS/HCI. In CS/HCI we talk of the ‘user’ but the only user she had heard of before was a drug user – a weird term to use. And then reading monographs like Yvonne Roger’s on theory that made sense. “Serves a purpose to have a definite understanding of what it is we mean.” And for working with different disciplines – and what the expectations are, what CS does eg not going to build instagram for X. Back to the practice of articulating what we do so we’re clear about what is a deliverable.24:10 Practical things that helped getting into CS/HCI? What it means to do a dissertation – how many papers have you read. So had to immerse herself and read the papers and working with grad students to provide references for terms eg cognitive walkthrough, contextual enquiry. Had to find a lot of structure. Could also ask Gregory. Risky but has a good temperament and doesn’t mind asking and being vulnerable. Authenticity is important. Were times that the reception wasn’t positive but had much more to gain than lose at this point. Comes back to wanting to be a member of the community, to values. Believed that CS can really help support the betterment of mankind. How could I not fight this fight, “my little app that could make kids better”.29:00 Finding her why? It is a powerful thing to feel like you could change the world, could make things better. And if that’s what you can do it is worth it.29:30 Mentoring relationship with Gregory? Informal, gracious, direct. Respected her intellect and feedback. Tells of an ‘alpha male’ experience and giving feedback that it was inappropriate. A decade working together, changes over time. Have different values but ok – “I have become my own person”. ‘Become’ a verb, we are changing and a good thing.32:40 Working in same college as husband? In different areas. No issues that they came up with. Others might have had some comments. But she shows she is a good colleague, has something to offer (stats, quant eval). There were times she tried to sign up for things but told she couldn’t as it was for academic not research faculty.35:00 Describes her research faculty position. She also does teaching. Says ‘why not’ when told she can’t do something and asks for the policy on this. Doesn’t take no for an answer just because.  Got into some of those roles. Now the assoc chair of graduate studies, from a research position. Nominated by colleagues. They could see she did care. Able to work out a situation where funding comes from different streams. Doing this for 10 years in research position. Only thing in being an academic position is being a professor. Can’t be called prof. Ok with this. “I get to do all the things I now love so I am happy.”38:10: Chair of graduate affairs work? Says ‘those who can do, and those who care become administrators’. I do care. Had an incredible graduate experience at Harvard where they cared about the whole person eg creative outlets, learnt to row, play frisbee. ‘We know you are going to do great work if you can say sane so here are some ways of staying sane’. Sets the tone that it is ok to be a whole person, need to be doing these things. So she sends out emails to grad students and reminds them about their whole self and need to actively engage other parts of their life. What does it mean to be a grad student, to develop a toolkit, how do we make it clear to students what it means to be doing well and the department are behind them? Grad students weren’t on the org chart. 42:00 We have policies that will work for them. Importance of clearly articulating what milestones are and what it means to progress through these milestones and what it means for people to be successful. It’s not failure, it’s feedback. How do we give you the feedback that you are doing well or that this is not the right place for you and that is fine too. Reminds grad students of responsibilities, milestones, and things like meeting regularly with supervisor, documenting work etc. And where to go to when things are not working out. 45:00 Send out emails. Met with all incoming interactive computing students. Have a student appreciation, lunch, puts milestones up to make them visible. That’s my role, to keep the trains moving, the signposts up, and remind people of rights and responsibilities and that includes faculty.46:35 Onboarding new faculty? At a retreat. Started from the beginning to remind everyone of things coming up that need their attention. The reminder in chief. My pleasure, this is my role. Here’s what it means for us to all be on the same page. Have two-yearly PhD reviews. In the calendar. Reminders re the structure.49:10 Reminding re whole self? Give them permission. Had a lot of students come back and say that was so nice to get permission to be whole person. We set the tone. Mental health and students is so important. Emails - what are you going to do to stay healthy in mind and body? First onboarding of all grad students. Used to do it in separate areas. This was the first year everyone came together. First think I said was welcome. Second was you belong here. 53:10 Literary magazine article on female faculty and dearth and statistics. Back to a set of values and way of moving forward. How do we systematically provide a structure for women to have their place, eg that they don’t do more service, don’t cite themselves? How to make service in the lab more transparent and accountable? Who will make up the sheet? She decided to do this, to model this behavior. Best practices, we can quantitatively evaluate them to see if things are getting better. Need to be reminded that we’re not doing as well as we think. 58:30 Now is the time where she can think about these issues as an administrator. Plans coming up? Putting in structures so people know where they are in the academic year. Eg qualifying exams timeline and what’s expected so it is fair. Fairness is a big value for her.  Lucky because she can speak up. And becomes a model for speaking up. Role-modelling. 1:03 Family while both working full time? Article talks about men vs women in relationships. Men say no my career first so the woman does second best. Statistics are that females will take a back seat. No wrong or right. A set of values that you have and have to do what is right for you. 1:05:10 Later phase in life? Plans to retire in India. Have a radio show where we talk to interesting academics in the town about their research. Husband as native language sidekick. J An issue about what we do for last 20 years. And the moral responsibility re training PhD students and what jobs they can go to.1:08:12 Works in the mHealth space, patient engagement and continuity of care. Will give links.1:09:52 EndRelated LinksResearchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rosa_Arriaga/publications Linked in: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rosa-i-arriaga-19aa44143/New NSF grant to improve treatment for PTSD patients:Write up: https://www.ic.gatech.edu/news/627023/new-12-million-nsf-grant-aims-improve-treatment-ptsd-patientsPodcast:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-interaction-hour/id1435564422People: Gregory Abowd - http://ubicomp.cc.gatech.edu/gregory-d-abowd/Robert (Bob) Kraut - https://hcii.cmu.edu/people/robert-krautPapers/articles:ReplicCHI award paper: A text message a day keeps the pulmonologist away. Yvonne Rogers, 2012, HCI Theory: Classical, Modern, and Contemporary. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, Morgan& Claypool.Ann Blandford, 2019, Lessons from working with researchers and practitioners in healthcare, Interactions, Vol 26, 72-75.Polson et al, 1992, Cognitive walkthroughs: a method for theory-based evaluation of user interfaces, IJMMS, Vol 36:5, 741-773.Troy Vettese, Sexism in the Academy: Women’s narrowing path to tenure. N+1, Issue 34, Spring 2019.Arriaga, R. I., and Abowd, G. D. (In Press) The Intersection of Technology and Health: Ubiquitous Computing and Human Computer Interaction Driving Behavioral Intervention Research to Address Chronic Care Management in Strategies for Team Science Success Handbook of Evidence-based Principles for Cross-Disciplinary Science and Practical Lessons Learned from Health Researchers. Hall, K. L., Vogel A. L. & Croyle, R.T. Eds.

Alex Taylor is a sociologist and a Reader in the Centre for Human Computer Interaction Design at City, University of London. Alex moved into academia in Sept 2017, having worked at Microsoft Research Cambridge prior to this for over a decade and as a post doc researcher at Surrey University before this. Alex talks about his work at the boundaries of disciplines where he doesn’t feel like he has a clear disciplinary home, and about his experiences working at Microsoft. He explains his very conscious decision to then move into an academic position. The trigger for this conversation was a twitter post where he commented on the many different skills that he had to draw on as an academic. He reflects on the labours of academia, and the need to prioritise and make choices. He also talks about generative resistance in the face of the demands of the academy, taking principled stands, saying no and offering alternatives. And he talks about doing this as a collective endeavour and the power of small everyday actions. In all he does Alex is deeply reflective and values-driven and asks How do we create the opportunities and the spaces to do the academy differently? He shows many of the practical ways we can all be part of this.“I never felt I had a [disciplinary] home and that took a while to come to terms with. … maybe that’s just the kind of person I am, the work I thrive in.”“We all have to make choices within our lives about what we prioritise. And I realised for me being a parent and partner were very important.”“[Recognising] the sheer number of skills that were required of me in one day. … It’s a very clear indication of the labours involved in being an academic. And the recognition that you can’t be good at them all.““How do we create the opportunities and the spaces to do the academy differently?”“Important for me in the Centre is how do collectively say no to that? … It’s not just about saying no, what other things might we offer up as a solution?”Overview (times approximate):  [You can also download a full transcript here]02:07 Research background and dealing with the press/impact13:49 How he decided to work at Microsoft & sticking to his guns34:24 Consciously deciding to move from MSR to university43:40 The labours involved in being an academic57:42 Collective generative resistance In more detail, he talks about…Research background and dealing with the press/impact02:07 Alex talks about working at University of Surrey and Xerox Europarc and then going to Microsoft Research. A sociologist with an interest in the sociology of technology and he did his PhD on teenagers and mobile phones, a long time ago when it was still a surprise to the industry because SMS was originally something to be used a back channel for engineers. Fortuitous in a way that he realized young people might be the thing to look at. 07:55 Alex reflecting on his use of words like fortuitous and luck. “It was just about meeting the right people at the right time. I fully recognize I’m in a privileged position.” And the topic was an important one at the time, how youth were using mobile phones and SMS at that time. Talks about being on the Radio 4 today program as a PhD student and wondering what he was doing there.11:12 We discuss more on his experience engaging with the press over the years, especially having worked at Microsoft and their PR machine. Told throughout his career about the need to make his writing more accessible. Part of him as resisted/struggled with that, making it accessible to a public audience. He has written pieces for a journalism context and been on radio and TV but doesn’t find it easy. Attuned to the demands of UK’s academic impact from his years at Microsoft.How he decided to work at Microsoft & sticking to his guns13:49 We discuss his decision to go to Microsoft Research. At some point he recognized he was going to be in academic life and he did do a post-doc at Surrey straight after PhD. Then Microsoft approached him to work for a couple of years as a contractor, he asked for something ludicrous thinking they wouldn’t take it up. He was uneasy working for a big institution working for a profit. But they said yes. Then Richard and Abi set up this group together and he ended up swapping 6 months in into full-time employment. 17:57 So how did he reconcile working for a big corporate profit driven company? A very particular institution when he joined it – he understood it as driven by a philanthropic attitude to research and scholarship. There was scope to do what you wanted to do as an academic. “We’re hiring you to be a good researcher.” Didn’t believe it but gave it a shot. And for 8-10 years it was like that. Prior to starting at MSR he had already turned attention to studying the home. This was a point of departure for MSR but they encouraged it. So research and papers about how the home becomes the place it is. A mutual relationship where you are also aware of working for a company with particular concerns. So was able to justify this slightly uneasy relationship as work was about scholarship.22:23 Was there too much freedom? Still not that different to writing grant proposals etc asking what you might like to do what was the context we are working in and how to scope our conversations there. Privileged – absolutely compared to the academy. “Many of us who believe in what we do and enjoy what we do don’t have a problem finding things that interest us.”24:39 Alex discusses how he was always testing out the boundaries and came to realise that he sees himself as inhabiting the boundaries. Now it has become a conscious thing in his research. But it takes time and looking back to recognise the red threads of interest. “Played out in sense of uneasiness in the periphery and how to reconcile this space I’ve made for myself, along with colleagues, but it is peripheral to HCI, Computer Science, Sociology. I never felt I had a home and that took a while to come to terms with. … But in recognising that I thought that maybe that’s just the kind of person I am or the work I thrive in.”26:43 We discuss the challenges then in communicating his work across these boundaries. The obvious challenge is that it is a work of translation. Feels that he stuck to his guns, that there were things that mattered to him, that he knew would get kicked back (proposals, papers, teaching specifications). All these things are where the tensions get played out. He tries to resist the formula and tries to encourage his students that they can do this too. Discusses how the CHI research community is now letting in other forms of scholarship, a gradual change, and that’s good.29:55 Being reflective about sitting at the boundaries. Through his academic training, reflexivity is built in. Our thinking, the lived experiences we have both within academia and outside pervade everything. He doesn’t feel dissimilar in the way he lives his live, his family life in London as a peripheral mode of living. Pervasive identities. And always asking questions and putting oneself somewhere else occasionally. 32:44 Any costs to sticking to his guns? Has been lucky, working with the right people, and working in an organisation where it was ok to try things out. The choice to be in the periphery is a privileged position. Costs in that the work has been subject to criticisms of various kinds. But probably not more than others. Important for him that the work does make a difference.Consciously deciding to move from MSR to university34:24 We discuss his thinking then in moving from MSR to a university position. Microsoft was changing and MSR in the Cambridge Lab became much more business focused and product driven – topics and methods shaped by something else that made him feel uncomfortable. Doesn’t begrudge Microsoft making those decisions but it made those tensions in himself out of kilter and he didn’t want to work in the spaces that were being set. They weren’t meaningful to him. A profit driven approach to research.  Two years before he left he knew he was thinking in this way and that things need to change for him. Realised it didn’t feel right to him.37:27 Talks about having a young family, two kids. At MSR, serious scholars but demands weren’t the same as in academia (though changing now). The changes aren’t detached from one another. So spoke to a few people, advised never to go into academia (by people who were in academia)! Points to the twitter discussion that triggered me talking to him. One comment that wasn’t framed in a positive way was ‘what right do you have to comment on the academy coming from industry’. Not meant spitefully but didn’t feel like it was part of the rest of the generative discussion of others. But an important question to ask. Didn’t feel outside of the academy in MSR. All colleagues/peers were in academic positions. Cared for them. Their concerns were my concerns. And shifts in MSR and the academy not accidental. Decision to come back to academia was an intentional effort to come back to a place he knew needed more people and recognising many people get worn out and coming to it fresh might just be one more way to make a difference. So a very conscious decision despite many warnings against it. 41:52 Saw a position at City. Met with people at the centre. Immediately felt like a generative place. Experience has told him that the people and place is worth more than anything. That outweighed anything. Geography mattered as well with a young family. Felt the centre was open not just to welcoming but change. “I had in my mind, could a place be made that felt different, that made an effort to resist many of the pressures we feel subject to.” An ongoing project. The labours involved in being an academic43:40 We discuss his experiences now having worked at City for a year and a half. Returns to the twitter discussion. The tweet he sent out commented on the sheer number of skills that had been required of him in one day, from working on a grant to prepping for a class to preparing for an exam script etc. And required to be good at them all. So not intended as a political statement but at the shock of recognition at the skills expected of us. Felt like he had a sense of it before but coming to work at it on a daily basis, moving between tasks, and trying to be good at them all, a clear indication of the labours involved in being an academic. And the recognition that you can’t be good at them all. 45:42 “That was another realisation I had, […] that we all have to make choices within our lives about what we prioritise. And I realised for me being a parent and partner were very important. And that was going to take away from academic life. And the people I aspire to in the academy I might not ever be able to live up to in my own practice.” According to what criteria? Recognition of one’s work and position within the fields. Who are the influential people in your field of practice? Why those names? And what choices have they made? And on a daily basis we are continually making choices and it’s not a simple equation.48:42 We discuss negotiating those choices within a group and faculty context (and family context) in light of their pressures. What are the limits of the work he was willing to invest, stretched by moral and functional demands? Not willing to put some things in jeopardy e.g., picking kids up two days a week. Choices made on routine daily basis. “There’s a value system that’s important for me in the work that I do here in the Centre and I want to stick to that. The trouble is that it takes work.” If you say no, no comes with its costs too.52:05 Alex talks through a specific example of saying no, and sticking to his values/ethical system. As a program director for a Masters course in HCI he was up against the pressure to increase numbers without extra resources. “A neoliberal project of extracting labour for the same or less.” He stood up for that. Said no. Something has to give, either the number you are giving us or the resources. They got resources! And now pressures for the next year. He made clear to his department head he is not in this to further the neoliberal project. Laying his cards on the table.55:07 He is in a tenured position but it still means they can’t shut the department down. Standing up is important to him though, from his position of privilege. “I’m in this for a collective project of resistance and I use resistance carefully. […] Those no’s are not just for me.” Alex talks about how the Centre has engaged with this notion of resistance. “How do we create the opportunities and the spaces to do the academy differently?”Collective generative resistance57:42 Alex talks about listening to Ali Black’s podcast. “I think we forget that to resist is also its own project.” The easy answer is to maintain the status quo. How would be define generative? He points to books he has on the table (see below for names and links). Inspired by feminist forms of resistance and generativity. How do we make possible other ways of becoming? Links back to Ali Black’s work. And the power of small things like a writing group to lay the seeds for a critical reading of where we are and how we might be something else. A collective source of making a difference. It’s deeply structural. If you say no it goes to someone else. It’s a divide and conquer regime. “Important for me in the Centre is how do collectively say no to that? … It’s not just about saying no, what other things might we offer up as a solution?” An unending project. Reflects on what he enjoyed about the twitter discussion and having all types of scholars involved in the discussion. For early career researchers, advises finding the right people who won’t subject you to pressures. But of course a non-trivial recommendation.01:04:56 Other key lessons moving into academia – no easy answers but the sense of having people with you and creating an environment where everyone can be the best they can be. And it gets done in small ways. Meetings that allow thinking to flourish. Writing group and new person setting a tone. A reading group to think about content and also introducing these layers of thinking and criticality. A research group run by Simone Stumpf. These things all take time. Not everyone comes. About giving a sense of the environment we’re in. Also thinking of writing retreats. Have a once/week seminar. All start to add up and set the conditions for what we’re in business about. All very collective. 01:10:16 So has this been a good move for him? He asks himself that on a regular basis! The sheer weight and demand of the academy on all of us upsets him. But he is determined to change something and make it better in the small ways any one person or collective can. Seeds for other things. 01:11:43 Final reflections. So much of thinking inspired by many different people. So many good people. 01:13:18 EndRelated LinksAlex Taylor’s blog https://ast.io/about-alex-taylor/Richard Harper https://www.rhrharper.com Abi Sellen https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/people/asellen/ Simone Stumpf https://www.city.ac.uk/people/academics/simone-stumpf Xerox EuroPARC https://wiki.cam.ac.uk/crucible/Xerox_EuroPARC HCID Centre https://hcid.city The Feb 25 2019 twitter post and following discussion https://twitter.com/alxndrt/status/1100110754248908801 Ali Black podcast - http://www.changingacademiclife.com/blog/2017/3/20/ali-black Books:Donna Harroway, Staying with the trouble.Sarah Ahmed, Living a Feminist LifeIsabelle Stengers et al, Women who make a fuss: The unfaithful daughters of Virginia Wolf

Tom Erickson is a cognitive psychologist by background and was a researcher (social scientist and designer) at IBM Research since 1997, having previously worked in the early days of Apple and their Advanced Technology Group, and at a start up. Tom reflects on his experiences working in industry research, some of the pivotal work he has been involved in. He has also telecommuted most of his work life and he talks about how he made this work. Tom has also recently retired and he managed his transition to retirement in a really thoughtful way, being very deliberate in thinking about how to make a better life for himself and in what he calls ‘practising retirement’. “I have a limited amount of time and do I want to spend it all working?”“What is it that I do during the day that I love? And for me it’s design, it’s interviewing people, it’s reading interview transcripts. I just love the details of stuff.”““How I am perceived and what I am valued for within the corporation and [keeping] that separate from how I am perceived and valued professionally.””“As scientists or designers… we need to be mindful that the ultimate thing we’re doing is we’re shaping ourselves and how we see the world, so that we can help the field collectively move in a good direction.” He talks about (times approximate) … [You can also download a full transcript here]01:30 Tom talks about his psychology background, how a better climate was a factor in deciding where he wanted to do his PhD in cognitive psychology and human cognition. PhD with McClelland. Published one paper as a grad student in late 70s early 80s. One paper has had a resurgence of popularity in the last years because of a mention without reference in Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast Thinking Slow book.06:16 Ended up dropping out of grad school and many people do not know that he does not have a PhD. Combination of things – personal reasons, not really passionate about what he was doing, supervisor being away, getting involved in a small start-up, funding ran out and start-up then wanted to pay him. Became their UI tsar for a company making software for first IBM PCs. Competitor was Lotus. Did that for 5 years. In the good times he was the design guy, in the bad times he might be writing marketing, or manuals (Software Products International).10:15 Towards the end of that time got married. His wife was in Stanford. So he got a job at Apple by sending in a resume for a job in the paper. Word got around during the interview process and Joy Mountford said ‘you should be in our group’. That led to a job in Apple in the Human Interface Group. It was like a quick course in design school. Learned three rules of design: cheat, steal and keep it simple!14:57 Started off in Stanford but then his wife graduated and got a job in the Uni of Minnesota. Was looking for a new job but then got a contact by Don Norman who was a new Apple fellow and wanted Tom to work with him. He suggested telecommuting. So Tom switched to Don’s group. Some face time in Stanford for about 6 months then transitioned to Minnesota. 16:57 Lasted 5 years until second coming of Steve Jobs. Jobs was against Apple having a research organization. Tom moved to the Advanced Technology Group (ATG). Talks about some of the innovative products they were working on in the early 90s. 22:02 But Steve came back. His team ended up getting laid off about 3 months before the rest of ATG which gave them a shot at the market. Had previously gotten to know Wendy Kellogg, they started talking and he ended moving to IBM Research. Had a 3 day break between jobs. Initially hesitant about moving to New York because of his wife’s work. In the end he was hired as a telecommuter. And they made a plan for how to make it work. One condition of his contract was having to work 15-20% of his time building up connections with other groups at IBM and that ended up being really good for the first period. Talks about how they made the telecommuting work and the telecommuting culture at IBM.27:54 Tells people there are three things to think about re telecommuting: needs to work for you; has to work for the group and working out ways to pay your own dues; and navigating the organization since at a distance and not visible. And thanks to his manager Wendy Kellogg for always helping to make him visible. And he used his time on site to make himself more visible, e.g., design sessions, working one-on-one with people, sitting in public spaces.33:16 Retired 6 months ago (when recorded in November 2018). Did a lot of work to prepare for it. Was anxious about it. Practised for retirement. Thought about what he would be losing. Did his greatest invention, despite being shy and introverted, ‘the pleasant chat’. The pleasant chat is a repeated meeting with someone called a pleasant chat. Has 5-6 people he has ‘pleasant chats’ with to keep in touch. “Big challenge is how do I get these new channels of ideas and stimulations coming in. […] You have to figure out what works for yourself and that kind of structure works for me.” Been at IBM for almost 21 years. Cast of characters has changed entirely. Only known 1 person from beginning to end. 38:55 What else he has been doing to practise retirement. Explains how the practice came about. Period of 6 months where he and his wife lost three remaining parents, plus a couple of friends who passed away, shifted the notion of being immortal. Limited time. Oldest generation. A head shift. Sees generation losing ability to do things eg always like to hike. Might not be able to do that later. “I have a limited amount of time and do I want to spend it all working?” Reflects on an exec who died two weeks after retiring. This shifted him to thinking about retirement, as well as an IBM reorganization to focus on AI that he doesn’t believe in. Took advantage of an IBM program to allow him to work 60% to figure out what else he would like doing. And started restricting work to 8 hrs a day on work days. 43:52 Would have worked previously 10-14 hrs/day but never felt resentful. “Work segues into play for me. […] Pretty much wrote all the papers out of working hours. And I love to write. … mostly seems more like fun than work.”. Reflects on roles of organisations and not being dependent on the individual and not expecting the organization to care for him.46:25 Shifting to 8 hrs not a hard transition. Not excited about the AI focus. Started thinking about “what is it that I do during the day that I love? And for me it’s design, it’s interviewing people, it’s reading interview transcripts. I just love the details of stuff.” When he moved into the AI area, got into interviewing scientists and it was doing what he loved even though he didn’t care for AI. But didn’t write this up. 47:54 Instead started figuring out “What do I need that will keep me happy afterwards?” Did a couple of things. The main thing that worked better than he expected was he started taking piano lessons. Hard to start with but loves practising. And can see himself getting better. Would play for 2 hrs before starting work, Which means that when he retired, he still got up had his coffee, did 2-3 hrs piano practice. The routine. Also runs as a routine – took this up when he turned 50.  “The piano was probably the best thing I did for myself.”. So taking up piano, the pleasant chats. And began working on developing some individual friendships. “I think friendships and one-to-one relationships are crucial.” But needing to put in more deliberate effort on this.53:02 I reflect on him being very self aware and deliberate in creating his good life. He reflects on one of his strengths in both being self aware and then sitting down and developing a strategy to achieve what will make his life better.54:05 Advice to younger clueless self? Thinks the younger self did a lot of things right. Industry getting more and more applied and topic for research changes because every 3-4 years you get someone new in the executive changes and they want to make their mark. He did well fitting into this while maintaining a consistency of themes by choosing themes at the right level. Also occasionally took on side projects that weren’t funded. Some of the work he enjoyed the most had not funding. 58:30 Advice – would encourage younger self/younger people to be mindful – you do have to follow the corporate agenda but if you are doing a good job there can be opportunities on the side.  And taking a dual approach – “Thought about how I am perceived and what I am valued for within the corporation and kept that separate from how I am perceived and valued professionally.” Ie how he depicts the type of work he does to which communities. 1:01:45 Always driven by his personal situation. Tries to draw inspiration from things he sees in the world, problems he faces. Don Norman as inspiration. Having experiences, making them into stories, turning them into constructive research. 1:05:10 Wrap up – one thing he is grappling with now he is retired is how does he remain involved in the field or does he? What ways to continue activity in the field? One idea is writing a blog or column, maybe called ‘Late reviews’ reviewing books and making them accessible to the field eg mentions ‘Governing the commons” by Elinor Ostrom and ‘Seeing like a state’. The other thing he is thinking about I show to stay connected without being full-time. Maybe a workshop as people are aging out of professional roles? Are there ways they can remain available to the community? Also thinking about what impacts has he had.01:11:53 Talks about HCI Remixed book with David MacDonald – importance of reviewing older research. And changing how researchers see the world. “As scientists or designers…we need to be mindful that the ultimate thing we’re doing is we’re shaping ourselves and how we see the world so that we can help the field collectively move in a good direction.” 01:14:16 EndRelated LinksSome of the people he mentions:Joe Konstan - http://konstan.umn.edu Joy Mountford - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_Mountford Don Norman - https://jnd.org Austin Henderson - http://rivcons.com Paul Dourish - https://www.dourish.com Wendy Kellogg - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Kellogg Christine Halverson - https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/author/christine-halverson Elinor Ostrom - http://www.elinorostrom.com Apple Advanced Technology Group CSCW – Computer Supported Cooperative Work Tom’s highly cited 1981 cognitive psychology paper – Erickson & Mattson, ‘From words to meaning: a semantic illusion’ :Poem: Theory Theory: a designer’s view Book: HCI Remixed

Jennifer Mankoff is an endowed professor in the School of Computer Science and Engineering at University of Washington in the US.  Jen’s journey to this position though hasn’t been straightforward because she has been dealing with ongoing chronic health issues since her PhD days. Jen talks about managing disability as an academic and in particular the ways in she positively frames her experiences and points to the support of family and colleagues. She also has interesting experiences about being part of an academic couple as well as managing parenting and extended family caring roles. While considering herself a private person, she recognises it is important for people like herself to share their experiences, not just of successes but also about what is hard, and to give the message that we all go through these hard times and can find ways forward.  “It was a really positive learning experience in the end to have gone through [dealing with repetitive strain injury during grad school].”“[Learning] how to parent slowly…not to measure parenting success by the amount that is accomplished but instead by the quality of time I spend with the kids” “Every day I feel full energy all day long I get to feel grateful for it because I have enough reminders in my life of what else it could be.”“I’m respected for the fact that I manage my career with a disability.”“It’s really important for anyone to share not just what their successes are but also what’s been hard to let everyone know that we all go through these hard times and find ways forward.”Overview (times approximate): [You can also download a full transcript here]01:40 Dealing with repetitive strain injury in grad school - having a supportive supervisor, writing 30 mins twice every day, still getting published, making it work, gaining excellent time management and self-care skills because of it.08:10 Dealing with Lyme disease - talking about working 55 hours as low compared to colleagues, shifting to 35 hrs when having children, dealing with the disease, and still being able to progress tenure case with a supportive department and spouse, and learning how to work with the fluctuations in health, to write when intellectually active, and how to parent slowly  12:30 Talking about the many ways in which faculty and colleagues were supportive despite it being an invisible chronic illness14:56 Describing the impacts of Lyme disease, the process of getting diagnosed, starting treatment, still trying to see through teaching commitments and dealing with the unpredictability of the disease. Diagnosed in 2007 and the positive progression of both lifestyle management techniques and illness, feeling grateful, and creating visibility of the disease with a cane.22:00 The positive framing, and reflecting on how she has come to this, dealing with imposter syndrome and also with the knowledge that you are not performing in the way you are capable of if you were healthy, the difficulty of accepting second best constantly, and the question of whether she was choosing illness, and learning to love herself26:40 Doing research on assistive technology, moving to Berkeley, getting educated on disability rights movement, eventually embracing an identity as a woman with a disability, and the challenges of studying and talking about her own situation, and the value of support from mentors and colleagues35:04 Managing situations day to day, not being good at separating work and family, needing to prioritise children or students at different times, putting out a personal newsletter every week to communicate what’s going on in her personal and professional life and how that week will be juggled, modelling time management.39:00 Reflecting on being part of a couple in the same research area. Moving from Berkeley to CMU and then to Washington. Having a partner as head of department and the challenges this entails. Now being in different departments. The importance of explicitly dealing with potential conflicts of interest between partners, and setting boundaries by not communicating through partners.50:52 Talking about her current research directions, doing a lot of work now around making, discrimination, sexual assault, gender and medical interactions especially with chronic disease patients, and a study with students to understand their major life events and stressors and how to support them.59:30 Final comments about learning to expose her experiences and to allow people to see this sort of diversity in faculty life. Encouraging others to share: “It’s really important for anyone to share not just what their successes are but also what’s been hard to let everyone know that we all go through these hard times and find ways forward.” And that you are not alone in experiencing these.1:02:43 End Related LinksPeople Jennifer mentions:Anind Dey - https://ischool.uw.edu/people/faculty/profile/anind Gregory Abowd - http://ubicomp.cc.gatech.edu/gregory-d-abowd/ Scott Hudson - https://hcii.cmu.edu/people/scott-hudson Gillian Hayes - https://www.gillianhayes.com James Landay - https://www.landay.org WISH - https://wish-symposium.org Articles about or by Jennifer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Mankoffhttps://www.cs.washington.edu/people/faculty/jmankoffhttps://news.cs.washington.edu/2017/06/28/allen-school-set-to-amplify-uws-leadership-in-human-computer-interaction-with-new-hires-jennifer-mankoff-and-jon-froehlich/Jennifer’s story around disability and chronic disease as an academichttps://www.lymedisease.org/disability-community-mankoff/ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-00112-7https://www.geekwire.com/2018/working-geek-uw-computer-scientist-jennifer-mankoff-channeled-adversity-career-path/ Publication: Early et al, 2018, Understanding Gender Equity in Author Order Assignment

Moshe Vardi is a Professor of Computer Science at Rice University in the US and holds numerous honours and awards. This is the second part of our conversation where we focus more on the changes and challenges in academic life. Moshe reflects on: the increasing pressures to publish, the seduction of big data on how we evaluate research, and the increasing pressure and stress on students for these and other reasons; how we need academics to get more involved in social issues but that we are instead training people to be self-centred focusing on their own careers just at a time when we need then to get more involved in social issues; whether we should be focusing mentoring more on post-tenure people because of how hard it is to sustain an innovative research agenda over time; and why we need to have more conversations about our obligations as academics to take more social responsibility.The first part of the conversation (separate podcast) discusses the social implications of technology & our responsibility not just computer scientists but all academics.“Now people feel that if they don’t graduate with 10 papers they are not competitive in the job market.” “Assessing research is like assessing art. History will decide what is important, what is not important. We have to make some judgement now but we have to be incredibly modest about the quality of our judgement. … data gives the illusion it is measurable.” “We are basically telling people, just be self-centred, then we’re discovering very often after they have received tenure of full professor, oh my goodness they are really self-centred! … We’ve selected them for being self-centred. This is the paradox of academia.” “We expect people to be innovative now for 45 years. That’s incredibly difficult.”He talks about (times approximate) … [You can also download a full transcript here]01:35 Reflecting on changes in academia over time – an inflationary process going on, publication expectations. And the expectation of having many papers now is corrupting the system. There is increasing pressure on PhD students now.06:35 Technology making it easier now for more transparency re number of publications, citations. Not convinced it is helpful. Talks about being asked to talk at an EU conference about how to use big data to help in evaluation of research and innovation and he gave a cautionary account – can we be sure we know what to measure. How do you assess research? Data giving the illusion it is measurable. But significance doesn’t always translate into h-Indexes. 11:07 He has been told that 40% of students at his university are going to counselling services to ask for help. Discusses reasons why this might be the case. Economic anxiety. Crisis in the humanities because of rising cost of tuition and wanting to get a well-paying job. So increasing engineering students. Needing humanities to be involved in the discussions about technology and human life and dignity, answering questions about what is the good life, understanding lessons from history. Learnt a new phrase recently, lawnmower parenting – holding and pushing. So partly how we raise our children. Talks about ‘snowflakes’ and this generation of students being much more fragile. Needs to be more sensitive to this, teaching his students where they are. Tries to be more gentle and encouraging.17:40 How he wasn’t always like this. Growing up in Israel in a very direct culture.19:30 My question about late career stage and more freedom to become involved in social issues and ethics? Discusses how he was never on a tenure track. But wouldn’t advise someone on a tenure track to do what he is doing now. First have to show you can do research and scholarship, telling people they have to be self-centred but then finding we have self-selected for self-centredness – the paradox of academia. Discuss22:06 Discusses that we are mentoring the wrong people, shouldn’t be focused on assistant professors (though of course should be mentoring young people). The biggest risk to the institution is that people will get tenure and have another 30-35 years to go … and not stay productive. People don’t realise how hard it is to keep coming up with new ideas. Most people want to feel they are useful, to contribute. But the challenges of trying to mentor senior people and so it doesn’t happen much. And personally feeling awkward having this sort of conversation with a fellow full professor.28:30 Shifting the language from mentoring to coaching? Talks about a surgeon in New York who wrote an article about having coaching. We don’t have coaches but maybe we should. The culture of success makes this a bit more difficult to have such conversations though. Discusses his experiences as a chair doing evaluations of full professors in his department. Could only do them easily for the people who don’t need them. Going away from annual evaluations in the business world, instead feedback on a continual basis. Needing training. More about asking questions than giving answers. The difficulty when people don’t want to recognize what’s not going well, and even not admit it to themselves.35:50 Needing more of a conversation about our social responsibility as academics. But focus instead is on career, show us you are smarter than the other one. We need to talk more about privileges and obligations. Do faculty have an obligation for public service? We usually stop the thinking about service at faculty, school, university, profession. But need to have a conversation about what are our societal obligations. Gives as an issue, how technology is impacting society. We are public servants, what does it mean. We need to open this conversation.41:00 Practical measures? Launching an initiative at Rice to discuss exactly this. Rice found itself on front page news with CRISPR. The students are now saying we need more ethics training. Maybe the biggest impact on the future is education. Discusses how he talked about this topic recently with first year students. Thinks we have a chance with the next generation. And being careful about not leaving people behind (mentions Dream Hoarders book).48:25 Goes back to his religious background. Lots of ‘do this, don’t do that’. ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. The rest is commentary’. Beyond getting on with people as social skill, it is social justice as part of the value system. Somehow it’s not part of the conversation. 51:49 EndRelated Linkshttps://www.acm.org/articles/people-of-acm/2017/moshe-vardiCarol Greider: Carol Greider - Same day, a Nobel prize and a grant rejection ...Donna Strickland: Female Nobel prize winner deemed not important enough for a Wikipeadia entry.Atul Gawande The Coach in the Operating Room | The New YorkerRice Uni & CRISPR in the news Rice University Professor Helped Generate CRISPR'd Babies | The ...David Hendry – Uni of Washington https://faculty.washington.edu/dhendry/Richard Reeves, Dream Hoarders: How the American Upper Middle Class Is Leaving Everyone Else in the Dust, Why That Is a Problem, and What to Do About ItA PhD is not Enough

Moshe Vardi is a Professor of Computer Science at Rice University in the US and holds numerous honours and awards. In this conversation he talks about the impact of technologies on society and how this challenges what computer science should be concerned about and our responsibilities to engage in these issues. What he has to say speaks not only to computer scientists but to all academics.Side note: This is the first part of a much longer conversation. Part 2 (separate podcast) discusses the changes and challenges in academia more generally.“Suddenly we [computer scientists] are running society and we are poorly equipped.”“We focus too much on ethics and not enough on policy.”“How do we make sure this technology is for the most effective use of mankind?” (Referencing Ada Lovelace)“As a discipline we need to start asking, what is our (social) responsibility.” “And a general question for academic, … what is our responsibility as academics?”He talks about (times approximate) …  [You can also download a full transcript here]01:35 Talking about his Jewish background and what it gave him in terms of social ethics, being a hard-core computer scientist, and a key event in 2011 when IBM Watson won in Jeopardy that made him think about AI (Artificial Intelligence) and implications for society, and that we as computer scientists are so poorly equipped. Now starting a new course on ethics on computer science for their third years.11:00 Discussing different waves of computer science changes. And now increasing news media on technology impacts eg Facebook, Apple devices. Physics had the focus in the 1940s with the first atomic bomb and got a social conscience. Biologists have a second moment now with CRISPR and genetic editing.  Calls for more ethical training of students, and by students.16:50 The agreement that ethics needs to be taught, and then the debate on who should teach ethics and whether courses should be co-taught by philosophers and computer scientists. He argues we focus too much on ethics and not enough on policy. But the challenges of predicting impact.21:30 First angle on thinking about AI was thinking about the future of work. How a panel invitation to talk for 10 mins on a ‘big question’ led to focusing on future of work and thinking/reading more about it and becoming more skeptical about economists’ views.26:15 Computer science |(CS) as a discipline is facing a unique moment. We want to look in the mirror and think we are doing good things building technology to help people.  But now technology has a will of its own, has become a monster and not clear who is on control. Talks about Ada Lovelace and call to do good for mankind, Dramatic change though in image of CS even in the last year and a half, as an example, an item on Fox News comparing tech executives to tobacco executives. Also seeing the technical awakening of tech workers.34:35 What is the definition of computer science now? Has Human Computer Interaction been concerned with societal impacts? A concern for ethics, future of work etc is a big part of what he is doing. Also became editor of the magazine for computing professionals. From 2004-2006 studied off-sharing, about jobs, received a lot of press attention, way more exposure than for anything technical. So he knew jobs were important for people. What is our responsibility as CS? And all disciplines can ask the same question. And is it AI or IA (intelligence augmentation)? Also discusses implications for diversity and more importantly inclusion and the 80% left behind.44:00 Technology always changing society but it is moving very fast now. Too fast? The speed that is making it so difficult to adapt and deal with it. And how history will judge this time. Discusses Brexit and Trump election. And the bubbles we live in. We rarely see things outside of our bubbles. Discusses the role of social media in this, in particular Facebook. 54:03 EndRelated Linkshttps://www.acm.org/articles/people-of-acm/2017/moshe-vardiBook: J. D. Vance, Hillbilly Elegy Dennis Ritchie’s second death stories e.g., https://www.cnet.com/news/tech-luminaries-laud-dennis-ritchie-5-years-after-death-second-death-syndrome/ Ender’s Game https://www.amazon.com/Enders-Ender-Quintet-Orson-Scott/dp/0812550706/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=anders+game&qid=1552839614&s=books&sr=1-1-spellCommunications of the ACM

Jofish Kaye is a Principle Research Scientist at Mozilla, and before this he worked at Yahoo and Nokia. Jofish made a deliberate decision not to pursue an academic career after he finished his PhD and it’s interesting to hear how his decision-making criteria evolved from being primarily about the people he could work with to being more values-driven and being able to make an impact. A strong sense of values and having impact are threads in a lot of what he talks about. He also discusses his experiences more generally working in an industry context and also moving into more management/leadership roles. “I think I’m the only person on the planet who likes job searches because you get to re-invent yourself.”“I am concerned the way we treat publications as the way to make success in the world.”“It’s so important and so incumbent upon research as a field to make clear and visible how valuable what it is we do.”“We need to be taking seriously this call for public outreach.”You can download full transcript here Overview: Jofish discusses (approximate times):01:38 Getting a PhD at Cornell and moving into an industry job at Nokia and being able to teach at Stanford09:24 Why he didn’t want to apply for an academic position – the difficulty getting funding vs the freedom to do what he wants in industry, the current Mozilla grant process and research they have supported19:16 Triggers for moving to different companies, looking at what he really enjoyed doing (CHI4Good), and seeking out a way to do that – the job search as a way to reinvent yourself25:11 Moving from more of an industry research role to now also being concerned for shipping product to customers and having impact in the world in a different way30:55 How his thinking about job searching has changed over time, from thinking about the people he would work with, to more values-driven decision making with some additional criteria36:00 Broader accessibility for young people to universities, and the role of public universities, 38:40 His usual pattern of working now with kids/family; and experiences being in a management role, recruiting people, and the ‘Noah’s Ark’ theory about having people who share the same assumptions42:00 Being a leader and manager – managing as administration, checking boxes, etc; leading as trying to build a strategic narrative and the difficulty of coordinating with people who have different epistemological assumptions and how you measure impact50:45 Practical team strategies when people are distributed, combining in-person and online techniques, daily video ‘stand up’ meetings57:18 Challenges around issues of diversity and inclusion across the industry and in particular how to improve diversity in an open source volunteer community 1:01.40 Challenges for academics moving into industry, getting to actionable insights quickly and how to communicate those in the slide deck (the coin of the realm)1:07:38 EndRelated LinksPhoebe Sengers - http://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/sengers/Elizabeth Churchill - http://elizabethchurchill.com Wendy Ju - http://www.wendyju.comPam Hinds - https://profiles.stanford.edu/pamela-hinds Terry Winograd - https://hci.stanford.edu/winograd/ John Tang - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/people/johntang/ Jed Brubaker - https://www.jedbrubaker.com Allison Druin - https://www.pratt.edu/faculty_and_staff/bio/?id=adruin Casey Fiesler - https://caseyfiesler.com Anna Cox podcast - http://www.changingacademiclife.com/blog/2017/3/5/anna-cox CSCW Medium posts - https://medium.com/acm-cscw DeleteMe - https://abine.com/deleteme/ TallPoppy - https://tallpoppy.io/

Katie Siek is an associate professor in Informatics at Indiana University in the US Katie shares her experiences being part of a dual career couple and has some excellent advice for faculties on how to handle this better. She talks about the challenges having children and learning to take proper time off with her second child. She talks about her passion for mentoring, recognized by a special mentor award and learning how to lobby upwards to effect policy change; also about building her group and their wall sit challenge. We finish with her very personal story of managing an invisible illness at work, and she calls us to have more open and honest discussions about these issues and to advocate for and support one another.“I like to call it a dual career opportunity [because] it's really great to have your partner who is committed and passionate about the areas and understands your struggles.”“I would encourage all my colleagues not propagate the Amazon Warrior woman myths.”[To create change] “Get involved with your faculty council, see if you can create policy at the university level.”[Dealing with an invisible illness] “How do you show you're a good colleague and you're there, and [also give yourself] that time to recover.”[Supporting colleagues with illness] “Advocate to administrators that if you allow someone to recover now they're going to be a stronger colleague…next year in two years or whatever they need.”Full Transcript- click hereShe talks about (times approximate) … 01:59 Her computer science background and the experience of her mother having cancer being the motivation for shifting her PhD topic to health informatics.04:50 Coming back to Indiana as faculty, being part of a dual career couple, and both getting an offer –a two body opportunity. This was in contrast to previous positions in Colorado where only Katie was tenure track and her partner had a research position.07:40 Getting pregnant during tenure process, and also going out on the job market to find a tenure position for both of them while pregnant.11:40 Advice for how to handle dual career couples, for faculties to go after both people.15:20 What she has learnt in having a child, getting out of algorithmic thinking and getting balance and the difficulties juggling baby and work (but worth it).20:04 What she would recommend now – if you have leave do it correctly and don’t propagate the amazon woman lore.23:37 The different experience with her second child. And the importance of a male colleague encouraging them to ‘do it right’ this time.26:02 The pros and cons of remote participation at a PC meeting.29:44 Strategies for making transitions between work and home and doing shifted working windows between them.33:27 Her special mentor award for her women in computing group on campus and her passion about diversity work.37:44 Strategies for how she practically manages her passion research and her mentoring passions, e.g., being selective about events, finding collaborators40:38 Lobbying upwards and learning how to get involved in the Faculty at a policy level. Having people to ask for feedback.47:28 The wall sits.50:25 Reflections on setting up a group coming back to Indiana and establishing the family in the community.55:41 Looking after her own health and wellbeing through goal-setting around running.59:33 Dealing with illness, invisible illnesses, being an advocate for one another.1:10:07 End Related LinksYvonne Rogers - https://uclic.ucl.ac.uk/people/yvonne-rogers Kay Connelly - https://wphomes.soic.indiana.edu/connelly/ Judy Olson - http://www.changingacademiclife.com/blog/2016/6/6/judy-olson Book: David Sedaris (2001) Me talk pretty one day

Leysia Palen is Professor and Founding Chair of Information Science at the University of Colorado Boulder. She has also led the establishment of the Crisis Informatics research area. Leysia shares her career journey in getting to this place, an amazing story of being a first generation PhD, dealing with imposter syndrome, and moving to a new university to support her spouse. It is also a story of focus and perseverance, defining a new research area, being supported by her own soft money, then finally getting a half-time faculty position, while at the same time having a family and growing the internationally recognised Project EPIC. It was only relatively recently that she got tenure and then quickly became a full professor. Leysia also talks the challenges and lessons learnt in setting up and leading a whole new department and what higher education can be in this era. “I was a trailing spouse…and the closest fit for me was Computer Science…but it wasn't an easy fit. […] It's important that both people [academic couple] be valuable in terms of how other people measure value.” “The truth was I still was uncertain if I belonged in the academy. […] I was smarter than I knew and I was more naive than I knew.”“To do research and to do teaching, you have to just be present all the time. You have to stay with a problem. You have to stay with other people and where they are. And that's a particular kind of energy .”“It's naive to think science is only about pursuing ideas that just come to one's head. They have to be good ideas, they have to be tractable ideas.”For a full transcript, click here. Overview:02:45 Being a first generation college student, undergrad at UCSD and PhD at Irvine08:51 Moving to Colorado CS department as a trailing spouse, focusing on keeping the research thread going11:34 Working in soft money, needing to reduce work to what she could do well while she was having children15:08 Moving to a half-time tenure track position, trying to deal with not being a close disciplinary fit, moving to formalize research to make a difference18:23 Setting up a crisis informatics research agenda, and getting it funded23:16 The challenges doing crisis informatics work and self care27:07 Eventually getting tenure, the challenges getting there, and juggling family, physical movement, and home/work, getting a full-time position in 2007 but still not tenured, eventually went for associate without tenure, then later with tenure. And then in a short time to full professor.35:06 Being noticed by the campus for the impact she was having, the multi-disciplinary group, graduating 7 PhD students all women. Setting up a new department of information science. The opportunity to think about the nature of disciplines, what an ischool in 2015 could be like, and re-thinking education.42:34 Learning to be a leader, no training pathways for leadership or role models for setting up a new department, and defining discipline vs department.52:21 Final reflections and working with a 50 year view. 56:51 EndRelated LinksDepartment of Information Science - https://www.colorado.edu/cmci/infoscience Palen & Anderson, 2016, Crisis Informatics – New data for extraordinary times, Science. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6296/224 Ed Hutchins - http://pages.ucsd.edu/~ehutchins/ Aaron Cicourel - https://sociology.ucsd.edu/people/faculty/emeritus/aaron-cicourel.html Don Norman - https://jnd.org Amy Voida - https://www.colorado.edu/cmci/people/information-science/amy-voida Ricarose Roque - https://www.colorado.edu/cmci/people/information-science/ricarose-roque Brian Keegan - https://www.colorado.edu/cmci/people/information-science/brian-c-keegan

Mike Twidale is a professor in the School of Information Sciences at University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, recipient of numerous teaching awards including Outstanding IS teacher in 2017, and more recently becoming program director for a new Masers degree. We talk about how he handled the tenure process, his teaching approaches, and his notion of agile research and what this means. We also discuss stepping up into leadership roles. Having thought he would never be any good at leadership, he has developed his own leadership style by playing to his own strengths and the complementary strengths of those around him, among other effective strategies. We also talk about the value of story-telling to make more explicit the multiple different ways and realities of how we do academia. And he talks about metrics as just being an indicator of something and looking for other complementary ways to also explore that something. “Our job as we get more senior is to speak up for a diversity of different ways of doing scholarship.”“If it’s really research we don’t actually know what the answer is.” “How do you design something so that it is easy to change rather than how do you design something so it is right so you don’t need to change it?”“When a faculty works well it is nurturing and it’s like a family.”Overview: [You can also download a full transcript here]04:26 How thinking about getting tenure matters10:15 Teaching15:05 Agile research25:00 Stepping into a leadership role43:05 Storytelling, self-care and metricsAnd in more detail, he talks about (times approximate) … 01:40 Moving from Computer Science in the UK to a School of Information Sciences at UIUC in the US in 1997 as an adventure to “try it out”. Seeing how he could go with the teaching. The challenges of multi-disciplinarity. Learning the US academic tradition including tenure. How thinking about getting tenure matters04:26 Going into a tenure track position, via an exception as a Q appointment. He talks about how he approached the tenure process. Was successful but always in the back of his mind was that he could always go back to the UK. Didn’t put pressure on himself – viewing it as an adventure, had a backup of being able to find another job if needed, and realizing it is “just a set of rules rather than something that is about my identity”. Vs treating it as about identity creates pressure and leads to conformist about what will be acceptable to the tenure committee. The paradoxes. And the value of the uni documents about tenure rules creating many different opportunities for excellence.09:05 “Our job as we get more senior is to speak up for a diversity of different ways of doing scholarship.”Teaching10:15 Winning an excellent teaching award. How excellent mentoring helped him. A strong culture of excellent teaching in the school. Talks about the contrast of being a soft person in a computer science and then being the hard techie person in the iSchool. All relative. 11:55 The formal and informal mentoring he received – an Australian historian, Boyd Raywood, who could help translate the US academic system for him; Betsy Hearn and the power of storytelling. The teaching techniques he has developed – more hands-on activitiesAgile Research15:05 Drawing inspiration from agile software development to ask what might agile research look like and how can we speed up the iterations. Compares this to the ‘straw man’ logical waterfall method for computers but it doesn’t work as the world is a lot messier than we would like and we are fallible human beings who can’t follow rational methods. Compares this to grant and thesis proposals which look like the waterfall method but we all know that this doesn’t work like this.19:40 Influencing funding bodies about this? So far no but he has a plan. He has just written a paper to justify agile as a reasonable research method. And talks about how it can fit into deliverables reporting requirements for funded research. Needing more honesty and transparency about the process of doing research. Not doing anyone a favour particularly our students who look at the post-hoc constructed representations of senior researchers’ work and compare it their messiness of their own. Honesty especially important given the increasing interest in reproducible research. “So long as you admit that thing you are doing is a legal fiction to save other people the time and bother and not pretend that is the thing we did.”22:55 “If it’s really research we don’t actually know what the answer is… have some guesses… but time and again we discover something far more interesting than what we intended to look for.”Stepping into a leadership role25:00 Reflecting on his program director role. 5-6 years would have said he had no desire to do any academic leadership thing as didn’t think he would be good at it. No ambition. Thought he would be a bad fit as good at divergent thinking but not good at details, keeping track of things, person management. However the need and opportunity arose to be director of new masters program. Thought he would have a go. Brand new degree to be created out of nothing with help of fellow faculty. So an opportunity to build something new and interesting. That piqued his interest. He had written an article about what an agile university might look like. So given they didn’t know what should be in this program, how could he design the process to learn as they go? So coming up with structures and getting input from people and nudge it so they are not getting locked into early commitments. “How do you design something so that it is easy to change rather than how do you design something so that it is right so you don’t need to change it?”29:08 Setting it up to enable learning from the start. Helped by colleagues working with him and delegating things to people who were really good at doing things that he was bad at doing. A struggle at times as can egocentrically think that if I hate doing it others do too. [30:34] Learning what it is that plays to other people’s strengths – so getting to know people, reading from their body language that this is something they like. Meg Edwards is very good at systematizing things. Having someone who has complementary skills but also not embarrassed about raising things that really need to be done. An important culture thing (mid-western nice, being polite, not wanting to offend – so have to move it along to see if people actually agree or disagree and what do we disagree about)32:41 The important role of the leader in setting the culture. The importance of having lots of very small meetings including one-on-ones. Lots of little conversations more productive. And if it goes wrong it’s my fault, my job.33:51 The people he learnt his leadership skills from – actual and implicit mentors. Discusses Doug Shepherd, Ian Sommerville disagreeing; Doug Shepherd – managing by walking around; Alan Dix - playfulness; Tom Rodden – sharing and including people; 38:35 The value of managing by walking around, understanding needs. Staying curious. Bringing research interests to management/leadership, figuring out strengths and what other things are needed, who can do those. “If you play to your strengths you are going more with the grain as opposed to against the grain.”41:50 Role of systematization, structuring, as program matures and as you get bigger. Breaking into small teams work because of way humans work. Storytelling, self-care and metrics43:05 Role of story-telling. For example telling graduate students how to get a job – collections of stories that reveals getting jobs in different ways.45:20 Story-telling in the faculty as well? Some happens already. Easier when smaller faculty and now needs more effort.  Stories – for new professors and doctoral students who want an academic career – stories of struggling around and how people overcame adversity, or even admitting not knowing and then things clicking into place. Those stories revealing the processes. Also stories of people who are successful and how much appears to be luck, seizing opportunity – “the factor of luck, happenstance, we often don’t want to tell because it doesn’t fit the heroic story but it is still an issue of seizing that, but helping people to realise, don’t be dispirited if one doesn’t work out, these things happen.” 48:25 We’d like to believe the world is rational. Same in the hiring process. But it’s not. Discussion of trying to be fair in hiring, to see the whole person, being open to different research approaches. Still times when you are not sure. Incredibly difficult issue.51:05 Story of Leigh Estabrook who recruited him – one of her famous phrases was no grant proposal is ever wasted. You will be benefitting from that in the future in a way you don’t know about. “When a faculty works well it is nurturing and it’s like a family, that recognises that each individual in the family is different and unique.”. Other practices building a nurturing culture – always there, sustaining it via eg faculty retreats, sharing ideas, sharing stories. Key is inviting more than one story. Hallway conversations. Collaborations around teaching. Also need to recognize it can be intimidating for new people and need to be welcoming. The problems of comparing yourself to many others and thinking you need to be the union set of all those people.55:55 Self-care – needing to do more on this. Commute time of 12 mins on average. Always temptation to do more and more work. Tries to make time for himself at the weekends. Travels a lot and tacks on an extra day of sightseeing. Sets a puzzle in his head and leaves his subconscious to chew over it but this needs time and relaxation and can’t force it.  58:15 Talks about listening to podcast with Tom Rodden – do good work and other things will flow. Problems with metrics. Interested in looking at metrics as part of a socio-technical system, the doing of science. Have to remember is it the proxy and not the think itself. The challenge is to allow the telling of other stories. What you lose by turning it into a number. Getting qualitative and quantitative data working together. Numbers can help us when we want to be fair. But numbers are not unbiased. And what’s that something else we are actually looking for and how can we look for that. Eg looking for potential. What are some indicators of potential? Different people show potential in different ways. “Reminding ourselves it [metric number] is just a proxy and what are wanting it to be a proxy for may help.”01:03:20 The challenge of academics being encouraged to be individualist. But you don’t have to do it all on your own.01:05:13 EndRelated LinksBoyd Rayward - https://ischool.illinois.edu/people/w-boyd-rayward Betsy Hearne - https://ischool.illinois.edu/people/betsy-hearne Meg Edwards - https://ischool.illinois.edu/people/meg-edwards Leigh Estabrook - http://cirss.ischool.illinois.edu/person.php?id=69Twidale & Nichols, ‘Agile Methods for Agile Universities’ - https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/129936578.pdf Kjeld Schmidt – ‘The trouble with “tacit knowledge”’, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices, vol. 21, no. 2-3, June 2012, pp. 163-225.Tom Rodden podcast - http://www.changingacademiclife.com/blog/2016/11/2/tom-rodden