View the full show notes, including a summary of practical tips on the Amplifying Research website: https://www.amplifyingresearch.com/podcast/50-sawsan-khuri

Generative AI has quickly become part of how many researchers work. But in most teams, the conversation about how it's being used, which tools are trusted, and who's checking the outputs simply hasn't happened yet. Dr Sawsan Khuri argues that transparency is key if we want AI to strengthen, rather than fracture, our research collaborations. She talks us through practical tips for bringing AI into your team's work openly.

This is the final episode in our three-part miniseries based on the book How to Succeed at Collaborative Research, co-authored by Sawsan, Howard Gadlin, and Dr L. Michelle Bennett.

All three authors join the conversation — Michelle and Howard open the episode by sharing where they each sit with AI right now, before Sawsan takes the deep dive on what it means for collaborative research. The series wraps up with each author offering a final takeaway from the book.

Sawsan teaches medical genetics at the University of Exeter and runs a consulting company, Collaborative Capacities. She describes herself as an AI practitioner — someone who uses multiple AI platforms daily in her research, navigates the thorny challenge of assessing students when AI-generated answers are everywhere, and works with research teams to build the transparency habits she advocates for in this episode.

In episode 48, Michelle explored the collaborative mindset: the self-awareness, trust, and structured agreements that hold a team together. In episode 49, Howard unpacked what decades of mediating scientific disputes taught him about turning conflict into something productive. This episode extends those same principles — trust, transparency, open conversation — into the fast-moving territory of AI.

"If there are skeptics in that room, you need to also bring them into that task. You're inviting them into the game by saying, 'Would you check it for me?' Be very transparent about what prompts you're using so that people can check you and check the results. That way you've started that two-way communication about let's do this together as a team." — Sawsan Khuri

Whether you're a research leader trying to set a team-wide approach to AI, an operations lead looking for practical frameworks to guide the conversation, or an early-career researcher wondering whether it's OK to admit you've been using ChatGPT — this episode offers a concrete, non-judgmental path forward

How researchers are using generative AI right now: literature search, information gathering, and beyond

The three layers of transparency: what you're using AI for, which tool and why, and how you're checking the outputs

Trust at three levels — trusting yourself with prompts, trusting the tool, and earning your team's trust

The counterintuitive way to bring AI skeptics on board

Agentic AI: Stanford's virtual lab of AI agents and what it means for interdisciplinary research

Vibe coding and the checks and balances it demands

Why governance and regulation are coming to academic AI use

Human curiosity and integrative thinking

How to start the AI conversation if your team hasn't had one yet

A cautionary tale: what happened when grad students used AI to write code without telling anyone

The series wrap-up: each author's final takeaway from How to Succeed at Collaborative Research

LinkedIn —  https://www.linkedin.com/in/sawsan-khuri

Collaborative Capacities — https://collaborativecapacities.com

LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/howard-gadlin-850431b5

LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/l-michelle-bennett-50855a10

LMBennett Consulting — https://www.lmbennettconsulting.com

How to Succeed at Collaborative Research

Collaboration and Team Science: A Field Guide

Stanford's Virtual Lab of AI Agents — Stanford Report

Vibe Coding Omics Data Analysis Applications — Jesse Meyer, Journal of Proteome Research

OMIM (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man)

View the full show notes, including a summary of practical tips on the Amplifying Research website: https://www.amplifyingresearch.com/podcast/49-howard-gadlin 

Every collaboration starts with excitement — shared interests, complementary expertise, a vision of what you could build together. But things rarely stay perfect forever. Personalities might clash. Contributions might not get recognised. Commitments might not be kept. Decisions on authorship might be delayed — or even reneged on. Howard Gadlin spent decades as an ombudsman at the NIH, UCLA, and Harvard, sitting across the table from research teams in exactly these moments — and what he learned is that the disputes we're most tempted to avoid are often the ones that matter most.

This is the second episode in our three-part miniseries based on the book How to Succeed at Collaborative Research, co-authored by Howard, Dr L. Michelle Bennett.

Howard started his career as a psychology professor at the University of Massachusetts, where a two-year stint as the faculty ombudsman turned into a decade. He gave up tenure to take the role full-time at UCLA, where he specialised in identity-based disputes, before moving to the NIH — where he spent years mediating scientific conflicts and began to see the patterns that would shape his prevention-focused approach to collaboration. Along the way, he co-authored the NIH's Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide with Michelle.

"The only people more foolish than people falling in love are people starting a collaboration. They think just the passion of this shared interest is going to carry them through. It doesn't work that way." — Howard Gadlin

Whether you're a research leader trying to understand why the same interpersonal tensions keep surfacing in your teams, an operations lead looking for practical frameworks to bring to team facilitation, or a junior researcher wondering whether it's safe to speak up about a conflict — this episode offers both the reassurance that these disputes are normal and the tools to handle them well.

Why the most common scientific disputes — authorship, mentor-mentee dynamics, team dysfunction — keep recurring across teams

Howard's journey from psychology professor to career ombudsman — and why he gave up tenure to do this work

A detailed case study: mediating between a junior scientist and three senior researchers at the NIH

Positions vs underlying interests — why "I want first authorship" is never the whole story

The five emotional dimensions of disputes: affiliation, appreciation, outcomes, role, and status

Why recurring conflicts are usually systemic, not personal — and what that means for leaders

Shared leadership: why the intellectual leader and the socio-emotional leader don't have to be the same person

"Hyperactive listening" — why asking questions matters more than offering solutions

What an ombuds office actually does — and why it's completely confidential

How entire disciplines (like neuroscience) emerged from productive conflict

LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/howard-gadlin-850431b5

LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/l-michelle-bennett-50855a10

LMBennett Consulting — https://www.lmbennettconsulting.com

LinkedIn —  https://www.linkedin.com/in/sawsan-khuri

Collaborative Capacities — https://collaborativecapacities.com

How to Succeed at Collaborative Research

Collaboration and Team Science: A Field Guide

View the full show notes, including a summary of practical tips on the Amplifying Research website: https://www.amplifyingresearch.com/podcast/48-l-michelle-bennett 

Most research teams believe they collaborate well — until the first real disagreement, the first authorship dispute, or the first time someone bites their tongue instead of speaking up. Researchers are rigorously trained in methodology but given almost no preparation for the relational skills that hold a collaboration together — and when tension rises, most default to a self-protective mode that quietly erodes trust, psychological safety, and ultimately the science itself. In this episode, Dr L. Michelle Bennett unpacks what a genuinely collaborative mindset looks like in practice, and how something as concrete as a collaboration agreement can give your team the structure it needs to do its best work.

This is the first episode in a three-part miniseries based on the book How to Succeed at Collaborative Research, co-authored by Michelle, Howard Gadlin and Dr Sawsan Khuri. All three authors join the conversation to introduce the series before Michelle takes the deep dive on collaborative mindset. Upcoming episodes cover productive conflict (Howard) and collaborating with AI (Sawsan).

Michelle spent more than twenty years working with research teams at the US National Cancer Institute, where she helped launch interdisciplinarycollaborations and saw first-hand what made the difference between teams that thrived and teams that quietly fell apart. Howard spent his career as an ombudsman helping researchers resolve conflicts at Harvard, the NIH, UCLA and beyond. Sawsan teaches medical genetics at the University of Exeter and runs a consulting company, Collaborative Capacities.

"When we start talking about or people start talking about power over other people, that's not collaborative. So using your power to reward people or punish people, from my perspective, is not ethical. That takes away people's ability to speak up, share their different perspectives, and ensure conscious choice." — L. Michelle Bennett

Whether you're a research leader wondering whether your team is as collaborative as you think, an operations lead looking for practical tools to strengthen team dynamics, or an early-career researcher navigating the power structures of your first collaboration, this episode offers a concrete framework for building the kind of team culture that makes better science possible.

The collaborative mindset vs the unilateral mindset — and why tension is the trigger that flips most people from one to the other

Why collaboration sounds easy but researchers are almost never trained for it

Self-awareness as the starting point for becoming a better collaborator

Naive realism — the assumption that everyone sees things the way you do

What a collaboration agreement actually looks like (and why one team's took nine months)

The "popcorn" technique — how one team built a code word for difficult conversations

How leaders model behaviour whether they intend to or not

The ethical case for creating psychologically safe research environments

Power dynamics — why positional power should only be used to raise all boats

A 15-minute check-in format any team can start using immediately

Signs of hope: how one institution transformed its tenure and promotion process to genuinely reward collaboration

LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/l-michelle-bennett-50855a10

LMBennett Consulting — https://www.lmbennettconsulting.com

LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/howard-gadlin-850431b5

LinkedIn —  https://www.linkedin.com/in/sawsan-khuri

Collaborative Capacities — https://collaborativecapacities.com

How to Succeed at Collaborative Research

Collaboration and Team Science: A Field Guide

Blink by Malcolm Gladwell

Adam Grant — "speak as though you're right and listen as though you are wrong"

View the full show notes, including the full framework on the Amplifying Research website: https://www.amplifyingresearch.com/podcast/47-phillip-dawson

You probably already know that being on LinkedIn is a good idea for your work, your research, and your career. But how do you make sure it's actually making a positive difference, rather than just becoming "doom scrolling at work"? Returning guest Prof Phillip Dawson joins us to walk through a seven-step framework for making LinkedIn manageable, effective, and maybe even (dare we say it) not terrible. From setting goals and capturing ideas, through writing posts and showing up in conversations, to reflecting on what's actually working, we cover the full process for turning LinkedIn from hellscape to... well, if not heaven, then at least something you can actually live with 😅

Phillip Dawson is a Professor and co-director of the Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning (CRADLE) at Deakin University. This is his third appearance on the show, following episodes on becoming a key person of influence (Ep 3) and crafting repeatable signature talks (Ep 37). With more than 12,000 LinkedIn followers built while openly calling the platform "a hellscape," Phil brings both the results and the honesty to co-host this one.

"Someone else got this amazing opportunity to write a really influential document for the sector, led to a lot of stuff with government, and I looked at their work and I looked at my work and I thought, 'We're both pretty similar scholars in the space. Why'd it go to them and not to me?' … The better play is sometimes the shorter thing on LinkedIn that people are actually gonna read." — Phillip Dawson

Whether you love LinkedIn and are already posting multiple times a week, or you actively hate it and won't even put the app on your phone — this episode gives you a repeatable system to make the platform manageable, purposeful, and aligned with what you actually want to achieve.

View the full show notes, including a summary of practical tips on the Amplifying Research website: https://www.amplifyingresearch.com/podcast/46-jaelea-skehan 

You've done the research. You've run the trial. You've published the paper. So why isn't anything changing? Dr Jaelea Skehan has spent more than 25 years translating research into real-world programs in mental health and suicide prevention — and she's seen firsthand why so many evidence-based innovations never make it past the journal. In this episode, she makes a compelling case that proving something works is just the beginning, and shares hard-won lessons from programs spanning 18 months to 25 years on what it actually takes to get research into practice — and keep it there.

Jaelea is the Director of Everymind and was awarded an Order of Australia medal for her work in community mental health. A psychologist, researcher, and policy advisor, she leads a multidisciplinary team that does what she calls "priority-led research" — designing programs not for journals, but for the systems and people they need to serve. Her PhD focused on what actually works when trying to change practice in sectors outside of health, built on Everymind's decades of implementation experience.

What makes Jaelea's perspective distinctive is that she lives at the intersection of research, practice, and community — and she's unflinching about what she's seen from that vantage point. She argues that the system incentivises proving things work in controlled settings while neglecting the messy, relational work of getting them into practice. And she backs it up with detailed case studies from programs her team has built, implemented, evaluated, and adapted over decades.

"All of the work and all of the effort you put into designing a program and proving that it works or that it's got some good outcomes… It is not the end of the journey. If anything, it's a ticket to the starting line." — Dr Jaelea Skehan

This episode is essential listening for anyone who cares about whether research actually reaches the people it's meant to help — whether you're designing interventions, funding them, evaluating them, or trying to get them implemented. If you've ever felt frustrated by the gap between evidence and practice, Jaelea offers both a diagnosis and a way forward.

Why the research-practice gap in mental health and suicide prevention is a matter of life and death — and what it's doing to public trust in research

The voltage drop: why interventions that work in controlled trials lose effectiveness in the real world

Why proving something works is "a ticket to the starting line, not the end of the journey"

Designing for the implementation environment, not just the innovation itself

The Mindframe program: 25 years of lessons on changing media reporting of suicide across an entire sector

Why resources and guidelines don't change practice on their own — and what does

Designing for 80% alignment rather than word-perfect evidence translation

Co-producing with lived experience advisors and disseminating findings to the people who need them before publishing in journals

Priority-led research vs investigator-led research: how Everymind decides where to put its effort

How to think about evaluation and evidence-building when your funding comes in two-year cycles

What senior researchers and funders can do to set up the next generation to work differently

LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaelea-skehan-oam-2a720323/

Everymind — https://everymind.org.au

Episode 39: Implementation Science — Dr Robyn Mildon on the 17-year research-practice gap

Episode 36: Practical Impact Planning and Evaluation — Dr Sarah Morton on the Matter of Focus framework

Everymind – www.everymind.org.au

Lived experience workshop reports - Workshop outcomes from a Lived Experience of Suicide Summit | Everymind

Mindframe program

Our stories matter resources: Sharing lived and living experiences of suicide publicly

Our stories matter: a mixed methods survey of lived and living experience perspectives of media and public communication of suicide in Australia | BMJ Public Health

Minds Together – www.mindstogether.org.au

Conversations Matter – www.comversationsmatter.org.au

Life in Mind – www.lifeinmind.org.au

Life in Mind Implementation Hub - Suicide prevention implementation hub

Centre for Evidence and Implementation

View the full show notes, including a summary of practical tips on the Amplifying Research website: https://www.amplifyingresearch.com/podcast/45-dickon-bonvik-stone  

There's so much research that could genuinely make the world better — healthier communities, smarter policy, a more sustainable planet. And yet, when it comes to getting people to actually listen and act on that research, we often default to explaining harder or criticising current practices. Neither of which tend to work. Dickon Bonvik-Stone joins us to share how the NØKO team found success taking a radically different approach, and how we can use the AIM framework to bring hope to our own research communications.

Dickon is a strategic communications specialist focusing on climate and social change. He spent 15 years in marketing and digital media before retraining with advanced degrees in sustainability and social change — and committing to bridging the gap between marketing expertise and the social change space. He led the communications module of UNCC Learn's Becoming a Climate Champion learning pathway, distributed to more than 1 million youth climate advocates, and created the foundational climate communications e-learning course for the Creatives for Climate community — a network of more than 50,000 marketing and advertising professionals committed to using their skills for good. He also hosts the Communicating Climate Change podcast, where he interviews experts at the intersection of communication and climate action.

In this episode, Dickon unpacks how he and the NØKO team took a different approach to communicating about degrowth economics — leading with aspiration instead of argument — and sold out a major event that brought activists, economists, public servants, and business leaders into the same room. He walks us through the AIM framework (Audience, Intent, Message) and makes a compelling case for why the most important step in any communication effort is the one most people skip.

"If you lead with the things that the changes you're promoting can actually create in society, the opportunity that they provide, people are able to follow a lot more easily." — Dickon Bonvik-Stone

This episode is essential listening for anyone who wants their communications to actually shift behaviour, not just inform.

---

Why "more information" rarely leads to behaviour change — and what to do instead

The AIM framework: Audience, Intent, Message — and why message comes last

Building audience personas based on values and psychographics, not just demographics

Finding common values across very different audience segments

How the NØKO team attracted activists, economists, public servants, and business leaders to the same event

Hope-based communications: shifting from what you're against to what you're for

Why "Degrowth. It's not what you think." is a masterclass in what not to do

Show, don't tell — using aspirational imagery and video to set the tone before a single slide is shown

The tension between domain experts wanting technical accuracy and communicators pushing for clarity

Testing messages instead of guessing — and building internal support for doing so

Why working with communicators and creatives is an investment, not a luxury

---

LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/dickonbonvikstone/

Communicating Climate Change podcast — https://communicatingclimatechange.com

---

Dickon’s LinkedIn post that inspired this episode

NØKO

Hope-based communications with Thomas Coombes (Communicating Climate Change episode)

Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard — Chip and Dan Heath

Don't Think of an Elephant — George Lakoff

Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World — Jason Hickel

Houston, We Have a Narrative — Randy Olson

The Psychology of Collective Climate Action

Climate Visuals (Climate Outreach)

Episode 12: Dr Mark Boulet on behaviour change

Episode 24: Dr Jennifer Beckett and Dr Eloise Faichney on boosting engagement with marketing know-how

Episode 32: Brendon Bosworth on finding the right training approach for your team

Episode 35: Professor John C. Besley on strategic science communication

Read along here as Julie and I step through the Impact Literacy Workbook.

View the full show notes, including a summary of practical tips on the Amplifying Research website: https://www.amplifyingresearch.com/podcast/44-julie-bayley 

A/Prof Julie Bayley is one of the world's leading voices on research impact, and she's on a mission to make sure that the pathway from academic inquiry to meaningful societal change isn't just left to chance. She joins us to unpack impact literacy — a practical framework and step-by-step workbook that helps researchers find their place in the impact puzzle, and helps institutions build the culture to make it all possible.

Julie is currently the Director of Research Impact and Culture at Northeastern University London. Previously, she was Director of Research Impact Development and Director of the Lincoln Impact Literacy Institute, both at the University of Lincoln, UK. She's the author of Creating Meaningful Impact: The Essential Guide to Developing an Impact Literate Mindset, one of Emerald Publishing's bestselling books of 2023.

Julie's passion for impact is deeply personal. A blood clot in 2008 left her unable to walk without pain for ten years — until research-developed vascular stents gave her mobility back. That experience cemented her commitment to ensuring research reaches the people who need it.

Together with David Phipps (Director of Research Impact Canada and Assistant Vice President, Research Strategy and Impact at York University), Julie has developed a suite of freely available tools including the Impact Literacy Workbook and the “Are you Impact Healthy?” Institutional Health Check Workbook — practical resources designed to help researchers and institutions plan for, deliver, and evaluate impact.

"The more we put impact as an extra, a burdensome extra, the less we're going to grow it, the less change we're going to make, and the more ill-equipped our researchers will be to do it… In academia, we have the most incredible opportunity to make a difference… Impact literacy is not about being an impact expert. It’s is being able to judge where you fit into that picture." — Julie Bailey

This episode is essential listening for anyone responsible for driving or supporting research impact — whether you're an individual researcher trying to understand where you fit, a team leader building impact capability, or an institutional leader looking to create a culture where impact is genuinely enabled, not just expected.

The impact literacy model: why, how, who, and what

Walking through the Impact Literacy Workbook step by step: from framing your problem to assembling your impact plan

Why researchers should start thinking about impact much earlier than they typically do

Identifying stakeholders and beneficiaries — and why it's about assembling the right team, not listing everyone

Why jumping straight to methods ("we'll build an app") is the wrong approach to knowledge mobilisation

Co-producing impact: bringing stakeholders in as early as possible

The skills researchers need — and why you don't need all of them yourself

What a healthy impact culture looks like at the institutional level

The five C's framework: commitment, connectivity, co-production, competencies, and clarity

Using the institutional health check to diagnose priorities and track progress

Why the approach to impact in an institution is often a mirror of leadership's view of it

LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/julie-bayley-impact

Website — https://juliebayley.blog

Impact Literacy Workbook

“Are you Impact Healthy?” Institutional Health Check Workbook

Creating Meaningful Impact: The Essential Guide to Developing an Impact Literate Mindset

Research Impact Glossary (CERCA)

Relationships for Impact framework

View the full show notes, including a summary of practical tips on the Amplifying Research website: https://www.amplifyingresearch.com/podcast/43-sofia-oliveira 

What if leaving academia isn't failure – but the path to work that actually fulfils you? Sofia Oliveira finished her PhD, spent six months applying for 140 jobs, and discovered a career in science communication that she finds more rewarding than anything she experienced in the lab. She joins us to share the real numbers behind her transition, the mindset shifts that made it possible, and how LinkedIn became her secret weapon for finding opportunities.

Sofia is a science communication and marketing specialist focusing on life sciences, biotech startups, and nonprofits. After completing her PhD in 2021 and working as a project manager at university, she made the leap to industry in 2023 – tracking every application, interview, and offer along the way. Today she's a freelancer with over 10,000 LinkedIn followers, where she regularly shares remote job opportunities to help other researchers explore their options.

"To be honest, I am much happier now than when I was back at academia, and I think that's all about it. You know, you want your career to be fulfilling and that looks different for different people. But for me, what I'm doing now, it's fulfilling." – Sofia Oliveira

Whether you're a PhD student wondering what comes next, an early-career researcher eyeing the grim odds of landing a professorship, or simply curious about what else is out there, this episode offers honest data, practical strategies, and a refreshing perspective on career exploration.

...

If you enjoy this episode and want to go deeper, check out Sofia’s Career Hub on Patreon – featuring the actual CVs she used to land interviews, live Q&A sessions, and group mentoring.

...

The stigma around leaving academia – and how to move past it

Sofia's job hunting data: 140 applications, 11% interview rate, 8 offers

How academic success rates (grants, professorships) compare to industry job hunting

Types of roles researchers can transition into: science communication, technical writing, project management, consulting, and more

How to identify and articulate your transferable skills

The case for applying while you're still employed

Freelance vs part-time vs full-time: finding the model that suits you

Building a LinkedIn presence that attracts opportunities (in just 2-3 hours per week)

Why treating your career like an experiment might be the most scientific approach

...

LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/oliveira-ss

Sofia’s Career Hub on Patreon — https://patreon.com/Oliveira_ss

View the full show notes, including a summary of practical tips on the Amplifying Research website: https://www.amplifyingresearch.com/podcast/42-sarah-mclusky 

Be honest: how many meetings, workshops, or conferences have you attended that felt like a waste of your time? Dr Sarah McLusky argues that most academic gatherings fail not because of bad content, but because no one stopped to ask why they were bringing people together in the first place.

Sarah is a research communicator, facilitator, and host of the Research Adjacent podcast — and she's spent years helping teams design gatherings that build trust, spark collaboration, and leave people feeling their time was genuinely well spent. In this episode, we unpack how to move beyond inherited templates and create in-person experiences that actually achieve what you need them to.

"What makes people turn up in the room on the day is the agenda, the talks, the subjects they're interested in — that's what gets people through the door. But actually what people remember afterwards, what they take away from it, is the people that they met." — Dr Sarah McLusky

Sarah brings extensive experience helping research teams, charities, and other organisations design meaningful in-person experiences — from stakeholder engagement workshops to patient involvement sessions to team away days. She's particularly passionate about creating spaces where different voices can genuinely be heard, and where power dynamics don't shut down the very contributions you're trying to invite.

This episode is a must-listen for anyone who organises meetings, runs workshops, or plans events — and suspects there might be a better way. Whether you're rethinking your team's regular catch-ups or planning a major stakeholder engagement session, Sarah offers practical wisdom on making gatherings that genuinely matter.

LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarahmclusky/

Newsletter: Gathering with Purpose — https://sarahmclusky.com/gathering-with-purpose

Research Adjacent podcast — https://researchadjacent.com/podcast/

View the full show notes, including a summary of practical tips on the Amplifying Research website: https://www.amplifyingresearch.com/podcast/41-michael-wheeler 

Wish more people knew about your team’s amazing research, but worried you don’t have natural charisma or the “gift of the gab”? Never fear! Sci comms expert Dr Michael Wheeler argues that powerful communication comes down to two fundamentals: the quality of your ideas and the order in which you present them. In this episode, Michael introduces the hourglass method — a simple framework for structuring any research communication, from conference talks to grant applications to casual conversations at the pub.

Michael is a research fellow at the Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition at Deakin University, part of the University of Melbourne Science Communication Teaching Program, and co-host of the podcast Let's Talk SciComm with A/Prof Jen Martin.

In this episode, Michael walks through the hourglass method in practice, sharing examples from rocket scientists bursting through doors to heart disease statistics that make entire lecture theatres sit up and pay attention.

"Context before detail. If you jump straight into the detail, you're gonna lose people immediately. The way I like to think about a piece of communication is like an hourglass. You start off big picture, you provide some context, then you narrow down into the detail, and then you return to something big picture at the end as a way of having a strong finish." — Dr Michael Wheeler

Whether you're preparing for your next conference talk, writing a grant application, or simply want to explain your research more clearly to colleagues outside your field, this episode offers a practical framework and actionable advice you can start using immediately.

For research leaders, Michael's insights on building diverse communication skills can help you think about professional development for your team. And for early-career researchers uncertain about your career path, Michael’s "academic Christmas tree" philosophy offers a refreshing perspective on keeping your options open.

LinkedIn

Let’s Talk Sci Comm podcast

Deakin University profile

University of Melbourne profile