Overview: This post is part of series of interviews with scholars about their research process and path.
Dr. Megan Cordill is a well-known researcher in our shared field of mechanical deformation. We also completed our undergraduate degrees at the same institution and initially started within a shared research group. Currently the deputy director and senior scientist at the Erich Schmid Institute of Materials Science of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, she focuses on thin film adhesion, nanoindentation, structure-properties relationships of thin films, as well as probing electrical, thermal, and mechanical properties using advanced in-situ techniques (imaging, electrical resistance, and x-ray diffraction). You can explore her publications by looking at any of these links– Google Scholar; ORCID; Research Gate.
I emailed Dr. Cordill a list of questions to which she provided me written responses. I then had the pleasure of discussing further over Zoom. Below are the highlights of those exchanges.
***
Q: How do you explain your career as a materials science researcher to family or friends not working in this field?
Dr. Cordill: Simple answer, I break stuff. More detailed, I break small stuff that can be found in electronics and protective coatings. Another answer is “I get paid to read.” This is true; I mostly read and write emails all day long. I read the literature, manuscripts for review, my students’ papers, emails, etc. and I write papers, reviews, emails, technical reports, abstracts, etc. I have to say that I do spend over 60% of my day reading and writing. Of that, 10% is spent on email! At this stage of my career, I mostly supervise the work of my students and postdocs instead of directly completing experiments or analysis. This means that I spend a lot of time editing manuscripts being led by these younger researchers and spending less time as the lead.
Q: How might you suggest researchers strengthen their writing skills?
Dr. Cordill: Write and get feedback. Don’t be afraid of giving your work to others to read and critique. It is like learning another language. The reviewers are there to help you. Give your manuscripts to friends (at work) and once you receive reviews, read them but wait 24-48 hours before deciding how to respond. When you get reviews on a submitted journal manuscript, you typically have two to six months to respond, so you have time to really think about how to incorporate the feedback.
Q: Have you always been a strong writer?
Dr. Cordill: I’ve had anonymous reviewers tell me that they speak English as a second language but that my English is bad, so I guess not. My writing style could always have been described as brief or straightforward. Over time, I have come to understand the importance of providing readers with a full story. My writing process has drastically changed over time. I suggest that scientists start by writing their experimental methods section first. They then should move on to crafting the key figures for their manuscripts and writing informative captions for those. The figures and their captions will help the authors as they craft an appropriate introduction section and thoughtful results and discussion sections.
Q: Thinking back to your first research project, what was the most surprising part of the research process? Why?
Dr. Cordill: That there typically was more than one way to measure a property or characterize a system and the importance of trying to use complementary methods. In addition, I was intrigued that there was not always one “right” interpretation of the collected data. In one example, the field’s understanding of the volume of the elastic zone under an indenter tip has evolved significantly since it was described by Tabor. I take pride in rethinking my own analysis of data from earlier years when new techniques and ideas surface from the community. We will have some work coming out that discusses why we think the community should not calculate the elastic modulus based on the loading function during nanoindentation.
Q: What is your favorite part of the research process currently (e.g., exploring foundational literature, hypothesis generation, experimental design, dissemination, etc.)? Why?
Dr. Cordill: Since I am more an administrator now, my favorite part is running experiments and talking about the results with my students. Being able to sit and run experiments lets me get my hands dirty and talking with students allows me to apply knowledge that has been gained either within our lab group or by other groups through their shared publications. However, it is also very motivating when you come up with a new idea to study something or to answer a question and no one else has done it. The proposal writing and experiment set-up is then exciting.
Q: When and why did you start conducting research (high school, undergraduate, graduate student)?
Dr. Cordill: My first research project was the summer after my freshman year of undergrad on instrumented indentation. I’m not sure why, but I needed a job for the summer and wanted to already start working in the department. I’m assuming it was my mom’s idea. She was the one to suggest/push me in the direction of materials science in the first place.
Q: When did you first “feel” like a researcher?
Dr. Cordill: The first time I felt like a researcher was probably after giving my first talk at a conference and being talked to by others as the “expert” on my topic. People were asking my opinion about similar work and looking for guidance. It was cool.
Q: Why did you decide to pursue a research career? What was your motivation?
Dr. Cordill: Truthfully, I did not want to look for a job when I was finishing my bachelor’s degree. It was easier to apply to graduate school than to look for a job. This laziness continued after graduate school into my post-doc where my motivation was to be able to say to people, “oh, I lived in Europe.” So, while I have only ever had two formal job interviews, those interviews were mostly formalities because we had interacted together and they knew my work. But choosing to have a research career is not an easy path. My laziness aside, I found I was good at research and had the skills to sustain a career. I was also lucky in the positions I was able to get. I like that there is a lot of flexibility with a research career and most employers are don’t care how to get your work done, just that it’s done. As for a more specific motivation, I can’t think of any one thing that kept me doing it besides the great people I work with. You also get on this path, and it can be hard to get off it.
Q: How did you know you were good at research?
Dr. Cordill: Validation from other scientists that I met at my first conferences. When established researchers told me “That is a good idea” or showed curiosity about my work.
Q: What skills are needed to sustain a research career? What skills do you look for in early-stage researchers applying to work with you?
Dr. Cordill: You must be able to communicate with other researchers openly, without defensiveness, through both written documents and in person. Researchers also need to be able to take the good with the bad since there will be aspects of a researcher’s job that will be out of your control like funding. Finally, basic accounting skills would really help during a research career. No one teaches those skills as part of a PhD program but is a vital part of a senior researcher’s role. I am always excited to see an applicant who is organized and can multitask.
Q: How did you identify the right PhD program for you?
Dr. Cordill: This is a personal choice, but the advice I would give to anyone is to talk with not only the potential advisors, but also people in their group. Ask the hard questions, such as “is this person a good supervisor?” or “do you like working in the group?” or “are you supported?” If you know you can work with the people currently in the group and you know you will be supported, then you are making a good choice. Another tip is to not put all your eggs in one basket. Choose a department where you can picture yourself working for at least two faculty. This gives you a built-in backup plan if that is needed. And, have curiosity about your research project. If you don’t engage and show curiosity in your project, then you will hate your graduate life. The excitement about a project is how I decide to hire someone for a position or not. I want to hear their ideas and questions. I love when students teach me something new.
Q: You have conducted research at a range of institutions. Did your view of research process evolve over that time, or did it stay the same?
Dr. Cordill: I have worked in four different research institutes, three in the USA, one in Europe. It was beneficial to study and work in different institutions and in different countries even as a researcher. It gives you access to different methods and experts. These interactions can only evolve your processes and ideas. Diversity drives innovation – where diversity is not only gender or identity, but diversity of thought, experience, etc. – and changing research positions gave me access to more people different from myself. Take all opportunities to work with others as you will only learn something, be it positive or negative. So, yes, my research process and supervision “style” has evolved over the years.
Q: You have mentored many early-stage researchers. What is your advice for an early-stage researcher (undergraduate or graduate student) who wants to be a lead researcher within their field?
Dr. Cordill: This is a tough one. I’m still learning how best to do this. Being a mentor is a tough job and it is different for each person. General advice, get exposure and projects – invited talks, papers, conference attendance and proposal writing. To be a leader in a field you have to be visible to get funding (money to do innovative work). By visible, I mean that others in the field need to know who you are and what you are doing. Ways to achieve this is to go to give talks at conferences or be involved with professional societies. Oh, I would also suggest that all new researchers in engineering or science need to learn to code. If you have not chosen a language yet, I might suggest starting with Python, which is both free and has a large, engaged community.
Q: What journal article are you most proud of and why?
Dr. Cordill: Being the first to tell the community to stop using interlayers to improve adhesion to polymer substrates for flexible electronics (Acta paper in 2014 or there abouts, V.M. Marx is the first author, or Script paper, B. Putz as the first author). The brittle adhesion layers cause the more ductile layers to form cracks which cut off conduction. Initially they were used because adhesion layers were needed to make the films stick to the rigid silicon substrates. My group showed that with the right deposition parameters, adhesion layers are not necessary for Au, Cu, Al, etc. to stick well to a polymer substrate. They stick just fine and allow for more deformation before crack formation. This work has expanded and I’m excited about where it is going.
Q: There are so many *management tools* to help researchers improve their productivity or impact today. Can you highlight one management tool you think researchers should consider utilizing?
Dr. Cordill: I write lists – plural. At any one time I am working off at least three lists. This is the only way I have been able to keep track of stuff. My calendar is also quite important (I manage three of those too). I do not use any specific management tools because they usually cost money (I want to save money) and it takes me too long to learn them. However, if a management tool would help motivate a student to stay on track, I would buy, learn, and use it for that student. Each student has their own way of doing things and open and clear communication is a key to success. People can’t read your mind and if you need help, ask for it. Two more tips: always read an important email several times before sending (no angry emailing) and learn how to code (tell your students to learn to code). Coding is a skill that everyone needs.
Q: Do you use paper notepads or do you use electronic lists for managing your priorities and projects?
Dr. Cordill: I use both paper and electronic lists to help manage my responsibilities. Currently, I have paper lists for: tasks that need to be done today, major tasks to be completed this month, items to discuss at my next research group meeting, separate lists for each one of my students so that I can track their near-term responsibilities and actions, and an administrative list for each current project I am currently managing.
Of course, when I am working as an experimentalist and not an administrator, I will utilize my laboratory notebook to make sure all-important contributions are documented.
To help manage my focus, I use a weekly paper calendar and an email program (Thunderbird) to track appointments for work and home further in the future. I also make sure that my personal phone is not connected to work email, which allows me to have stress free evenings (no checking email after 5 PM) or weekends. This is something I learned from being in Austria, which has a very different work culture than the US. Email does not need an immediate response and can wait.
Q: One of the things that I have admired about you has been your ability to do “deep work” (focus without distraction on a cognitively demanding task) even as an undergraduate. When we were undergraduates, you could be focused in a room with lots of commotion whereas I always needed to go to the library to make progress. Was that a skill you developed or a trait?
Dr. Cordill: Not sure. I think it is a personality trait or a strength. Thank you for the compliment!
Q: Who is a researcher that you admire? If you had the ability to ask them one question about their experience being a researcher, what would it be?
Dr. Cordill: I admire my female colleagues working at US universities. Being a female professor at a university is one of the toughest jobs for researchers there is (in my opinion). You need to do good research, get funding, write the papers, supervise a group, but also teach and be on all of the admin groups to provide “the female perspective.” Oh, and you have to find your summer salary! Add having a family on top of that, for those who do, and, wow, that is a tough job to juggle everything.
I would ask them how they managed and how much their university/department supports (supported) them. Do they see positive changes in their departments as more diverse people are being hired for similar positions. I know my question is not related to research, but it sort of is. If researchers are not properly supported, then they can’t achieve greatness. In comparison, I only need to do good research with my group and get funding. In my position as the deputy director, I have more admin to do, but that is somewhat balanced with the fact that I do not need to teach several classes each semester. And, in Austria I get paid for 14 months rather than 12 months, so there is also no need to find a summer salary.
Conclusion/Takeaways: It was great to hear Megan’s perspective on her experience as a researcher, advice to researchers starting their careers, and how she manages her role. Several points that really resonated with me were the need to get feedback during the writing process, the need to revisit your prior results based on the changing landscape of the field and that the research process can stall when researchers do not have curiosity.
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