Dealing with failure
In this episode of R, D and the Inbetweens, I talk to Dr. Catherine Talbot, Lecturer in Pyschology at Bournemouth University about dealing with failure and rejections.
Music credit: Happy Boy Theme Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
00:00:09,220 --> 00:00:13,600
Hello and welcome to R, D and the in-betweens.
00:00:13,600 --> 00:00:25,530
I'm your host, Kelly Preece, and every fortnight I talk to a different guest about researchers development and everything in between.
00:00:25,530 --> 00:00:36,190
Hmm. Hello, and welcome to the latest episode of R, D and the In-betweens.
00:00:36,190 --> 00:00:44,590
I'm your host, Kelly Preece, and this episode, I think, is possibly one of our most important episodes so far.
00:00:44,590 --> 00:00:50,380
So in this episode, I'm going to be talking to one of our wonderful doctoral graduates from the University of Exeter,
00:00:50,380 --> 00:00:56,650
Dr. Catherine Talbot, who is now a lecturer in psychology at the University of Bournemouth.
00:00:56,650 --> 00:01:06,580
All about failure and rejection, and about how it's perhaps unseen and under-discussed area of academic life.
00:01:06,580 --> 00:01:13,420
And one we hope by the end of this conversation, we can normalise a little bit for you.
00:01:13,420 --> 00:01:23,890
Yes. So my name is Catherine Talbot, and I actually did my Ph.D. at the University of Exeter and finished a few years ago in medical studies,
00:01:23,890 --> 00:01:28,750
and now I'm a lecturer in psychology at Bournemouth University.
00:01:28,750 --> 00:01:37,780
Most of my research is in the area of cyber psychology, so I specifically focus on social media and how people with dementia use it,
00:01:37,780 --> 00:01:42,730
the barriers they face, the challenges and also the benefits. So.
00:01:42,730 --> 00:01:51,730
What we're going to talk about is failure and rejection, and we're going to sort of undermine those terms as we talk.
00:01:51,730 --> 00:01:58,420
But, you know, acknowledging I think that for a lot of people that by the time they get to a research degree,
00:01:58,420 --> 00:02:01,390
they tend to have been high flyers throughout their academic education,
00:02:01,390 --> 00:02:07,060
and they tend to have been people that have done really well and been really successful and not
00:02:07,060 --> 00:02:16,210
necessarily having had experience of quote unquote failing or being rejected for something.
00:02:16,210 --> 00:02:21,730
And then when that does start to happen through publications, through funding,
00:02:21,730 --> 00:02:26,770
through conferences, various different things, it can be a really difficult thing.
00:02:26,770 --> 00:02:35,530
But at the same time, it's. It is a kind of cornerstone of the academic experience.
00:02:35,530 --> 00:02:45,160
So I wondered if you could say something about your kind of first your first experiences of of sort of failure or rejection as an academic,
00:02:45,160 --> 00:02:55,660
whether as a Ph.D. student or as a lecturer. And really what that what it was and what that felt like to you, if that's OK.
00:02:55,660 --> 00:03:03,970
Yeah, of course. I guess by now, I feel a bit like an expert in failure and rejection, to be honest.
00:03:03,970 --> 00:03:07,900
So I just really identify with what you were saying.
00:03:07,900 --> 00:03:13,180
So when I first came to my research programme was a Ph.D. student.
00:03:13,180 --> 00:03:17,590
You know, I'd done really well at university. I had a placement.
00:03:17,590 --> 00:03:21,310
Year, I was looking to publish a paper. All very exciting stuff.
00:03:21,310 --> 00:03:25,630
So I didn't really have that experience of rejection.
00:03:25,630 --> 00:03:33,100
And then it came to my p h d and submitted the paper to a journal for the first time.
00:03:33,100 --> 00:03:42,250
And yeah, just having the reviewers comments back and then really just really tearing that paper apart.
00:03:42,250 --> 00:03:46,390
It's something that I just put my heart and my soul into.
00:03:46,390 --> 00:03:55,360
And I remember receiving those comments and just crying, just go and having a little cry and thinking, I'm the worst researcher ever.
00:03:55,360 --> 00:03:59,470
I can't do this. I'm going to fail my PhD
00:03:59,470 --> 00:04:05,320
Everyone, you know, and just completely catastrophize and really from there.
00:04:05,320 --> 00:04:09,790
So, yeah, I just I've got much better at dealing with that now.
00:04:09,790 --> 00:04:16,720
Yeah, I you're saying now I'm remembering this always comes back to my memory randomly the first time.
00:04:16,720 --> 00:04:29,260
And so when I started my research degree, I submitted part of Masters for publication at my sort of supervisor's suggestion and it got rejected.
00:04:29,260 --> 00:04:34,780
And I read about two sentences of that feedback.
00:04:34,780 --> 00:04:41,800
And it was it felt so brutal. I didn't want to read anymore, so I filed it in my email.
00:04:41,800 --> 00:04:48,280
And by the time I got up, the courage to try and read it it had been archived and I couldn't get it back.
00:04:48,280 --> 00:04:50,560
So I never actually read the feedback.
00:04:50,560 --> 00:04:57,100
I just literally like, I couldn't handle it, so I dug my head in the sand just as like, No, I'm not going to deal with this I'm not
00:04:57,100 --> 00:05:05,290
gonna think about it, which it's very difficult, but it is so, so difficult, especially how those emails start as well.
00:05:05,290 --> 00:05:10,180
You just think, Oh, I'm rubbish, I'm the worst. Yes. And it very much.
00:05:10,180 --> 00:05:12,100
And that's the thing. I think it's it's twofold.
00:05:12,100 --> 00:05:20,560
It very much feels like a personal failure and you and catastrophizing what you say, you think, Oh, I'm not going to I can't do this.
00:05:20,560 --> 00:05:25,240
I can't do it because, you know, because of this one thing where they've said, No, not this time.
00:05:25,240 --> 00:05:37,540
Essentially, you know, you feel like everything is over and you can't do any of it, which of course, is not true, but it feels so real at the time.
00:05:37,540 --> 00:05:42,240
It feels so overwhelming. Yeah, definitely.
00:05:42,240 --> 00:05:48,060
And also, you do I've noticed I do tend to focus on the negatives as well that are in there.
00:05:48,060 --> 00:05:57,630
So even if I receive well as an example, actually, I wrote a paper recently which got accepted for publication,
00:05:57,630 --> 00:06:04,260
but I didn't actually realise it had been accepted because I picked up on all of the negative comments within the review.
00:06:04,260 --> 00:06:07,620
I didn't read that one sentence that was like, If you make these changes,
00:06:07,620 --> 00:06:18,680
I'm happy to accept that it just it says something really significant about our mindset and and the way that we're that,
00:06:18,680 --> 00:06:23,670
the way that we're both used to and respond to critique.
00:06:23,670 --> 00:06:29,840
We're all it's that kind of perfectionism and imposter syndrome. I think like we're always assuming that we're going to get found out.
00:06:29,840 --> 00:06:37,150
And so we're always trying to like looking for the negatives or looking for the flaws and not necessarily looking for the sentence that says.
00:06:37,150 --> 00:06:43,010
We want to accept this for publication. Yeah, exactly, exactly.
00:06:43,010 --> 00:06:52,150
Always looking for that critique and that criticism. And I think it is important to go back to the idea of.
00:06:52,150 --> 00:06:57,580
Of it feeling like a a personal failure, because one of the things I always try and say to people is,
00:06:57,580 --> 00:07:04,330
you know, you have to try and and I'm not saying I can't do this or I'm good at it, by the way,
00:07:04,330 --> 00:07:11,440
but you have to try and take a step back and realise that even though you put your heart and
00:07:11,440 --> 00:07:18,250
soul and all of this work into your publications or applications or anything that you're doing,
00:07:18,250 --> 00:07:21,250
that is not you, and that is not the sum of you.
00:07:21,250 --> 00:07:28,600
And so when that is rejected, whatever reason, that isn't a rejection of you, it's a rejection of whatever is on that piece of paper.
00:07:28,600 --> 00:07:39,280
The tiniest snapshot. Yeah, I agree. And it can just feel so personal that this is an issue with you as a person, as you as a student as well,
00:07:39,280 --> 00:07:44,800
when actually, you know, they're just critically appraising the work, which is what they're meant to do.
00:07:44,800 --> 00:07:50,720
And there will be some good bits in that. And usually reviews do add some nice little positive bits as well,
00:07:50,720 --> 00:07:58,390
or ultimately just seeing This as right, I can take this information and I can go and improve my work.
00:07:58,390 --> 00:08:07,690
And because people, they have taken the time to, to look at your work, to engage with that and to provide comprehensive feedback.
00:08:07,690 --> 00:08:14,910
So they're viewing it more in that way as well. But I think what you said there, Kelly, and was really interesting actually,
00:08:14,910 --> 00:08:20,230
because I think maybe this relates to how we see ourselves as Ph.D. students as well,
00:08:20,230 --> 00:08:28,390
because I know at that point in my life that was such a big part of who I was as a person was the name of a Ph.D. student.
00:08:28,390 --> 00:08:36,160
And that's kind of how I evaluated myself. So when having that negative feedback or that experience of rejection,
00:08:36,160 --> 00:08:41,890
it can be quite hard not to take it personally because that's such a big part of who you are.
00:08:41,890 --> 00:08:49,990
So like I was saying at the start, I think if you're if you've been, like, really academically successful.
00:08:49,990 --> 00:08:58,720
And most people, you know, that come of certainly through a traditional route to a research degree or a PhD have been
00:08:58,720 --> 00:09:06,100
you're not you're not used to it, you're not used to not doing well at things and it's a privileged position to be in.
00:09:06,100 --> 00:09:18,650
But it's still, you know, it's a learning process of how to deal with critique and how to deal with rejection and how to turn that into.
00:09:18,650 --> 00:09:21,740
Into the positive that you're talking about, actually turn that into a.
00:09:21,740 --> 00:09:31,050
How do I use this to improve my work to make it better rather than just going kind of falling into an existential hole of.
00:09:31,050 --> 00:09:35,580
Why am I doing this, why aren't you know? I'm not I'm not good enough to do this.
00:09:35,580 --> 00:09:45,850
I'm. So. I wonder if you could say a little bit about how, you know, a few years on.
00:09:45,850 --> 00:09:51,000
How you deal with any kind of failure or rejection?
00:09:51,000 --> 00:09:58,680
In your professional life now, like, you know, compared to that first paper when you started the Ph.D.
00:09:58,680 --> 00:10:06,180
If you have something now, what do you do? How do you try and and and respond to it in perhaps a more positive way?
00:10:06,180 --> 00:10:10,980
And how and how do you cope with the emotions that you feel associated with it?
00:10:10,980 --> 00:10:23,730
Yeah. So it is difficult. And I will say that I think I've got better with time and just kind of as you get more experience of it and this rejection,
00:10:23,730 --> 00:10:31,110
unfortunately being quite a normal part of academia, you do. You do you kind of get a little bit used to it, I guess.
00:10:31,110 --> 00:10:37,230
But it's still hard when you spend lots of time on something and you've got that rejection.
00:10:37,230 --> 00:10:43,680
And you know, initially what I found is I do feel upset or I feel angry.
00:10:43,680 --> 00:10:48,750
So what I do is I read through the rejection letter, so if it's a paper,
00:10:48,750 --> 00:10:54,990
I'll look through the reviews and then I'll just allow myself to feel the emotions that I'm feeling right.
00:10:54,990 --> 00:10:59,970
We shouldn't be suppressing those emotions just accept how I'm feeling.
00:10:59,970 --> 00:11:03,870
And then I just move those reviews to a different folder in my inbox.
00:11:03,870 --> 00:11:13,260
And I think, right, I'll return to those in a couple of days. And what I found actually is that when I return to that, those reviews in a few days,
00:11:13,260 --> 00:11:21,210
they seem they make a lot more sense and they, you know, they seem a bit kinder than when I initially read them.
00:11:21,210 --> 00:11:25,930
So I find that is one helpful thing to do.
00:11:25,930 --> 00:11:35,800
Yeah, I think that's really crucial and really important is letting yourself feel that and letting yourself have an emotional response to it,
00:11:35,800 --> 00:11:38,890
particularly as you put so much into, you know,
00:11:38,890 --> 00:11:46,270
whether you're writing an article or you're putting together a funding application, you know, these are colossal pieces of work.
00:11:46,270 --> 00:11:59,780
And you dedicate a huge amount of time amd yourself to and to then get that email, as it tends to be now that says no is it's really hard.
00:11:59,780 --> 00:12:07,600
And as you as you rightfully said, unfortunately, it is a sort of no, it's a normal thing in academic life.
00:12:07,600 --> 00:12:20,260
It's the mainstay, you know? The nature of what we do is you try things, whether that's, you know.
00:12:20,260 --> 00:12:25,540
Particular research or, you know, trying to publish something or trying to get some funding.
00:12:25,540 --> 00:12:31,670
You know, you try things, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose and.
00:12:31,670 --> 00:12:41,250
Given how competitive it is, unfortunately, you tend to lose more than you win, and that's normal.
00:12:41,250 --> 00:12:51,930
Yeah, I was going to just add to that, actually, that I've have, and this is the same for professors and, you know, world leaders in the field.
00:12:51,930 --> 00:13:01,820
They have admitted they have had far more grants rejected than they've had accepted, and that's certainly the case for me.
00:13:01,820 --> 00:13:08,250
And you know, it's just the nature of it, and it's about almost being able to just dust yourself off and say,
00:13:08,250 --> 00:13:14,830
Right, what can I do with this information to improve and to succeed in the future?
00:13:14,830 --> 00:13:24,490
Absolutely, because there will be something in there, some nugget of wisdom that you can take forward with you to the next one.
00:13:24,490 --> 00:13:29,720
And you know, it is a little bit of a revolving door of.
00:13:29,720 --> 00:13:37,980
Right. Not that journal. Let's look at the feedback. Let's look what they said unless, you know, let's try again somewhere else.
00:13:37,980 --> 00:13:42,120
And it is a bit like that, and sometimes it's just it's not it's not the right place,
00:13:42,120 --> 00:13:46,830
it's not the right time, you know, if the research isn't quite developed and you know,
00:13:46,830 --> 00:13:51,600
the ideas aren't quite developed enough, it's all sorts, all sorts of reasons,
00:13:51,600 --> 00:13:58,680
none of which are anything to do with you or your ability as a researcher.
00:13:58,680 --> 00:13:59,970
Yeah, I was just going to add as well.
00:13:59,970 --> 00:14:06,870
There is it's also recognised in that there is that element of luck there as well, and that's something I've certainly found.
00:14:06,870 --> 00:14:11,520
So as a qualitative researcher submitted to journals,
00:14:11,520 --> 00:14:21,300
it's the most frustrating thing where you get someone who uses quantitative methods reviewing your stuff and just doesn't understand it and therefore,
00:14:21,300 --> 00:14:28,890
you know, suggests that it's rejected and then it gets rejected. So maybe also think about is, is this fair?
00:14:28,890 --> 00:14:33,220
Is it is it fair or is it that I need to find somewhere else to send this somewhere?
00:14:33,220 --> 00:14:37,120
That's and what I'm doing a little bit more.
00:14:37,120 --> 00:14:45,220
And like you say, you know. There's an element of luck in this and timing.
00:14:45,220 --> 00:14:49,700
There's an element of I mean, it's hugely competitive,
00:14:49,700 --> 00:14:57,730
I remember when I was an undergrad applying for funding for my masters and I applied to the Arts Humanities Research Council,
00:14:57,730 --> 00:15:05,590
the AHRC for funding and my application got rated excellent priority for an award.
00:15:05,590 --> 00:15:11,570
And I did not get any money because the.
00:15:11,570 --> 00:15:20,850
There were so many applicants. I was just going to say it is just so competitive with all of these grants fellowships,
00:15:20,850 --> 00:15:28,380
and there's lots of really excellent researchers all applying for the same funding with excellent proposals.
00:15:28,380 --> 00:15:34,650
And just the chance of success is so, so low. Yeah, and that's.
00:15:34,650 --> 00:15:42,690
And I say that not to discourage people, but just just to recognise the reality of it, and I say the same with academic jobs as well.
00:15:42,690 --> 00:15:48,870
You know, I see a lot of of PGRs coming through and applying for postdocs or for lectureship.
00:15:48,870 --> 00:15:53,760
And not getting interviews or getting interviews and not getting the roles and saying,
00:15:53,760 --> 00:15:58,500
Oh, you know, they gave it to someone and they've got more publications.
00:15:58,500 --> 00:16:03,360
than me they've done this many more conference presentations or they had funding for that,
00:16:03,360 --> 00:16:09,210
you know, and kind of starting to do this, do this exercise of right.
00:16:09,210 --> 00:16:14,730
These are the things I've done and these are the things that they've done. And these are all the ways they've done things.
00:16:14,730 --> 00:16:17,430
They've done more things than I have done better things than I have.
00:16:17,430 --> 00:16:23,040
And the thing that always strikes me when people do that is that they write this list of all the things somebody
00:16:23,040 --> 00:16:29,760
else has done that they haven't and they don't think about the things that they've done that somebody else hasn't.
00:16:29,760 --> 00:16:31,770
And the experience that they have that somebody else doesn't.
00:16:31,770 --> 00:16:40,630
They totally devalue what they have and go, well, that person's better because they've done X, Y and Z, and I haven't done that.
00:16:40,630 --> 00:16:49,090
That's such a good point. I'm definitely guilty of that. It's and it's hard not to do it.
00:16:49,090 --> 00:16:54,340
But, you know, there's all sorts of reasons why that person might be the person that gets a job over you
00:16:54,340 --> 00:16:57,620
They may have all of these things because they're not because they're further along.
00:16:57,620 --> 00:17:02,050
You know, they may be three years out of their research degree and you're only one.
00:17:02,050 --> 00:17:07,630
So they've they had more experience. They've had more time. You know, that's not a reflection on you.
00:17:07,630 --> 00:17:12,950
That's just the reality of having had more time to develop these things.
00:17:12,950 --> 00:17:19,400
But exactly, and we can't just judge people just based on these singular criteria,
00:17:19,400 --> 00:17:27,110
when we're all very different, I guess different disciplines, we have different approaches to doing research.
00:17:27,110 --> 00:17:31,250
You just can't really compare yourself. I don't think either. No.
00:17:31,250 --> 00:17:39,010
And it's it's, you know, it's like we said about the kind of, you know, an article or an application being a snapshot, you know, a job application.
00:17:39,010 --> 00:17:48,090
Again, it's just a snapshot. What? What's on? A piece of paper or an online form is not the sum of everything that you are.
00:17:48,090 --> 00:17:56,990
And somebody has got to make a judgement based on what is what they have in front of them, which is.
00:17:56,990 --> 00:18:07,220
So far from the sum of its parts, you know, it's so far from representative of all that that person is and all that they do.
00:18:07,220 --> 00:18:16,440
And so they're not, you know, they're not judging. That person is better than Person B, they're
00:18:16,440 --> 00:18:20,250
Looking at what they've got on a piece of paper to make a decision,
00:18:20,250 --> 00:18:25,860
and it's not a judgement on an individual, and it doesn't mean that that person's better than you.
00:18:25,860 --> 00:18:31,950
It just means that you say they fit a set of criteria and it was it was on the form that they needed.
00:18:31,950 --> 00:18:40,780
You know, it's. It's it's a strange way to make decisions, but it is nonetheless the way that we do it.
00:18:40,780 --> 00:18:49,780
Yeah, exactly. I mean, just on that point about jobs, I guess before my first postdoc, I applied well.
00:18:49,780 --> 00:18:54,490
I had interviews for three positions before actually getting that one.
00:18:54,490 --> 00:18:59,830
So getting rejected from these positions is completely normal.
00:18:59,830 --> 00:19:08,380
And actually, I think some of it as well is learning what to expect in an interview and actually learning how to write those job applications,
00:19:08,380 --> 00:19:13,720
which I've certainly got better at now and how to emphasise your skills and how to
00:19:13,720 --> 00:19:18,580
show that you do fit this criteria so that when a person goes through those forms,
00:19:18,580 --> 00:19:21,190
they can just say yes, they meet this criteria.
00:19:21,190 --> 00:19:28,650
Yes, they've published paper and just really trying to sell yourself, I guess, in the best possible way.
00:19:28,650 --> 00:19:34,630
And try and capture what you know that.
00:19:34,630 --> 00:19:41,830
That thing that makes you unique. You know, the thing that you know so and so might have X number more publications than you.
00:19:41,830 --> 00:19:46,990
But what do you have that they don't? Do you have more teaching experience that they than they do?
00:19:46,990 --> 00:19:50,830
Because actually, if you're applying for an academic role that might,
00:19:50,830 --> 00:19:58,050
depending on what the need is in the department at that time, that might be more valuable to them.
00:19:58,050 --> 00:20:06,910
Yeah, exactly. Such a good point. And also, when applying for the postdoc, your topic area might be a better fit than someone else.
00:20:06,910 --> 00:20:07,980
And you know,
00:20:07,980 --> 00:20:17,880
it's and also in terms of what other skills do you have in terms of networking and what kind of what wider network do you bring to the role?
00:20:17,880 --> 00:20:22,470
You might have some fantastic contacts and collaborations.
00:20:22,470 --> 00:20:29,740
Do you have experience with science communication and think about those other skills as well that aren't just publications,
00:20:29,740 --> 00:20:37,710
because especially if you're applying for a postdoc, you'll be publishing while doing the postdoc and you will get guidance and advice on that.
00:20:37,710 --> 00:20:45,040
Absolutely, and you know, it's important to remember that with all of these activities, none of it is a finished product.
00:20:45,040 --> 00:20:55,460
You know, it's not a finished researcher, you know, putting a box tied up with a bow, perfect number of publications perfect number of
00:20:55,460 --> 00:21:02,740
postdocs held. It's it's all a process, and you will develop within whatever role.
00:21:02,740 --> 00:21:06,460
You end up getting on you,
00:21:06,460 --> 00:21:09,700
and that will give you the opportunity to develop these things and to develop
00:21:09,700 --> 00:21:16,220
your publications and build from the bits of and all of these sorts of things.
00:21:16,220 --> 00:21:23,340
I wondered if you could say something about what I guess what you've learnt.
00:21:23,340 --> 00:21:27,810
From the process of failure, so, you know, we've said it's a common part of the academic experience.
00:21:27,810 --> 00:21:33,460
You get rejected and you get rejected more times than you'll get accepted.
00:21:33,460 --> 00:21:39,770
But so what have you learnt along the way?
00:21:39,770 --> 00:21:50,860
So while we've already touched on not taking it too personally, I've I've learnt that I've also learnt about it being a common experience.
00:21:50,860 --> 00:22:01,310
So for example, I've recently started collaborating with this amazing big deal researcher and they were sharing their experiences
00:22:01,310 --> 00:22:07,970
of failure actually and talking about all of these grants they've submitted and none of them getting funded.
00:22:07,970 --> 00:22:10,010
And I thought, Wow, OK,
00:22:10,010 --> 00:22:18,410
so it actually is a common experience that people who are these superstars are also experiencing it too I think that that's really important.
00:22:18,410 --> 00:22:27,770
And so there being an openness and talking about failure is really important because the more we talk about it,
00:22:27,770 --> 00:22:32,890
the more we normalise it and the more we create an environment that says, actually,
00:22:32,890 --> 00:22:41,100
you know, this is normal, this is something we're going to go through and.
00:22:41,100 --> 00:22:51,960
There are ways there are ways to cope with it. And you know that you have a community around you who've been through exactly the same things.
00:22:51,960 --> 00:22:57,360
Yeah, exactly, and I guess that's something that I try to talk about on academic Twitter.
00:22:57,360 --> 00:23:02,550
quite a bit is talking about experiences of rejection and being quite open about that.
00:23:02,550 --> 00:23:09,490
I mean, don't get me wrong, sometimes academic Twitter can make you feel quite rubbish because you see all of these people doing amazing things.
00:23:09,490 --> 00:23:17,160
And I sometimes think, Oh, I'm not doing that. But there are a lot of people speaking openly about rejection and failure on that,
00:23:17,160 --> 00:23:21,990
and it's such a good community, particularly for PhD students, I think.
00:23:21,990 --> 00:23:25,510
So definitely recommend making use of that. Yeah.
00:23:25,510 --> 00:23:36,600
And like let you say, I mean, because Twitter has historically been a kind of a publicity tool, let's say, for for academics.
00:23:36,600 --> 00:23:39,170
It can make you feel inferior.
00:23:39,170 --> 00:23:48,640
But but increasingly, there's more and more discussion of the realities, I guess, of being an academic and things like failure.
00:23:48,640 --> 00:23:53,310
And there's been an increase we've seen in people publishing failure CVs
00:23:53,310 --> 00:24:00,660
So the kind of opposite of a CV, all of the things that you failed at all of the things that you've been rejected from.
00:24:00,660 --> 00:24:09,090
To kind of bring to the surface, actually the thing the thing that you would submit to, you know, for a job application is all the positive things.
00:24:09,090 --> 00:24:12,720
But like you say, there's all of the kind of.
00:24:12,720 --> 00:24:20,160
The rejections and the failures behind that which outnumber, you know, the things that you would put on a CV for an employer.
00:24:20,160 --> 00:24:32,280
And I think that that's it's just really healthy to be for people to be sharing that openly and making it clear.
00:24:32,280 --> 00:24:34,110
This is normal, I'm not just saying it's normal,
00:24:34,110 --> 00:24:44,410
but like you were saying with working with a more senior researcher really showing and demonstrating in reality that his perfectly normal.
00:24:44,410 --> 00:24:52,360
Yeah, exactly, and I think what I've learnt the most is you've got to keep them up your motivation so that it can be so hard.
00:24:52,360 --> 00:24:57,760
But if you've got a grant application that hasn't been funded, yeah, that's rubbish.
00:24:57,760 --> 00:25:02,110
But think right? Where can I send this now? What is that?
00:25:02,110 --> 00:25:08,020
That's still useful. That will help me to grow as a researcher and really improve my skills.
00:25:08,020 --> 00:25:17,060
How can we still do this despite this rejection, are there other avenues and really thinking about those sort of things?
00:25:17,060 --> 00:25:22,790
You know, if you if you submit an article to a journal,
00:25:22,790 --> 00:25:30,090
the worst thing that happens is that you're going to be outright rejected, but you will get feedback.
00:25:30,090 --> 00:25:40,230
On how to improve. So there's always that kind of sense of of being able to move, move it forward.
00:25:40,230 --> 00:25:46,590
Yeah, and I didn't realise it as well, that people say, who do these reviews generally,
00:25:46,590 --> 00:25:53,940
I'm not going to say often, but generally people do want to be constructive and they do want to help.
00:25:53,940 --> 00:25:59,190
And there is this push as well now to be a lot kinder in reviews as well.
00:25:59,190 --> 00:26:05,230
So I know a lot of editors are giving that as outright guidance, but realising that these people,
00:26:05,230 --> 00:26:10,740
they have spent their time on it and that very often experts in that area.
00:26:10,740 --> 00:26:13,950
So it is a way for you to improve and to develop.
00:26:13,950 --> 00:26:20,970
And you know, if we're thinking about a publication, then you can actually end up with a much better publication as a result of that.
00:26:20,970 --> 00:26:27,750
So I know some of my own work from when I've submitted it to the first journal compared to, say, the third one.
00:26:27,750 --> 00:26:34,530
The paper changes so much and it's so much better, and I'm much happier with it with that final submission.
00:26:34,530 --> 00:26:41,940
So and something else I was thinking, which I find really helpful if I'm really annoyed about some reviewers comments.
00:26:41,940 --> 00:26:46,260
I will just meet up with my friends, say, go to the pub, go to the cafe,
00:26:46,260 --> 00:26:53,190
have a video call during COVID, and I will just rant about it for a good half hour an hour.
00:26:53,190 --> 00:26:59,810
Get it all out of my system and then I'll say, Oh, OK, I feel a lot better now and ready to talk about.
00:26:59,810 --> 00:27:05,890
Exactly how we'd process anything else. And I think that's what we've got to, you know,
00:27:05,890 --> 00:27:13,340
got to remember that it's how you'd process any other kind of emotion or not back if you had an argument with somebody,
00:27:13,340 --> 00:27:16,610
when someone's done something to annoy you. That's exactly what you would do.
00:27:16,610 --> 00:27:24,870
You would go and sit in a pub with your friends and go, Oh my, oh my God, you'll never believe what just happened.
00:27:24,870 --> 00:27:32,940
And that is cathartic. Exactly, and it's so simple, and I really value that pub time.
00:27:32,940 --> 00:27:42,180
Exactly. And that's why our and that's why our communities of practise and and kind of communities
00:27:42,180 --> 00:27:49,470
appears so important because actually they're the ones that kind of nurture and sustain us,
00:27:49,470 --> 00:27:54,060
share their experiences with us. You know, and say, you know, it's share.
00:27:54,060 --> 00:28:00,030
I've been through this too and kind of commiserate you when the failures and the rejections come in,
00:28:00,030 --> 00:28:06,510
but also celebrate with you when the when the successes happen.
00:28:06,510 --> 00:28:09,680
And I find that other people are very good at.
00:28:09,680 --> 00:28:18,740
When you kind of wallowing in self-pity, which I consider to be very myself, to be very, very good at is other people are very good at going.
00:28:18,740 --> 00:28:24,290
But what about that thing that you did? That's really good. What about that thing you did?
00:28:24,290 --> 00:28:31,790
That's really good. And getting yourself a group of colleagues and a group of people that will do that for you is,
00:28:31,790 --> 00:28:37,360
I think, so important as part of the academic experience.
00:28:37,360 --> 00:28:40,660
Yes, so basically find your cheerleaders, find them.
00:28:40,660 --> 00:28:46,480
They're out there and they'll be experiencing exactly the same stuff that you are ever.
00:28:46,480 --> 00:28:52,120
Pretty much everyone is experiencing those feelings, the failure ot rejection.
00:28:52,120 --> 00:28:57,490
So you just need to find your cheerleaders and you can be theres as well.
00:28:57,490 --> 00:29:01,000
Thank you so much to Catherine for taking this time to speak to me,
00:29:01,000 --> 00:29:08,230
but also for her candour and honesty about what are actually quite difficult experiences to talk about,
00:29:08,230 --> 00:29:13,510
but also admit to because it's not in academic culture to talk about these things.
00:29:13,510 --> 00:29:20,890
So I really value her honesty, both in this discussion, but also on Twitter.
00:29:20,890 --> 00:29:25,630
And that's it for this episode. Don't forget to like, rate and subscribe.
00:29:25,630 --> 00:29:39,770
And join me. Next time we'll be talking to somebody else about researchers development and everything in between.
00:29:39,770 --> 00:29:52,731
It is Free