Whether you're meeting with a program officer, presenting at a conference, or speaking to potential collaborators, making an impression with your verbal presentations is key to developing your reputation. When you're able to make such an impact, you can potentially create a buzz about your research that can then carry through into the grant review panels reading your proposal or keep you top of mind among researchers with whom you might collaborate.
Yet, when it comes to presentation, content is just a piece of the impression you leave. A large part of what makes you memorable is how you come across. Below, I outline some strategies for being a more effective presenter.
Dr. Amy Cuddy of the Harvard Business School has done research into "power postures," and their influence on an audience and on the speaker. Power postures are those positions that those in more powerful roles tend to use that make themselves large - things like putting your hands on your hips, standing with your feet apart, or sitting up straight. These postures project power and confidence when used in presentation. But, even better than that, Dr. Cuddy's research shows that using these power postures before an interview or a presentation can increase our levels of testosterone and lower our levels of cortisol, in effect making us feel more powerful and confident. Of course, using the inverse of these power positions projects weakness and a lack of confidence. Postures that make you smaller - crossing your arms, slumping, or touching your face or neck (I realize I do this all the time when speaking in a professional setting). These postures can distract from your presentation and rob you of your authority in a presentation setting. One of the beauties of Dr. Cuddy's research is how she shifts the old adage, "fake it till you make it" to "fake it till you become it"
Author, Simon Sinek suggests that the secret to influential people, including speakers is that they begin with the "why" of what they do while the majority of us start with the "what." He uses examples like Martin Luther King Jr. and Apple founders to show how success is found by starting with why you do something. Think about how your research spiel might change if you began with why you do your research instead of with what your research is. How might you connect with your audience and stakeholders in a new way?
Dr. Cuddy and Mr. Sinek have both presented at TED, and better yet, their talks have been included in the TED playlist to inspire folks before they give their own presentations. I recommend watching them. I found these talks when reading the book Talk Like TED, by Carmine Gallo. This book outlines several speaking strategies used by successful TED speakers. I would also recommend this book. And, if you're coming to ORDE's faculty seminars on Marketing Your Research, you'll be given a copy. Faculty may register for these seminars here.
Resources:
Amy Cuddy: Your Body Language Shapes Who You Are (TED talk)
Simon Sinek: How Great Leaders Inspire Action
TED Playlist (8 talks): Before Public Speaking
Book: Talk Like TED - Carmine Gallo
Friday, January 30, 2015
Friday, January 23, 2015
Department of Defense Funding
This week and next, ORDE is offering Know Your Agency lunches on the Department of Defense (DOD) for faculty interested in applying to them for funding.
Yesterday, Dr. Andrew Thorburn, Professor of Pharmacology at CU Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus spoke to us about his experience applying to the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDRMP), his experience as a reviewer for the DOD, as well as his experience as part of their advisory panel, which directs changes in the research review process.
Dr. Thorburn stressed the following points to consider when applying to the DOD.
Resources:
ORDE Know Your Agency Briefs
DOD CDRMP Research Funding for 2015
DOD Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program Appropriation Announcement
Yesterday, Dr. Andrew Thorburn, Professor of Pharmacology at CU Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus spoke to us about his experience applying to the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDRMP), his experience as a reviewer for the DOD, as well as his experience as part of their advisory panel, which directs changes in the research review process.
Dr. Thorburn stressed the following points to consider when applying to the DOD.
- Your project must be innovative - Even applications that receive perfect scores in peer review will sometimes not be funded if they are not deemed innovative.
- Your project must speak to consumers - the DOD includes consumers on their peer review panels (e.g., cancer survivors or their family members). The consumers are looking for projects that will make a real and more immediate difference to patients.
- You must read the program announcement closely and offer exactly what they're looking for in your application.
- You must write a lay abstract that is understandable and compelling to the lay person - Dr. Thorburn stressed that every reviewer reads the lay abstract, and it's essential that it be clear especially for the consumers who are the lay people that are reviewing your grant.
Resources:
ORDE Know Your Agency Briefs
DOD CDRMP Research Funding for 2015
DOD Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program Appropriation Announcement
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Grant-Writing Across Cultures
As a sort of follow-up to our blog on Intercultural Collaboration, I thought I'd dig into how culture can also come into play when it comes to writing. This can be especially significant when a multi-cultural research team forms and works to write a grant together. Without some foresight on cultural starting points and unspoken writing rule differences amongst members, this can be a frustrating experience. Below are some differences to be aware of...
Linear vs. Spiral Writing
Scholars in western cultures tend to write linearly - where there is a clear beginning, middle, and conclusion to their writing. Not surprisingly, U.S. granting agencies tend to prefer this sort of writing in their grant applications. In some Eastern cultures, scholarly writing has a more spiral nature to it where the writer touches on key points throughout the writing and comes back around to those same points to add on later. Although this is a perfectly acceptable and preferable way to write within these same cultures, to the western scholar and grant reviewer, it can be seen as unfocused or hard to follow.
Directness
To follow on linear vs. spiral writing is this idea of direct writing. The sense of directness in writing is cultural in much the same as the preference for directness in verbal communication. We discussed the high and low context cultural differences in our Intercultural Collaboration blog post. Western cultures often prefer more direct and literal writing and may perceive indirect writing as flowery or overly verbose. This is important to acknowledge if you hale from an eastern culture but are writing a grant for a western sponsor and grant reviewers. Western readers want to know right away what your grant is about and why it's important and have a lower tolerance for over contextualizing or long stories that finally lead up to what's important about your work. There is also lower tolerance for humility, which may be more valued by eastern readers, but by western readers it may look like a lack of confidence.
Idioms
Lastly, although it may seem obvious, idioms and metaphors that are used by all people to communicate on a daily basis are extremely cultural, and taken out of context make very little sense. When you consider that most idioms are formed based on history, religion, or even politics, it's easy to see how you need to have that sociocultural understanding for an idiom to work. Thus taking idioms across cultures may fail to translate. This is essential for all grant writers to remember. For, even though you may be western, writing a grant for a western sponsor, you should not assume that all of your grant reviewers will have a western cultural orientation. Thus it's dangerous to use idioms in any grant application.
As before, I do not mean to essentialize or over-simplify eastern and western cultures, but instead hope to illuminate some common cultural differences that are often seen in writing to allow grant developers to better navigate those differences to build their competitiveness within the grants world, but also to be able to successfully co-write with researchers from many different cultures.
Resources
Intercultural Written Communication Blog - Ahlam
Cultural Considerations: Rhetoric and Ethics - wikidot
Writing for an International Audience - goodtools.net
Linear vs. Spiral Writing
Scholars in western cultures tend to write linearly - where there is a clear beginning, middle, and conclusion to their writing. Not surprisingly, U.S. granting agencies tend to prefer this sort of writing in their grant applications. In some Eastern cultures, scholarly writing has a more spiral nature to it where the writer touches on key points throughout the writing and comes back around to those same points to add on later. Although this is a perfectly acceptable and preferable way to write within these same cultures, to the western scholar and grant reviewer, it can be seen as unfocused or hard to follow.
Directness
To follow on linear vs. spiral writing is this idea of direct writing. The sense of directness in writing is cultural in much the same as the preference for directness in verbal communication. We discussed the high and low context cultural differences in our Intercultural Collaboration blog post. Western cultures often prefer more direct and literal writing and may perceive indirect writing as flowery or overly verbose. This is important to acknowledge if you hale from an eastern culture but are writing a grant for a western sponsor and grant reviewers. Western readers want to know right away what your grant is about and why it's important and have a lower tolerance for over contextualizing or long stories that finally lead up to what's important about your work. There is also lower tolerance for humility, which may be more valued by eastern readers, but by western readers it may look like a lack of confidence.
Idioms
Lastly, although it may seem obvious, idioms and metaphors that are used by all people to communicate on a daily basis are extremely cultural, and taken out of context make very little sense. When you consider that most idioms are formed based on history, religion, or even politics, it's easy to see how you need to have that sociocultural understanding for an idiom to work. Thus taking idioms across cultures may fail to translate. This is essential for all grant writers to remember. For, even though you may be western, writing a grant for a western sponsor, you should not assume that all of your grant reviewers will have a western cultural orientation. Thus it's dangerous to use idioms in any grant application.
As before, I do not mean to essentialize or over-simplify eastern and western cultures, but instead hope to illuminate some common cultural differences that are often seen in writing to allow grant developers to better navigate those differences to build their competitiveness within the grants world, but also to be able to successfully co-write with researchers from many different cultures.
Resources
Intercultural Written Communication Blog - Ahlam
Cultural Considerations: Rhetoric and Ethics - wikidot
Writing for an International Audience - goodtools.net
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Intercultural Collaboration
Independent research is still highly valued in academia and within the funding and tenure worlds. However, most realize that it is becoming more and more necessary for researchers to create truly collaborative teams and to partner with those outside their discipline, institution, and country. Given the potential of international research collaborations, it's important for PIs to consider cultural differences that can have an impact on the effectiveness of their team and collaborations.
With that in mind, I wanted to introduce you to some cultural dialectics to bear in mind when working with people who are from cultures different than your own. Geert Hofstede, a social psychologist developed a cultural dimensions theory that identified several spectra that people from the same national culture tend to share. Edward T. Hall, known as the father of Intercultural Communication also identified useful cultural variants. Below, I describe some of these spectra, and suggest how awareness of the dialectic can allow you to maneuver collaborations that extend outside of your native culture.
High/Low Context Communication
In this spectrum, high context communication refers to that which relies heavily on non-verbals, such as a person's position, sex, and other social cues as to how they should be addressed and what is appropriate to say. Low context cultures, such as the US and other Western countries, tend to favor a more literal communication style that is direct and spells out meaning within verbals.
Low context communicators should be sensitive to those from higher context cultures, such as Japanese culture, and realize that they may not be comfortable verbalizing their thoughts, especially around negotiating publication authorship or leadership in an interest to save face for themselves and others on the team. On the flip side, if you are from a high context culture, realizing that those in low context cultures are not meaning to be offensive, but are instead more comfortable communicating directly can allow you to more effectively communicate with them.
Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)
It may seem that a person's comfort with ambiguity is personal, and that's certainly true. However, there is a larger cultural orientation that influences members' UAI. High UAI cultures are uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity and tend to want to have very clear guidelines and steps for solving a problem. Low UAI cultures are more comfortable with uncertainty and are more comfortable with change and being flexible. Whereas high UAI cultures are more comfortable dealing with uncertainty by instigating rules, low UAI cultures are more comfortable with risk.
Those researchers from High UAI cultures, such as Latin American cultures, in a research collaboration setting may tend to want clear structure in embarking on a project, whereas those in lower UAI cultures, like the US may be more comfortable working on issues and complexities as they come up.
Individualism/Collectivism
The individualism/collectivism spectrum is particularly interesting to consider in relation to research teams, considering the tension around PIs proving their independence in research and the recognition/need for collaboration in research to solve the really big challenges of our day. In short, individualistic cultures, like mainstream US and Canada, tend to promote and reward an individual's accomplishments and endorse competition as a driver for achievement. Those collectivistic cultures, such as Native American and First Nations people tend to value the interests of their communities, families, or teams over an individual's interests.
Understanding these differences can allow research teams to understand the goals and interests of members from different cultural orientations and to forge paths that respect these different starting points. They can also allow research teams to better collaborate collectively, drawing on those cultural strengths in the group while recognizing and distinguishing the individual contributions of each group, drawing on and recognizing the values of more individualistic cultures.
As a caveat, although these spectra can give us insight into different cultural perspectives and some generalizations about national cultures, it's important to recognize the variance within countries - such as mainstream US and native cultures within the US mentioned above. It's also important to recognize the cultural differences within cultural groups, such as those related to gender. Lastly, in a more and more globalized world, we're seeing more and more people who are culturally nomadic in a sense and able to navigate very different cultures easily.
With that said, if members of a research team can be aware of these differences - including their own cultural preferences and where others might be coming from, it can make for a more clear and productive collaboration.
Resources
The Hofstede Center's Culture Compass Tool
Edward T. Hall and the History of Intercultural Communication: United States and Japan - Rogers, Hart, and Miike
The individualism/collectivism spectrum is particularly interesting to consider in relation to research teams, considering the tension around PIs proving their independence in research and the recognition/need for collaboration in research to solve the really big challenges of our day. In short, individualistic cultures, like mainstream US and Canada, tend to promote and reward an individual's accomplishments and endorse competition as a driver for achievement. Those collectivistic cultures, such as Native American and First Nations people tend to value the interests of their communities, families, or teams over an individual's interests.
Understanding these differences can allow research teams to understand the goals and interests of members from different cultural orientations and to forge paths that respect these different starting points. They can also allow research teams to better collaborate collectively, drawing on those cultural strengths in the group while recognizing and distinguishing the individual contributions of each group, drawing on and recognizing the values of more individualistic cultures.
As a caveat, although these spectra can give us insight into different cultural perspectives and some generalizations about national cultures, it's important to recognize the variance within countries - such as mainstream US and native cultures within the US mentioned above. It's also important to recognize the cultural differences within cultural groups, such as those related to gender. Lastly, in a more and more globalized world, we're seeing more and more people who are culturally nomadic in a sense and able to navigate very different cultures easily.
With that said, if members of a research team can be aware of these differences - including their own cultural preferences and where others might be coming from, it can make for a more clear and productive collaboration.
Resources
The Hofstede Center's Culture Compass Tool
Edward T. Hall and the History of Intercultural Communication: United States and Japan - Rogers, Hart, and Miike
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)