The first day of the 2024 FSMK conference was concluded with a roundtable led by early career researchers. The topics for discussion were introduced to explore three aspects of changing media ecologies for early career researchers: the tools and artefacts of research practice, the implications of the digital footprints left behind by researchers and educators, and the sociocultural impact of new technologies in research. Nordicom’s manuscript editor Kristin Clay sat down with early career researchers Otto Hedenmo, Monica Porzionato, and Jens Alvén Sjöberg to discuss the experience and their main conclusions.
It was so rewarding for me as an editor to get to observe and learn from scholars that I usually only encounter “invisibly” through e-mail when I’m editing their articles or chapters or seeing their names recur in reference lists. It’s so valuable for me to see how they work and communicate with each other and pursue their spheres of interest. But beyond research topics, there are also the initiatives taken to foster collaboration, mutual learning, open discussion, and so on. And this is what I particularly enjoyed witnessing on the first day of the 2024 FSMK conference, which I was generously allowed to observe. Specifically, the initiative that early career researchers Otto Hedenmo, Monica Porzionato, and Jens Alvén Sjöberg took to lead roundtable discussions on three threads of changing media ecologies for early career researchers: 1) the tools and artefacts of research practice, 2) the implications of the digital footprints left behind by researchers and educators, and 3) the sociocultural impact of new technologies in research. I decided to sit down with them and hear their thoughts on the roundtable initiative:
Kristin Clay (KC): Usually I tend to work behind the scenes as an editor, so this is a nice experience for me. You mentioned during our correspondence that you ran out of time to thoroughly discuss the findings from each roundtable group. So, we’ll dedicate most of the time to that, but to start with, why don’t you give a brief explanation of what it is we’re talking about, how – and why – you came up with the idea, and what were some main takeaways from the process?
Otto Hedenmo (OH): Before the activity, Annette Hill [Professor of Media and Communications at Jönköping University] encouraged us to have some kind of thing – a roundtable she called it – about changing ecologies for early career researchers. And I think it was some kind of combination of us misunderstanding what a roundtable – or what Annette’s idea of a roundtable was – and our idea of what we wanted to do with it. So, we had some kind of discussion where it sounded like Annette was more interested in having some kind of panel, but we thought, why not make it into a greater discussion?
And I must say that the organisers of the conference were very encouraging and left it up to us to decide. And small groups with different themes of discussion was kind of an idea we had all the three of us. The theme was changing media ecologies for early career researchers, but it’s very difficult for us to know what has actually changed and what it was like to be an early career researcher before. So we were interested in knowing what more senior or more experienced researchers had experienced when they were new in academia…
The theme was changing media ecologies for early career researchers, but it’s very difficult for us to know what has actually changed and what it was like to be an early career researcher before. So we were interested in knowing what more senior or more experienced researchers had experienced when they were new in academia…
Monica Porzionato (MP): …and in how both groups experienced the changes – the differences and similarities of perception, and the relevance put to those changes…
OH: We were intrigued about how the discussion would develop. Do you, Jens, Monica, agree with this description?
Jens Alvén Sjöberg (JAS): Yes, we had a meeting before the whole thing. But as you mentioned, we had been given our free hands to do whatever we wanted to do. And maybe it was a good misunderstanding from us.
KC: That’s interesting! The conference followed the standard format of keynotes with a short period for questions and answers, but there’s not a lot of interaction. And usually just the most outgoing people ask the questions and so there’s a lot of people who are just observing, and they don’t really get the chance to interact very much. So, I think this was quite a good idea! You each took one of three topics – Jens with the tools and artefacts of research practice, Monica with the implications of the digital footprints left behind by researchers and educators, and Otto with the sociocultural impact of new technologies in research. How did these discussions go in your individual groups?
MP: We each had some potential questions, and in my group, we didn’t really stick super much to those questions. Actually, I was always trying to bring them back to the topic of footprints, but the course of the conversation showed how all three topics were very intertwined. So, we were also actually discussing the tools that we use as young researchers, or researchers in general. We ended up discussing those even though it wasn’t necessarily about the footprints or the sociocultural impact of them. And I was trying to steer them, but not necessarily very much – it was good to have a natural conversation.
JAS: I had the first team which was about practices, tools, and artifacts. I think we were going to start. I had a very large group, which also makes it kind of difficult: I would say we had too little time to discuss all of it, because I had ten people participating in my group. So, we were kind of stuck on only two of the three questions we had. But I think what’s really interesting is to hear about the idea, or the reflection about, the technology and tools and how it has changed, but also the new idea of Zoom hybrid teaching, doing research, and so on. There was a lot of positive tones about how going digital would allow doing research or teaching to become a more flexible thing. But there was also a lot of discussion about the negative side of all of these. We talked about if you are a senior researcher or professor and have a lot of networking, then of course it becomes easier to switch to digital, because then you already have the content. But if you are new in the game, then it can become much harder, which we discussed that from different points of view. But mostly the discussion came back to the teaching problem, and also what the students want and don’t really want us to do, and so on. But the idea was that because that we had this pandemic and we had to change to doing things completely digitally, there was a lot of voices that really don’t really encourage the hybrid setting that has come after – for different reasons – especially when it comes to teaching and doing research, though for meetings and such, the discussion was more positive. And we discussed AI, which was very interesting, but we just dove into that in the end of the discussion, which didn’t really come to any clarity. We ended up with the question of why we are afraid of AI. And then we discussed that from different angles. There were some participants in my group that are doing a lot of research about AI, so they were very much taking the lead in that discussion.
I think what’s really interesting is to hear about the idea, or the reflection about, the technology and tools and how it has changed, but also the new idea of Zoom hybrid teaching, doing research, and so on.
OH: I didn’t anticipate that so many would choose your group Jens.
JAS: I was surprised about that. Well, I think it was kind of an easy discussion, because everybody could relate to Zoom, Teams, different AI systems. And so, I think they just wanted to discuss that.
MP: I think that says something about how we did this: New media ecologies are most of the time considered in very practical terms – in everyday practices. And perhaps, with the Covid-19 pandemic being a good example, we’ve been thinking about this in our daily lives. Perhaps we haven’t much focused on the broader social consequences or the environmental impacts. So, this is why you, Otto, and I had very little people.
OH: And especially you, Monica, it seemed like everyone left the room, thinking “no, we don’t want to talk about the footprints”.
MP: And then people were like, “OK, but then if you’re alone, I’m gonna sacrifice and come” [laughter]. But then also in connection to this now that Jens was talking about: When I said earlier that it seemed that the conversation was a bit divergent towards team one – of the tools – I was also looking at the notes that I took. Indeed, there were some very creative ways of going around this concept of footprints, for example, also considering how these footprints actually enhance a certain very practical way of working in the classroom. So then indeed we went into these tools in the classroom. I tried to steer them again towards the footprints, whatever we mean by it, and we played around a bit with the concept of footprints beyond the environmental realm. For instance, we talked about the publications that we leave behind being the footprint of ourselves – we went into this more philosophical type of conversation, which surprised me. There was also a sign that perhaps we do not really have one understanding of what we mean by the footprints of this type of media ecologies. We are making the meaning by thinking about this.
(…) we talked about the publications that we leave behind being the footprint of ourselves – we went into this more philosophical type of conversation, which surprised me. There was also a sign that perhaps we do not really have one understanding of what we mean by the footprints of this type of media ecologies.
JAS: I just want to respond to that because I see now in my notes that we didn’t really step into the footprints perspective so fully, but we touched upon it a little bit, because some of the participants were talking about the role of the university in this technical, new media landscape. And also that there are universities downsizing because their employees are not working from the university, but remotely. The consequences of this new media landscape, that the university as an organisation is also changing, the role of locations – how many rooms are we going to have – and so on. Some of the participants were talking about how they can also see effects of right now. There are some universities that are actually starting to reduce the tables they have, for example, because they noticed that a lot of their co-workers are working from home. This was interesting, but then we came into this negative side. What happens if the universities are closing down or shrinking? What happens if it becomes harder for students to meet teachers and researchers? Especially for new or young researchers, who don’t have a huge network? And so on.
OH: That connects quite well to what we were discussing in my group. I would say that we went – maybe not in depth – but we focused on mainly two questions that were particularly connected to the personal relationships of the researcher. For one thing, the personal relationships to other researchers, the way in which our acceptance of doing research remotely has made our networks way wider. We are connected with these international, and almost global, networks. And we relate to other researchers who we maybe have never met physically, but we are part of these different networks and groups. And the more experienced researchers said that, well, when they were earlier researchers, it was the closest relationships, your research group, that were the most important ones. And the PhD students that were part of my discussion group, none of us could really relate to that – that those are the most important relationships we have. Instead, we would say that our networks are more wider than our closest research group. And we talked about that a quite a great deal – about what that means to us, as researchers, not having these. Because the networks that you participate in, you don’t really consider them as having close relationships. You have very professional relationships with these people, but they are very much dependent on these different medias that you use: the digital meetings, the e-mails, etcetera. But you don’t really develop any closer or more deeper relationships with these people. And so we talked about that a great deal, but didn’t really reach any conclusions other than that we problematised it. What does that really make of the work as a researcher? Do we feel that it’s as fun as it was for other early career researchers? Or is it even more fun – having the world as a playground, so to say? And we also talked a great deal about this increased need – or tendency maybe – to see the researcher as a brand. And the way in which you’re encouraged to communicate your research through platforms such as X and LinkedIn, which are very oriented towards you as a person. So, it’s very much connected to your research and your personality. And this relates also to the third assignment: for us spread our research into society. And to the way in which the third assignment is connected to this development toward the researcher as a personal brand and not necessarily towards the research that you are conducting. Do you see what I mean, the distinction that it’s very much connected to you, as positioning yourself and promoting your research, other than just promoting this umbrella of research or these findings. And that was also something that the more experienced researchers could see – that this probably should generate a lot of stress for us early career researchers. However, the three of us PhD students, none of us are really that active on social media platforms: We are actively distancing ourselves from it. So, none of us really felt any stress, but more a reluctance to be part of that kind of promoting your own research that way. Do you see what I mean?
(..) we relate to other researchers who we maybe have never met physically, but we are part of these different networks and groups. And the more experienced researchers said that, well, when they were earlier researchers, it was the closest relationships, your research group, that were the most important ones.
KC: For sure. And it’s actually quite an interesting thing that you bring up, because with us at Nordicom, part of what we do is to try to increase reach as much as possible. So, we always have evaluations afterwards, and it is precisely when authors share in their personal networks that it gets the most attention. Not when they share, for example, on the university’s website or professional ways, but in their personal networks. So it’s interesting that these more senior scholars recognise that and imagine what it’s like. But then the three of you are, as you said, are distancing somewhat from that. But it seems like you were discussing different ways of networking. It seems like you did get some good feedback from senior scholars.
OH: Definitely! We had a lot of exchanges about experiences.
KC: Was there anything surprising on your end? Or did any senior scholars express surprise at anything in the discussions?
OH: For me, it was the ease of talking about these things. It was very easy to start to talk about the way in which the new media ecologies change the whole environment for researchers. That was surprising for me. I thought it would be quite stiff in the beginning. But we got past that in ten seconds, and everyone was talking. Everyone had something to contribute. It was really, really fun.
KC: And you, Jens and Monica, did you experience something similar or was it more slow going?
JAS: No, in my group – the thing I found very interesting was the talk about AI, and because there were some professors who are doing research about AI and some who are not doing it. We didn’t have so much time, because we were running out of time when we began digging into that theme, but what caught me by surprise was that there were two groups: There was one group that was very positive about AI and saw it as a support in their work, and there was another group who was a little more sceptical, and also afraid of AI and its development. Will it replace us? Will it replace teachers? Will research only be digitalised? And so on. So, it would have been interesting to see how that discussion would have continued, because I found it interesting to hear these different voices who said we shouldn’t be afraid of it, but we should be critical towards it. But we cannot really do anything about the development because it’s led by Big Tech, and they will do whatever they want because they own a lot of the technology, which the universities are using. So I found that aspect interesting, but also the discussion about the role of the university and that some universities are already changing because of this technological development, and so on. There are, from the management perspectives, demands, or requests, that more lectures should be recorded, and we should allow students to participate more on their own terms. This was also interesting as a part of this development.
There was one group that was very positive about AI and saw it as a support in their work, and there was another group who was a little more sceptical, and also afraid of AI and its development. Will it replace us? Will it replace teachers? Will research only be digitalised?
OH: Jens, can I ask you a question then? The things that you mentioned are things that impact everyone at the university. Did you talk about the ways they made most sense for early career researchers? What were the ways where we are impacted?
JAS: The problem is that when we discussed it, we talked more about the general view, but then we talked about it also from a doctoral student perspective, or when one is starting work as a teacher and hasn’t done that before in the university. Then, of course, you can be forced to do something that you don’t really know about, which could be a problem. Some participants also addressed that if you don’t really know the field of the game, then you might be used by the management to do stuff that you’re not really supposed to do, like record your lectures or workshops when they don’t really have the authority to force that. And universities have different rules, for example, if you are creating the keynote, or some material, then you expect to have the right to decide how it’s going to be used, but in some universities, you are actually writing that right off, and so on. It depends on what university you are working at, so you should be aware of that. We discussed that more on the general level, that this is the development that some of the professors and senior researchers saw, which has been around for ten years or so, and they could see a development – that there are changes in the university, which we can also see in other branches in society, that we want to become more efficient. But that will also sacrifice how we are going to work, and we get less hours for doing the same work and so on.
KC: I’m reflecting on how having a decade or two behind you of teaching in a classroom – and only in a classroom, with no cameras – allows you to develop a sense of confidence. For example, you can say almost whatever you want without fear of repercussion. But once you turn a camera on, especially, then you always have to think about how you’re framing things and how it could be taken. Discussions aren’t as open. And to be forced to start out that way doesn’t seem fair. Whereas I’m sure it’s hard for senior scholars to adjust to that as well, they have had the chance to create habits and ways of doing things they are confident in – it’s a different challenge, but interesting in that way.
OH: I wonder if Monica was surprised by anything in her group?
MP: I think what I was surprised about was mainly this creativity in stretching the concept of footprints. I think we were very few – maybe five in total – and they were all mainly quite experienced researchers. So, we didn’t really talk about the early career researchers. Maybe I was also surprised about how nobody really touched upon the environmental footprints, perhaps also because it is something that is more reflected on in our circles – this attention to the environmental impact of things. At least, I think about this in many facets of my life. But, maybe it’s just a generational thing. I was also surprised at how open the discussion was, as you mentioned. So, it was very nice. I remember seeing the clock and realising we needed to go back already, which is always a nice feeling.
Maybe I was also surprised about how nobody really touched upon the environmental footprints, perhaps also because it is something that is more reflected on in our circles – this attention to the environmental impact of things.
KC: Time flies.
All: Yeah.
JAS: I want to follow up on that because that was also something that was mentioned in my group, that we should have more time to discuss this, because there were so many aspects, and of course a large group, so the time became even more troublesome for allowing everybody to participate. Because everybody had something to say in my team.
MP: Perhaps the biggest shame is that we didn’t have the discussion at the end. I was thinking that maybe we should actually have less time among the small groups and then instead spending more time on discussion.
KC: Maybe the whole format of keynote and Q&A can learn something from this experience. And there could be potential for a combination of a keynote, a small group discussion, and then you come back with developed questions, for example.
OH: Definitely. Afterwards, I feel that the way in which we arranged the roundtable discussions was great. It was a shame that we couldn’t discuss everything afterwards, but the discussions we had in the small groups were so vivid. And it felt like everyone was having a good time – to mix up the listening with an hour of interaction.
JAS: I agree!
MP: Also something to mention it was that it was very nice that Rebecca [Bengtsson Lundin, postdoctoral researcher at Umeå University and lecturer at Linnæus University] was so good. We didn’t really have the time to discuss with her beforehand, and I don’t think it took her so long, because it seemed that she came across as a person that was quite organised.
MP: And quite practical and pragmatic, so I think it came naturally to her. I was very relieved that she was very good in the sense of organising and making a presentation, and it really helped to make this a bit more organised.
OH: I agree Rebecca was great. She made it really easy to just start off the activity. We had more or less five to ten minutes of introduction, and then the groups were on so. So, she contributed a lot.
JAS: Perfect solution.
KC: So, you’ve reflected on the process, and the comparisons with the typical conference format. I was really interested in how in different groups you touched upon the differences in networking for senior and junior scholars, and that’s actually something I’m very interested in. For example, for me as an editor, I can contact anyone and build my network because I have something they need – my services. But as a scholar, often you want to contact someone because you need something, and it’s a very different thing to contact someone you’ve never met in person when you’re asking for something. And I wonder if the more senior scholars have experienced that as much? I think that’s what is so perfect about this roundtable – it forces this personal interaction that you don’t normally get. For example, I hardly ever put myself out there, and I think a lot of scholars may be introverted in that way. And it’s difficult.
OH: Yeah, we actually talked about that. That was one of the things that we stuck upon. We wondered, because we talked about the researcher as “kuf”, and “kuf” is….
JAS: Is it odd? An odd person, I would say.
OH: Yeah, I think that we translated it as “oddball” in the group discussion, but that’s not what “kuf” is. It’s like the isolated researcher, doing the research in their room or in their chambers with no kind of interaction with the outside world, and then just producing something. And we were questioning: Does this person – this type of researcher – still exist? Or is everyone so interconnected and encouraged to be part of a network and collaborate and being forced into different situations? Does the “kuf” still exist? Or will the “kuf” continue to exist? But yeah, I think that the format was really good, because we were able to be reflective about how it is to be an early career researcher of today and before. The more senior researchers could talk about how things have developed, and we as PhD students or more junior researchers could talk about our experiences in our current situation, and they could reflect upon their development. So, it was a great combination of people and experiences, and I think that both the combination of people and the combination of experiences made the conversation so interesting.
We talked about “kuf”. It’s like the isolated researcher, doing the research in their room or in their chambers with no kind of interaction with the outside world, and then just producing something. And we were questioning: Does this person – this type of researcher – still exist? Or is everyone so interconnected and encouraged to be part of a network and collaborate and being forced into different situations?
KC: That’s wonderful.
OH: Yeah, because I don’t think it would have been the same if there were only early career researchers in my group discussion. It wouldn’t have been as interesting pointing towards a certain development. We would be complaining about our situation, but not really being able to see it from a greater perspective or a greater timeline. So, I really liked that.
JAS: Yes, I liked the diversity of people coming from different universities and having different positions, all the way from full professor to a new PhD student. I think that was very good. My group had a lot of diverse positions and also universities represented, and in the discussion, we could see that there are similarities but also differences among the Swedish universities as well, when we discussed technology and AI and the role of the university, for example. That was interesting.
KC: So, what I’m hearing is, it was a success!
JAS: Yeah, I really liked the discussion. I think there should be more like this in in upcoming conferences.
KC: Yes, I do think there is something here to learn from, as far as how to organise a conference and things to think about
OH: One thing that we could learn from, as Monica mentioned, is to dedicate more time to it. Maybe we should have fifteen minutes more or something like that to finalise the discussions, and have some kind of full group discussion where we could highlight certain things.
JAS: But that’s the beauty of it. We learn as we continue to progress. So that next time we might have that chance, hopefully.
KC: And now that we’re going to publish this interview, maybe the other national conferences will take a note from you.
OH: Hope so.
JAS: Yeah. Otherwise, we can come and join and help do it!
KC: Sounds good! Thank you so much for your enthusiasm and your willingness to do this. It was so fun for me.
JAS: And thank you for allowing us to wrap up this discussion as well. So that’s good.
OH: Thank you for the idea.
KC: Absolutely. We were very pleased to give you the opportunity, take care!
So, there you have it. The power of networking and collaboration at its best. It was a pleasure to hear about how veteran scholars shared their experiences, had questions about how it is for young researchers today, and examined their own roles in the changing media ecologies, and how young researchers took the initiative to both challenge and learn from their seniors. It just goes to show that open and curious discussion can lead to benefits for everyone involved – even an introvert editor who’s just observing…