Month: May 2015

Talking to the media

~ dan

catalyst-sportAs scientists its not uncommon to have a love /hate relationship with media. Often introverted by nature its daunting to be speaking to the masses, but sooner or later many of us end up doing it. Getting science out to the real world is a great outcome for years of effort in the lab and can turn up new research opportunities and enhance existing ones and makes good common room talk too. In the domain of sport and sports technology not only do we need to be current with the science we (and others) are doing  but often its helpful to be able to follow most sports on the planet too, as this is the engaging human interest the reporter often wants to throw to as well.
Its also useful to be able to communicate in shorter sound bites, or explain complex science in a nutshell. I was fortunate enough to do an ABC Science Media fellowship which helped a quite a bit in this regard,  as well as our lab doing a few stories with their science media department on shows like Catalyst (see the stories here – which we are still not brave enough to watch )

At the end of the day (even though after a full day of filming its only going to be 5min story at best), you never know whats going to be left out or in of the print article, left on the cutting room floor of a TV interview and so you just hope for the best. Add to that our culture of peer review which ensures we are very careful about claims we make (often understating what a reporter will what to over state), try to acknowledge colleagues and the shoulders of the giants we stand on. Probably the greatest fear is of making statements that our scientific peers might haunt us with,  either minor facts and qualifications on statement’s or for some good natured ribbing from the slip of the tongue (One of my colleagues headline statements was “I’m not a geek but….”, which he is still trying to live down), yet trying to communicate something meaningful. Now try to process all that under the pressure of spontaneous questions during a live 2min television interview and its not surprising we might come out a bit wooden, be reluctant to express opinion or are otherwise sidetracked.

Along the way we might fall into some common traps like:

  • Reverting to yes/no answers, as a proverbial ‘deer in the headlights’ (which the interviewer doesn’t want, because they want conversation)
  • Coming across as a flake who has no opinion, or worse some being cagey (something akin to a hostile witness with whom the reporter tries harder)
  • Trying to be a media personality rather than ourselves

The latter is a particularly poignant cautionary tale as I read the mornings news today and saw a particularly media savvy politician (Barnaby Joyce) try to play the comedian with comedians. It was over a customs issue with an A list celebrity…it was never going to end well, but was a funny read and A for effort Barnaby!
Barnaby Joyce left red-faced during Depp grilling

For the record, I only ever did one interview in which I was being goaded into humour, I apologised immediately “ sorry I don’t do funny”, which apparently was, go figure!

Intrapreneur, entrepreneur, startup, accelerator, incubator…?

~ dan ~ 1 Comment
Intrapreneur, entrepreneur, startup, accelerator, incubator?There is a lot of focus in the Sports Technology world given to being a startup or making it as an entrepreneur. The Australian Sports Technologies network has been at the van guard of much of this in Australia where we have had training from notables such as Jerry Engel and Steve Blank. One of the reasons for this focus is that Sports Technology is a comparatively new industry and if you look at most of the existing industries in sports they can be pretty traditional. A lot of the break throughs have come from fresh ideas, fresh thinking and the application of new and emerging technologies. Every week it seems we are contacted by startups keen to leverage our particular area of research expertise (wearable sensors) to get a potential product to market or we are contacted from near or far by an SME (small to medium enterprise) or garage inventor with a great idea or prototype. We love the ideas and the passion!
Big established sports companies (and technology ones too) often look to acquisitions of such startup’s or develop in-house and thats often an exit plan too.
Recently though a new term has come into vogue, the ‘intrapreneur’ and certainly thats how we like to think about our own venture, SABEL Labs. As an  intrapreneurial enterprise that’s embedded in Griffith University and right next door to the Queensland Academy Sport (who produce well over 50% of Australia gold medals)
Here we have to operate much like a startup (and I’ve had more employment contracts than I can count on a hexadecimal hands to prove it), but we also get the benefits of the resources of a large organisation (and inherit its processes as well).  Many talk about needing to have an eco system to survive and we have that with access to mechanical, electrical workshops, world experts in a range of disciplines, a range of internal and external funding schemes, a steady stream(well a good sized trickle anyway) of commercial contracts and wide collaborative networks (like the Queensland Sports Technology Cluster). We also have finance, HR and legal team resources  and a business school where I can upskill one subject at at time too. On the down side its sometimes difficult to remain agile and pivot as we follow standardised processes for signoff, appointments,ordering, billing, then theres branding and the dilemma of the SOE (standard operating environments) for IT systems that we want to be innovative with too. Recently i’ve noticed quite a few companies from the big end of town have innovation (intrapreneurial?) departments as they seek to embrace change before some unseen disruptive technology makes their business as obsolete as Kodak, so there are more like teams out there too!
More reading
Steve Blank’s books and reading suggestions
Tips for intrapreneurs (and image credit)
The Australian Sports Technologies Network Accelerator

A Rant on Research funding

~ dan ~ 2 Comments
research cuts australiaIts well known that research funding in Australia is at an all time low. The reduction in staff at places like CSIRO and reduced funding in competitive grants scheme are also in decline. Gone too are the larger scheme like the Cooperative research centres too. But a somewhat  hidden cut has crept into universities.  As a result of reductions in federal funding to universities (its all created a pressure to enrol and pass more students….but thats another story). The knock on effects around Australia’s universities seem to be  too
  1. Rather than employ permanent Academic staff, whose job it is to do both teaching and research there has been an increase in casualisation of academics. In some cases up to 50% of teaching staff are now casuals. Thus increasingly the appointments are solely to teach rather than do research.
  2. Where an academics job is traditionally divided between teaching and research and administration/service  teaching workloads seem to be on the rise. So much so that there is a decline in time available to do research.
  1. There are less available net funds for universities to engage and support research staff (who are largely on short contracts)
Where does this leave research in Australia? There is no doubt we are doing some world class research that have led to many a break through and innovation (See Dr Karls link below). For a little while perhaps we can ride the back of decades of investment in research and continue to have good output, but that may only last a short time. Opportunities for commercialisation of existing work, and contract research are such avenues, though its arguably something the traditional academic is poorly suited for. ‘Chase two rabbits catch none’, if chasing commercial income is pursued solely where is the time to do the next round of  ‘break through research’.  Tough one!
Some followup reading
Increasing pressure to more short term work contracts
The rise of mental health issues in universities
Reduced funding puts pressure on academic rigour…at what cost?
Is education a corporate commidity
The move to teaching only academics as a means to improve research?
Challenge of Change
Dr. Karls presentation highlights the value of research and the innovation that comes from Australia