View source for Instruction:3fa94a70-3004-4923-b87c-94757393935a

{{Instruction
|Title=M-Power Workshop
|Has Related Initiative=Initiative:6f8cdcc6-cf56-4dde-bd5d-3b14db1c2a6f
|Instruction Goal=<span lang="EN-US">Explore what empowerment is for early career researchers (ECRs) and PhDs, in the context of daily life in academia. And to raise awareness of the role PhDs hold in influencing research culture.  </span>
|Has Duration=2
|Important For=Doctoral Student; Early Career Researcher; Research Supervisor / Mentor; Researcher
}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainee Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=<span lang="EN-US">Explore what empowerment is for early career researchers (ECRs) and PhDs, in the context of daily life in academia. And to raise awareness of the role PhDs hold in influencing research culture.  </span>
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Introduction (15 minutes)
|Instruction Step Text=   Define empowerment, we use the broadest definition of empowerment to provide an overview and help spark ideas for the participants what it may mean to them in academia. <span lang="EN-US">Within the workshop we use the definition from the Cambridge Dictionary: “The process of gaining freedom and power to do what you want or to control what happens to you.”</span>

<span lang="EN-US">Discuss what can affect empowerment in academia, discuss that this is not always the case but it can occur:</span>

<span lang="EN-US">                                                  i.     Hierarchical structures</span>

Academia, particularly in traditional institutions, often operates with a rigid hierarchical structure. The power dynamics can limit the autonomy of lower-ranking faculty (e.g., adjunct professors or junior faculty) and staff. Senior leaders, such as department heads, deans, and administrators, often make the major decisions regarding curriculum, policies, or resources, which can lead to a sense of disempowerment among those lower in the hierarchy. Faculty might feel their ideas are overlooked, or that they have little influence over institutional priorities.

<span lang="EN-US">                                                ii.     Lack of transparency</span>

Transparency in decision-making, particularly regarding policies, budget allocations, promotions, and institutional priorities, is vital for empowerment. When decisions are made behind closed doors, or when information is not shared equitably across the institution, it can create an environment where individuals feel excluded and powerless. A lack of clarity about how decisions are made or what criteria are used for promotions can make people feel that their efforts are futile or that they have no control over their professional trajectory.

<span lang="EN-US">                                              iii.     Lack of ability to affect meaningful change in your working environment</span> 

<span lang="EN-US">Empowerment in academia is often linked to the ability to influence and shape one's environment. This could include having a voice in curriculum development, research priorities, institutional policy, or even the physical and social environment of the workplace. When individuals feel that they have no real impact on decisions affecting their work or workplace culture, they may feel disillusioned or disengaged.</span> 

<span lang="EN-US">Discuss that these variables are usually a result of research culture within institutions, departments, or research teams. Continue by defining what research culture is. Research culture encompasses the behaviors, values, expectations, attitudes and norms of research communities. It influences researches’ career paths and determines the way that research is conducted and communicated (Royal Society, 2025). When discussing the definition, mention that this is a broad definition. Research culture is often more complex, and is composed and affected by  many different variables. You may touch on the existing negative associations researchers have with research culture, that it can lead to exploitation, discrimination, and even bullying when research culture is abused. You should also discuss how negative research culture can affect social and psychological safety, responsible conduct of research, mental health, and research misbehaviors/quality of work. It is important to highlight that these variables do not work in isolation but they are a result of the integration and mixture between individual, systematic, and cultural factors. Discussing that individuals are affected by the system, causing behavioral and attitudinal issues, which in turn may fuel bad cultural norms. It is important to highlight this explicitly, so that participants do not feel isolated in their experiences or that they understand that differences in outcomes are not just dependent on them, and that they do not bare all responsibilities.</span> 

Continue by telling participants they will as a group have to choose out of the four scenarios two to work through in the workshop. Describe the four scenarios:           

* <span lang="EN-US">Collaborative Working</span> 
* Taking Initative 
* Supervision 
* Conflict of Interest
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Scenario 1: Collaborative Working
|Instruction Step Text=<span lang="EN-US">A PhD candidate is new to a laboratory, and they face some conflict with a peer when it comes to booking the laboratory space and equipment. This scenario is focused on how to work together collaboratively and how to handle misunderstandings.</span>
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-555
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Scenario 2:  Reproducibility (Taking Initative)
|Instruction Step Text=<span lang="EN-US">A PhD candidate, would like to bring new practices (specifically focused on reproducibility) to their research team but they face a lot pushback from their colleagues especially more senior ones. This scenario is focused on how to approach colleagues who are resilient to change.</span>
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-556
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Scenario 3: Supervision
|Instruction Step Text=<span lang="EN-US">A PhD candidate, meets with their esteemed but chaotic promotor every 6 weeks, where their unpreparedness and inconsistent advice leave them feeling unsupported. This scenario is focused on handling conflicts and communication issues with a supervisor.</span>
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-557
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Scenario 4: Conflict of Interest
|Instruction Step Text=<span lang="EN-US"> A PhD candidate realizes their supervisor may have different interests in the outcome of their scientific output due to their investments and connections. This scenario is focused on how to open up and discuss possible conflicts of interests.</span>
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-558
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=First scenario (45 minutes)
|Instruction Step Text=<span lang="EN-US">1.     Read the introductory text of the first scenario, ask if everything is clear.</span>

<span lang="EN-US">2.     Play the introductory video of the scenario which sets up the dilemma. The next screen will show the four possible ways to act in this situation. Read these aloud for the participants.</span>

<span lang="EN-US">3.     After the introductory video, ask participants to individually write down on a piece of paper (this should take approximately 5 minutes):</span> 

<span lang="EN-US">a.      What they observe in this scenario</span>

<span lang="EN-US">b.     What they recognize in this situation</span>

<span lang="EN-US">c.      Which action choice would they pick (A, B, C, or D) and why</span>

<span lang="EN-US">4.     Allocate each corner of the room to one of the action choices (e.g. corner 1 = A), ask participants to stand up and to stand in the corner of the room which corresponds to their choice. Participants may choose to be in between action choices (e.g. between A & D), just ask them where they stand.</span> 

<span lang="EN-US">5.     Go around each action choice and ask participants why they picked that choice. Do this until every participant has shared their views, or participants feel others have already shared their views. Also ask them reflect on what they saw in the scenario if it is a familiar scenario.</span> 

<span lang="EN-US">6.     Briefly ask if anyone would change their initial answer after this discussion, if yes ask what would they change it to and why.</span>

<span lang="EN-US">7.     Ask participants to sit back down, and watch the outcomes videos of each action choice. Start with the video with the most responses.</span> 

<span lang="EN-US">8.     After watching all the videos and seeing the different outcomes discuss as a group:</span> 

* <span lang="EN-US">a.      If they were able to choose again, would they choose differently? If yes, what and why?</span>
* <span lang="EN-US">b.     Which action did they find most empowering?</span>
* <span lang="EN-US">c.      What did they learn from this scenario?</span> 

<span lang="EN-US">9.     Ask participants if there is anything they would like to add. Help summarize the discussion and the outcomes which were discussed. Draw attention to that there are many more different ways to act in these situations, and that it is important to evaluate and reflect on what they need in the situation.</span>
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Second Scenario (45 minutes)
|Instruction Step Text=<span lang="EN-US">1.     Read the introductory text of the second scenario, ask if everything is clear.</span>

<span lang="EN-US">2.     Play the introductory video of the scenario which sets up the dilemma. The next screen will show the four possible ways to act in this situation. Read these aloud for the participants.</span>

<span lang="EN-US">3.     After the introductory video, ask participants to individually write down on a piece of paper (this should take approximately 5 minutes):</span> 

<span lang="EN-US">a.      What they observe in this scenario</span>

<span lang="EN-US">b.     What they recognize in this situation</span>

<span lang="EN-US">c.      Which action choice would they pick (A, B, C, or D) and why</span>

<span lang="EN-US">4.     Allocate each corner of the room to one of the action choices (e.g. corner 1 = A), ask participants to stand up and to stand in the corner of the room which corresponds to their choice. Participants may choose to be in between action choices (e.g. between A & D), just ask them where they stand.</span> 

<span lang="EN-US">5.     Go around each action choice and ask participants why they picked that choice. Do this until every participant has shared their views, or participants feel others have already shared their views. Also ask them reflect on what they saw in the scenario if it is a familiar scenario.</span> 

<span lang="EN-US">6.     Briefly ask if anyone would change their initial answer after this discussion, if yes ask what would they change it to and why.</span>

<span lang="EN-US">7.     Ask participants to sit back down, and watch the outcomes videos of each action choice. Start with the video with the most responses.</span> 

<span lang="EN-US">8.     After watching all the videos and seeing the different outcomes discuss as a group:</span> 

* a.      If they were able to choose again, would they choose differently? If yes, what and why?
* b.     Which action did they find most empowering?
* c.      What did they learn from this scenario? 

<span lang="EN-US">9.     Ask participants if there is anything they would like to add. Help summarize the discussion and the outcomes which were discussed. Draw attention to that there are many more different ways to act in these situations, and that it is important to evaluate and reflect on what they need in the situation.</span>
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainee
|Instruction Step Title=Group reflections and conclusions (20 minutes)
|Instruction Step Text=<span lang="EN-US">1.     Ask each participant to in 1-2 minutes think of one or two takeaways from the workshop & discussions.</span>

<span lang="EN-US">2.     Then ask participants to reflect on empowerment, what it means for them and what they need to feel empowered in their role as a PhD & researcher. Probe them to think about how they can empower themselves in their daily work.</span>

<span lang="EN-US">3.     Continue the discussion by drawing to the importance of empowerment and how it connects to academia. It is important to be able to recognize/hear bad or unsafe situations and to speak up in these scenarios. Empowerment in academia is crucial for fostering a positive and productive environment. It enhances the quality of work by allowing individuals to take ownership of their projects, boosting motivation and creativity. With greater control over their academic journey, students and researchers are more engaged and persistent. Empowerment also promotes well-being by helping individuals manage stress and set healthy boundaries, while ensuring they feel safe to speak up about unsafe or unethical situations. It fosters inclusive, collaborative work environments where everyone’s voice is valued, leading to more innovative and effective outcomes. Ultimately, empowerment creates a culture where individuals are motivated, supported, and capable of contributing meaningfully to their academic communities.</span>

<span lang="EN-US">4.     Ask participants if there are any questions, or any points they would like to discuss.</span>

<span lang="EN-US">5.     Discuss the importance of communication for empowerment. Discuss this from the perspective of communicating with peers as an important resource for empowerment, it can help reflect on situations from a different perspective and provide support. But it is also important to discuss communication with others in dilemma situations, it is important to be clear and transparent and if they think something wrong they should speak to someone (e.g. directly to the person, or confidential counselors). Increasing awareness and learning to recognize unsafe or dilemmas can help other and themselves in handling situations in the future. Conclude that dilemmas will always exist, but it is up to individuals to change the way they approach them and these changes continue through awareness, communication, and recognition.</span> 

<span lang="EN-US">6.     Finish the session by alleviating the responsibilities from the PhDs, tell them it is not only their responsibility to ‘fix the system’. They have a large network of support networks if they feel they need help. Share the contact information & responsibilities of graduate schools and confidential counselors. End the workshop by highlighting that each dilemma and each individual may require a different approach and their empowerment is what the individual needs in that situation and therefore can be different for everyone. It is important to evaluate what the individual wants to achieve in the situation and act accordingly.</span>
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainee}}
{{Custom TabContent Trainer Open}}
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Scenario 1: Collaborative Working
|Instruction Step Text=<span lang="EN-US">A PhD candidate is new to a laboratory, and they face some conflict with a peer when it comes to booking the laboratory space and equipment. This scenario is focused on how to work together collaboratively and how to handle misunderstandings.</span>
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-555
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Scenario 2: Reproducibility (Taking Initiative)
|Instruction Step Text=<span lang="EN-US">A PhD candidate, would like to bring new practices (specifically focused on reproducibility) to their research team but they face a lot pushback from their colleagues especially more senior ones. This scenario is focused on how to approach colleagues who are resilient to change.</span>
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-556
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Scenario 3: Supervision
|Instruction Step Text=<span lang="EN-US">A PhD candidate, meets with their esteemed but chaotic promotor every 6 weeks, where their unpreparedness and inconsistent advice leave them feeling unsupported. This scenario is focused on handling conflicts and communication issues with a supervisor.</span>
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-557
}}
{{Instruction Step Trainer
|Instruction Step Title=Scenario 4: Conflict of Interest
|Instruction Step Text=<span lang="EN-US">A PhD candidate realizes their supervisor may have different interests in the outcome of their scientific output due to their investments and connections. This scenario is focused on how to open up and discuss possible conflicts of interests.</span>
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-558
}}
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer}}
{{Custom TabContent Close Trainer}}
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:B2331451-5a6a-4aa2-a3d5-c68d2c96c8e1
}}
{{Tags
|Involves=Early Career Researchers; PhD; PhD Supervisors
}}