The Creation Myth and Fear of Resting

Western Sunrise
The sunrise at Western University, as seen from my 7th floor lab.

November 30, 2017

I feel very unfocused lately, and I think I know why. When I was writing my two grant proposals in October, I really felt like I had control of my ideas. I felt like I knew what I was working on and what I wanted to be doing with my research program, my graduate student, and trainees. This is a great feeling and I was filled with the satisfaction of not only working hard on the proposals but also of having so many ideas and projects that I wanted to pursue. I could not wait to get started on some of the new projects.

But right after they were submitted, I rested. This seems natural, for course, for I’d worked hard and wanted to celebrate a job well done and relax a bit. Also I had just undergone a minor surgery, so some recovery time was needed. But a week later, I needed to turn to other things that Required my attention, and before I realized what had happened, I was overwhelmed with our departmental job searches and my office and lab’s move to the new building. My research ideas, having been developed and nurtured in the NSERC and SSHRC proposals, languished from the inattention.

That is, I worked. I seemed to have it together, I rested, and it all seemed to slip away.

It was like the 7th day.

In the creation myth in Genesis, God worked hard to create the universe and then he rested. And then right after that, right after sitting back, looking with satisfaction at what he’d done, and cracking open a divine beer, he seems to lose focus…humans took over, they started killing each other, and he can’t really seem remember why he created us in the first place, or what his plan is. He takes it out on us. He starts to clearly resent his work…he keeps coming back to it every so often, but the magic is gone. He rested and lost focus.

I think this is a metaphor that is often unexplored in the Bible (or maybe it is interpreted this way, I’m really not up on Bible scholarship). The creation myth can be seen as a story about what happens when you rest on your laurels and stop working on something. You step back and get caught up in other things and you lose you train of thought. The ideas fade, they take a back seat, and it can be so difficult to get back in control, that you risk starting to resent the ideas.

I think that’s the underlying theme in Genesis: God rested and the universe took a back seat. It got out of hand and he never quite got it back the way he wanted. He started to resent the work and even tried to destroy it.

The inevitability of forward motion.

I’m not trying to say I’m God here, but I am supposed to be in control of my research program. And there are times when I’m in the middle of working on a project, or paper, or grant that I really think I can see the big picture. I can glimpse a bigger vision for my research on cognition, concepts, and categories. I think I’ve created something worthwhile. But damnit, if I step way for a week and get caught up in a PhD defence, or faculty hiring, committee work, or the like, it can be so hard to put things back together.

And the lesson in Genesis seems to be: you can’t. You can’t put it back in that pristine state. But you can’t give up either. You have to let the ideas work themselves out. You have to come back and not be afraid to admit you made a mistake. Sometimes you start over or learning new skills. You may have to look at things from a new perspective while realizing that you can’t ever get back to the garden.

I’m not a religious believer… but I think there’s still a good lesson here: Even the divine creator has trouble keeping it together after a break.

The Infinity: Email Management and Engagement

It’s a cold and rainy Sunday morning in November. I’m drinking some delicious dark coffee from Balzac’s.

My wife and I are each working on different things and taking advantage of the relative morning quiet. I’m at the kitchen table working off my laptop, listening to music on my headphones, and working on overview material: looking at the emails I have to respond to. I criticize myself for procrastinating, which is in itself an extra layer of procrastinating.

Email is the engine of misery

I take a look at my work email inbox. It is not too bad for a professor. I keep it organized and the inbox contains one those things that need a reply. But there at 59 messages in there that I need to reply to;  four of these have been awaiting a reply since September. Even while I write this, I’m feeling a real sense of anxiety and conflict. On the one hand, I greatly desire to spend hours slogging though the entire list and trying to deal with backlog. I’d love to look at INBOX = 0. I think that would make me feel great (which is a strange belief to have…I have never had INBOX = 0, so how do I know it would make me feel great?) Even an hour could make a good dent and dispense with at least 2/3 of the messages.

But at the same time, I want to ignore all of it. To delete all the email. I think about Donald Knuth’s quote about email. Knuth is a computer scientist at Stanford, who developed, among other things, the “TeX” system of typesetting. He has an entry on his website about email and indicted that he does not have an address.

“Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things. What I do takes long hours of studying and uninterruptible concentration. I try to learn certain areas of computer science exhaustively; then I try to digest that knowledge into a form that is accessible to people who don’t have time for such study.”

This quote, and the idea here, has been one of the things that I really aspire to. It’s one of my favourite quotes and a guiding principle…but I can’t make the leap. Like Knuth, I also write books, articles, and I try to get to the bottom of things. But it seems like I never scratch the surface because I’m always responding to email, sending email, Tweeting and engaging on social media. Deeper analysis never happens because I’m preoccupied with this surface. I feel trapped by this.

And yet, I cannot ignore the surface level. Engagement with email is part of my job. Others depend my responding. For example, I have a now retried departmental colleague who just never responded to email, and this was very frustrating to deal with. I suspect (I know) that others picked up the slack when he failed to be responsive. I have a current colleague who is much the same. So I don’t endorse blowing off some aspects of one’s job, knowing that others will pick these pieces up. I don’t want to shirk my administrative and teaching responsibilities, even if it means I sacrifice the ability to have dedicated research and writing time.

Give and Take

In the end, I am trapped in a cage that I spend hours each day making stronger. Trapped in a pit that I work ever longer hours to make deeper. The incoming email will not stop, but one could probably slow it down by not sending any email out, by providing FAQs on my syllabus about when to email, by delegating email to TAs.

The real question is, if I give less time to email, will it take less of my time away? If so, will I use that time wisely? Or will I turn to another form of distraction. Is email the problem? Or am I the problem?

The one “productivity hack” that you probably avoid like the plague

This past week, my office phone rang. It rarely does, and even when it does ring, I rarely answer it. I usually let the call go to voicemail. My outgoing voicemail says: “I never check voicemail, please email me“. And even if someone does leave a voicemail, it’s transcribed and sent to my email.

This is so inefficient, and self-sabotaging, given that I, like most academics, moan about how much email I have to process.

But this time, noticing that it was another professor in my department who was calling, I picked it up. My colleague who was calling is the co-ordinator for the Psychology Honours program and he had a simple question about the project that one of my undergraduate Honours students was working on. We solved the issue in about 45 seconds.

If I had followed the standard protocol, he would have left a voicemail or emailed me (or both). It would have probably taken me a day to respond, and the email would have taken 5-8 minutes for me to write. He’d have then replied (a day later), and if my email was not clear, there might have been another email. Picking up the phone saved each of us time and effort and allowed my student’s proposed project to proceed.

Phone Aversion.

Why are we so averse to using the phone?

I understand why in principal: it’s intrusive, it takes you out of what you were doing (answering email probably), and you have to switch tasks.  The act of having to disengage from what you are doing and manage a call is a cognitively demanding action.  After the call, you then have to switch back. So it’s natural to make a prospective judgement to avoid taking the call.

And from the perspective of the caller, you might call and not get an answer, then you have to engage a new decision-making process: Should I leave a message, call again, or just email. This cognitive switching takes time and effort. And of course, as many of us resent being interrupted by a call, we may also assume that the person we are calling also resents the interruption and so we avoid calling out of politeness (maybe this more of a Canadian thing…)

So there are legitimate, cognitive and social/cognitive reasons to avoid using the phone.

We Should Make and Take More Calls.

My experience was a small revelation, though. Mostly because after the call, while I was switching back to what I had been doing prior, I thought about how much longer (days) the standard email approach would have taken. So I decided that, going forward, that I’m going to try to make and take more calls. It can be a personal experiment.

I tried this approach a few days ago with some non-university contacts (for the youth sports league I help to manage). We saved time and effort. Yes, it might have taken a few minutes out of each other’s day, but it paled in comparison to what an email-based approach would have taken.

For Further Study

Although I’m running a “personal experiment” on phone call efficiency, I’d kind of like to study this in more detail. Perhaps design a series of experiments in which two (or more) people are given a complex problem to solve and we can manipulate how much time they can spend on email vs time on the phone. We’d track things like cognitive interference. I’m not exactly sure how to do this, but I’d like to look at it more systematically. The key things would be how effectively people solve the problems, and if and how one mode of communication interferes with other tasks.

Final Thoughts

Do you prefer email or a phone call? Have you ever solved a problem faster on the phone vs email? Have you ever found the reverse to be true?

Or do you prefer messaging (Slack, Google Chat, etc.) which is more dynamic than email but not as intrusive as a phone call?

 

 

 

Artificially Intelligent—At the Intersection of Bots, Equity, and Innovation

This article was written in collaboration with my wife Elizabeth. We wrote this together and the ideas were generated during some of the great discussions we had during our evening 5k runs.

We all remember Prime Minister Trudeau’s famous response when asked about his gender equity promise for filling roles in the cabinet: “because it’s 2015.” And really, this call to action comes quite late in the historical span of modernity, but we’re glad someone at the highest levels of government in a developed nation has strongly proclaimed it. Most of us in Canada and likely around the world, were pleased to see Trudeau had staffed his cabinet with a significant amount of female leaders in important decision-making roles. And now, it’s 2017–a year that has been pivotal to say the least. Last Spring, Canada’s Minister of Science, Dr. Kirsty Duncan announced that universities in Canada are now required to improve their processes for hiring Canada Research Chairs and ensure those practices and review plans  are equitable, diverse and inclusive. The government of Canada’s announcement is a call to action to include more women and other underrepresented groups at these levels, and it’s essentially come down to ultimatum: research universities will simply not receive federal funding allocations for these programs unless they take equity, diversity, and inclusion seriously in their recruitment and review processes.

IMG_20161205_072820602When placed under the spotlight, the situation is a national embarrassment. Currently there is one woman Canada Excellence in Research Chair in this country and for women entrepreneurs the statistics are not much better. Women innovators in the industrial or entrepreneurial sphere are often left hanging without a financial net, largely as a result of a lack of overall support in business environments and major gaps in policy and funding. The good news is that change is happening now, and it’s affecting policies and practices at basic funding and policy levels. Federal and Provincial research granting agencies in Canada are actively responding to the call for more equitable and inclusive review practices within the majority their programs. The message is clear from the current Canadian government: get on board with your EDI policies and practices, or your boat won’t leave the harbour. But there’s always more work to be done.

The Robot Revolution

Combined with our pivotal political moment in history and on-going necessity for a level playing field for underrepresented groups, humans are situated at a crossroads of theory and praxis of human-machine interaction. The current intersection of human and machine certainly has critical implications for the academy, innovation, and our workplaces. It exposes the gaps to see what is possible, and we know the tools are here and must be harnessed for change. Even though we are literally living through mini “revolutions” each day as new technologies, platforms and code stream before our very eyes, humanity has been standing at this major intersection for a couple of centuries or more–at the very least, since the advent of non-human technologies that help humans process information and communicate ideas (cave paintings, the book, the typewriter, Herb Simon’s General Problem Solver). The human-AI link we need to critically assess now however, is how this convergence of the human-machine can work for women and underrepresented groups in the academy and entrepreneurial sectors in powerful ways. When it comes to creating more equitable spaces and providing women with the pay they deserve, we need to move beyond gloomy statements like “the robots are taking our jobs.” We must seek to understand how underrepresented and underpaid people can benefit from robots rather than running from them. And we must seek to understand why women in the academy, industry and other sectors haven’t been using the AI tools in dynamic ways all along. [Some are of course. As evidenced here. Two women business owners harnessed the power of technology to grow their client and customer base by sending emails from a fictional business partner named “Keith.” Client response to “Keith” seemed to do the trick in getting their customers and backers to take them seriously.]

Implicit Bias

In the psychology of decision making, a bias is usually defined as tendency to make decisions in a particular way. In many cases, the bias can he helpful and adaptive: we all have a bias to avoid painful situations. In other cases the bias can lead us to ignore information that would result in a better decision. An implicit bias refers to a bias that we are unaware of or the unconscious application of a bias that we are aware of. The construct has been investigated in how people apply stereotypes. For example, if you instinctively cross the street to avoid walking past a person of a different race or ethnic group, you are letting an implicit bias direct your behaviours. If you instinctively tend to doubt that a woman who takes a sick day is really sick, but tend to believe the same of a man, you are letting an implicit bias direct your behaviours. Implicit bias has been shown to also affect hiring decisions, teaching evaluations. Grants that are submitted by women scientists often receive lower scores and implicit bias is the most likely culprit.  Implicit bias is difficult to avoid because it is implicit. The effect occurs without us being aware of it happening. We can overcome these biases if we are able to be more aware that they are happening. But AI also offers a possible way to overcome these biases as well.

An Engine for Equity at Work

AI and fast-evolving technologies can and should be used by women right now. We need to understand how they can be harnessed to create balanced workplaces, generate opportunity in business, and improve how we make decisions that directly affect women’s advancement and recognition in the academe. What promise or usefulness do AI tools hold for the development of balanced and inclusive forms of governance, review panel practices, opportunities for career advancement and recognition, and funding for start-ups? How can we use the power of these potent and disruptive technologies to improve processes and structures in the academy and elsewhere to make them more equitable and inclusive of all voices? There’s no denying that the tech space is changing things rapidly, but what is most useful to us now for correcting or improving imbalances or fixing inequitable, crumbling, and un-useful patriarchal structures. We need a map to navigate the  intersection of rapid tech development and human-machine interaction and use AI effectively to reduce cognitive and unconscious biases in our decision-making; to improve the way we conduct and promote academic research, innovation and governance for women and underrepresented groups of people.

nastuh-abootalebi-284883

Some forward thinking companies are using the approach now. For example, several startups are using AI to prescreen candidates for possible interviews. In one case, the software (Talent Sonar) structured interviews and extracts candidate qualifications and removes candidate’s names and gender information from the report. These algorithms are designed to help remove implicit bias in hiring by focusing on the candidate’s attributes and workplace competencies without any reference to gender. Companies relying on these kinds of AI algorithms report a notable increase in hiring women. Artificial Intelligence, far from replacing workers, is actually helping to diversify and improve the modern workforce.

Academics have seen this change coming. Donna Haraway, in her Cyborg Manifesto re-conceptualizes modern feminist theory through a radical critique of the relationship between biology, gender, and cybernetics. For Haraway, a focus on the cybernetic–or the artificially intelligent–removes the reliance on gender in changing the way we think about power and how we make decisions about what a person has achieved, or is capable of doing. Can we, for example, start to aggressively incorporate AI methods for removing implicit or explicit bias from grant review panels–or more radically, remove humans from the process entirely? When governing boards place their votes for who will sit on the next Board of Trustees, or when university review committees adjudicate a female colleague’s tenure file in the academy, could this not be done via AI mechanisms or with an application that eliminates gender and uses keyword recognition for assessing the criteria? When we use AI to improve our decision making, we also have the ability to make it more equitable, diverse and inclusive. We can remove implicit or explicit cognitive biases based on gender or orientation, for example, when we are deciding who will be included in the next prestigious cohort of Canada Research Chairs.

AI can, and will continue to change the way human work is recognized in progressive ways: recognition of alternative work during parental leaves, improved governance and funding models, construction of equitable budgets and policy, and enhanced support for women entrepreneurs and innovators. AI is genderless. It is non-hierarchical. It has the power to be tossed like a dynamite stick to disrupt ancient academic structures that inherently favour patriarchal models for advancing up the tenure track. Equalization via AI gives women and underrepresented groups the power to be fully recognized and supported, from the seeds of their innovation (the academy) to the mobilization of those ideas in entrepreneurial spaces. The  robots are in fact still working for us–at least, for now.

Mindful Leadership in the University

Last year I ran a session on “mindful leadership” at a conference for academic leaders in my university. I decided to write this article as a way to help me prepare for the session.

Academia, like many other sectors, is a complex work environment. Although universities vary in terms of their size and objectives, the average university in Canada and the US must simultaneously serve the interests of undergraduate education, graduate education, professional education, basic research, applied research, public policy research, and basic scholarship. A university receives its operating funds from tuition payments, governments, from research funding agencies, and from private donors. Faculty are at the center of this diverse institution, providing the engine of teaching, research, and service. As a result, faculty members may find themselves occasionally struggling to manage these different interests. This article looks at the challenges that faculty members face, paying particular attention to the leadership role that many faculty play. I then explore the possible ways in which mindfulness practice can have a benefit on faculty well-being and productivity.

Challenges of Leadership in the University Setting

Although most work environments have similar challenges and issues (being pulled in different directions, time management, etc.) this article focuses on the challenges that faculty members face when working at and leading the average, mid-sized university. The specific challenges will vary in terms of what role or roles a person is serving in, but let’s first look at challenges that might be common to most faculty members.

Shifting Tasks

“Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things. What I do takes long hours of studying and uninterruptible concentration.” — Donald Knuth

I love this quote from Donald Knuth, a professor of computer science, because it encapsulates the main challenge that so many of us have. We want to be on top of things (teaching, Twitter, emails from students, cutting-edge research) but we also want to be on the bottom: digging deeply into a problem and finding a solution.

The average faculty member has, at a minimum, 2–3 very different kinds of jobs. We’re teachers, researchers/scholars, and we also help to run the university. Within these broadly-defined categories, we divide our teaching time between graduate and undergraduate teaching and mentorship. Research involves investigation, applying for grants, reading, investigation, analysis, writing, dissemination. And running the university can make us managers, chairs, deans, and provosts and as such we’re responsible for hiring research staff, hiring other faculty members, and managing budgets.

These three categories require different sets of skills and shifting between them can be a source of stress. In addition, the act of shifting between them will not always go smoothly and this may result in a loss of effectiveness and productivity as the concerns from one category, task, or role bleed into another. Being mindful of the demands of the current task at hand is crucial.

For example, I find it especially difficult to transition after 2–3 hours of leading a seminar or lecture, and I like to have some time to unwind. But many times, I need to schedule a meeting in the afternoon and find that I have only a short amount of time to go from “lecture mode” into “meeting mode. I am still thinking about my lecture when the meeting begins. Even among leaders that have little or no direct teaching requirements, it is common to have to switch from and to very different topics. One day you might start the day answering emails (with multiple topics), a morning meeting on hiring negotiations, a meeting about undergraduate planning, then an hour with your PhD student on a very specific and complex analysis of data for her dissertation research, followed by phone call from the national news outlet asking about the research of your faculty members. Shifting between these tasks can reduce your effectiveness. The cognitive psychology literature refers to this as “set shifting” or “task-shifting”, and research has supported the idea that there is always a cost to shift (Arrington & Logan 2004; Monsell, 2003). These cost will eventually affect how well you do your job and also how you deal with stress. It’s difficult to turn your full attention to helping your student with an analysis when you are also thinking about your department’s budget.

The primary challenge in this area is to be able to work on the task at hand and to be mindful of distractions. Of course they will occur, but through practice, it may be possible to both minimize their impact and also reduce the stress and anxiety associated with the distractions.

Shared Governance

One aspect of academia that sets it apart from many corporate environments is the notion of “shared governance”. Though this term is common (and has been criticized as being somewhat empty,) the general concept is that a university derives its authority from a governing board, but that faculty are also vested in the institutional decision-making process. This means that most universities have a faculty senate that sets academic policy, dean’s level committees that review budgets and programs, and departmental committees that make decisions about promotion and tenure, hiring, and course assignments.

From a leadership perspective, this can mean that as a chair or dean you are always managing personnel, balancing the needs of faculty, students, budgets, senior administrators, and the public image of your university. There may not be a clear answer to the question of “who is the boss?”. Sometimes faculty are asked to assume leadership roles for a set time, and will need to shift from a collegial relationship to a managerial one (then back to a collegial one) for the same people. That is, one day you are colleagues and the next you are his or her supervisor.

The challenge here is to understand that you may be manager, colleague, and friend at the same time. In this case, it’s very helpful to be mindful of how you interact with your colleagues such that your relationship aligns with the appropriate role.

Finding time for research and scholarship

One of the most common complaints or concerns from faculty is that they wish they had more time for research. This is a challenge for faculty as well as leaders. Although a common workload assumes that a faculty member may spend 40% of his or her efforts on research, most faculty report spending most of their time in meetings. However, promotion and tenure is earned primarily through research productivity. Grants are awarded to research productive faculty. That is, most of those meetings are important, but do not lead to promotion and career advancement. This creates a conflict that can cause stress because although 40% is the nominal workload, it may not be enough to be productive. Other aspects of the job, like meetings related to teaching and service, may take up more than their fair share but often feel more immediate.

Academic leaders also need to consider these concerns from a different perspective. For example, as a department chair, I need to balance the needs of faculty to have adequate time for research with the needs of my department to be able to offer the right amount of undergraduate teaching. Being mindful of these concerns and how they come into conflict is an important aspect of university leadership.

Mindfulness and Leadership

I’ve listed three challenges for leaders in an academic setting: switching, shared governance, and finding time for research. There are more, one course, but let’s stick with these. I want to now explain what mindfulness practice is and how it might be cultivated and helpful for academic leaders. That is, how can mindfulness help with these challenges?

The challenge is to create the necessary cognitive space for thinking about research questions and working on research.

What is mindfulness?

A good starting point for this question is a definition that comes from Kabat-Zinn’s work. Mindfulness is an open and receptive attention to, and awareness of what is occurring in the present moment. For example, as I’m writing this article, I am mindful and aware of what I want to say, aware of the sound of the office fan, aware of the time, aware that I am attending to this task and not some other task. I’m also aware that my attention will slip sometimes and I think about some of the challenges I outlined above. Being mindful means acknowledging and being aware but not being critical or judgmental about my occasional wavering. Mindfulness can be defined as a trait or a state. When described as a state, mindfulness is something that is cultivated via mindfulness practice and meditation.

How can mindfulness be practiced?

The best way to practice mindfulness is just to begin right away. Mindfulness can be practiced alone, at home, with a group, or on meditation retreat.

If you are technologically inclined, the Canadian company Interaxon makes a small, portable EEG headband called MUSE that can help develop mindfulness.

The basic practice is one of developing attentional control and awareness by practicing mindfulness meditation. Many people begin with breathing-focused meditation in which you sit (in a chair or on a cushion) close your eyes, relax your shoulders and concentrate on your breath. Your breath is always there, and so you can readily notice how you breath in and out. You notice the moment where your in-breath stops and your out-breath begins. This is a basic and fundamental awareness of what is going on right now. The reason many people start with breathing-focused meditation is that when you notice that your mind begins to wander, you can pull your attention back to your breath. The pulling back is the subtle control that comes from awareness and this is at the heart of the practice.

Benefits of mindfulness to academic leaders

A primary benefit of mindfulness involves learning to be cognitively and emotionally present in the task at hand. This can help with task switching. For example, when you are meeting with a student, being mindful could mean that you bring your attention back to the topic of the meeting (rather than thinking about a paper you have been working on). When you are working on a manuscript, being mindful could mean keeping your attention on the topic of the paragraph and bringing it back from other competing interests. As a researcher and a scientist, there are also benefits as keeping an open mind about collected data and evidence which can help to avoid cognitive pitfalls. In medicine, as well as other fields, this is often taught explicitly as at the “default interventionist” approach in which the decision-maker strives to maintain awareness of her or her assessments and the available evidence in order to avoid heuristic errors (Kahneman, 2011). As a chair or a dean, being fully present could also manifest itself by learning to listen to ideas from many different faculty members and from students who are involved in the shared governance of academia.

Cognitive and clinical psychological research has generally supported the idea that both trait mindfulness and mindfulness meditation are associated with improved performance on several cognitive tasks that underlie the aforementioned challenges to academic leaders. For example, studies have shown benefits to attention (Jha, Krompinger, & Baime, 2007), working memory (Jha, Stanley, Kiyonaga, Wong, & Gelfand, 2010), cognitive flexibility (Greenberg, Reiner, & Meiran, 2012), and affect (Chambers, Lo, & Allen, 2007; Jha et al., 2010). And there have been noted benefits to emotional well-being and behaviour in the workplace as well. This work has shown benefits like stress reduction (Grossman et al., 2004), a reduction to emotional exhaustion (Hulsheger, Alberts, Feinholdt, & Lang, 2013), and increased job satisfaction (Hulsheger et al., 2013).

Given these associated benefits, mindfulness meditation has the potential to facilitate academic leadership by reducing some of what can hurt good leadership (stress, switching costs, cognitive fatigue) and facilitating what might help (improvements in attentional control, better engagement with others).

Conclusions

As I mentioned at the outset, this article was written to help me organize my thoughts and ideas. This is an informal article, not a scientific one. Mindfulness is not a panacea or a secret weapon. Mindfulness will not make you a better leader or a better scientist. Mindful leaders may not always be the best leaders.

But the practice of mindfulness and the cultivation of a mindless state has been shown to reduce stress and improve some basic cognitive tasks that contribute to effective leadership. I find mindfulness meditation to be an important part of my day and an important part of by role as a professor, a teacher, a scientist, and an academic leader.

References

Arrington, C. M., & Logan, G. D. (2004). The Cost of a Voluntary Task Switch. Psychological Science, 15, 610–615.

Chambers, R., Lo, B. C. Y., & Allen, N. B. (2007). The Impact of Intensive Mindfulness Training on Attentional Control, Cognitive Style, and Affect. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32, 303–322.

Greenberg J., Reiner K., Meiran N. (2012). “Mind the Trap”: mindfulness practice reduces cognitive rigidity. PLoS ONE 7(5): e36206.

Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits: A meta-analysis. Journal of psychosomatic research, 57(1), 35–43.

Hülsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J. E. M., Feinholdt, A., Lang, J. W. B. (2013) Benefits of mindfulness at work: The role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98,310–325.

Jha, A. P., Krompinger, J., & Baime, M. J. (2007). Mindfulness training modifies subsystems of attention. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 109–119. Jha, A. P., Stanley, E. A., Kiyonaga, A., Wong, L., & Gelfand, L. (2010). Examining the protective effects of mindfulness training on working memory capacity and affective experience. Emotion, 10, 54–64.

Kahneman, (2011). Thinking, fast and slow, New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7(3), 134–140.

Does This Project Bring Me Joy?

 

I think I have too many research projects going on.

It’s great to be busy, but I’m officially overwhelmed in this area. As a university professor, some of my job is well defined and other parts not so much. My workload is divided into 40% research, 40% teaching, and 20% service. Within each of these, I have some say as to what I can take on. I can teach different classes and volunteer to serve on various committees. But the research component is mine. This is what I really do. This is supposed to be my passion.

So why do I feel overwhelmed in that area? I think I have too many projects going on. And I don’t mean that I have too many studies or am writing too many papers. I’m most certainly not doing that. I mean I have too many different kinds of projects. There are several projects on psychology and aging, projects on the brain electrophysiology and category learning, a project on meditation and wellbeing in lawyers, a project on patient compliance, a projects on distraction from smartphones, plus 4-5 other ideas in development, and at least 10 projects that are most charitable described as “half baked ideas that I had on the way home from a conference”.

Add to this many projects with students that may not quite be in my wheelhouse, but are close and that I’m supervising. And I’ll admit, I have difficulty keeping these things straight. I’m interested in things. But when I look at the list of things, I confess I have a tough time seeing a theme sometimes. And that’s a problem as it means I’m not really fully immersed in any one project. I cease to be an independent and curious scientist and become a mediocre project manager.

Put another way, sometimes I’m not really sure what I do anymore…

So what should I do about this, other than complain on my blog? I have to tidy up my research.

A Research Purge

There is a very popular book called “The Life Changing Magic of Tidying Up“. I have not read this book, but I have read about this book (and let’s be honest that’s sometimes the best we can do). The essence of the approach is that you should not be hanging on to things that are not bringing you joy. Nostalgia is not joy. Lots of stuff getting in the way is not joy. And so you go though things, one category at a time, and look at each thing and say “does this item spark joy“? If the answer is no, you discard it. I like this idea.

If this works for a home or a room…physical space…then it should work for the mental space of my research projects. So I’m going to try this. I will go through each project and each sub project and say “Does this project bring me joy?” or “Is there joy in trying to discover this?” Honestly, if the answer is “no” or “maybe” why should I work on it? This may mean that I give up on some things and that some possible papers will not get published. But I will not be compelled to carry out research an writing if it is not bringing me joy. Why should I? I suspect I will be more effective as a scientist because I will (hopefully) focus my efforts on several core areas.

The Psychology of the Reset

Why do we like this? Why do people want to cleanse? To reset. To get back to basics? It seems to be a theme in so many pop-psych and self help books. Getting rid of things. A detox or a “digital detox. Getting back to something. I really wonder about this. And although I wonder why we behave this way, I’m not sure that I would not find joy in carrying out a research study on this…I must resist the urge to start another project.

I’m going to pare down. I still need to teach, and supervise, and serve on editorial boards, etc: that’s work. I’m not complaining. I like it. But I want to spend my research time working on projects that will spark joy. Investigating and discovering things that I’m genuinely curious about…curious enough to put in the hours and time to do the research well.

I’d be curious too, to know if others have tried this. Has it worked? Have you become an better scholar and scientists by decluttering your research space?

Thanks for reading and comments are welcome.

Thinking about Vacations

Summer is when most people take a vacation. The weather is usually nice, so there are many options for most people. And of course, children are usually home from school for a few months so families tend to take a vacation during this time. And even people without children probably still have a residual rhythm to the year that was forged during their own childhood and school time. Those early patters leave their mark.

I’m fascinated by how people choose to spend their vacation time. When I was a child, growing up in rural Pennsylvania, we tended to spend most if the summer at home since my mother was a schoolteacher. But we did go away on vacations. They tended to be road trips to stay with family in other areas of the country and we’d take in attractions like the Grand Canyon, the White Mountains in NH or the beach in North Carolina along the way. One year, we visited family in Northern Virginia and spent some time at the Smithsonian Museum. I was 12 and younger siblings were 11 and 8. I remember we had to all wear the same bright yellow Pittsburgh Steelers t-shirt so that my parents would not lose us in the crowds. I remember being embarrassed but don’t remember the crowds.

Crowds are bigger these days

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve really started notice the crowds more. As an example, my famliy and I often spend time on the Bruce Peninsula in Ontario. There is a wonderful national park and fantastic hiking along the Niagara Escarpment. The first year we visited, 2004, the place seemed so remote, so pristine. But ever year, the crowds have steadily increased. So much so that one of the most popular attractions, “the Grotto” has summer restrictions now. It can only be accessed you are given one of the parking passes that are handed out at 7:00am each day. When the passes are gone, the park is closed to anyone without one. The Grotto is magnificent, but hard to enjoy when it’s teeming with people.

IMG_20160801_204000278
A quiet evening on the Bruce Peninsula, looking out over Georgian Bay

The traffic at the big American parks (Yosemite, Smokey mountains, Yellowstone) is legendary and a growing problem, In some parks, campgrounds are so popular that some entrepreneurs have set up permit bots to buy the site permits when they are available and resell.

Personal preference

So what makes some people crave a vacation in a crowded area and others choose solitude? Some people plan for big crowed locations like Disney, Las Vegas, or a music festival like Coachella or Osheaga. And of course, some events are crowded by nature, such as a ball game. I tend to want to avoid crowds (an ideal vacation is winter camping…crowds are low).

Maybe it comes down to what you want to get away from or back to? I work at a large research university and teach classes up to 200 students. With 30,000 students enrolled at Western, I find that I’m always in a crowd. I suppose the last thing I want to do to recharge is be in another crowd. But if you tend to work in a less crowded place, maybe the fun of being in a bigger crowd on the beach or a park is what you enjoy.

Vacations are needed

Regardless of whether you like a crowd, a beach, the city, or solitude, we all need some time to get out of our comfort zone (or sometimes time to get back into it). Project:Time Off tracks research on vacations and the general message is that we’re not doing it enough. I I hope you are able to get away for a few days. Unplug. Reconnect with your friends or family. Or head to a big crowded festival if that’s your thing (I won’t see you there…). Either way, enjoy your vacation!