Introduction
This is the second instalment of my blog as a Marie Sklodowska Curie Actions (MSCA) research fellow. As stated in the first instalment the purpose of the blog is to provide information on my personal experiences of the scheme, which may be of use to researchers considering the same. I have been working on my research project ‘Target-N2O’ at the University of Melbourne for one year now, so thought it was a good time for an update. I have one more year remaining in the outgoing phase and another year when I return to Bangor University.
Reflecting on the previous year
Doesn’t time move quickly! I can’t quite believe I have been working on my project for a whole year. In the first blog I had detailed how I was overcoming some personal issues and that things were starting to look up. I am pleased to say that this is still the case and things have been going well for me. Having said that, even without dealing with these issues I still think it would have taken me a fairly long time to settle/establish myself in a new place of work. I think working away for one year somewhere really wouldn’t be enough time (unless there is a need for the project to be very short). If you are considering applying for the scheme, then I would recommend applying for the most time you can…its longer job security for one, but it also allows you that time to build up good working relationships and networks with new colleagues. The maximum amount of time you can spend in the outgoing phase for the Global Fellowship is two years, and one year in the return phase, so I would advise making the most of it if you can. I now feel like I am becoming more of a familiar face in the faculty and have engaged in some of the women in science and early career networking events organised within the department, which is a great way to meet new people.
Training through research
Being able to expand my research skills was one of the features that attracted me to the scheme, so I thought it would be useful to reflect on how this has gone so far. One thing that has occurred to me is that the only people that can be officially written in to the grant proposal are the researcher and the two supervisors (one for the outgoing phase and one for the return phase). While you can list other people within the body of the proposal e.g. other researchers who will collaborate and help you achieve your training objectives, this is not officially recorded as someone’s time on the project. I think this is just something to be aware of and you need to be sure that your supervisors are well connected and have a plan for colleagues and other researchers who are willing to spend time training you. This hasn’t been a problem for me, but I think it could potentially be a stumbling block for some projects. Luckily I have had a network of researchers who have been happy to collaborate. There have been a couple of occasions where the original researchers I had written down as being able to help have not ended up being the people that actually helped, however, I have managed to find alternatives in this scenario. In my proposal I included a schematic of a training and collaboration network, which listed the researchers, alongside their expertise, who would be happy to help in the areas I was trying to develop. Within this I tried to have overlap in the people and their skills between both institutions – in this respect it has acted as a fall back scenario, so if I can’t find the help I need in one place I can return to the researchers in the other place and ask them if they know anyone working in that area that could help. For example, I had initially found a post-doc in the University of Melbourne who had started to help me learn about soil molecular ecology, however, her contract ended before I began working on this aspect. Therefore, I went back to a colleague (and one of my PhD supervisors) in Bangor University, as he has very strong links with the University of Western Australia, where I knew there were also researchers with strong expertise in this area. Through this network it was possible to ensure the training objectives were still met by organising another short research visit to this University.
Expectation vs. reality
Another thing I thought I would comment on is the experimental aspect of the project and how this has been going. It is all very well writing a proposal – but what do you do when results don’t go to plan? As a scientist you can formulate good hypotheses and have an expectation of what will happen with your studies, but often the results do not turn out like you expect. This has happened with a few of my initial studies and I think it is an important part of managing any project. How do you adapt and ensure you are still meeting the goals and deliverables set out in the proposal when things don’t go as planned? For me this has meant planning additional follow up studies and preliminary studies to help explain some of the results and make sure future studies go to plan. In retrospect I don’t think I included or thought about this in enough detail in my proposal. It is recommended that you write a risk management plan, which I did complete, but did not cover back up plans if results didn’t go as expected. So I think that could be another good tip to include in a proposal i.e. think what would happen if you got the opposite result that you planned and how would you mitigate that risk or what would you do under that scenario. It has implications both for the deliverables in your project and the potential costs of your research.

Mobility and networking
One thing that I can really rate highly about this fellowship is the opportunities it creates in terms of mobility and networking. I can already see the benefits after being here for one year in terms of potential for future collaborations and generally just getting your name out there beyond that of your current research environment. As well as getting me to the University of Melbourne, I have also spent time on a research visit at Queensland University of Technology. The project has also enabled me to attend and present my research at the 7th Greenhouse Gas and Animal Agriculture conference, which was held in Foz Do Iguacu, Brazil. There are also plenty more mobility and networking opportunities planned in my second year including the planned research visit to the University of Western Australia early next year. In addition, I hope to visit some research institutes in New Zealand and share some of my work to date, there are several researchers who work within my field there so that will be an excellent opportunity to promote the work. It is also looking likely that I may visit the University of Tasmania for another one of the training aspects of the fellowship.

Future plans
So I have a very busy couple of years planned ahead of me in terms of research and networking and I hope that some of the outcomes of the research will be of benefit to society. I’m already starting to think about my next steps in my career – what that might involve and the preparation I may need to do to get me there. Another thing the scheme encourages is for you to have an action plan for your career, and I definitely think it is always worth thinking early on in your current position where you would like to be in the next stage. I will post another blog in a few months’ time – there may be more tips that I can think of along the way that may help other researchers who want to apply for the scheme.



