Overview: As part of my journey to re-evaluate my own views of research and research process and identity as a researcher, I am undertaking the process of interviewing 25 researchers about their own research career paths, processes, etc. This is the second post in the series is an interview with Dr. William ‘Davis’ Ferriell. His most most recent research work was focused on the mechanical response of football helmets (read his published work here) and his bio is on LinkedIn. In spite of his training and accomplishments in bioengineering research, his current job at the University of Kentucky puts teaching undergraduate engineering students above research in terms of his responsibilities. I emailed Davis my questions and then he sent his responses back to me. I edited this to make sure that the key points of the discussion were clear with Davis’s input (and Kate Epstein did light editing for clarity) and removed parts I felt would be of little interest to the reader. He then did a final review.
***
Q: Congratulations on finishing your dissertation. How did you explain what a dissertation is to family or friends who did not pursue an advanced STEM degree?
This is a great question.
Looking back, I never quite a gave clear explanation of the whole dissertation and instead gave an overview of the journal article that I was focusing on at the time. I would also attempt to relate to what the other person had done in school (such as completing an art portfolio, psychology research paper, master’s in counseling, etc.) to the research project I was working on. This helped to connect ambiguous concepts, like critiques at an art show or teaching demonstration, to the lack of clarity in [the process of] passing my dissertation defense and the manuscript being accepted by the committee.
It was also hard to see the full arc of my dissertation from the beginning. At times, I got lost in the weeds and didn’t really know what the hell I was doing either. If I knew exactly what I was doing, I don’t know that I would have called it research!
During graduate school, I found the expectations to graduate with a PhD were not clear. Sure, a few journal publications may result in graduation… but they may not also be enough to fill a complete dissertation. There was also never a clear timeline (until my advisors said, “Hey, you should graduate this Spring…” ). It was a much more ambiguous program than, say, a medical school or law school program.
Q: How did you identify the “right” PhD program for you?
When I began my search for graduate school, there were a few surface level preferences (location, proximity to family, proximity to my significant other) that influenced my initial search. My preferences were in the southeast or near New York City (where my significant other at the time was living)…. I was seeking a funded doctoral student position in the areas of biomechanics (sports, orthopaedic), computational design, and aerospace physiology. I was also seeking a school that would support my efforts to train as an educator. Considering the strong engineering and science education program at Clemson University already had a direct certificate program (Engineering and Science Education) that was compatible with the required curriculum in the Bioengineering program, I thought it was the best option.
To make the decision [between Clemson, University of Kentucky, and University of Tennessee-Knoxville], I actually had a conversation with a mentor (7th/8th grade basketball coach who was a PhD). He encouraged me to forget about location and non-professional influences on the decision. His suggestion was to focus on being trained to do what I want to in my career. I knew I wanted to teach, so the decision was clear when viewed from that lens.
Q: What was your favorite part of the research process during your dissertation (exploring foundational literature, hypothesis generation, experimental design, dissemination, etc.)? Why?
There were few elements that got me excited for the day. For example, a few topics (surrogate modeling, finite element simulations of impacts) were really enjoyable to explore in the literature. Finding the seminal work for some specific tools in computational analysis was also fun as it was almost like being a detective. The experimental design was probably the most enjoyable overall.
Despite that, the way I filled my cup the most was getting to share the information, the justification, the methodology, etc., with undergraduate researchers. Seeing them take on their own tangentially related projects and supporting their efforts was easily the best part about doing research.
Q: You have conducted research as an undergraduate and graduate student. Did your view of research process evolve over that time, or did it stay the same?
I think the more experience I had under my belt, the more I realized how much I don’t know. I certainly had (and have) that imposter syndrome when it comes to research, but as an undergraduate I thought I knew it all. Conversely, as graduate school went on, the more I realized I needed to fail and mess up to progress. Sitting around waiting for progress to be made on my research didn’t work. So, with more experience came more confidence to mess up.
Q: You are now transitioning into your subsequent position. Congratulations. Can you tell us a little bit about your new role at the University of Kentucky?
Sure, so as a Lecturer in the First Year Engineering program, I will be a part of a team of faculty instructors (coordinated courses) that deliver three classes to the traditional first year engineering students. The three-course sequence spanning two semesters is intended to introduce students to fundamental engineering concepts, programming/microcontrollers/circuitry, team building and mental health, and the other engineering majors at UK. I will be responsible for teaching five classes (three sections of a 101 course and two sections of a 102 course). My appointment is primarily for teaching responsibilities with some professional development and service responsibilities also.
Q: Is there an expectation while in that role that you will participate in research?
Well, not specifically. As a part of [my] “professional development” responsibilities, I will be expected to fill this bin with different activities. I may obtain professional engineering licensure, or I may present at conferences, or I may publish research papers. Each (and others) would count towards that professional development bin.
Q: Many of those in academia are asked to teach students and conduct research. Do you self-identify equally as both an instructor and researcher? Or, is one of those identities stronger?
I think I definitely identify more as an instructor. Teaching is how I fill my cup, and my best days at work have always been the days I teach. Sure, I think research is cool and I enjoy my areas of expertise, but I am most definitely an instructor first.
Q: There were a range of positions available to you after finishing a dissertation. How did you decide to become an instructor at a R01 institution?
I applied to almost the whole gamut of positions (minus tenure track at R01 institutions). I single out this type of position for a few reasons. First, I didn’t think I was a strong candidate for a tenure track position at a R01 because I knew my publication and funding record was not strong enough to get a tenure track position at a heavily research-focused university directly out of graduate school. I also didn’t want a post-doctoral position, because my spouse and I were ready to settle down for a longer period of time than would be typical of a post doc position. Second, I wanted a position that would support me (value me) for doing what I love and what I do best—teach. There are many great educators that are tenure track at R-01 schools; however, it was my perception that R01 schools would be most interested in the publication/funding records of faculty on the tenure track—much more so than their teaching record. I think that I could have been content in a range of positions with varying degrees of required research. In order for me to be truly happy, I needed to find a position that wanted me to teach above all else. A major part of selecting the position at University of Kentucky was the specific circumstances of the position. I am a Kentucky native and have—and will always have—a personal commitment to serve the engineering education community in my home state. Being close to family was a major part, too, as my spouse and I hope to start our own family soon. All of that was really a cherry on top. Fundamentally, the position requires me to teach, to teach well, and to train first year engineering students so that they may be more successful upon their transition from high school to college, but also from their first year to when they start taking major-specific classes. I did not specifically seek an instructor position at an R01. I sought many different positions that I thought could be either enjoyable or professional rewarding. After interviewing on campus, meeting the rest of the faculty, and talking with the administration, I knew this would be a great fit.
Q: What skills are needed to sustain a career as an instructor?
If you figure it out, let me know! I am not a seasoned instructor by any stretch of the imagination. I have only taught as an adjunct faculty at a Trident Technical College (Charleston, SC) for one academic year. In my time at Trident, as a TA at Clemson, and as a lab mentor to undergraduate students, I learned being patient is important. I have come to the realization that both the student and the instructor are responsible for a student’s lack of understanding. Being able to admit that you can be wrong while in the role of instructor has helped me manage the classroom and get better buy in from students. I would also argue that being willing to pivot in the classroom is important. I taught the same course four times (Trident does two terms within the same time frame as a traditional semester) and changed it each time (hopefully making it a better experience for the enrolled students).
Q: What is your advice for an undergraduate who wants to pursue an engineering PhD
I would suggest being honest with yourself about why you want to pursue your PhD.
I pursued my PhD because I realized that I needed to fill my cup at work. I couldn’t just grind at work, make some money, and use that money to fill my cup. So, I spent a lot of time delving into what types of jobs I could pursue as a biomechanical engineer. I found three specific positions that stated they required a PhD in biomechanics (three different career paths) that I thought “Dang, that is totally awesome. I would love my job if I could do that!” These were the only jobs that I could find pertaining to biomechanics that I really wanted to do. The first was a teaching/professorship position. The second was a sports biomechanics director for a hospital system (but also these existed for professional sports teams). The third was an injury biomechanics position reconstructing vehicular crashes.
Knowing that I would be able to work an interesting job (fill my cup) if I earned my PhD helped to balance all the stressors that arose during graduate school. THIS is critical for when it gets really ****** rough.
Q: There are so many *management tools* to help PhDs improve their productivity or impact today. Can you highlight one management tool you think PhDs (or those pursing PhDs) should consider utilizing?
Delete social media accounts if possible. If not, make sure your banner or profile says- “I’ll see you in [insert graduation year]!”
Plan on working regular business hours (8 AM- 4 PM at a minimum, 8 AM – 5 PM at an average, 7 AM – 6 PM when you must).
This method worked for me in many ways. It helped me to be in a routine. I was able to get some homework done so that I could enjoy my significant other’s company when I got home. It also kept me honest in making progress on my research.
On a personal level, it also helped me balance my desire to financially support my family in the short term with my desire to support them in the long term by teaching, which required a PhD. I struggled during graduate school with the realization that my graduate student stipend alone would not allow my significant other and I to live comfortably without them working (that is I would not be the “provider” as a graduate student). Working full workdays was how I could bring the best value to my family in the long term. Having said that, my spouse is a professional killing it at their job, and I am thankful they have been able to provide for us.
Q: Who is a researcher that you admire? If you had the ability to ask them one question, what would it be?
I continue to admire my PhD advisors, but for different reasons. Dr. Gregory Batt, an associate professor in the Clemson University Department of Food, Nutrition, and Packaging, has built a unique and interesting series of relationships with industry partners that fund work in his laboratory. This partnership allows for applied research and supported my own PhD efforts in addition to many other graduate and undergraduate students. My other advisor was from the Clemson University Department of Bioengineering, Dr. John DesJardins, and I respect his incredible output of publications along with his impact on design education. He works insanely hard at his job.
If I had the ability to ask another research one question, I would reach out to Dr. Pellman, the former head of the NFL’s Mild Traumatic Brain Injury committee, or Dr. Viano, a biomechanics consultant. I would want to ask them what their initial impetus for researching American football concussion and helmet design was. Was there a personal event that led them to be interested in the research? Was there a news story that prompted them to investigate concussion in professional football? Was there a singular event that led to this research series or what happened overtime that led you to study in this area? It was their initial series of journal papers that was the underpinning of my work and was instrumental in educating me about the field of head injury biomechanics, sports concussions, and football equipment design.
Acknowledgements: Many thanks to “Perfectly Planned Content” (Zoë Meggert) who provided helpful tips for turning an interview into a blog post. In addition, I must acknowledge Kate Epstein of EpsteinWords who edited this post. She specializes in editing and coaching for academics, and she can be reached at kate at epsteinwords.com.
Copyright (C) 2022 Marian Kennedy – All Rights Reserved